Proposed Rule Would SLOW Down Offenses

cloverleaf · Feb 14, 2014

A proposed change by the NCAA football rules committee would prohibit offenses from snapping the ball until at least 10 seconds had run off the 40-second play clock, slowing down the up-tempo, no-huddle attacks that have been making defenses dizzy. The rule allows defenses time to make a substitution without the offense changing players as is currently required and with no fear the ball will be snapped before 29 seconds are left on the play clock. An exception will be made for the final two minutes of each half, when the offense can snap the ball as quickly as it wants.

Obviously, you have coaches arguing for both sides of this rule. In the SEC, Nick Saban and Bret Bielema have been outspoken for the rule change while Gus Malzahn and Huge Freeze have been opposed to any change.

You guys have any thoughts..........

:bitch:

sdf · Feb 14, 2014

boo hoo Nick. complaining because he lost to TAMU and Auburn who play up-tempo. Nick gets THE BEST recruits year in and year out. He should have zero complaints or needs for rule changes.

Bret can just go back to the Big 10....where quality up tempo teams dont exist.

making the rule in the name of "player safety" is silly....

but really, how many teams get a play off in < 10 seconds anyway? it takes that long just to re-spot the ball sometimes.....

russ1945 · Feb 14, 2014

I have given this proposal some though and I still come up with the same conclusion. Speeding up tempo is strategy, part of a game plan. If a team trains hard and reaches a point of team fitness that enables them to employ this stratery power to them. It is not their fault that the other team is not ready willing or able to keep pace. Maybe the other team wants to control the pace of the game to their advantage. Saying this has to do with player safety is reaching to say the least. Much of it has to do with communication from the sidelines and that can be a plus or minus for the offense or for the defense. I stated on here several years ago that the spread was changing football as we knew it. Now it has evolved to an up tempo attack that puts all the pressure on the opposing defense. You have to have a coach who can coach it and players who can execute it just for starters. I say power to up tempo teams and tough shit for defenses that can't keep up.

GoSooners · Feb 14, 2014

Personally, I think this is unlikely to get passed. But nevertheless the NCAA needs to stop pandering to Nick Saban. I've never been a proponent of the no huddle offense. But it's still part of the evolution of the game that has given the teams with less talent/inferior offensive linemen a better shot at success.. Passing this new rule would set the college game back 20 years.

MackDonald · Feb 14, 2014

It smells a lot like the (2 minute warning) in professional football....NFL. It would be interesting to know who puts out trial-balloons of this sort to the NCAA rules committees and what their real motives are. You don't fill 100,000 seat stadiums playing slow-down football.

spokenword14 · Feb 14, 2014

is there any reason why anyone would listen to Bielema this offseason?

Albatross · Feb 14, 2014

I am sure the PAC foes who get stomped by the Ducks every year would not mind it.....hehe

Conan · Feb 15, 2014

Clearly this has little to do with player safety.

Not quite so clearly, but clear enough to me is that this rule change is about tailoring the game to suit a few who find themselves at a disadvantage to teams that play up-tempo offense. They can't adapt. In a way I see this rule change proposal as cheating because the proponents are not coming out and admitting what they are really up to. That right there IMHO is enough of a reason to deny the proposal.

What I could live with and not be bothered by would be to change the substitution rule that limits defenses to make personnel changes only if an offense does it first. I don't see why a defense shouldn't be allowed to make changes any time it wants to as long as the ball is not in play at the moment.

Getting any extra players off the field before the ball is snapped is a matter of a defense organizing itself better to handle substitutions quicker and more efficiently. I could even see a player who is leaving the field to be considered off the field at the time the ball is snapped provided that he doesn't step on the field (on his way off) again and that his next step (maybe 2?) is off the field. He is useless on his way off anyway so counting him as being in the field of play is senseless and not worth a penalty flag. Beyond that anything more would be pandering to the few for their benefit by changing the rules to suit only them, especially if there are rule changes like the proposed 10 second slow-down rule.

CoachCB · Feb 16, 2014

Will be interesting to see if this rule passes. They gotta keep Bama and Saban happy, of course!

GoSooners · Mar 3, 2014

Rich Rod responds to the 10 second rule

http://youtu.be/nNPdi5hRLy8

RunLeeRun · Mar 4, 2014

I think it is a bogus argument, in this particular case, to use player safety as the base of a philosophical change. Even so, the ten second rule wont change anything, because most teams aren't snapping the ball that fast, UNLESS the other team is making a substitution or isnt lined up. I believe the modern trend to up tempo really spawned in the NFL with Peyton Manning trying to get penalties for 12 men. I do think the uptempo has hurt the integrity of the game, but it has nothing to do with basketball scores or the like. For me, it has everything to do with the officials not being able to manage that pace. Chip Kelly ran 80+ plays at Oregon and 65 at Philly, because the officials are in charge in the NFL. The refs often get intimidated on the college level. They themselves are having trouble getting lined up and as a result they are missing false starts, players getting lined up incorrectly, etc. I heard Nebraska's best beat write, Sam McKewon, talk on this subject. Twice in Bo Pelini's tenure at Nebraska vs up-tempo teams, once vs Art Briles in 2008 and 2012 vs Gus Malzahn (Ark St), he was forced to call timeouts early in games because the refs were not allowing the defense to sub when the offense was doing it. Baylor would run fly routes and then head straight to the sideline after the play, the defense was not given a chance to sub. Both times it rectified the situation, but what if it hadn't? A coach should not have to burn a timeout so that the refs can get their shit together. That's the main reason I am for some sort of slowing down of the game......but this isnt the right rule to do that.... if anything go back to the 25 second clock that starts when the refs set the ball.

rolltide · Mar 4, 2014

GoSooners said:
Rich Rod responds to the 10 second rule

http://youtu.be/nNPdi5hRLy8

heard this tool on a talk show and the host asked him point blank "when your offense is REALLY clicking how fast do you like to snap the ball". He said :12-:15

- pretty much killed his own argument .... he then caught himself and tried to cover it by saying that it's totally different if a qb needs to look at a play clock. seriously, dickrod?

GoSooners · Mar 4, 2014

rolltide said:
heard this tool on a talk show and the host asked him point blank "when your offense is REALLY clicking how fast do you like to snap the ball". He said :12-:15 - pretty much killed his own argument .... he then caught himself and tried to cover it by saying that it's totally different if a qb needs to look at a play clock. seriously, dickrod?

They probably need somebody who is a little more articulate and has a few more brains than Rich Rod to argue the rule like Mike Leach, who said "saying this rule is about player safety is like walking into a room with a duck under your arm, and telling people it's a raccoon."

rolltide · Mar 4, 2014

calling mike leach articulate is "is like walking into a room with a duck under your arm, and telling people it's a raccoon."

btw i like leach. he's gruff, ornery, and a showman in front of the lense....but ain't be no good at articulating

GoSooners · Mar 4, 2014

rolltide said:
calling mike leach articulate is "is like walking into a room with a duck under your arm, and telling people it's a raccoon."

btw i like leach. he's gruff, ornery, and a showman in front of the lense....but ain't be no good at articulating

I like Mike Leach. He just "articulates" in a more humorous way. Rich Rod tries too hard.

GoSooners · Mar 5, 2014

The NCAA Rules Committee decided today to table the rule and not vote on it. So it won't be implemented in 2014. Damn, first Auburn, then Oklahoma, now this. When was the last time Saban lost 3 in a row.

rolltide · Mar 5, 2014

cool ... i guess wash st and arizona for the bcs title next year since there is no possible obstacle in the way

Conan · Mar 5, 2014

Articulate this...

The proposed slow-down rule was just shelved. Even guys like Saban need to get up off their asses once in a while when the game starts passing them by. Slowing down progress by claiming it's for something else is like roasting a raccoon and calling it roast duck.

Conan · Mar 6, 2014

RunLeeRun said:
I think it is a bogus argument, in this particular case, to use player safety as the base of a philosophical change. Even so, the ten second rule wont change anything, because most teams aren't snapping the ball that fast, UNLESS the other team is making a substitution or isnt lined up. I believe the modern trend to up tempo really spawned in the NFL with Peyton Manning trying to get penalties for 12 men. I do think the uptempo has hurt the integrity of the game, but it has nothing to do with basketball scores or the like. For me, it has everything to do with the officials not being able to manage that pace. Chip Kelly ran 80+ plays at Oregon and 65 at Philly, because the officials are in charge in the NFL. The refs often get intimidated on the college level. They themselves are having trouble getting lined up and as a result they are missing false starts, players getting lined up incorrectly, etc. I heard Nebraska's best beat write, Sam McKewon, talk on this subject. Twice in Bo Pelini's tenure at Nebraska vs up-tempo teams, once vs Art Briles in 2008 and 2012 vs Gus Malzahn (Ark St), he was forced to call timeouts early in games because the refs were not allowing the defense to sub when the offense was doing it. Baylor would run fly routes and then head straight to the sideline after the play, the defense was not given a chance to sub. Both times it rectified the situation, but what if it hadn't? A coach should not have to burn a timeout so that the refs can get their shit together. That's the main reason I am for some sort of slowing down of the game......but this isnt the right rule to do that.... if anything go back to the 25 second clock that starts when the refs set the ball.

....or perhaps letting the clock run after first downs are made instead of stopping it. That right there could mean 15 less plays per game considering the time saved while the chains are being moved every time there's a 1st down. They talk about the average no. of plays per game in the NFL vs CFB. It's not all about the officiating being tighter in pro ball. It's also in the rules.

The NFL doesn't have rules that prevent offenses from playing an up-tempo game. In the NFL, the clock keeps running if the 1st down yardage ends in the field play. 15 less plays due to letting the clock run takes over 2½ minutes off the clock in every game. That's based on 50% of the 1st down plays remaining in bounds for both sides. That accounts for about half of the additional plays. That's a pretty conservative estimate IMHO.

Saban's contention is that running more plays results in greater exposure. Then again Saban fails to point out the actual time it takes to make these extra plays. Oregon's TOP blows a big hole through that line of thought. The amount of time per play affects TOP too. The Ducks have been soundly beaten in TOP in nearly every game. If your average drive takes about 2½ minutes or less, that amounts to less time being exposed to injury on the field not more.

Perhaps not every team that runs the hurry-up has the same measure of success, but their offenses tend to get off the field sooner meaning less TOP. My point is that it's not the number of snaps alone that matters, it's the time an offense spends on the field that counts as well. There is no data that supports a greater number of injuries due to playing more snaps as a result of playing hurry-up. That could be due to a player breaking his focus between plays as opposed to being in a constant state of readiness.

Conan · Mar 6, 2014

Errata:

Conan said:
Saban's contention is that running more plays results in greater exposure. Then again Saban fails to point out the actual time it takes to make these extra plays. Oregon's TOP blows a big hole through that line of thought. The amount of time per play affects TOP too. The Ducks have been soundly beaten in TOP in nearly every game. If your average drive takes about 2½ minutes or less, that amounts to less time being exposed to injury on the field not more.

Should read: The amount of time per offensive series affects TOP too.

Proposed Rule Would SLOW Down Offenses

New member

Member

New member

Member

Member

New member

Member

New member

Member

Member

New member

I'm from the government and I'm here to help

Member

I'm from the government and I'm here to help

Member

Member

I'm from the government and I'm here to help

New member

New member

New member

Forum statistics

Share this page