Changes to college football rules proposed

[IrishLax]

Bret Bielema of Arkansas Razorbacks expects slow-down proposal to pass - ESPN

Brett Bielema is a moronic douchebag. What an absolute piece of shit. His whole point doesn't make sense... IF YOUR PLAYER IS HURT THEN HAVE HIM LAY DOWN ON THE FIELD AND GET SUBBED OUT LIKE EVERY PLAYER IN HISTORY. Then he tries to leverage the death of a kid who died COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO PACE OF PLAY to get his rule through.

Fuck that guy. And fuck Saban too for supporting this rule under the guise of "safety."

 

[dshans]

It's looking more and more like some are trying to remove "schematic advantage" from the game.

 

[Irish#1]

Bret Bielema of Arkansas Razorbacks expects slow-down proposal to pass - ESPN

Brett Bielema is a moronic douchebag. What an absolute piece of shit. His whole point doesn't make sense... IF YOUR PLAYER IS HURT THEN HAVE HIM LAY DOWN ON THE FIELD AND GET SUBBED OUT LIKE EVERY PLAYER IN HISTORY. Then he tries to leverage the death of a kid who died COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO PACE OF PLAY to get his rule through.

Fuck that guy. And fuck Saban too for supporting this rule under the guise of "safety."

Tell us how you really feel LAX!

 

[NDWorld247]

Bret Bielema of Arkansas Razorbacks expects slow-down proposal to pass - ESPN

Brett Bielema is a moronic douchebag. What an absolute piece of shit. His whole point doesn't make sense... IF YOUR PLAYER IS HURT THEN HAVE HIM LAY DOWN ON THE FIELD AND GET SUBBED OUT LIKE EVERY PLAYER IN HISTORY. Then he tries to leverage the death of a kid who died COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO PACE OF PLAY to get his rule through.

Fuck that guy. And fuck Saban too for supporting this rule under the guise of "safety."

I thought you were being a bit dramatic until I read the article. What a piece of shit. Saban too. No way this rule gets passed if safety research data is needed. There isn't any.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I don't think there's much data yet, as the HUNH hasn't been common until recently and I don't know if anyone's done much serious analysis. It's more a common sense thing where obviously if you run 20 extra plays per game, then there are 20 extra chances for players to get hurt. It's probably worse than that, since a player is more likely to get injured when exhausted and not as likely to follow good tackling form, protect himself, etc.

Aside from that, I'm sort of in favor of giving the D 10 seconds to sub. The main purpose of running the HUNH is to keep defenses from being able to sub - to gas their players and keep them from being able to put the correct package on the field in response to what you're running. 10 seconds to give the D time to sub just like the O seems reasonable.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I don't think there's much data yet, as the HUNH hasn't been common until recently and I don't know if anyone's done much serious analysis. It's more a common sense thing where obviously if you run 20 extra plays per game, then there are 20 extra chances for players to get hurt. It's probably worse than that, since a player is more likely to get injured when exhausted and not as likely to follow good tackling form, protect himself, etc.

Aside from that, I'm sort of in favor of giving the D 10 seconds to sub. The main purpose of running the HUNH is to keep defenses from being able to sub - to gas their players and keep them from being able to put the correct package on the field in response to what you're running. 10 seconds to give the D time to sub just like the O seems reasonable.

Except if the O subs, by rule, the D can sub and the officials will stand over the ball preventing a snap.

 

[ryno 24]

Teams should be able to run the pace that best fits them. This actually may lead to more in shape teams, because they need to be prepared not to sub. Like Lax said this is only to help Saban and Bielema eliminate any advantages that other teams have. I dont mind teams that huddle, but the hurry up should not be legislated out of football when there is no data

 

[ickythump1225]

The NCAA trying to ruin the hurry up offenses is garbage. I don't believe for a second this has jack to do with "safety." The no huddle spread offenses helps level the playing field for teams that can't just stack 5* after 5* like Alabama.

 

[ThePiombino]

It's looking more and more like some are trying to remove "schematic advantage" from the game.

Pretty sure 1/2 ND's opponents from '05 - '09 already removed any schematic advantage from the game.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I thought you were being a bit dramatic until I read the article. What a piece of shit. Saban too. No way this rule gets passed if safety research data is needed. There isn't any.

My take on the safety issue is that there isn't really any data to support it yet other than conventional wisdom of more plays being ran leads to more chances to get hurt. That is relatively weak IMO.

As far as the rest, I believe the real argument is whether it gives the offense a competitive advantage. Auburn snapped the ball only around 8% of the time before the 29 second mark. The other 92% of the time they snapped it much later on the play clock. But what Auburn does is what most HUNH offenses do. They line up over the ball withing the first 4-5 seconds, with no intention of snapping the ball. This eliminates the defense from attempting to sub without fear of the center snapping the ball. This does give the offense a decided advantage and this is where the real argument for the rule change lies.

No different than Auburn having their linemen downfield on passing plays. As long as the rules in college give that buffer for the linemen then I have no real problem with it. But what is the intent of the rule and is it giving the offense too much of an advantage? Kudos to Gus and the rest of the HUNH offenses for pushing the rules to the edge. But there does need to be a review of whether the offense is getting too much advantage in the bigger picture.

Now, I will call Gus out on asking for the rule to be delayed a year. He knows that Marshall is leaving and J. Johnson will be his QB after that. And Johnson is a pocket passer who hasn't shown the ability to run similar to Gus' qbs in the past. If people call out Saban and Bielema, then Gus needs to be seen for what he is doing as well.

 

[woolybug25]

Now, I will call Gus out on asking for the rule to be delayed a year. He knows that Marshall is leaving and J. Johnson will be his QB after that. And Johnson is a pocket passer who hasn't shown the ability to run similar to Gus' qbs in the past. If people call out Saban and Bielema, then Gus needs to be seen for what he is doing as well.

Seems to me that he woud like a year to completely retool his team, as he has built it to run hurry up style offense. Seems only fair that if the league is going to completely change the rules to favor one style of play, that they give teams that built their teams to play a hurry up a chance to make those changes in a reasonable timeframe.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Seems to me that he woud like a year to completely retool his team, as he has built it to run hurry up style offense. Seems only fair that if the league is going to completely change the rules to favor one style of play, that they give teams that built their teams to play a hurry up a chance to make those changes in a reasonable timeframe.

Under normal circumstances I would agree. But the falacy of Auburn's offense is that it is a true HUNH. It is not. Based on his offense from last season, 92% of the time he was not hurry up. His lack of having a QB that can run his triple option is his problem. And Jeremy Johnson is the heir apparent to the Qb position and he is not a triple option QB for sure. Gus knows that and I am sure that is part of his argument for wanting a delay.

As far as Nick's role in this, it has been reported a little inaccurate. He was asked by the committee to appear and testify on his thoughts about the rule and he actually turned them down. They then asked if he would write a letter stating his opinions of the proposed rule change. He turned them down again. They asked again a few days later and he agreed to write a letter. They reviewed his letter and called him and asked to appear before the committee. He turned them down twice more before finally agreeing to appear. Now, we all know he has been a proponent of some sort of rule change in this area, but contrary to the reports by some, he wasn't beating the committee's doors down to get there to push it.

 

[phork]

Meh let offenses do what they want, up to the defense to adjust. We don't have to worry about that around these parts, we generally use the play clock up.

 

[woolybug25]

Under normal circumstances I would agree. But the falacy of Auburn's offense is that it is a true HUNH. It is not. Based on his offense from last season, 92% of the time he was not hurry up. His lack of having a QB that can run his triple option is his problem. And Jeremy Johnson is the heir apparent to the Qb position and he is not a triple option QB for sure. Gus knows that and I am sure that is part of his argument for wanting a delay.

Got to disagree here, my man. Auburn ran one of the most uptempo offenses in college football last year. Also, this fundamentally changes the way these types of offenses run. Its not only personell that has to change, you have to institute an entirely different scheme. It isn't even just an offense thing either. Most hurry up teams pair their uptempo offense with a "bend dont break" defense that focuses on stopping big plays and attacking. They don't need to stop the run as much, as an opponent running the ball plays into their scheme.

All of this would need to be revisited by all teams that run uptempo offenses. That takes more than fall camp to accomplish. If the rules intent is to "level the playing field", then its only fair to not put teams in a disadvantage because of immediate fundamental changes to how the game is played.

 

[GowerND11]

Here is my hypothetical scenario:
Rule is passed, teams must wait until 29 seconds to snap the ball.

Alabama or Arkansas is driving, down by 5 and are at the opponent's 45 yard line. It is 3rd & 6, they call a pass, it is completed for a five yard gain. They now can do multiple things except one thing many MANY coaches do: Sprint to the line and snap the ball for a QB sneak to get the first down before the defense is set.

Every team does that. You don't need to be an up tempo team to do something like that.

This is from the article and what Bielema said:

"If one of those players is on the field for me, and I have no timeouts, I have no way to stop the game," Bielema said. "And he raises his hand to stop the game, and I can't do it. What am I supposed to do?

"What are we supposed to do when we have a player who tells us he's injured?"

Can he seriously think that is a good excuse??? Like Lax said earleir if a player is hurt why does he need to signal? Just stay down! Also you are out of timeouts Bret? Maybe that is your fault, or the OC for not getting a play in, or other reasons. Stop blaming the other teams and whining.

 

[wizards8507]

Can he seriously think that is a good excuse??? Like Lax said earleir if a player is hurt why does he need to signal? Just stay down! Also you are out of timeouts Bret? Maybe that is your fault, or the OC for not getting a play in, or other reasons. Stop blaming the other teams and whining.

Seriously. If the kid is "down," i.e. "hurt," then 10 seconds isn't going solve anything anyways. Getting an injured player off the field will still result in an official stoppage just like it does now.

 

[kmoose]

Teams should be able to run the pace that best fits them. This actually may lead to more in shape teams, because they need to be prepared not to sub. Like Lax said this is only to help Saban and Bielema eliminate any advantages that other teams have. I dont mind teams that huddle, but the hurry up should not be legislated out of football when there is no data

So we should get rid of the play clock? If you want it one way, you have to give it the other way.

People need to stop talking like the Hurry Up is going away if this rule is implemented. Oregon, who is kind of the poster boy of hurry up, averages 15 seconds from spot(start of the play clock) to snap. So the new rule will not slow their breakneck pace at all.

 

[woolybug25]

So we should get rid of the play clock? If you want it one way, you have to give it the other way.

People need to stop talking like the Hurry Up is going away if this rule is implemented. Oregon, who is kind of the poster boy of hurry up, averages 15 seconds from spot(start of the play clock) to snap. So the new rule will not slow their breakneck pace at all.

This isn't necessarily true. They "average" 15 seconds from spot, but that includes the entire game. Oregon slows down the break neck pace in the second half of games, which draws down that average. Go watch Oregon in the first quarter, a great deal of their plays are snapped immedietely. It's not average snap time we are talking about either. It's situational football. See the scenario that GoND11 posted above. This kills the quick snap qb sneaks and kills two minute drills for spread philosophies.

 

[wizards8507]

So we should get rid of the play clock? If you want it one way, you have to give it the other way.

Using your logic, shouldn't we also have a minimum shot clock in basketball? You have 35 seconds to shoot, but you can't shoot BEFORE 10 seconds have elapsed, either. No fast breaks allowed. If you want it one way, you have to give it the other way.

The purpose of the play clock (and shot clock) is to prevent teams from sitting with possession once they have the lead. If there were no play clock, a team with a 1-point lead at the start of the second half would automatically win. The play clock isn't about an offense-defense balance, it's about an offense-offense balance. It creates incentive for both the winning and losing team to advance the ball regardless of the current score.

 

[T Town Tommy]

This isn't necessarily true. They "average" 15 seconds from spot, but that includes the entire game. Oregon slows down the break neck pace in the second half of games, which draws down that average. Go watch Oregon in the first quarter, a great deal of their plays are snapped immedietely. It's not average snap time we are talking about either. It's situational football. See the scenario that GoND11 posted above. This kills the quick snap qb sneaks and kills two minute drills for spread philosophies.

The proposed rule would not be enforced at the two minute mark of each half.

As far as what Auburn does, they will typically not run their "hurry up" until after their initial first down on a drive. The Gus goes hurry up. You want to know what he typically does then? He runs to the line, snaps the ball on first down about 7-8 seconds after the ball is marked, and then runs a QB dive. Did it over and over on first down. Second and third down in the series he gets over the ball within the first 7-8 seconds and then spends the next 10-15 seconds deciding what he wants to run. This was his HUNH offense last year. And he did this 92% of the time.

Not saying he is wrong for doing it. He is playing within the rules. But the question has to be what his intent is. And that is not to allow the defense to substitute. And I do think that gives him a competitive advantage. Should the rule be changed? Maybe... maybe not. But let's not kid ourselves on Gus' HUNH.

As the defensive coach, I am telling my kids to flop at that point. If the offense is using the rule to their advantage, then I would without shame tell my player to flop. It's all strategy. And I would use whatever I had defensively to level the playing field... flopping included.

 

[wizards8507]

As far as what Auburn does, they will typically not run their "hurry up" until after their initial first down on a drive. The Gus goes hurry up. You want to know what he typically does then? He runs to the line, snaps the ball on first down about 7-8 seconds after the ball is marked, and then runs a QB dive. Did it over and over on first down. Second and third down in the series he gets over the ball within the first 7-8 seconds and then spends the next 10-15 seconds deciding what he wants to run. This was his HUNH offense last year. And he did this 92% of the time.

You can't make rules because certain teams ran certain types of offenses in certain seasons. Rules should be outside the realm of trends and coaching strategies. Coaches and players coach and play based on the rules of football. You don't modify the rules of football to fit the way coaches coach and players play.

Not saying he is wrong for doing it. He is playing within the rules. But the question has to be what his intent is. And that is not to allow the defense to substitute. And I do think that gives him a competitive advantage. Should the rule be changed? Maybe... maybe not. But let's not kid ourselves on Gus' HUNH.

Let's be clear. There is no RULE that says "defenses MUST NOT substitute unless the offense does." The defense is free to attempt a substitution by running players on and off the field as long as they're down to 11 men once the offense snaps the ball. What we're talking about has nothing to do with "letting defenses substitute," because they're already allowed to do so. What we're talking about is restricting an offense so that the defense can take their sweet time with the substitution.

As the defensive coach, I am telling my kids to flop at that point. If the offense is using the rule to their advantage, then I would without shame tell my player to flop. It's all strategy. And I would use whatever I had defensively to level the playing field... flopping included.

That's not strategy, that's cheating. If the player is really injured, then it's not a "flop" and that would be just fine. If he's just gassed, then he needs to sprint his ass to the sidelines and start running some more wind sprints in practice to get his conditioning up.

 

[dublinirish]

Also if the Dlinemen weren't so overweight they could run off the field in plenty of time, maybe Saban/Bielema should condition them in the offseason to be fitter, oh wait they might die because they have to run. oh well.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Except if the O subs, by rule, the D can sub and the officials will stand over the ball preventing a snap.

That's really all I'm looking for in this. The HUNH's main purpose is to keep the D from subbing. If the rules say the refs will stand over the ball and give the D a few seconds to sub if the O has done so, I'm satisfied.

 

[woolybug25]

That's really all I'm looking for in this. The HUNH's main purpose is to keep the D from subbing. If the rules say the refs will stand over the ball and give the D a few seconds to sub if the O has done so, I'm satisfied.

This is what you guys aren't getting... you essentially want the rule to be changed in order to aid your style of play.

The play clock rule was always intended to eliminate the intentional "slowing down" of the game, now you guy want to change it to do exactly that.

It's ludicrious.

 

[wizards8507]

Also if the Dlinemen weren't so overweight they could run off the field in plenty of time, maybe Saban/Bielema should condition them in the offseason to be fitter, oh wait they might die because they have to run. oh well.

Another thing, why can a 292-lb offensive tackle get from line of scrimmage to line of scrimmage with no trouble, but the 288-lb defensive tackle has such a hard time?

 

[irishog77]

The biggest bull shit in all this is that teams that run a hurry up offense, opponents know they run a hurry up offense. It's not like it's a surprise. Prepare each week for your opponent.

If Bielema and Saban were truly concerned about players' safety, then we would also see them advocating for rule changes to eliminate kick offs, punts, extra points; players with any type of injury not allowed to practice or play in games; eliminating diving and stretching for balls and ball carriers; and limiting the size of all players.

They're full of shit and hiding behind "safety."

 

[T Town Tommy]

This is what you guys aren't getting... you essentially want the rule to be changed in order to aid your style of play.

The play clock rule was always intended to eliminate the intentional "slowing down" of the game, now you guy want to change it to do exactly that.

It's ludicrious.

I am not saying that at all. I am simply posing the question as to does it give the offense a competitive advantage. I think it does. Rules are changed all the time for exactly these sorts of things. People wanted more offense in the NFL so rules were changed, new rules made, etc. that allowed the offense more advantage.

Personally, I think the rule should stay the same and defenses must adapt to it. If the time comes that it shows there actually is a safety issue, then they would need to review it. Until then, let them play.

 

[GowerND11]

That's really all I'm looking for in this. The HUNH's main purpose is to keep the D from subbing. If the rules say the refs will stand over the ball and give the D a few seconds to sub if the O has done so, I'm satisfied.

It already states that. So you should be satisified.

 

[Bishop2b5]

This is what you guys aren't getting... you essentially want the rule to be changed in order to aid your style of play.

The play clock rule was always intended to eliminate the intentional "slowing down" of the game, now you guy want to change it to do exactly that.

It's ludicrious.

I'm not looking for a rule change that necessarily helps or hurts my team's particular style of play. Just a chance for the D to have the same opportunity to sub that the O has. No more, no less. I'd be completely against a rule that said defenses had 20 seconds to sub all the players they want and offenses weren't allowed to sub at all. I just want a fair system that doesn't allow one side a marked advantage and hamstrings the other.

I'm probably allowing some personal taste to come into this on another level though. I absolutely hate the point-a-minute, no defense, 64-59, 1400 yards of total offense, basketball on grass type games we see from Baylor, Oregon, etc. I'm old school. I like smash-mouth, grown man football where defense is as important as offense.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by T Town Tommy
As the defensive coach, I am telling my kids to flop at that point. If the offense is using the rule to their advantage, then I would without shame tell my player to flop. It's all strategy. And I would use whatever I had defensively to level the playing field... flopping included.

That's not strategy, that's cheating. If the player is really injured, then it's not a "flop" and that would be just fine. If he's just gassed, then he needs to sprint his ass to the sidelines and start running some more wind sprints in practice to get his conditioning up.
That's not strategy, that's cheating. If the player is really injured, then it's not a "flop" and that would be just fine. If he's just gassed, then he needs to sprint his ass to the sidelines and start running some more wind sprints in practice to get his conditioning up.

Is it cheating... or a different intepretation of the rulebook? You see, those against the proposed rule state there is nothing wrong and it is great strategy. Those who favor the rule change say it is unfair, safety issue, etc. It's all in how one looks at it. And I don't believe there is a rule that says flopping is a penalty. And how would one go about penalizing a team if a player flopped? what if they were truly hurt? Just throwing out the counter argument here.