Ncaa rule change

Elbutre88

Pretty much a regular
Watch LIVE coverage of the Northern Trust Open, Saturday-Sunday, at CBSSports.com!



EyeOn
College Football



<header> [h=1]NCAA proposes rule changes for targeting, defensive substitutions[/h]By Tom Fornelli | College Football Writer

<time class="storyDate" pubdate="" datetime="2014-02-12T22:29:42Z">February 12, 2014 5:29 pm ET</time>



</header> <figure>
USATSI_7461062.jpg
<figcaption>A proposed rule change would alter the way targeting is enforced. (USATSI)</figcaption> </figure>Proposed rule changes regarding defensive substitutions and targeting have been surfaced by the NCAA Football Rules Committee, with one proposed change igniting significantly more controversy than the other.
The committee has recommended a change that will allow defenses to substitute players within the first 10 seconds of the 40-second play clock, though not in the final two minutes of a half. Should an offense snap the ball before the play clock reaches 29 seconds, the offense will be called for a 5-yard delay of game.
“This rules change is being made to enhance student-athlete safety by guaranteeing a small window for both teams to substitute,” said Air Force coach Troy Calhoun, who also chairs the Rule Committee. “As the average number of plays per game has increased, this issue has been discussed with greater frequency by the committee in recent years and we felt like it was time to act in the interests of protecting our student-athletes.”
In other words, the hurry up offenses that have spread throughout the game at places like Oregon and Baylor won't be able to move as quickly.
Rules committee member Todd Berry from Louisiana-Monroe told CBSSports.com's Bruce Feldman the clock proposal took up much of the past two days of discussion in Indianapolis.
"On offense you can always have a tired player throw up his hand and sub out, but on defense the only way is if you call timeout. This is about player safety. I had a player, an asthmatic kid, I couldn't get the kid out. We didn't have any timeouts."
Berry said the player didn't get injured and they were able to get him out of the game after an incomplete pass.
"We tried to balance the safety issue and making sure you can play the game fast. We looked at this and said, 'how many plays were actually snapped earlier than the 29 second mark? Do they have three or four a game?'
"If you're snapping it with 27-28 seconds remaining, you are super fast. But it's that 10 seconds we felt like that gives us what we thought for a tired D-lineman to get off the field. What you don't want is that tired defensive player who is a liability in the game and you can't get him off the field. He's gonna get injured. That's what's driving this thing.
"We all knew that there was gonna be a firestorm created but that's OK. We feel pretty good about it."
The predicted firestorm has indeed ignited.
"It's terrible, and it's terrible in how they've tried to sneak this through," said one head coach. "Nobody knew this was coming. I've read what (NCAA rules committee member) Todd Berry said (to CBS) about the 10 seconds and how it won't make much of a difference, but they're just trying to downplay it publicly because what they're really doing is giving defense a chance now to substitute liberally once the offense gets an advantage.
"This stuff about it's a safety issue is complete BS that they're trying to hide behind. Show us some proof that more guys -- offense and defense -- have been getting hurt. They can't do it because there is no proof."
Arizona State head coach Todd Graham tells CBSSports.com's Jeremy Fowler the rule change was needless.
"Right now, if the offense subs on third down, (the officials) afford me plenty of time," Graham said. "In our league, they stand over the ball. When you sub, they give you more than enough time. The present rule addresses (defensive concerns). I'm a defensive guy, and the current rule forces you to coach, and communicate with guys faster. It's not like you can't sub. Different strategy is all it is."
"When we change things just to change things, that impedes the integrity of the game. To me this doesn't warrant a rule change. No huddle has brought an exciting brand. This isn't just something that's brewed the last few years. People have been doing it a long time. ... Would a rule change help me as a defensive coach? Yeah, it'd make it easier. But that's not why you should change the rule."
Ole Miss coach Hugh Freeze doesn't like the rule either, telling Bruce Feldman: "Where is the documented medical evidence that proves that tempo offense puts players at more risk?"
Asked if there was any medical data supporting the proposed rule, Berry said there were some studies and data, but added that people can skew those however they want. "This wasn't about anybody lobbying. This is about common sense."
One coach pointed out that the two FBS coaches on the committee, Berry and AFA's Troy Calhoun, ranked 84th and 106th in plays run in 2013. The AFCA rep who was also in Indy on the discussion was Arkansas' Bret Bielema, whose team was 118th.
Meanwhile, we could also see a change to the way targeting calls are enforced in the 2014 season.
In 2013, the first year of the rule, if a player was called for targeting, there was a 15-yard penalty and the player would be ejected from the game. Officials could then review the play, and after watching the replay, overrule the ejection of the player. No matter what happened, though, the 15-yard penalty would still apply.
Under the proposed rule change, officials could not only negate the ejection, but the 15-yard penalty as well. The 15-yard penalty would stand, however, if it's committed along with another personal foul. For instance, if a defensive player made contact with a quarterback's head during a sack, even if the player is not ejected, the 15 yards would still apply for roughing the passer.
So, essentially, the NCAA proposes to show a little common sense when it comes to targeting next season. It never seemed all that logical that the 15-yard penalty would stand last season after officials reviewed the play and saw they got the call wrong.
All rules proposals need to be approved by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel, which will discuss the proposed changes on March 6.

Topics: NCAA, NCAAF
 
This is a big deal, lotta coaches think it won't pass. But would be HUGE for totals. Books wouldn't be right the 1st year
 
this is a proposed rule change, nothing in stone yet. the rule won't apply in the final two minutes, which is weird if they're really worried about player safety, and it's pretty shady, considering the guys who proposed the rule change, but the question i have is how are the books going to react or overreact? this could really complicate the way i normally get to numbers on the spread and total.
 
The reason it won't apply in the final 2 minutes is because that would prevent spiking the ball to stop the clock and the 2-minute drill. How many times does a team actually snap the ball within 10 seconds of the previous play ending anyway?
 
great for the game of football ,,,, likely the best rule change proposal of the last decade.

While unders will have more value early in the year there will be an attempt to account for it. The real value will be the hidden value on dogs in games with less plays in them.

Just glad we have a shot at seeing offense vs defense instead of gimmick "cheating" in favor of the offense.
 
The reason it won't apply in the final 2 minutes is because that would prevent spiking the ball to stop the clock and the 2-minute drill. How many times does a team actually snap the ball within 10 seconds of the previous play ending anyway?

irrelevant to me. if the rule doesn't effect a lot of teams, why propose a rule change? but to hide behind the guise of player safety i think is a little dishonest.
 
Let's remember CFB's all time highest scoring team did it at a pace of 67.6pl/gm, good enough for about 105th. Go Noles! :)
 
Ya with rule changes what they are ..... it isn't like the offenses are going to struggle to score even with the defense being given a chance to align.
 
I am a 100% defensive minded person...I played defense throughout my career & I love defense more than all aspects of the game, but I think it's an absolutely ridiculous rule change, if it does go through.

1st off this has nothing to do w/ the "safety" of the players. That's a load of crap that they are trying to pull that angle. We are playing a game where the goal is to physically abuse the other team. The more traditional styles (Alabama) play a game where you beat the hell out of your opponent to where they can barely stand by the 4th qtr, and now all the sudden we are gonna say its a "safety" issue b/c teams are snapping the ball too fast?? That's a joke. It's essentially penalizing a team for being in better shape than the defense is in. It has ZERO to do with the safety of a player.

One of the best things about football is that it's a chess-match. Offense vs Defense comes down to coaching & winning that chess match. It's a BEAUTIFUL thing. If this rule gets put in place then it takes away from some of the chess-match. It is very hard to get a play off w/ 30 seconds on the clock, & it doesn't happen w/ most teams. However, if you put this rule in place then you are taking away the opportunity to even do it, the element of surprise, and that is part of the chess match. Teams will still hurry to the line of scrimmage, but will have to just sit there & the defense wont have to worry about them snapping it....thats ignorant IMO.

Football still is, & will always be a game won on defense, & I love that. Even with all these different offenses & everything, defense still wins championships on the college & NFL level. This whole thing is just weird b/c defense has won the last multiple NCAA titles, & the slower paced teams have been winning them.

Mike Leach said it best today when he said that instead of complaining & trying to make new unnecessary rules, maybe coaches should just spend more time coaching to adjust. So b/c you have Saban & Brett B crying about hurry up offenses we have this issue....when really they should just accept the challenge of finding a way to stop it. They get paid millions for a reason.

(Saban has begun to recruit faster LB's and players on D now b/c of this, b/c he knows his big guys tire out & thats why his defense has trouble stopping the hurry-up....but I don't think he likes it at all b/c thats not what hes all about.)


I don't know how it will effect betting, the obvious thing is to say Unders will hit more....but I dunno about that. Teams will still score, & I still think defenses will get lit up (b/c teams rarely get off a snap that fast anyway, but the rule just takes away the element of surprise). Bottom line is that I think it's just an unnecessary rule that is being presented by people who need to worry about coaching instead of crying about their defense being tired.
 
I am a 100% defensive minded person...I played defense throughout my career & I love defense more than all aspects of the game, but I think it's an absolutely ridiculous rule change, if it does go through.

1st off this has nothing to do w/ the "safety" of the players. That's a load of crap that they are trying to pull that angle. We are playing a game where the goal is to physically abuse the other team. The more traditional styles (Alabama) play a game where you beat the hell out of your opponent to where they can barely stand by the 4th qtr, and now all the sudden we are gonna say its a "safety" issue b/c teams are snapping the ball too fast?? That's a joke. It's essentially penalizing a team for being in better shape than the defense is in. It has ZERO to do with the safety of a player.

One of the best things about football is that it's a chess-match. Offense vs Defense comes down to coaching & winning that chess match. It's a BEAUTIFUL thing. If this rule gets put in place then it takes away from some of the chess-match. It is very hard to get a play off w/ 30 seconds on the clock, & it doesn't happen w/ most teams. However, if you put this rule in place then you are taking away the opportunity to even do it, the element of surprise, and that is part of the chess match. Teams will still hurry to the line of scrimmage, but will have to just sit there & the defense wont have to worry about them snapping it....thats ignorant IMO.

Football still is, & will always be a game won on defense, & I love that. Even with all these different offenses & everything, defense still wins championships on the college & NFL level. This whole thing is just weird b/c defense has won the last multiple NCAA titles, & the slower paced teams have been winning them.

Mike Leach said it best today when he said that instead of complaining & trying to make new unnecessary rules, maybe coaches should just spend more time coaching to adjust. So b/c you have Saban & Brett B crying about hurry up offenses we have this issue....when really they should just accept the challenge of finding a way to stop it. They get paid millions for a reason.

(Saban has begun to recruit faster LB's and players on D now b/c of this, b/c he knows his big guys tire out & thats why his defense has trouble stopping the hurry-up....but I don't think he likes it at all b/c thats not what hes all about.)


I don't know how it will effect betting, the obvious thing is to say Unders will hit more....but I dunno about that. Teams will still score, & I still think defenses will get lit up (b/c teams rarely get off a snap that fast anyway, but the rule just takes away the element of surprise). Bottom line is that I think it's just an unnecessary rule that is being presented by people who need to worry about coaching instead of crying about their defense being tired.


Awesome post
 
Thanks Silk.


Ill add to my thoughts and say that it seems obvious to me that you have Saban upset and Brett B upset. 2 years ago we are talking about how dominate SEC defenses are, and now their defenses are suspect bc you have new coaches that have spread hurry-up offenses that have came into the league and they are shutting that "SEC Defense" talk down. These teams are now finding out what it has been like in the Big 12 and PAC 12. Brett B prob thought he could move to the SEC and run his style of football and succeed bc that's what has worked in the SEC for years, but Gus and Hugh and Sumlin and others had different ideas. These guys should just shut up and coach and learn how to stop it, bc it can be slowed down. Or if you can't beat them, then join them....hence Florida. The Gators haven't bitched about it, instead they hired Roper to come in and run some of the same stuff on offense.


Hell I'm just ready for football....already having withdrawals.
 
The current Chess Match with the hurry up offense, inability to tackle, defend the pass, hit the qb etc etc etc .... is already a chess match where the defense starts without a Queen, Rook and two Bishops. The sport was supposed to be about being better than the other team at football ... not this gimmick, cheating crap of rushing to the line and snapping the ball ... or rushing to the line to prevent the defense from substituting for down and distance ( the chess match ).

Don't get me wrong .... CFB is the best sport in the world ( at least for a few more years before it turns into two hand touch ) but you will be hard pressed to find many people who prefer the type of football we have watched the last few years to the football we watched the previous 20. It just isn't comparable from an entertainment standpoint.

I am dumbfounded how teams don't score on a majority of possessions... the quick snap, short passing is not defensible... make it a bunch of crossing patterns, picks etc like Briles or Sumlin and you really have no shot at stopping it. If you do stop it ... you have to look around for the flag afterwards.

I could care less about Saban or the defensive coordinators ... I just know it is hard to watch that kind of football if you have watched REAL football most of your life. So I agree ... they could quit their complaining and figure out how to stop it ... or if you cant beat them, join them. Which is great .... then we get all the teams playing true football to start playing pussy fast paced short passing football. Wheeeeeeeeeee
 
i like all kinds of football. i just don't want teams to be told when they can/can't snap the ball. let em play how they want to play
 
I think the hurry up is awesome. I mean, wouldn't it be better in baseball if a pitcher could pitch as soon as the batter puts his foot in the batter's box? And the batter was helpless to delay it?

I don't like the hurry up, but I don't care if a rule gets implemented or not. As Silky mentioned, the best statistical offense in NCAA history was anything but hurry up. Even Auburn in 2010 didn't run a true hurry up, so there have been 0 national champion teams that ran it, and it's because it is too taxing on their defense. Alabama didn't lose to AU because of their hurry up style. We lost because their line was better at the point of attack (both OL and DL) when it mattered most. But I can see why Saban wants the rule changed. His defense is predicated on personnel matchups and audibles. The lack of substitution hinders that. SO he can either change his style (which it sounds like he is) or change the rules (which he supports).

But, I didn't see any of this outcry when the NCAA changed the recruiting practices for head coaches because Saban was willing to go see recruits in person while other HCs wanted to stay home or go on vacation
 
Saban, you get every recruit your little sole desires. you have about 150 coaches/assistants/water boys/gatorade mixers/guys who go over every little detail of every little practice etc, you have no academic standard to get your players into your minor league football league etc, yet you got beat the last two years by teams that ran plays in a very timely manner, auburn and tamu. you then got outcoached by bobby stoops in the sugar bowl because he was running a different offense then he had all year i.e. snapping the ball in a timely manner. go cry to someone else.

its like the guy who loses in your fantasy football league and cries to have the rules changed the following year.

adjust or be gone.

and dont get me started on bielema, that fucker made his own bed in life
 
The current Chess Match with the hurry up offense, inability to tackle, defend the pass, hit the qb etc etc etc .... is already a chess match where the defense starts without a Queen, Rook and two Bishops. The sport was supposed to be about being better than the other team at football ... not this gimmick, cheating crap of rushing to the line and snapping the ball ... or rushing to the line to prevent the defense from substituting for down and distance ( the chess match ).

Don't get me wrong .... CFB is the best sport in the world ( at least for a few more years before it turns into two hand touch ) but you will be hard pressed to find many people who prefer the type of football we have watched the last few years to the football we watched the previous 20. It just isn't comparable from an entertainment standpoint.

I am dumbfounded how teams don't score on a majority of possessions... the quick snap, short passing is not defensible... make it a bunch of crossing patterns, picks etc like Briles or Sumlin and you really have no shot at stopping it. If you do stop it ... you have to look around for the flag afterwards.

I could care less about Saban or the defensive coordinators ... I just know it is hard to watch that kind of football if you have watched REAL football most of your life. So I agree ... they could quit their complaining and figure out how to stop it ... or if you cant beat them, join them. Which is great .... then we get all the teams playing true football to start playing pussy fast paced short passing football. Wheeeeeeeeeee


I'm a defensive minded person as well Clown. When I played football (I played MLB) there were 3 things I loved most: Blowing up a FB, blowing up a pulling O-Lineman, & Blowing up a WR coming across the middle of my field. So I agree that these new rules in place are garbage & ruin the game. When a WR comes across the middle of the field & gets blown up, It is a HUGE mental edge for the rest of the game.....HUUUUUGE!!!!! It goes for the same about how terrible it is to watch a QB's head get get tapped w/ a pinky by the defender & it gets called for roughing the passer.....these are terrible rules. The roughing the passer calls & the targeting calls have done no good for a true football fan, however, for the weenies out there, there is a point behind them. They are for players safety.....the problem is that these kids know what they are getting into when they sign up to play football. All it is is old people who are done playing football who have no more money & want to blame football for leaving their body crippled....when in all honesty they knew EXACTLY what they were getting themselves into in the first place. But the NCAA & NFL have to make these rules now b/c of these ex-players (and even teenage kids that want to complain & try to make settlement money).

But as for this rule that is being proposed....I object to it b/c it has nothing to do w/ safety or protecting NCAA/NFL money in the long run. The chess match w/ NCAA is done more on the sidelines in between series as opposed to being play by play. In the NFL where players have headsets & can hear the coaches maybe the chess match is more play-by-play, but in NCAA it's more on the sideline between series.

Typically you know what the team you're facing is going to do for the most part. So these coaches have a week or more to prepare for their opponent & their spread offenses. So coach your players & get the right personnel & right plays during practice time. If the team throws new stuff during the game, then coach them & adjust on the sidelines. If a team doesn't normally do so much hurry-up & quick snaps, but when they play you they decided to mix it up to get an advantage, then coach your players & adjust during the game.....& if you dont do that (or if your offense can't stay on the field long enough to allow you to adjust) then you are getting outcoached.

The spread offense & hurry-up can be beat. If you stop their offense a few times early & your offense does it's job then its clear advantage. Problem w/ these hurry up offenses is that when they work then you can light it up & all is well....but if they get stopped just a couple of times, then the defense gets worn down by the other team & it puts the (hurry-up) offense in a tough spot, usually making the offense less effective & IMO messes w/ the offenses flow/confidence.

Why does Stanford have success against Oregon??
Why does Baylor lose a couple of games?? (I know they just started getting good, but regardless they will still struggle to win EVERY game b/c passing offenses typically always have an off-game throughout the year)
Hell I'll even call it out & say Auburn won't have near as much success next year.

Bottom line....I agree that their are some terrible rules in place that give advantage to the offense (& as a defensive minded person I hate it, it makes me sick, & I yell/laugh every time i see it). But trying to implement this rule has nothing to do w/ safety, & it really just adds another thing for these ref's to try to pay attention to for no damn reason. I guess it's just the defensive mind in me by saying I would rather see coaches be up to the challenge to stopping these offenses instead of trying to implement a rule that really wont make the majority of these teams stop these offenses from scoring anyway. Or maybe it's b/c I live in Big 12 country & i see these offenses get stymied at least a couple games a year, & if they want to win they have to have DEFENSE to win it when these offenses get slowed down. Defense & hard-nosed football will continue to win championships....that I feel very confident in.

These are all just my opinions of course.....I know I come off stubborn & dictator-like
 
The reason it won't apply in the final 2 minutes is because that would prevent spiking the ball to stop the clock and the 2-minute drill. How many times does a team actually snap the ball within 10 seconds of the previous play ending anyway?

Almost never. Rule will have little if any impact in that particular regard. Even the fastest teams (Oregon/Baylor/etc) don't usually snap the ball until there are only 20 seconds left or so. Go watch a highlight compilation from UO last year as I did and you may find one or two plays snapped with 28 or 26 seconds left on the play clock, but the majority are 20 or less with the plurality probably being 15 seconds or so. The one situation where teams will try to snap it with 35 seconds left is 3rd or 4th and short. Often at the goal line and often a QB sneak. Trying to gain a quick yard while the defense is still more or less unpiling, but outside of that it won't have a big impact from that standpoint.

The benefit you might see from this rule is that teams will be able to substitute and call in defensive signals more readily. If you know the offense isn't allowed to snap for a few seconds you have a split second more to look at the formation and line up properly and get calls made, rather than waiting on a knife's edge like a dear in the headlights for the snap to come. Most of the touchdowns that guys like Petty, Mariotta, and Manziel threw were to guys who were WIDE OPEN because the defense wasn't able line up properly. Spread attacks are difficult to defend not just because of speed but also because of formations and routes, and some of that confusion will be mitigated with this rule change. The actual pace itself though will not.
 
I'm a defensive minded person as well Clown. When I played football (I played MLB) there were 3 things I loved most: Blowing up a FB, blowing up a pulling O-Lineman, & Blowing up a WR coming across the middle of my field. So I agree that these new rules in place are garbage & ruin the game. When a WR comes across the middle of the field & gets blown up, It is a HUGE mental edge for the rest of the game.....HUUUUUGE!!!!! It goes for the same about how terrible it is to watch a QB's head get get tapped w/ a pinky by the defender & it gets called for roughing the passer.....these are terrible rules. The roughing the passer calls & the targeting calls have done no good for a true football fan, however, for the weenies out there, there is a point behind them. They are for players safety.....the problem is that these kids know what they are getting into when they sign up to play football. All it is is old people who are done playing football who have no more money & want to blame football for leaving their body crippled....when in all honesty they knew EXACTLY what they were getting themselves into in the first place. But the NCAA & NFL have to make these rules now b/c of these ex-players (and even teenage kids that want to complain & try to make settlement money).

But as for this rule that is being proposed....I object to it b/c it has nothing to do w/ safety or protecting NCAA/NFL money in the long run. The chess match w/ NCAA is done more on the sidelines in between series as opposed to being play by play. In the NFL where players have headsets & can hear the coaches maybe the chess match is more play-by-play, but in NCAA it's more on the sideline between series.

Typically you know what the team you're facing is going to do for the most part. So these coaches have a week or more to prepare for their opponent & their spread offenses. So coach your players & get the right personnel & right plays during practice time. If the team throws new stuff during the game, then coach them & adjust on the sidelines. If a team doesn't normally do so much hurry-up & quick snaps, but when they play you they decided to mix it up to get an advantage, then coach your players & adjust during the game.....& if you dont do that (or if your offense can't stay on the field long enough to allow you to adjust) then you are getting outcoached.

The spread offense & hurry-up can be beat. If you stop their offense a few times early & your offense does it's job then its clear advantage. Problem w/ these hurry up offenses is that when they work then you can light it up & all is well....but if they get stopped just a couple of times, then the defense gets worn down by the other team & it puts the (hurry-up) offense in a tough spot, usually making the offense less effective & IMO messes w/ the offenses flow/confidence.

Why does Stanford have success against Oregon??
Why does Baylor lose a couple of games?? (I know they just started getting good, but regardless they will still struggle to win EVERY game b/c passing offenses typically always have an off-game throughout the year)
Hell I'll even call it out & say Auburn won't have near as much success next year.

Bottom line....I agree that their are some terrible rules in place that give advantage to the offense (& as a defensive minded person I hate it, it makes me sick, & I yell/laugh every time i see it). But trying to implement this rule has nothing to do w/ safety, & it really just adds another thing for these ref's to try to pay attention to for no damn reason. I guess it's just the defensive mind in me by saying I would rather see coaches be up to the challenge to stopping these offenses instead of trying to implement a rule that really wont make the majority of these teams stop these offenses from scoring anyway. Or maybe it's b/c I live in Big 12 country & i see these offenses get stymied at least a couple games a year, & if they want to win they have to have DEFENSE to win it when these offenses get slowed down. Defense & hard-nosed football will continue to win championships....that I feel very confident in.

These are all just my opinions of course.....I know I come off stubborn & dictator-like


We are both stubborn because we both have a passion for the sport. I think your point about the older players and litigation is a good one ... especially the way I have been ripping the modern athlete for the last year or so for being wimps ( might have used different vocabulary ). But you are essentially right that without the retired guys going for the money grab, the destruction of the game as we knew it would have at least been delayed a few years. I suppose that is a product of our culture being wimpified as much as football has.

Sure ... the teams with better defenses still have the advantage over those that don't but the entire brand of football has been ruined, imo.

Seems you are in the majority and i am the old fartface living in the good ol' days... and i suppose i have bitched enough like a little girl about the rule changes myself as it is for a little pot calling the kettle black action. But I hate the rule changes so much......
 
Almost never. Rule will have little if any impact in that particular regard. Even the fastest teams (Oregon/Baylor/etc) don't usually snap the ball until there are only 20 seconds left or so. Go watch a highlight compilation from UO last year as I did and you may find one or two plays snapped with 28 or 26 seconds left on the play clock, but the majority are 20 or less with the plurality probably being 15 seconds or so. The one situation where teams will try to snap it with 35 seconds left is 3rd or 4th and short. Often at the goal line and often a QB sneak. Trying to gain a quick yard while the defense is still more or less unpiling, but outside of that it won't have a big impact from that standpoint.

The benefit you might see from this rule is that teams will be able to substitute and call in defensive signals more readily. If you know the offense isn't allowed to snap for a few seconds you have a split second more to look at the formation and line up properly and get calls made, rather than waiting on a knife's edge like a dear in the headlights for the snap to come. Most of the touchdowns that guys like Petty, Mariotta, and Manziel threw were to guys who were WIDE OPEN because the defense wasn't able line up properly. Spread attacks are difficult to defend not just because of speed but also because of formations and routes, and some of that confusion will be mitigated with this rule change. The actual pace itself though will not.


You and I have talked on AIM about it before. I just want to see the offense line up and the defense line up and the play run. Not the offense lining up fast and snapping while the defense is running a chinese fire drill.
 
I mean poor Gar has listened to me bitch about the quick snaps for a few years now .. before it even became a mainstream strategy for offense.
 
I'm a defensive minded person as well Clown. When I played football (I played MLB) there were 3 things I loved most: Blowing up a FB, blowing up a pulling O-Lineman, & Blowing up a WR coming across the middle of my field. So I agree that these new rules in place are garbage & ruin the game. When a WR comes across the middle of the field & gets blown up, It is a HUGE mental edge for the rest of the game.....HUUUUUGE!!!!! It goes for the same about how terrible it is to watch a QB's head get get tapped w/ a pinky by the defender & it gets called for roughing the passer.....these are terrible rules. The roughing the passer calls & the targeting calls have done no good for a true football fan, however, for the weenies out there, there is a point behind them. They are for players safety.....the problem is that these kids know what they are getting into when they sign up to play football. All it is is old people who are done playing football who have no more money & want to blame football for leaving their body crippled....when in all honesty they knew EXACTLY what they were getting themselves into in the first place. But the NCAA & NFL have to make these rules now b/c of these ex-players (and even teenage kids that want to complain & try to make settlement money).

But as for this rule that is being proposed....I object to it b/c it has nothing to do w/ safety or protecting NCAA/NFL money in the long run. The chess match w/ NCAA is done more on the sidelines in between series as opposed to being play by play. In the NFL where players have headsets & can hear the coaches maybe the chess match is more play-by-play, but in NCAA it's more on the sideline between series.

Typically you know what the team you're facing is going to do for the most part. So these coaches have a week or more to prepare for their opponent & their spread offenses. So coach your players & get the right personnel & right plays during practice time. If the team throws new stuff during the game, then coach them & adjust on the sidelines. If a team doesn't normally do so much hurry-up & quick snaps, but when they play you they decided to mix it up to get an advantage, then coach your players & adjust during the game.....& if you dont do that (or if your offense can't stay on the field long enough to allow you to adjust) then you are getting outcoached.

The spread offense & hurry-up can be beat. If you stop their offense a few times early & your offense does it's job then its clear advantage. Problem w/ these hurry up offenses is that when they work then you can light it up & all is well....but if they get stopped just a couple of times, then the defense gets worn down by the other team & it puts the (hurry-up) offense in a tough spot, usually making the offense less effective & IMO messes w/ the offenses flow/confidence.

Why does Stanford have success against Oregon??
Why does Baylor lose a couple of games?? (I know they just started getting good, but regardless they will still struggle to win EVERY game b/c passing offenses typically always have an off-game throughout the year)
Hell I'll even call it out & say Auburn won't have near as much success next year.

Bottom line....I agree that their are some terrible rules in place that give advantage to the offense (& as a defensive minded person I hate it, it makes me sick, & I yell/laugh every time i see it). But trying to implement this rule has nothing to do w/ safety, & it really just adds another thing for these ref's to try to pay attention to for no damn reason. I guess it's just the defensive mind in me by saying I would rather see coaches be up to the challenge to stopping these offenses instead of trying to implement a rule that really wont make the majority of these teams stop these offenses from scoring anyway. Or maybe it's b/c I live in Big 12 country & i see these offenses get stymied at least a couple games a year, & if they want to win they have to have DEFENSE to win it when these offenses get slowed down. Defense & hard-nosed football will continue to win championships....that I feel very confident in.

These are all just my opinions of course.....I know I come off stubborn & dictator-like


you played MLB?
 
I understand where you're coming from Clown. & I agree that we just have the same passion for the game that is leading us here. We both like the same type of football...smash mouth. That's the way I love to see it played, & like I said earlier, I still believe that is the way to win Championships.

My main problem with this rule proposal is that the reasoning behind it is false. & it is coming off more as Saban & Co are just whining about not being able to stop the offense (Maybe when Jimmy comes back around he can chime in). I admit that I follow 3 teams very very closely: OU (born & raised, & an Alum), Florida (My Girl is from there & Muschamp is easy for me to root for), & Alabama (mainly b/c of Saban). I am a HUGE Saban fan....but this whole thing is knocking him down a notch to me is all. It's funny for him to be complaining about these offenses when in all actuality of his 3 losses the last 2 years, 2 of them weren't really b/c of the spread hurry-up offense. A&M was a classic let down spot & they woke up in the 2nd half, & Auburn was a mix between bad coaching & bad special teams.

I don't think the rule will really have too much effect on the game....I just think it is useless is all. Teams dont snap the ball that soon, but like I said earlier, it takes away the element of surprise if the rule actually passes. & the biggest thing is that the defense gets to substitute, which is exactly the reason why people like Saban are complaining....b/c his bigger LB's & D-Line can't keep up with the hurry-up offenses, & it's the exact reason why I say just spend your time coaching & preparing for it.

Regardless, i understand where you are coming from, & I actually agree w/ you in the big picture of football as we both love the old style of football as opposed to this new style. However, like I said before, physical teams are the teams that win Championships. Being physical w/ the WR's, o-line, etc is part of how to stop/slow down spread offense IMO. I would say less than 2 handfuls of college QB's can actually handle & execute efficiently when the pressure is in their face. Perfect example is Bryce Petty for Baylor last year (although I expect him to be better in big games this next year).

I could go on & on about this, & football in general. The game needs to be looked at by the big picture though....it's easy to go off of what just happened in the game. If a spread team does good & wins against physical bigger team, then public wants to rave about the speed & the hurry-up offense....but if the bigger more physical team wins then public wants to rave about how the spread team just is too small & can't compete with the bigger teams b/c they get bullied around. It's a vicious cycle (& ya hear a lot about it when ya live in Oklahoma lol).
 
I think the hurry up is awesome. I mean, wouldn't it be better in baseball if a pitcher could pitch as soon as the batter puts his foot in the batter's box? And the batter was helpless to delay it?


Baseball would be 100% more entertaining
 
I think the rule should be changed to allow the refs to be set and in place before the offense can snap the ball. Other than that I'm cool.
 
I think the rule should be changed to allow the refs to be set and in place before the offense can snap the ball. Other than that I'm cool.


Thats what Muschamp said today. He has no problem with the up tempo, but his only thing is to get the refs set and the chains set. Pretty solid coming from a big defensive coach like Muschamp, who had an offense that couldn't move the ball on a pee-wee school last year to support the hurry up.

Brett B is also a freaking retard. This idiot has done himself ZERO favors this last 2 weeks. I liked Bielema this time last year bc he plays smash mouth football, but his idiotic comments about "death certificates" being the support to changing the rule are a joke. He's a moron who should worry more about winning his 1st SEC game instead of crying about this. Joker
 
Nick Saban says today in his presser:

“The fastball guys (up-tempo coaches) say there’s no data out there, and I guess you have to use some logic,” Saban said. “What’s the logic? If you smoke one cigarette, do you have the same chances of getting cancer if you smoke 20? I guess there’s no study that specifically says that. But logically, we would say, ‘Yeah, there probably is.’”


Come on Nick. Let's get real! Comparing up temp to lung cancer?? I'm a huge Saban fan but man this is so off that I had to laugh
 
He's not comparing the hurry up to cancer. He's saying that the hurry up coaches are saying there's no data saying that more plays = more injuries, just like there's no evidence proving that smoking causes cancer, even though it is widely accepted as fact. And I think most people would agree that the 20 year 3 pack a day smoker is more likely to get lung cancer than the guy who smoked a few cigs in college, even though there is no proof that is the case.

I think the injury argument is pretty weak, and Nick should know better than to use that analogy. He and the others need to stick to the refs being in position and controlling the pace, because that's the real issue
 
.<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nNPdi5hRLy8" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>
 
He's not comparing the hurry up to cancer. He's saying that the hurry up coaches are saying there's no data saying that more plays = more injuries, just like there's no evidence proving that smoking causes cancer, even though it is widely accepted as fact. And I think most people would agree that the 20 year 3 pack a day smoker is more likely to get lung cancer than the guy who smoked a few cigs in college, even though there is no proof that is the case.

I think the injury argument is pretty weak, and Nick should know better than to use that analogy. He and the others need to stick to the refs being in position and controlling the pace, because that's the real issue



na there is plenty of evidence showing that smoking causes cancer....and it's been gathered by years of clinical trials and gathering information from the patients. So if Saban is going to take this route then they should push for there to be more attention to injury rates in football, and they should gather that information. Hurry up offenses have been around for a while now, it's just becoming more popular. So if they want to make this argument then they should do some digging and find information from teams that have been running this type of offense for years.

Malzahn had a good point that they should hold off on this until next year bc this year is an "off" year for rule changes (aside from player safety rules)

hunt - pretty comical job by Rich Rod. I don't like Rich Rod, but that took him up in my book just by humor and balls alone
 
Last edited:
Back
Top