Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: Townhallsavoy on February 12, 2014, 05:36:10 PM
-
@KegsnEggs: This is, just, no. Next. RT @slmandel: Rules committee proposing 10-second defensive substitution period on every play.
@doug_keegan: NCAA Rules committee plots to kill hurry up offenses, prohibit snaps before 40 second play clock reaches 29 seconds. LINK
@Mengus22: In the most NCAA thing ever, teams that snap the ball too fast will now be penalized for delay of game for not letting them delay the game.
-
They can go to hell.
-
Hmmm. Wonder who's behind this one?
-
Hmmm. Wonder who's behind this one?
The NCAA Rules Committee.
-
The NCAA Rules Committee.
A bunch of fucking retards if they pass this.
The defense is bitching because they can't substitute. Here's the problem: THE OFFENSE ISN'T SUBSTITUTING EITHER!
It's not like the offense is getting to run fresh legs onto the field. They're tired too. If they aren't tired? They're just in better shape.
This is 100% old grey hair geezers who need to die off. They want to see their traditional football played by big fat asses running the power I with the occasional implementation of that crazy idea they concocted a few years back known as the forward pass. They don't want to see those slick looking kids with shiny uniforms running down the field like it's a basketball game.
There's no evidence that the HUNH causes more injuries. If anything, I'd hypothesize that the power type of football that LSU and Alabama plays causes more injuries.
The only issue anyone can have with the HUNH is that traditional defenses can't stop it. What's the fucking point of a play clock if they pass this rule? Just let the refs determine when it's proper to snap the ball. They'll blow the whistle then say, "Down, set, hut." That's the best way to make it completely fair.
-
A bunch of fucking retards if they pass this.
Retards across the planet are pissed that you would compare them to the NCAA Rules Committee.
-
The committee also recommended a rules change that will allow defensive units to substitute within the first 10 seconds of the 40-second play clock, with the exception of the final two minutes of each half, starting with the 2014 season.
“This rules change is being made to enhance student-athlete safety by guaranteeing a small window for both teams to substitute,†said Calhoun. “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.â€
Under this rule proposal, the offense will not be allowed to snap the ball until the play clock reaches 29 seconds or less. If the offense snaps the ball before the play clock reaches 29 seconds, a 5-yard, delay-of-game penalty will be assessed. Under current rules, defensive players are not guaranteed an opportunity to substitute unless the offense substitutes first. This part of the rule will remain in place in scenarios where the play clock starts at 25 seconds.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
Bama gets their shit pushed in by two hunh teams and they want to change the rules?
Nah. No coincidence here!
-
Bama gets their shit pushed in by two hunh teams and they want to change the rules?
Nah. No coincidence here!
Mark Emmert says he has no hand in this. In fact he was off hunting. With Nick Saban. Nothing to see here.
-
The rules committee is even citing player safety as a reason for the rule change.
Can anyone produce a case study that shows the HUNH offense causing more injuries than other offenses? Besides that one conducted over the weekend at the University of Alabama.
-
You people need sensitivity training. It's all about player SAFETY.
-
Bama gets their shit pushed in by two hunh teams and they want to change the rules?
Nah. No coincidence here!
This^^^ is all you need to know. Unreal!!! They lose twice so it's time to change the way the game is played.
-
The only way uat can win is have the easiest schedule, pay more money to the top recruits, make sure the referees are on the same page...If all of that isn't enough, have rules changed.
-
The only way uat can win is have the easiest schedule, pay more money to the top recruits, make sure the referees are on the same page...If all of that isn't enough, have rules changed.
Yup.
-
The only way uat can win is have the easiest schedule, pay more money to the top recruits, make sure the referees are on the same page...If all of that isn't enough, have rules changed.
Check
Check
Check
And working on that next Check now
-
Check
Check
Check
And working on that next Check now
Ivan Lendl
-
Ivan Lendl
Old news. Novak Djokovich. Wait, is Serbia still considered part of Czch?
-
This is the type of response the turds are giving to this:
Football is a strategic sport , offense sets plays to beat the defense ,vice versa . If you run a HUNH offense to beat the defense ,then time should be allowed for the defense to set up for the offense ....its only fair to both sides to allow ample time to produce the best strategy.
So Saban cannot prepare for the HUNH, so he changes the rules.
-
This will not pass.
Unless it does.
-
Old news. Novak Djokovich. Wait, is Serbia still considered part of Czch?
You go brush up on Eastern European geography. Really, Yugo now.........
-
You go brush up on Eastern European geography. Really, Yugo now.........
:rimshot:
-
The NCAA Rules Committee.
@slmandel
Can confirm Nick Saban & Bret Bielema were in the room (but not voters) for the rules committee discussion that produced 10-second proposal.
Wow.
-
Wow.
This type of shit seriously makes me want to give up watching college football.
Maybe it's just on the table and Saban and fat ass made their case.
I can't imagine this getting passed. It's not just Auburn and Ole Miss running the no huddle. A bunch of teams run the hurry up.
And what gets me, Saban just hired Kiffin with the intention of speeding up his offense.
Fuck him.
-
Also Chris Fowler chimes in:
@cbfowler 2h
It bothers me when proposed rule change to slow offensive tempo is disguised as "student athlete safety" concern. Please.
Then Fowler said this:
Not surprised, but amused how #Alabama & #Auburn fans view EVERY issue through lens of "Us vs Them!" 360 degrees, 24/7/365!
To which Chopper retorted:
@cbfowler Well, did you know that @slmandel just confirmed SABAN was in the discussions on 10 second rule? No justification at all. None.
To which Fowler replied:
@AuburnChopper @slmandel not surprised. Nick advancing his agenda. And he knows fewer injuries not the real issue. Trust me.
-
What I want to know is why the FUCK does Saban get the OPPORTUNITY to advance his agenda?
So beyond inequitable. Such a ridiculous conflict of interests.
Why does the media just withhold comment on that shit?
-
What I want to know is why the FUCK does Saban get the OPPORTUNITY to advance his agenda?
So beyond inequitable. Such a ridiculous conflict of interests.
Why does the media just withhold comment on that shit?
Deep down somewhere, money's involved. It always is.
Not sure where it comes from or who is getting it, but there are at least two people involved. One with an open checkbook and one with power and influence.
I'd like to point out the connection between Saban and Emmert, but it might not even be them. It could be a Bama booster named Fred and an ESPN executive named Steve. No idea.
But it's beyond obvious. From the recruiting shadiness to the strange calls by the refs to the preferential treatment in the media to being able to influence rule changes, it's a complete circle of control by the University of Alabama.
-
Deep down somewhere, money's involved. It always is.
Not sure where it comes from or who is getting it, but there are at least two people involved. One with an open checkbook and one with power and influence.
I'd like to point out the connection between Saban and Emmert, but it might not even be them. It could be a Bama booster named Fred and an ESPN executive named Steve. No idea.
But it's beyond obvious. From the recruiting shadiness to the strange calls by the refs to the preferential treatment in the media to being able to influence rule changes, it's a complete circle of control by the University of Alabama.
What about the Gettys, the Rothchilds, The Queen...and Col. Sanders!
-
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/93579/no-huddle-coaches-blast-ncaa-proposal (http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/93579/no-huddle-coaches-blast-ncaa-proposal)
No-huddle coaches blast NCAA proposal
February, 12, 2014
By Mark Schlabach
If the NCAA Football Rules Committee gets its way, college football teams no longer will be penalized 15 yards if one of its players really didn’t target an opposing player.
But teams could actually be penalized for delay of game for – get this – playing too fast.
A few coaches of teams that utilize no-huddle, hurry-up offenses – which are becoming more and more common at the FBS level – immediately blasted the proposed substitution rules change, saying its only intention is to slow them down.
“It’s a joke. It’s ridiculous,†said Arizona coach Rich Rodriguez. “And what’s most ridiculous is did you see what the penalty is going to be called? Delay of game! How is that a delay of game? That’s the ultimate rules committee decision. Make the game slower and call it delay of game.â€
The NCAA committee recommended a rules change that will allow defensive units to substitute within the first 10 seconds of the 40-second play clock, excluding the final two minutes of each half. So in effect, offenses won’t be allowed to snap the ball until the play clock reaches 29 seconds or less. If the offense snaps the ball before then, it would be penalized five yards for delay of game. Under current rules, defenses aren’t guaranteed an opportunity to substitute unless the offense subs first.
“First off, doubt it will pass,†Washington State coach Mike Leach said. “Second, it’s ridiculous. All this tinkering is ridiculous. I think it deteriorates the game. It’s always been a game of creativity and strategy. So anytime someone doesn’t want to go back to the drawing board or re-work their solutions to problems, then what they do is to beg for a rule. I think it’s disgusting.â€
The rules changes proposed by the NCAA Football Rules Committee will be submitted to the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel for discussion on March 6.
In an NCAA statement, the NCAA Football Rules Committee said “research indicated that teams with fast-paced, no-huddle offenses rarely snap the ball with 30 seconds or more on the play clock.†The NCAA statement also said the proposed rules change also “aligns with a request from the Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports that sport rules committees review substitution rules in regards to player safety.†In the NCAA’s non-rules change years, proposals can only be made for safety reasons or for modifications that enhance the intent of a previous rule change, according to the NCAA statement.
Leach and Rodriguez aren’t buying that slowing down hurry-up offenses would make players safer.
“Where’s all the data that proves this is a player safety issue? I don’t buy it,†Rodriguez said. “What about making it so you can’t blitz seven guys? That’s a dangerous thing for a quarterback.â€
Ole Miss coach Hugh Freeze, whose team also runs an uptempo offense, wants to know if there is actual proof that uptempo offenses cause more injuries to players.
"Is there documented medical evidence that supports this rule change that tempo offenses are putting players at a higher degree of risk than others? If there is then show it to us," Freeze told ESPN.com Wednesday night. "Where is it? They're going to have to show us some evidence. If there's not any evidence, then they should table it.
"You can do it the last two minutes of the game. Isn't that when you should be most fatigued?
Added Leach: “That’s really insulting that they are hiding behind player safety just because somebody wants an advantage. That’s crazy.â€
This past season, fast-paced, no-huddle offenses continued to operate faster and faster in college football. Baylor, which led FBS teams in scoring (52.4 points) and total offense (618.8 yards), averaged 82.6 offensive plays in 13 games. Texas Tech averaged a whopping 87.3 offensive plays under first-year coach Kliff Kingsbury, and Fresno State averaged 83.6 offensive plays.
But some coaches, including Alabama’s Nick Saban and Arkansas’ Bret Bielema, have criticized hurry-up offenses, arguing that they give offenses an unfair advantage and don’t allow them to adequately substitute defensive players.
“All you’re trying to do is get lined up [on defense],†Saban told ESPN.com in September. “You can’t play specialty third-down stuff. You can’t hardly scheme anything. The most important thing is to get the call so the guys can get lined up, and it’s got to be a simple call. The offense kind of knows what you’re doing."
But Leach contends it’s unfair to handcuff offenses because defenses can’t keep up with the pace.
“My suggestion is rather than spending a bunch of time coming up with a bunch of really stupid rules, spend that time coaching harder,†Leach said. “Worry about your own team and try to make your product better rather than trying to change the game so you don’t have to do anything.â€
Freeze also believes that allowing defenses to rotate players in and out more frequently under this rule will put offensive linemen who are a part of uptempo offenses at more risk for injury because they will potentially face fresher defensive linemen every few snaps.
"If anything, you may be making it more dangerous for the offensive line because they're going to face 12 five-star defensive linemen from Alabama rotating every three plays," he said.
To Freeze, taking away the opportunity to snap the ball as fast as possible is taking away a major fundamental advantage that any offense can use against opposing defenses, which are allowed as much movement as possible before a play is even run.
"Since the start of football, defenses can line up wherever they want to," Freeze said. "They can move around as much as they want to before the snap. … They can do whatever they want to do, that's fine. I coach defense, too, that's great. The one thing that has always been offenses' deal is snapping the ball. That's the only thing we have."
The proposed change to the sport’s new targeting rules seems like a no-brainer after a slew of controversial decisions during the 2013 season. Under current NCAA rules, which went into effect this past season, players penalized for targeting opposing players were ejected from the contest and their teams were penalized 15 yards. But officials were allowed to review the play and determine whether a targeting foul actually occurred. If officials determined the play wasn’t targeting, the player’s ejection was overturned but the 15-yard penalty was still enforced.
If the proposed rule change is approved, the ejection and the penalty won’t be enforced. However, if a defender is penalized for a personal foul in conjunction with the overturned targeting foul, such as roughing the passer, a 15-yard penalty will still be enforced.
In games in which instant replay is not in use, the committee recommended an option to permit on-field officials to review targeting calls during halftime that were made during the first half. Officials then could reverse the targeting call and allow the player to compete in the second half.
-
So only Freeze had the ball to point the finger at the ONE person that really wants this!
I bet Malzahn's phone is blowing up over this. Every al.com hack is wanting to stir up a fight.
-
Chizad's posted article.
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/8cb046e6f16e05f8521e15de31927f52/tumblr_mt80mvKYGn1rqfhi2o1_500.gif)
(http://img.izismile.com/img/img5/20120915/1000/funny_set_of_gifs_to_share_your_appreciation_05.gif)
(http://media4.onsugar.com/files/2014/01/16/189/n/1922398/66bc27f175e7c1bd_Oprah.gif.xxxlarge/i/Oprah-Gave-Lupita-Nyongo-Standing-Ovation.gif)
-
As I said way back when Lord Saybinz first started whining about this. How about you get a 3 and out and you don't have to worry about the HUNH. Just don't allow the other team to get 10 yards in 3 plays or less and your wittle defense won't get pooped.
-
As I said way back when Lord Saybinz first started whining about this. How about you get a 3 and out and you don't have to worry about the HUNH. Just don't allow the other team to get 10 yards in 3 plays or less and your wittle defense won't get pooped.
Nice job Tin man
-
Nice job Tin man
Do you not see me talking here? Don't interrupt. Rude!!!
-
What about the Gettys, the Rothchilds, The Queen...and Col. Sanders!
No, Colonel Sanders...you're wrong
-
No, Colonel Sanders...you're wrong
-47o
-
I wonder how the TV folks feel about this new rule change.
Since the offenses started scoring more points, football has reached an all time high in popularity and marketing. I'm sure they just love seeing that it could be choked back into old school football.
-
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/02/sad_to_see_the_ncaa_help_nick.html (http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/02/sad_to_see_the_ncaa_help_nick.html)
Sad to see the NCAA help Nick Saban and friends slow down the HUNH (Kevin Scarbinsky)
By Kevin Scarbinsky | kscarbinsky@al.com AL.com
February 13, 2014 at 1:44 PM
Can you flag a coach for targeting?
If so, someone should throw a yellow hanky at Nick Saban, Bret Bielema and every other old-school coach who hasn't been able to stop the likes of Gus Malzahn, Kevin Sumlin and other new-age thinkers by conventional methods.
The best offensive coaches have always come up with innovations to move the ball, and the best defensive coaches have always conjured up ways to stop them.
Until now.
Now the best defensive coaches have admitted defeat and asked for help, and sadly, the NCAA is riding to their rescue.
The NCAA Football Rules Committee has proposed a rule that'll prevent offenses from snapping the ball within the first 10 seconds after the 40-second play clock begins except in the last two minutes of each half. The defense will be allowed to substitute during that 10-second window even if the offense doesn't.
That rule is deeply flawed on several fronts.
The committee said research shows even hurry-up no-huddle offenses rarely snap the ball within 10 seconds after the play clock begins. If it's rare, why is a rule required to prevent it?
If that logic weren't faulty enough, the committee cited player safety as the reason for the rule without offering any data to show that playing at a faster pace endangers players. Probably because there isn't any.
Hiding behind player safety is a joke when you consider that the NCAA approved a 12th regular-season game and conference championship games, not to mention that the five power conferences invented a four-team playoff that could have two teams playing 15 games each starting next season.
More games mean more practices. More games and practices mean more chances to get hit and get hurt. No one's tapping the brakes there. Couldn't have anything to do with all the money those extra games generate, could it?
Back to the proposal to move football back toward the Ice Age. Did you see what the new 5-yard penalty for snapping the ball too quickly will be called? Delay of game. Only the NCAA.
The only good thing about the new rule is that it still has to be approved by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel before it can take effect next season. One member of the panel, Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, is sure to get an earful from coaches in his league such as Arizona's Rich Rodriguez and Washington State's Mike Leach, pioneers of playing fast and furious.
It's hard to know which way the rest of the panel may go. MAC Commissioner Jon Steinbrecher would appear to be sympathetic to teams that win with offensive brains over defensive brawn, but check out the other members:
Shelley Appelbaum, senior women's administrator, Michigan State.
Derita Ratcliffe, senior women's administrator, UAB.
Jeff Hurd, commissioner, WAC.
Noreen Morris, commissioner, Northeast Conference.
Lisa Sweany, AD, Armstrong Atlantic State University.
Kristy Bayer, senior women's administrator, Arkansas Tech.
Doug Zipp, AD, Shenandoah University.
Lynn Oberbillig, AD, Smith College.
Sue Lauder, AD, Fitchburg State University.
Those administrators have a choice. They can either help Saban and Bielema slow down Malzahn and Sumlin or force the old-school guys to find a way to deal with the new-age gurus.
Who do you really want deciding football games - players and coaches or ADs and senior women's administrators?
-
I'm sensing a consensus among those with intimate college football knowledge that this is Nicks way of catching up and not about safety.
I don't think it passes but if it does, I have confidence in Gus to figure something out. We have arguably more to lose than any other team in the country if it passes. If it doesn't, a win next year in JHS west will feel much sweeter.
There should be more outrage that its even being considered.
-
Thomas Edison used the government to clobber Nikola Tesla. Same shit different day.
sigh
-
I have confidence in Gus
to bolt to the NFL at first chance. Why stay if they won't let you work?
:rolleyes:
-
I wonder if Ellis Johnson was also in the room?
-
I wonder if Ellis Johnson was also in the room?
He wasn't.
That's the difference.
He didn't like it in the past. He's now trying to win football games with a team that relies solely on a hurry up style of offense. I'd say he's learned to love it.
-
What about the Gettys, the Rothchilds, The Queen...and Col. Sanders!
Is this before or after the Colonel went tits up?
-
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/02/what_does_science_say_about_hu.html (http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/02/what_does_science_say_about_hu.html)
What does science say about football injuries from hurry-up offenses?
Joe Solomon
Count University of Arizona head athletic trainer Randy Cohen among the skeptics about the NCAA Football Rules Committee's proposal to slow down hurry-up offenses in the name of safety.
"If you want to do it for a competitive advantage, then come out and say you're doing it for a competitive advantage," said Cohen, who chairs the college committee of the National Athletic Trainers' Association. "Don't say it's a safety issue because right now we don't have any data about this. None."
The idea to make offenses wait 10 seconds before snapping the ball has caused widespread backlash by many up-tempo coaches. They claim it's a ploy to let defenses strategically substitute and slow down creative and productive offenses such as Auburn's. Alabama's Nick Saban and Arkansas' Bret Bielema, both defensive-minded coaches, participated in committee discussions about the proposal but did not have a vote, according to USA Today Sports.
So what does science say about hurry-up offenses? And are there truly medical benefits from this proposed rule? The answers appear to be speculative.
There could be health advantages to making offenses wait, according to several medical personnel and researchers in the sports world who were interviewed for this article. But some of them are scratching their heads over the NCAA proposal just like some coaches.
Yes, they say, fewer plays would lead to less chance of injury. But some question whether the number of plays would be reduced enough to have an impact, especially since the NCAA said "research indicated that teams with fast-paced, no-huddle offenses rarely snap the ball with 30 seconds or more on the play clock."[/u]
Yes, some medical officials and researchers say, fatigue can lead to poor technique and put players at greater risk for injuries, including concussions. But some point out players can leave a game now simply by falling down on the field -- lately in games against up-tempo teams this causes accusations of fake injuries -- and medical personnel and researchers question if there's data showing tempo causes more injuries.
Rogers Redding, the national coordinator of officiating, told CBSSports.com there wasn't much "hard data" to consider for the substitution rule, which must still be approved on March 6 by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel.
"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," Louisiana-Monroe coach Todd Berry, a rules committee member, told CBSSports.com. "He's gonna get injured. That's what's driving this thing."
Because this is an off year in the NCAA football rules cycle, any new playing rule passed would have to be related to safety.
"From the outside looking in, it looks like they're using the health and safety initiative to pass it this year because that's the only way to pass it," said Harvard head athletic trainer Brant Berkstresser, a member of the NCAA Competitive Safeguards Committee. "That being said, I don't think there's any harm for the student-athlete. The longer players are on the field or play a set amount of plays longer than the previous norm, you certainly can make a theoretical assumption that would increase the risks of injury."
Patrick Larimore, who retired as a UCLA linebacker in 2012 due to suffering at least seven concussions, said it's "ridiculous" to think the 10-second rule is for competitive purposes. Fatigue from up-tempo offenses can absolutely result in injuries, he said.
"I think if you're a fan and you care about the players' health, especially at this level because we're not getting paid, then it's definitely necessary," Larimore said. "Player safety, especially with all this concussion information coming out, has to be put first. What is this, gladiators?"
Click the link if you want to read more.
-
Add an extra TO. Take away a game. What? Lose money? No way.
This has nothing to do with safety. The LB chiming in should have learned how to hit without using his head first.
-
I'm sensing a consensus among those with intimate college football knowledge that this is Nicks way of catching up and not about safety.
I don't think it passes but if it does, I have confidence in Gus to figure something out. We have arguably more to lose than any other team in the country if it passes. If it doesn't, a win next year in JHS west will feel much sweeter.
There should be more outrage that its even being considered.
Silent snap.
-
If they pass the rule, Coach Malzahn will play nice until the Iron Bowl then after the first 1st down, he'll run up to the line and snap it, take the 5 yard penalty...get a first down on the next couple plays, run up to the line and snap it, take the 5 yard penalty...get a first down on the next couple plays, run up to the line and snap it, take the 5 yard penalty...get a first down the next couple plays, run up to the line and snap it. By then sabbin's out of shape Dlinemen and LBers will be suckin wind. Do that the next series or two, maybe catch sabbin out on the field crying to the refs...direct CJ Uzomah to run him over and step on his face. You know, good fun for the whole family. If the refs block the ball from being snapped, as long as the offense didn't make a substitution snap it anyway, then run his fat ass over. After Auburn is up a few TDs in the 3rd qtr, Gus can then have the offense sit on the ball by snapping it with a couple seconds left on the play clock (Gus will still have everyone run up to the ball as if they're going to snap it).
-
Rich Rod and Leach are beyond pissed.
Knew I liked those guys.
Other I've seen quoted who think it's ridiculous:
Freeze
Briles
Tubs
Rutgers Coach
Mac
Sunbelt
I'm sure there are others.
I'm glad most of the rest of the country sees this for what it is. A ploy by Bilemmia and Sabynz. Just like Scarbo said.
-
This is a rational bammer explanation:
Just a word on the proposal to slow down offenses in the NCAA, which in the interest of full disclosure I am opposed to. My Auburn friends want us to believe that Nick Saban is pushing this as some sort of attack on their coach. However, for a different perspective consider this. Both high profile coaches that appeared before the committee to express their concerns, both did so long before Gus Malzahn became head coach at Auburn and both are members of the American Football Coaches Association. As members they have a right to speak out on issues that are important to them and have the right to attempt to effect change. The AFCA and the rules committee has an obligation to listen to them on these issues and, if other members agree have an obligation to use their influence to attempt to effect changes that their members support. Bielema is a non voting member of the rules committee and certainly has a right to be at the committee meeting, Nick Saban is a member of AFCA and has a right to express his opinion, his appearance is neither normal or unusual. Just my two cents.
Deflection. He was complaining "long before" Malzahn was head coach! You know, he started about the time Malzah's offense ripped his nuts off the second half of the 2010 Iron Bowl!
-
A couple of thoughts...
1. Could the rule change actually benefit the HUNH?
The whole purpose of the rule change is to give the defense ten seconds to substitute. That's not a lot of time if you know what goes on with defensive substitutions. They 99% of the time are not giving two shits about their players sucking wind. In fact, most teams keep the same secondary and linebackers on the field the whole game and rarely give those guys breathers. Defensive linemen get changed out more often, but even then, it's usually a big change out by series.
Defensive substitutions happen to match personnel and field situations. 3rd and long? Send in a nickel for a linebacker. 3rd and medium? Send in the quick pass rusher and the nickel for the fat guy and linebacker. They brought in a fullback and a tight end? Let's substitute our fat guys to match their heavy set.
What the ten second rule does is allow the defenses to rush their guys out onto the field and slow down the pace of the drive. Yes, this helps them.
But on defense, you have to read and react. The main reason why a HUNH hurts a defense - especially one like Saban's - is that it's moving too fast to line up correctly, audible the coverage or blitz, get into proper position on the defensive line, get your eyes and head focused presnap, read and react after the snap while running the play.
So they get ten seconds from the time the ball carrier is whistled down.
The offense hurries to the line to get lined up. The defense in ten seconds will have to sprint a new set of legs onto the field and the old, fatigued set of legs off the field. By the time they get into the defensive formation, are they aware of what the offense is doing? Do they have more time or less to get lined up and read and react to the offense? Who would really be better at stopping Malzahn's "Let's run the same successful play as many times in a row until they stop it"? The defensive guys that just faced it or the ones who are sprinting 25 yards onto the field for the first time that drive?
2. The ball carriers will delay the game and the refs will have to be petulant and ridiculous to call a penalty on them.
Artis-Payne hits a six yard run and is tackled near the sideline. According to the rule change, if I'm reading it correctly, that's when the ten second window begins. So Payne holds onto the ball for a second or two while getting himself up. He looks around. "Which ref gets this? Oh you? Wait was it you? Oops sorry I didn't get a good toss to you." The ball bounces around while the ref picks it up. The ref tosses it to the ref that spots the ball. The ten seconds are nearly up, and Auburn's offense is standing all over the field. Gus gives the signal. "Run it! Run it!" Boom. Offense lines up in a new position as soon as the ten seconds are up, hikes it, and the defense still didn't have time to read and react.
3. The bullshit of the "protecting fatigued players" aspect. Sure, Alabama will have fifteen 5 star defensive linemen they can run out there every play, but not every team is Alabama. Most teams only have a two deep to rotate into the game on defense. Even then, their two deep isn't the best option to stop a good offense.
So if they want to keep their players fresh and "uninjured," they'll have to run them onto the field often. In order to get them out there on time with the ability to read and react, they'll be forcing them to sprint 15 yards on and off the field over and over again all while telling them to hurry up, line up, read, react, fight off blockers, chase, tackle, pop up and get ready to do it again.
They will be just as tired running wind sprints as they would be defending their side of the field against a HUNH.
-
I think this has a lot to do with Saban rubbing his NCAA power/connections in a lot of people's noses.
I'll put my AU tinfoil hat on and hang up and listen.
-
I think this has a lot to do with Saban rubbing his NCAA power/connections in a lot of people's noses.
I'll put my AU tinfoil hat on and hang up and listen.
That's honestly the biggest beef I have. This is the first time in twenty years I've seen a football rules committee considering altering the game to benefit the defense. If Tuberville were our coach and this rule change came out of the blue, I'd probably be trying to argue for it if I'm truthful to myself.
But the stink here is that Saban goes on a rant prior to the season about the HUNH being dangerous to defensive players, which everyone laughed off as bullshit. Then he loses two games to fast paced teams and suddenly the NCAA rules committee is considering altering the game to stop HUNH from being so effective, and the short motherfucker got to sit in the room while they discussed it.
And it's not just this. It's just more and more add ons to the ever growing list of "What the fuck, NCAA?" when it comes to Saban and Alabama.
I mean, I could start the list again, but I'm not sure the comment box allows for that many words.
But you know, the Al-Betar case, the Fishing Trip case, the Laptop issue, the Hot Wheelz, the Sticks and Stuff stuff, the Bama booster/Agent issue, the Agent party, the Kidnapping of a Recruit, the never ending smear campaigns, the StruggleOverWit pictures, the Dodge Chargers, the No More Peanut Butter Sandwiches, and the countless others that make everyone but Alabama fans say, "What the fuck, NCAA?"
-
Come on guys...USA Today said Saybinz didn't have a vote. Think of the safety of these poor kids.
-
But the stink here is that Saban goes on a rant prior to the season about the HUNH being dangerous to defensive players, which everyone laughed off as bullshit. Then he loses two games to fast paced teams and suddenly the NCAA rules committee is considering altering the game to stop HUNH from being so effective, and the short motherfucker got to sit in the room while they discussed it.
He didn't JUST sit in on the discussion, he requested to be able to SPEAK to the committee on this subject!
-
You have to be fair to the 350 pound lineman who is just too large to get into proper condition to play more than 2 or 3 plays at a time. If you can't just shuffle him in on 3rd and 1, you're taking food out of his family's mouth.
We have rules protecting our kickers so tiny men can play football, so it's only fair to have rules to protect the morbidly obese who want in the game too.
-
Rich Rod and Leach are beyond pissed.
Knew I liked those guys.
Other I've seen quoted who think it's ridiculous:
Freeze
Briles
Tubs
Rutgers Coach
Mac
Sunbelt
I'm sure there are others.
I'm glad most of the rest of the country sees this for what it is. A ploy by Bilemmia and Sabynz. Just like Scarbo said.
Someone is notably absent from that list...
Also Cowherd is ripping the shit out of this as well. Calling Saban & Beleima out as the bitches they are.
-
IF this rule is changed (and I don't think it will be anytime soon) then they may as well relocate the NCAA headquarters to Tuscaloosa.
Even if it doesn't change now, the fact that it is being considered is concerning. A movement for change has to start somewhere.
At the rate we are going with rules changes, I seriously may not follow the game in 10 years. It's already like the QB is playing flag in many respects.
-
Someone is notably absent from that list...
Also Cowherd is ripping the shit out of this as well. Calling Saban & Beleima out as the bitches they are.
Saw where Sumlin and Butch had statements today blasting it. I would imagine Meyer, Jimbo, Spurrier, Petrino, Holgerson and Gundy will too if they haven't already.
The only people I can really see being for this shit are Bama and the Big Ten.
-
Saw where Sumlin and Butch had statements today blasting it. I would imagine Meyer, Jimbo, Spurrier, Petrino, Holgerson and Gundy will too if they haven't already.
The only people I can really see being for this shoot are Bama and the Big Ten fat teams.
-
IF this rule is changed (and I don't think it will be anytime soon) then they may as well relocate the NCAA headquarters to Tuscaloosa.
Everything I read seems to indicate that the rules committee (which knows nothing about the game and will only consider "safety issues") will most likely rubber stamp it.
-
ok, this is even more concerning. Do you think that some little known coach on the rules committee from SW Baptist Texas tech might be enamored with Saban, who just happens to pop into the room for this discussion? Do you think Saban swings enough weight to be able to help out this kids career a few years from now with a phone call?
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/02/whos_on_ncaa_football_rules_co.html#incart_flyout_sports (http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/02/whos_on_ncaa_football_rules_co.html#incart_flyout_sports)
Who's on NCAA football rules committee? Not many people who run a lot of plays
Print
Jon Solomon | jsolomon@al.com By Jon Solomon | jsolomon@al.com
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on February 14, 2014 at 11:41 A
The idea to slow down hurry-up offenses in the name of safety has brought new attention to the NCAA Football Rules Committee, which originated the proposal. There is significant skepticism about whether the science exists to enforce this rule now.
Which begs the question: Who exactly is on this football rules committee?
They're a 12-person collection of of coaches, school administrators, and conference officials. None of them come from one of the five major conferences in college football. And collectively their schools and conferences run less tempo than the national average.
Offensive play numbers suggest that defensive-minded coaches Nick Saban and Bret Bielema stated their slow-the-tempo case to a committee that doesn't fully represent the evolution of football.
Nine of the 12 committee members represent schools or conferences whose offense ran fewer plays than the 2013 national average of their respective NCAA division. Five of the six coaches on the committee ran fewer plays than their divisional average.
Two of the coaches -- committee chair and Air Force coach Troy Calhoun and New Haven coach Peter Rossomando -- were significantly below their division average by more than four plays per game. Air Force, which went 2-10 last season out of the Mountain West, averaged 67.6 plays and was well below its conference's nation-high average of 76.1.
Football Rules Committee Members and Plays Per Game
Alfred White, C-USA assoc. commissioner 71.4 71.8 (FBS) Not applicable
Todd Berry, Louisiana-Monroe coach 71.7 71.8 (FBS) 6-6
Troy Calhoun, Air Force coach 67.6 71.8 (FBS) 2-10
Ken Beazer, Southern Utah AD 66.5 70.5 (FCS) 8-5
Thomas Yeager, Colonial Athletic Association commissioner 70.4 70.5 (FCS) Not applicable
Robert Nielson, Western Illinois coach 72.4 70.5 (FCS) 4-8
David Sharp, Ouachita Baptist AD 75.9 71.8 (Division II) 7-3
Keith Allen, Southwest Baptist coach 69.2 71.8 (Division II) 1-10
Peter Rossomando, New Haven coach 62.4 71.8 (Division II) 8-3
Gregory Wallace, Grinnell College AD 68.5 70.6 (Division III) 2-8
Michael Mattia, Johns Hopkins associate AD 81.1 70.6 (Division III) 10-1
Brian Surace, Fairleigh Dickinson coach 69.3 70.6 (Division III) 1-9
Note: Plays per game for committee members who represent conferences were taken from their conference average, not an individual school.
NCAA rules state the committee must be represented of six Division I members, three Division II members (including two coaches), and three Division III members. Five of the 12 current members have their term expire in September, when the proposed rule would go into effect: White, Beazer, Sharp, Allen and Wallace. Only Sharp, whose school exceeds his division's plays per game average, is eligible for reappointment among those five members who roll off.
The proposal must still be approved on March 6 by the NCAA Rules Oversight Panel, which consists of these members.
-
Everything I read seems to indicate that the rules committee (which knows nothing about the game and will only consider "safety issues") will most likely rubber stamp it.
According to the article, it appears there is also an oversight committee. Will be interesting to see who is on this. I hope it's more than 12 people.
-
According to the article, it appears there is also an oversight committee. Will be interesting to see who is on this. I hope it's more than 12 people.
Nope. Three people.
Nick Saban
Mark Emmert
Paul Finebaum
-
Oversight committee is a joke.
-
I would be ashamed to call myself a bama fan, if I were one. uat has a coach that's one of the biggest crybaby pussies in the Country that he had to go behind the AFCA's back and try to get this rule passed. uat fans, y'all realize y'all are now linked with the fat crybaby that everyone was, and still is, making fun of, Bret Beliema.
(http://www.nevertoyieldfoundation.com/images/baby_coaches.jpg)
Maybe the committee should get the opinion of a DC that's better than those two whiny babies...someone that's been around and doesn't piss all over themselves when there's a change to the opposing offenses. I'm talking about Auburn's DC Ellis Johnson.
-
Nope. Three people.
Nick Saban
Mark Emmert
Paul Finebaum
I call bullshit. Nick Saban can't see over anything
-
So, since there doesn't need to be any evidence to support a player safety issue rule change, it's common sense that a LB weighing over 215 is too dangerous to tackle runners or blitz.
-
Pinched -n- Pasted from Mark Bradley @ teh ajc. I am a gay twerker that has no balls!!!! I also have no idea how to use the quote function to post stories, so I annoy the piss out of others. I like male genatalia in and around my mouth.
We’re about to see if Nick Saban really does run college football. (You know, the way Mike Krzyzewski, who like Saban has four national championships, runs college basketball.) Ralph D. Russo of the Associated Press reports that King Crimson — along with Arkansas coach Bret Bielema — “voiced their concerns about the effects of up-tempo, no-huddle offenses on player safety to the NCAA committee that passed a proposal to slow down those attacks.â€
The AP also quoted NCAA coordinator of officials Rogers Redding — who used to be the SEC’s coordinator of officials; the SEC office is based in, er, Alabama — as saying: “Coach Saban asked for the opportunity to meet with the committee and talk about this. It’s not routine, but it’s not unique, either.â€
The NCAA rules committee passed a proposal Wednesday that a rule be implemented that would allow defenses to substitute over the first 10 seconds of the 40-second play clock and would penalize any offense that snaps the ball before the play clock reaches 29 seconds for delay of game. (Quicker snaps would be allowed in the final two minutes of the first half and the final five of the second.)
As has been voluminously noted, Saban’s Alabama suffered its first loss in more than a calendar year when it was beaten by Auburn, one of those hurry-up crews, on Nov. 30, 2013. (Then again, if Bama hadn’t itself been in a hurry to try a 57-yard field goal on the game’s final play, it might have won in overtime.) But this rage against the hurriers has been boiling up in Saban, a defensive man by trade, for a while.
According to Andrew Solomon of Al.com, Saban spoke out against the hurryin’ in October 2012, after Alabama played go-faster Ole Miss, which would lead the SEC in plays per game in 2013. He mentioned his concern for player safety. He also said: “I just think there has to be some sense of fairness in terms of asking, ‘Is this what we want the game to be?’ “
And now he has made his pitch to the rules committee, which has passed its goofy proposal — again we note the incongruity of a team trying its hardest not to dally being called for delay — along to the playing rules oversight panel, which convenes March 6, for final approval. (Noted the AP: “Redding said it’s not a rubber-stamp panel, but more often than not it approves proposals.â€)
Reaction from the hurry-up coaches, of which there are many, has been incredulous. This from Oklahoma State’s Mike Gundy, to whom incredulity comes easy:
Yes, there’s raging self-interest all around. The hurriers want nothing to halt their hurryin’. The older-school guys want their players to have the chance to compose themselves and align themselves properly. But that part about safety is a fairly thin limb. Here’s AP again: “Redding said the proposal was not made based on a study of data. ‘I can’t say there is hard physical evidence,’ he said. ‘It’s more common sense.’ “
Actually, it’s a case of the game’s most powerful coach seeking to exercise his imperial power to regain a competitive advantage. Given a chance to read and react, Alabama’s defense is apt to win on most plays. Pare the read/react time and it’s a closer call. Put simply, the coach who almost gets his way wants to get it again.
This is not, it must be noted, anything new. Duke’s Krzyzewski has essentially ruled the ACC for years, and before him North Carolina’s Dean Smith did. (When Krzyzewski was still relatively new at Duke, he famously raged against the “double standard†— meaning ragingly pro-Carolina officiating– that existed in that league. How times change, huh?)
In his autobiography, the late Jim Valvano reported that lesser ACC coaches would seek to tweak El Deano wherever they could. When assessing officiating at their summer meeting, Valvano wrote, the other coaches would take note if Smith praised a given referee — and then they’d vote to blackball him. Heh, heh.
-
Everything I read seems to indicate that the rules committee (which knows nothing about the game and will only consider "safety issues") will most likely rubber stamp it.
The thing is? Logic would lead me to say "Well, that's incredibly stupid. No way something like that would pass." You've got to snap the ball before 10 seconds, but not too much before 10 seconds. How would that even be enforced? And by this rule, you could line up 20 guys on the defensive side of the ball, as long as only 11 were on the field by 10 seconds. It's just an asinine rule for so many reasons.
But throw all that out the window when you consider the horrible targeting rule, and even more terrible way in which it was subjectively enforced. I don't put any of this shit past them anymore. Throw in the fact that it is only even being considered because Saban Almighty hath spoken, and I have my doubts they won't bow to his commands.
-
I cannot believe Saban may actually ramrod this horseshit through. Well, I guess I can believe he's trying it and that he's this close. But, if he actually pulls it off, I hope the dissent has a plan. I mean like a major plan. Boycott games, whatevah. Go nuclear. It's time. We cannot stand for this, imo.
If there were a shred of evidence from a credible study, it should be considered. It should not even be discussed until several different outside groups study the data.
-
THS makes some really good points. The 10 second clock starts when play is considered dead. If the play gained a 1st down, then sabbin will want his heavy package back on the field, instead of possibly his nickel package. So, his fat ass linemen will have to do wind sprints nearly every other play. There have been times, in the past, where the refs don't even spot the ball before 10 seconds have run off after the play is dead. So, by the 3rd qtr, it's possible that uat's linemen will be suckin wind because they'll have run the equivalent of 5 50 yard wind sprints, just by substituting.
If you happen to be a team that substitutes on a regular basis, like Auburn, it isn't going to affect you at all.
-
THS makes some really good points. The 10 second clock starts when play is considered dead. If the play gained a 1st down, then sabbin will want his heavy package back on the field, instead of possibly his nickel package. So, his fat ass linemen will have to do wind sprints nearly every other play. There have been times, in the past, where the refs don't even spot the ball before 10 seconds have run off after the play is dead. So, by the 3rd qtr, it's possible that uat's linemen will be suckin wind because they'll have run the equivalent of 5 50 yard wind sprints, just by substituting.
If you happen to be a team that substitutes on a regular basis, like Auburn, it isn't going to affect you at all.
(https://cupitonians.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/youre-goddamn-right-gif.gif?w=560)
-
THS makes some really good points. The 10 second clock starts when play is considered dead. If the play gained a 1st down, then sabbin will want his heavy package back on the field, instead of possibly his nickel package. So, his fat ass linemen will have to do wind sprints nearly every other play. There have been times, in the past, where the refs don't even spot the ball before 10 seconds have run off after the play is dead. So, by the 3rd qtr, it's possible that uat's linemen will be suckin wind because they'll have run the equivalent of 5 50 yard wind sprints, just by substituting.
If you happen to be a team that substitutes on a regular basis, like Auburn, it isn't going to affect you at all.
I'm not as concerned about it affecting the game as I am the message it sends. You think Alabama is bending the rules now? Watch out and see how the find new ways to recruit and not get called for holding ever.
-
The 10 second clock starts when play is considered dead.
thats not how I understand the rule at all.....I thought it meant 10 seconds off the Play Clock, not 10 seconds in general.
-
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/02/ncaa-football-rule-change-fear-morning-win/ (http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/02/ncaa-football-rule-change-fear-morning-win/)
Fear is the only thing driving a proposed NCAA football rule change
By Nate Scott
February 14, 2014 7:39 am ET
Jayne Kamin-Oncea-USA TODAY Sports
Today’s Big Winner: People who fear change in college football
It almost reads like a satire headline when you actually write it out, but this is true: The NCAA Football Rules Committee discussed a possible rule change that would make it so that offenses had to wait 10 seconds each play before they snapped the ball. If they didn’t wait 10 seconds, they would be penalized five yards.
High-tempo offenses? Gone. No more. Not when a penalty awaits anyone who dares speed up the gentlemanly pace of a football game.
The logic behind the rule change is that it’s for player safety.
From George Schroeder’s USA TODAY Sports article:
The reasoning behind the proposed change, according to Louisiana-Monroe coach Todd Berry, a member of the committee, is safety. The more plays in a game, the greater the risk of injury. Or so goes the theory, which Berry calls “common senseâ€.
Eh, I mean, yeah? If there are less plays in a football game, there are less opportunities for people to get injured. Of course, by that logic, the best way to prevent any injuries is for no plays to happen.
Auburn had one of the fastest offenses this year and they and their opponents averaged roughly 143 plays per game total. Alabama, with their more methodical offense, averaged about 124 total plays in their games. Is there any data that suggests 19 extra total plays a game significantly increases injury risk?
It’s a bizarre logic, especially when there’s no data showing that injuries increase in those extra plays but a heck of a lot of data that shows that fast-pace football is a significant advantage to some teams.
It also exposes a hypocrisy in some of these defense-first, “old school†college football coaches, who are shouting about player safety when it comes to the amount of time offenses have to hike the ball and then in the next interview will decry that the game is changing and defenders aren’t allowed to hit like they used to.
Again, there’s just no data out there, at least not that any of these coaches have seen, that suggests that extra plays in a game significantly increases injury risk. But there is a lot of data that suggest defenders hitting people in the head does pose a significant injury risk.
Here’s the thing, though. This proposed rule change has little to do with player safety. It has a lot more to do with the fact that defense-first teams are tired of the Auburns and the Oregons of the world speeding up the play and tiring out their defenses. With a new rule demanding a 10-second delay for offenses to snap the ball, a coach like Nick Saban can get four new pass rushers onto the field for every down, thus negating a major advantage for the offense.
Again, from Schroeder:
“If somebody presents proof that it’s a huge safety concern, that’s something different,†[Ole Miss coach Hugh] Freeze said. “But if it’s just so we can rotate four fresh defensive linemen in against your offensive line that’s not being rotated, I’m not a fan of that.â€
And there it is. Show us the data that suggests 20 or so extra plays a game significantly increases injury risk, and maybe we’ll listen. For now, though, this sounds like a rule-change proposed in the name of safety that cares little about safety and more about protecting coaches who liked football the way it used to be played.
And besides, if more plays is a greater risk of injury, wouldn’t it make more sense just to shorten the game?
-
Best piece I've seen yet.
http://www.collegeandmagnolia.com/2014/2/14/5409262/10-second-rule-nick-saban-bret-bielema-gus-malzahn (http://www.collegeandmagnolia.com/2014/2/14/5409262/10-second-rule-nick-saban-bret-bielema-gus-malzahn)
-
Isn't Mar 6th the big day? The day that we find out if the NCAA headquarters should relocate from Indy to Tuscaloosa.
-
After reading and listening and thinking about the rule change, I don't think the actual rule change is a big deal for us at all.
We ran zero plays within the ten second window that they're thinking of opening up for defensive substitution. We also substitute a good bit throughout the game. Further, if defenses are trying to run guys on and off the field within ten seconds and get them lined up correctly as the ball is being snapped, I actually think that would benefit the offense more than the defense.
But this rule change is about precedent. As someone mentioned in an exaggeration, what else can Nick Saban ask for in the name of safety or in the spirit of competition? What further precedent will this set in allowing defenses time to substitute and get lined up correctly?
First it's a ten second window. Five years from now, it's a ten second window for substitutions and a five second window for presnap reads.
You know, because a defensive linemen not being in a proper stance ready for the play is a sure-fire way to get PTSD and commit a murder suicide on his family.
-
After reading and listening and thinking about the rule change, I don't think the actual rule change is a big deal for us at all.
We ran zero plays within the ten second window that they're thinking of opening up for defensive substitution. We also substitute a good bit throughout the game. Further, if defenses are trying to run guys on and off the field within ten seconds and get them lined up correctly as the ball is being snapped, I actually think that would benefit the offense more than the defense.
But this rule change is about precedent. As someone mentioned in an exaggeration, what else can Nick Saban ask for in the name of safety or in the spirit of competition? What further precedent will this set in allowing defenses time to substitute and get lined up correctly?
First it's a ten second window. Five years from now, it's a ten second window for substitutions and a five second window for presnap reads.
You know, because a defensive linemen not being in a proper stance ready for the play is a sure-fire way to get PTSD and commit a murder suicide on his family.
This isn't the point with most of us. It's the fact that they will be able to substitute and HUNH teams will lose the advantage of tiring out the DL. I think it is a big deal for that reason alone.
-
I'm going to laugh my ass off the first time a big fat D lineman pulls a hammy running sprints from the sideline trying to get lined up in 10 seconds.
-
We ran zero plays within the ten second window that they're thinking of opening up for defensive substitution.
Not true. Had this rule been used during the bowl game, we would have been flagged twice for it.
-
This isn't the point with most of us. It's the fact that they will be able to substitute and HUNH teams will lose the advantage of tiring out the DL. I think it is a big deal for that reason alone.
I didn't read all how many every pages, but got the gist. Saban can choke on a bag of dicks Fucking crybaby fucker. This would be historic in scope if it passes. Maybe few plays are run in the 10 sec window. Big fucking deal. Point is, they can be if you want to. I have heard this potential rule change discussed over and over, and have yet to hear anybody remind us that the current rules already allow the ref to hold the ball for play to allow the defense to sub if the offense subs. Maybe already noted in this thread. Why the fuck should he defense be able to sub if the offense hasn't? Can't do that in basketball. If you have the ball you can call timeout if you need to sub that bad in b-ball. This is pure and simple a way to erode the advantage that the offense has enjoyed since the dawn of football time...the ability to know exactly when the ball will be snapped. It's only been in recent years that the offense have chosen to take advantage of that advantage in the way the HUNH does. NO data supports the "safety issue" argument. NONE. It's fucking whining and moaning by defensive coaches that are tired of having to adapt, and want the ability to play specialized defense. You know how you stop the HUNH? You line up in a sound base defense that your players don't have to think to much about, and play gap sound and coverage sound. HUNH offenses are incredibly basic scheme-wise. Auburn ran the inside zone play 60% + of the time this year. We gashed bammer 3 times straight in one possession of the IB running the tried and true counter trey.
I've heard coaches all my life talk about how their team is going to out last the other in the 4th Q. Well Saban...your vaunted off season program, and maybe your thoughts on the recruitment of certain types of players on defense needs to adapt. Defenses had to change schematically to stop the wishbone, and they changed the type of personnel and schemes when Spurrier started throwing the ball all over the yard. So Saban, quit crying, adapt, and coach. Pretty simple stuff really.
-
Not true. Had this rule been used during the bowl game, we would have been flagged twice for it.
I.E. "Not that much".
Considering that we weren't playing under those rules, I suspect the whole two plays where it would have affected our offense could have been run a little faster.
Again, though, that's not the point. The point is 1) Saban has way way way too much power and 2) The NCAA is ruining football to the point where any bullshit allegation of safety, no matter how unsubstantiated and not based in fact whatsoever is enough to make major changes to the game.
-
I.E. "Not that much".
Considering that we weren't playing under those rules, I suspect the whole two plays where it would have affected our offense could have been run a little faster.
Again, though, that's not the point. The point is 1) Saban has way way way too much power and 2) The NCAA is ruining football to the point where any bullshoot allegation of safety, no matter how unsubstantiated and not based in fact whatsoever is enough to make major changes to the game.
The talk of this rule only affecting a limited number of plays is not correct, imo. The effect of this rule (were it applied last season) wouldn't pertain to only the plays that we snapped faster than the 10 seconds. It applies to every offensive snap that we did not substitute on. That's where the biggest impact is. It's not about the timing of the snaps, it's about the ability to substitute. That's also one huge advantage that Gus takes advantage of with mismatches, out of position players and tired players.
No matter how this is spun, it would hurt us and help Bama.
-
No matter how this is spun, it would hurt us and help Bama.
Al I need to know...
-
After reading and listening and thinking about the rule change, I don't think the actual rule change is a big deal for us at all.
We ran zero plays within the ten second window that they're thinking of opening up for defensive substitution. We also substitute a good bit throughout the game. Further, if defenses are trying to run guys on and off the field within ten seconds and get them lined up correctly as the ball is being snapped, I actually think that would benefit the offense more than the defense.
It will be a big deal for no huddle offenses. One of the reasons Gus was effective is because when he found something in the defense, he exploited it. It may not have happened every series, but there are times when an opponent is in nickle or dime and Gus calls a run. We pick up yardage and he wants it again...With the old rules, the defense has to pretty much stay in their personel package until there is an offensive substitution. It doesn't matter if they snap it with 35 seconds left to go on the play clock, or 5 seconds. It's the threat of the offense snapping that prevents the defense from substituting.
Also, Gus likes to get on the ball and make the defense get in their positions. He may not snap the ball immediately, but the defensive players have to bust there ass back to their starting positions just in case. If the defense knows that there is 10 seconds before anything can happen, then they can relax a bit. Gus doesn't like any mother fucker being able to relax.
This is all bullshit and it will effect the strategy for Auburn...
-
http://www.nola.com/lsu/index.ssf/2014/02/saban_backdoors_the_rest_of_co.html (http://www.nola.com/lsu/index.ssf/2014/02/saban_backdoors_the_rest_of_co.html)
New Orleans media ripping Saban's asshole apart as well.
Saban backdoors the rest of college football: Ron's Fast Break
Nick Saban will talk to anyone who will listen about changing defensive substitution rules to slow no-huddle, fastbreak offenses (Chris Granger, Nola.com | The Times-Picayune)
Ron Higgins, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
February 17, 2014 at 11:08 AM
It's not surprising that Alabama football coach Nick Saban tried to run a backdoor play by quietly meeting with the NCAA football rules committee in Indianapolis recently.
What's shocking is he didn't try to persuade the committee to propose a ban preventing missed field goals from being returned.
Can I have a rimshot please? Thank you, you're a great audience. Stick around for my late show.
Seriously, Saban's clandestine meet with the committee, resulting in successfully persuading it to propose a defensive substitution rule that would slow down no-huddle, uptempo offenses, shouldn't raise eyebrows.
The Nicktator has been complaining about this since coaches Kevin Sumlin of Texas A&M and Hugh Freeze of Ole Miss showed up in the SEC two seasons ago. Their frenetic pace of play was apparently too uncomfortable for Saban's extremely talented defenses to handle at times.
Saban surely got completely pushed over the edge last year when no-huddle-lovin' Gus Malzahn set up shop nearby as Auburn's coach, and came within seconds of guiding the Tigers to the BCS national championship.
The rules committee proposal, which must be approved by the playing rules oversight panel that meets March 6 and would be effective in the upcoming season, would allow defensive players to substitute within the first 10 seconds of the 40-second play clock, except for the final two minutes of each half.
Offenses snapping the ball before 29 seconds remain on the play clock would receive a 5-yard delay-of-game penalty.
Current rules state that defensive players aren't guaranteed the opportunity to substitute unless the offense first substitutes. Under the proposal, this policy would remain when the play clock starts at 25 seconds.
The constant argument of Saban, Arkansas' coach Bret Bielema and other coaches that don't like defending no-huddle is that the lack of the right to substitute defensively causes fatigue that leads to increased injuries.
The instantaneous reply of coaches like Freeze is, "Where's the data that proves this?"
Actually, there is none supporting Saban and his cronies who want to slow play Sumlin, Freeze and other coaches like Arizona's Rich Rodriguez who enjoy playing fast-break football.
Interestingly enough, there is data on a website called cfbmatrix.com that supports the fastbreak coaches more so than the slowhands like Saban, Bielema and the rest of the steady-as-she-goes crew.
Dave Bartoo, a 42-year old who works in bank and credit union mergers, is an analytical expert who apparently spends all his free time breaking down college football.
Some of the things Bartoo found studying injuries in relation to pace of play blows Saban's and Bielema's argument out of the boat.
A smidgen of Bartoo's data revealed:
From 2010-2012, Saban's Alabama teams and Bielema's Wisconsin teams (before he came to Arkansas last season) were both in the bottom 10 nationally of plays per game generated on offense and faced on defense. Saban and Bielema lost a combined 95 starts to injury, with 44 of those, less than half, on defense.
From 2010-2012 Alabama lost a total of 30 starts to injury. Twenty-one of those were players on Alabama's bottom five slow pace of play offense. The nine games that Alabama defensive players lost to injury in that three-year period was the lowest total on any defense of teams that automatically qualified to play in a BCS bowl.
The other five teams (before league expansion) in the SEC West, that all played against the physical and methodically punishing Alabama offense, averaged 25.2 starts lost to injury over the same time period.
From 2009-2010 an SEC team played in an average of 162 snaps per game. In 2011-2012 the average dropped to 160. In spite of the slower pace, SEC teams lost 184 more starts to injury from 2011-2012 than they did in 2009-2010. Exactly 55% of the '11-'12 starts lost were on offense.
So considering all this, will the rules oversight committee send the message to Saban and other coaches sharing his view that their argument has no legs? They should shoot down the proposal, shouldn't they?
What has made most coaches hot under their whistles is this proposal was never discussed during last month's American Football Coaches of Association convention.
Not one peep. Nothing.
Bielema was at the rules committee meeting in Indianapolis as a representative of the American Football Coaches Association.
Saban was there representing Saban.
In Saban's heart, he truly believes the reasons for his concern, his willingness to fight the good fight.
But to most of college football, it appears extremely self-serving.
-
By the way, Finebaum is spinning the ever-loving shit out of this.
Paraphrasing, but basically he said that everyone wants to blame Saban, but the bottom line is he's the most influential and prestigious mind in college football, so the NCAA rules committee reached out to him and asked him to write a letter pleading his case. It was so impressive that they asked him to join the meeting. He didn't want to attend, but begrudgingly, he did.
Ppppfffffffttttt. What a steaming pile of bullshit. The spin job is truly a spectacle to behold.
Never mind that the NCAA coordinator of officials Rogers Redding and rules chairman Troy Calhoun both said Saban specifically asked to meet with committee and they in NO WAY reached out to him. Finebaum is angrily shouting down anyone who dare challenge him on his "sources".
-
It will be a big deal for no huddle offenses. One of the reasons Gus was effective is because when he found something in the defense, he exploited it. It may not have happened every series, but there are times when an opponent is in nickle or dime and Gus calls a run. We pick up yardage and he wants it again...With the old rules, the defense has to pretty much stay in their personel package until there is an offensive substitution. It doesn't matter if they snap it with 35 seconds left to go on the play clock, or 5 seconds. It's the threat of the offense snapping that prevents the defense from substituting.
Also, Gus likes to get on the ball and make the defense get in their positions. He may not snap the ball immediately, but the defensive players have to bust there ass back to their starting positions just in case. If the defense knows that there is 10 seconds before anything can happen, then they can relax a bit. Gus doesn't like any mother fucker being able to relax.
This is all bullshit and it will effect the strategy for Auburn...
This post ^^. All of it.
-
Saban is a pussy. That is all.
-
Pinched -n- Pasted from Mark Bradley @ teh ajc. I am a gay twerker that has no balls!!!! I also have no idea how to use the quote function to post stories, so I annoy the piss out of others. I like male genatalia in and around my mouth.
We’re about to see if Nick Saban really does run college football.
This guy runs college football.
(http://www.ecob.org/images/GDAward1.JPG)
-
It will be a big deal for no huddle offenses. One of the reasons Gus was effective is because when he found something in the defense, he exploited it. It may not have happened every series, but there are times when an opponent is in nickle or dime and Gus calls a run. We pick up yardage and he wants it again...With the old rules, the defense has to pretty much stay in their personel package until there is an offensive substitution. It doesn't matter if they snap it with 35 seconds left to go on the play clock, or 5 seconds. It's the threat of the offense snapping that prevents the defense from substituting.
Also, Gus likes to get on the ball and make the defense get in their positions. He may not snap the ball immediately, but the defensive players have to bust there ass back to their starting positions just in case. If the defense knows that there is 10 seconds before anything can happen, then they can relax a bit. Gus doesn't like any mother fucker being able to relax.
This is all bullshit and it will effect the strategy for Auburn...
Yep
-
I think it's funny that the coach who is the guru of the HUNH, the coach whose implementation of the HUHN has chapped Sabbinz ass twice, the man himself...
Ain't sayin a word. Just sitting back, chomping fast on some Dubble Bubble, and grinning like the mad genius he is while others do all the talking for him.
Like John Carvallho said - Saban has finally given all the other coaches the perfect opportunity to vent their true feelings about him, his heavy handedness, his flouting of the rules, his assholishness, etc.
-
I think it's funny that the coach who is the guru of the HUNH, the coach whose implementation of the HUHN has chapped Sabbinz ass twice, the man himself...
Ain't sayin a word. Just sitting back, chomping fast on some Dubble Bubble, and grinning like the mad genius he is while others do all the talking for him.
Like John Carvallho said - Saban has finally given all the other coaches the perfect opportunity to vent their true feelings about him, his heavy handedness, his flouting of the rules, his assholishness, etc.
Gus breaks his silence:
http://www.al.com/auburnfootball/index.ssf/2014/02/watch_auburns_gus_malzahn_offe.html (http://www.al.com/auburnfootball/index.ssf/2014/02/watch_auburns_gus_malzahn_offe.html)
-
Gus breaks his silence:
http://www.al.com/auburnfootball/index.ssf/2014/02/watch_auburns_gus_malzahn_offe.html (http://www.al.com/auburnfootball/index.ssf/2014/02/watch_auburns_gus_malzahn_offe.html)
OH HOW I LOVE COACH GUS.
"The only way to change a rule in an off year is for health or safety and since there is no evidence that this is a health or safety issue, it should be tabled until next year."
BOOM!
And he was unaware that this was being brought before the committee. Sneaky bastards.
Didn't rise to the obvious attempts to get him to bash Saban.
-
After a short 10 second pause, Gus stated, "The only way to change a rule in an off year is for health or safety and since there is no evidence that this is a health or safety issue, it should be tabled until next year."
-
I was hoping for a 2 minute video of Gus saying FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!
-
From ESPN's Bret McMurphy via Twitter.
Troy Calhoun, chairman of rules committee on 10-second proposal: "Only way should be a rule is if it’s a safety rule"
Troy Calhoun: “If (safety reasons are) speculative, shouldn’t be a rule"
Troy Calhoun: “Is there a legitimate safety concern, let’s address it. If not, there should be no (10 second) rule"
-
From ESPN's Bret McMurphy via Twitter.
I hope you're a tweetin' this up. Public opinion in our favor can't hurt.
-
I hope you're a tweetin' this up. Public opinion in our favor can't hurt.
You dare question Chizzy's twatters??
That's a good way to get in a battle.
-
I'll tweet that mofo. You got a tweeter I can borrow?
-
I'll tweet that mofo. You got a tweeter I can borrow?
No but I have a ... never mind.
-
The little man in the canoe.
-
CGM made a simple statement, "There is no documented proof.."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIUOAZwB8ss#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIUOAZwB8ss#ws)
-
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10478887/ncaa-football-rules-committee-troy-calhoun-backtracks-slowdown-proposal (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10478887/ncaa-football-rules-committee-troy-calhoun-backtracks-slowdown-proposal)
Rules chairman: We need solid proof
Updated: February 18, 2014, 10:15 PM ET
By David Ching
Troy Calhoun is willing to take measures to slow down college offenses, but only if he sees hard evidence that defending an up-tempo offense creates genuine health risks.
Six days after asserting a rule change would be made "to enhance student-athlete safety by guaranteeing a small window for both teams to substitute," the Air Force coach and NCAA Football Rules Committee chairman backtracked in a conference call with reporters, saying he has seen no such data.
"The key is this: I think the only way that it can or it should become a rule is if it is indeed a safety concern. And that can't be something that's a speculation or a possibility," Calhoun said Tuesday afternoon. "I think there's got to be something empirical there where you realize, 'Yep, this truly is a health matter' in terms of not being able to get a defensive player off the field."
A few coaches of teams that use no-huddle, hurry-up offenses -- which are becoming more and more common at the FBS level -- immediately blasted the proposed substitution rules change, saying its only intention is to slow them down, Mark Schlabach writes. Story
Calhoun hasn't seen such data because it doesn't exist, according to Auburn coach Gus Malzahn, one of many hurry-up, no-huddle proponents who became outraged last week when the committee proposed a controversial rule aimed at slowing down such offensive schemes -- a measure allegedly intended to improve player safety.
"There's absolutely zero documented evidence that is hazardous on the pace of play, only opinions," Malzahn told reporters Tuesday.
The proposed rule would prevent offenses from snapping the ball within the first 10 seconds after the 40-second play clock resets, allowing a defense to substitute even if the offense does not. Alabama coach Nick Saban and Arkansas' Bret Bielema reportedly addressed Calhoun's committee last week, urging members to support such a measure because of player safety concerns.
Malzahn said that would be a "huge change" for teams like Auburn that use an up-tempo attack, and he is one of many coaches who claim the rule change would needlessly remove some of the competitive advantage that comes with operating at a high speed.
"It's just a complete rule change," Malzahn said. "It would change the dynamics of traditional football in a lot more ways than anyone would think, not just if you get behind by a couple touchdowns and it's late in the game and you couldn't properly come back, but the way you'd coach your quarterbacks. It would just change the dynamics of football."
The rule proposal will not go into effect unless passed March 6 by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel, which will discuss all of the committee's proposed changes. Coaches on either side of the discussion have until March 3 to comment or present any evidence that supports their safety claims.
"I think more than anything else, you just want to make certain that what are some facts you can lean on. And if there's some certainty that there's a concern, then yep, push it forward as a rule proposal," Calhoun said. "If it's not, and try to take the next 10 days or so and kind of what you gather from experts and they say, 'No, at this time it's only speculative,' then the rule should not get pushed up, should not be a rule because now it's not a safety concern."
The NCAA did not designate this as an offseason where rules changes could be made, with the exception being any that relate to player safety. Malzahn said he encouraged the committee chairman to table discussion over the rule until next offseason rather than make a possibly premature decision in two weeks.
"What I asked [Calhoun] to do was move this to next year, where it is a rule-change year, that we can hear both sides and have a healthy debate on moving forward with the rule."
Calhoun said the committee discussed several options, such as adding an extra timeout, that might help prevent player injuries by making it easier for defenses to substitute. He said a trainer from the U.S. Military Academy also addressed the committee regarding a variety of medical issues.
The heated reaction to the rule proposal convinced Calhoun that it would be advisable to have more widespread involvement with his committee, which includes six coaches and six administrators who represent all levels of NCAA football.
"I think what you learn, especially after going through this, is I think you need to have more and more coaches involved in terms of possibilities," Calhoun said. "Probably the other thing too is just, if it really is a safety matter, to have more medical people present too."
-
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10478887/ncaa-football-rules-committee-troy-calhoun-backtracks-slowdown-proposal (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10478887/ncaa-football-rules-committee-troy-calhoun-backtracks-slowdown-proposal)
Looks to me, if that guy has any say, that it won't pass this year because there's not the first shred of solid data to show it's a safety issue.
Make no mistake, the movement is on to slow football down. All the pro-sabbinz fucktards have rationalized every reason in the world why slowing football down is a good idea (now they've added the argument that refs can't get set in time to call the game correctly, which allows Auburn to cheat with linemen down field on pass plays and not get called for it), and why their coach isn't a fucking crybaby loser.
-
First off, if there was zero data to support this being a player safety issue, why even put the rule in front of the committee for a vote in the first place? Troy Calhoun supports the rule...it's brought to his attention that player safety has nothing to do with it and there's not one shred of evidence to even suggest otherwise....now he can't support it. :thumsup:
And to JR's point about Lord Saybinz' minions coming up with every rationalization to support it...where were these arguments before LS whined about it? It wasn't an issue for anybody until the exalted one complained. Even had one Bama fan call our local show and say it has to be slowed down because every play is supposed to be reviewed. HUNH teams are trying to cheat by running a play before the last one can be reviewed.
-
First off, if there was zero data to support this being a player safety issue, why even put the rule in front of the committee for a vote in the first place?
Because Saban. Duh. Bitch gets what he wants, a'ight?
-
All the pro-sabbinz fucktards have rationalized every reason in the world why slowing football down is a good idea (now they've added the argument that refs can't get set in time to call the game correctly, which allows Auburn to cheat with linemen down field on pass plays and not get called for it), and why their coach isn't a fucking crybaby loser.
Example of a pro-sabbinz fucktard >>
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2014-02-18/nick-saban-proposed-10-second-clock-rule-alabama-crimson-tide-advantage-ncaa (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2014-02-18/nick-saban-proposed-10-second-clock-rule-alabama-crimson-tide-advantage-ncaa)
Nick Saban looking for help? Not buying it
Published Tuesday, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:57 pm EST
Matt Hayes Sporting News
This is what happens when you’re on top and everyone is chasing.
This is what happens when there’s a fresh cut and everyone smells blood.
Here we are, standing on the corner of hyperbole and hypertension, and everyone is throwing stones at poor little Nicky.
Let me ask all of you swirling in the outrage and pompous politicking of it all: do you really think Nick Saban needs another advantage?
Do you really think the best coach in college football; the guy who recruits better than any coach; the guy with the highest-paid staff in the game; the guy who has won three of the last five national championships (and was damn near close to winning five straight), is suddenly worried about an offensive system that threatens his very existence?
That he’s so consumed by fixing what’s broken (what is exactly broken at Alabama?), he’d strong-arm the American Football Coaches Association rules committee into an absolutely ridiculous 10-second penalty box for tempo offenses (it’s an awful, proposed rule that won’t pass) just to make sure he can continue to convince 5-star high school phenoms to come to Tuscaloosa and sit behind other 5-star phenoms like game day traffic on the 459 from Birmingham?
You can’t be that simple-minded. You can’t be that eager, that zeroed in on finding that one flaw that can bring down the Nicktator, that you completely ignore the one, overriding factor in this now circus of a witch hunt:
Saban is the best defensive coach in the game. Do you really think he won’t adjust?
“Nick hates excuses,†one former Saban assistant told me Tuesday. “If he’s pushing this for any other reason than player safety, he’s making an excuse. At the end of the day, he has to live with the decisions he has made — and he can’t live with that if, in his mind, if it’s an excuse.â€
To say it’s anything other than a safety issue for Saban would mean you’ve bought into the idea that tempo offenses are Saban’s undoing. Nothing could be more ridiculous.
Alabama lost to Texas A&M and its tempo offense two years ago, and beat the Aggies in College Station last year (but gave up 42 points) not because of tempo — but because Texas A&M had the best player in college football.
Alabama played that same tempo offense last season against Ole Miss, and won 25-0. It played the same offense against Auburn, and had Saban put the ball in the hands of his best player (AJ McCarron) on multiple fourth downs instead of his kicker(s), we never would have witnessed the greatest college football play ever — one that cost the Tide a chance to win three straight national titles.
Auburn’s tempo offense didn’t beat Alabama; Saban’s game day decision-making did.
And let’s not forget that Notre Dame ran tempo against the Tide in the 2012 national championship game — and lost 42-14.
Look, I hate to be the guy who defends a guy who doesn’t need it, but someone has to throw some logic into this. Because Alabama lost to Auburn (tempo offense); because Alabama then lost to Oklahoma (tempo offense) in the Sugar Bowl, suddenly Saban is scrambling for answers and his only avenue is the AFCA rules committee?
Here’s a novel idea: maybe Oklahoma simply played better than Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Maybe the Alabama defense last season wasn’t as good as everyone thought it was. And maybe, just maybe, Saban really is concerned about player safety — even though there is zero evidence tempo offense leads to more injuries.
To believe that Saban is the puppeteer behind this awful rules proposal (one more time: it’s not going to pass) means you must also believe that Saban, with every possible advantage already in his possession, would be deliberately deceitful to gain another.
It would also mean that Saban doesn’t trust the foundation and core of who he is as a coach, to believe he can find a way to consistently stop tempo offenses no matter who is playing quarterback. He can’t stop it, so he needs help from the rules committee.
I’m not buying it.
Coaches have egos, and no coach has a bigger ego than the guy sitting in the big chair in Tuscaloosa, who just so happens to be surrounded by hundreds of thousands of similar egos that pack his stadium every fall Saturday. And this coach is the mastermind behind a jerry-rigged a proposal to slow tempo offenses?
Have we dived so deep to find that one thing that can bring down the Nicktator that we’re selling the idea of a megalomaniacal, perfectionist coach who lives for practice suddenly deciding to embrace excuses?
If Saban is being deceitful, if he showed up at the annual AFCA rules meeting to talk about the tempo offense as it relates to potential injuries just to bend ears and gain an advantage on the field, he’s not the coach we think he is.
He’s just some fraud who has somehow stumbled ass-backward into coaching and developing a monster program that recruits and wins multiple national championships on its own.
There’s your hyperbole, everyone.
-
Let me ask all of you swirling in the outrage and pompous politicking of it all: do you really think Nick Saban needs another advantage?
Hell to the no! But the real question is how many damn advantages is he going to try and get?
That answer is as many as he can get away with.
-
http://youtu.be/CKsdlGnyD14 (http://youtu.be/CKsdlGnyD14)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bg8benLCEAA-bsR.png:large)
-
http://youtu.be/CKsdlGnyD14 (http://youtu.be/CKsdlGnyD14)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bg8benLCEAA-bsR.png:large)
My hearing is not so hot. What exactly did the brother say at the end about the 80 years? If it was what I thought, he was alluding to small teams not being able to stay close to big teams for 80 years and HUNH being an equalizer. If so, it's a very good point. HUNH increased competition and has made college football better.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bg8benLCEAA-bsR.png:large)
Probably first and only time you will ever see the state of Alabama as a "blue" state.
-
My hearing is not so hot. What exactly did the brother say at the end about the 80 years? If it was what I thought, he was alluding to small teams not being able to stay close to big teams for 80 years and HUNH being an equalizer. If so, it's a very good point. HUNH increased competition and has made college football better.
That is what he said, but it's bullshit. It wasn't the HUNH that allowed smaller teams to compete with bigger schools. It was parity in recruiting. Scholarship limitations. An increase in quality high school programs and coaching. More funds being dedicated to football at those "smaller" programs.
The HUNH is like most other offenses - it works when you have jimmies and joes to execute the x's and o's. It's not some magic formula that defies the way football is supposed to be played.
-
That is what he said, but it's bullshit. It wasn't the HUNH that allowed smaller teams to compete with bigger schools. It was parity in recruiting. Scholarship limitations. An increase in quality high school programs and coaching. More funds being dedicated to football at those "smaller" programs.
The HUNH is like most other offenses - it works when you have jimmies and joes to execute the x's and o's. It's not some magic formula that defies the way football is supposed to be played.
Ed Zachary. We HUNH'd our way to 8 whole wins in 09'. Why? Because we had Chris Full Todd at the helm. We HUNH'd our way to the championship in 2010. Why? Because we paid to get a much better guy at the helm than Full Todd.
-
The HUNH is like most other offenses - it works when you have jimmies and joes to execute the x's and o's. It's not some magic formula that defies the way football is supposed to be played.
I don't think a team with the caliber of Auburn's talent has ever run it. If they can get it going how Gus wants, it's going to cause a lot of headaches.
-
That is what he said, but it's bullshoot. It wasn't the HUNH that allowed smaller teams to compete with bigger schools. It was parity in recruiting. Scholarship limitations. An increase in quality high school programs and coaching. More funds being dedicated to football at those "smaller" programs.
The HUNH is like most other offenses - it works when you have jimmies and joes to execute the x's and o's. It's not some magic formula that defies the way football is supposed to be played.
I agree with the Jimmies and Joes but I do think it can help even the playing field. So can the triple option. Anything a little different from what a team is either conditioned/built to defend or accustomed to seeing.
-
I agree with the Jimmies and Joes but I do think it can help even the playing field. So can the triple option. Anything a little different from what a team is either conditioned/built to defend or accustomed to seeing.
I agree with the esteemed.....err, what is it you do again? Case in point...point of order...quid pro bono and Habeus Delecti. Air Force would beat your ass to a soda water finish with 240 pound offensive linemen if you didn't prepare for dey option.
-
That is what he said, but it's bullshoot. It wasn't the HUNH that allowed smaller teams to compete with bigger schools. It was parity in recruiting. Scholarship limitations. An increase in quality high school programs and coaching. More funds being dedicated to football at those "smaller" programs.
The HUNH is like most other offenses - it works when you have jimmies and joes to execute the x's and o's. It's not some magic formula that defies the way football is supposed to be played.
HUNH helps though. There is better recruiting parity but there are still only so many cannon armed QB's and 230lb 4.4 40 running backs to go around. With an innovative offense you don't have to rely on those kind of horses, you can go after the little quick guys which are more plentiful.
-
Ol Ball Coach FTW.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/02/20/college-football-rule-proposal-nick-saban-steve-spurrier/5643397/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/02/20/college-football-rule-proposal-nick-saban-steve-spurrier/5643397/)
Will college football's 'Saban Rule' make it to March 6 vote?
George Schroeder, USA TODAY Sports 5:20 p.m. EST February 20, 2014
South Carolina's Steve Spurrier has joined the chorus of college football coaches opposed to the rule proposal that would force offenses to wait 10 seconds to snap the football. And that chorus could lead to the proposal's early demise.
"So, you want to talk about the 'Saban Rule'?" Spurrier asked Thursday, chuckling. "That's what I call it. (It) looks like it's dead now, hopefully."
That's not certain yet. Neither is the extent of Nick Saban's influence on the NCAA Football Rules Committee when it approved the proposal last week. Rogers Redding, the NCAA's coordinator of officiating and secretary-rules editor of the rules committee, said Saban's impact has been overstated.
The proposal is scheduled to be considered March 6 by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel. If approved, it would take effect next fall. It seems unlikely to pass, however, considering the blowback from several prominent coaches.
The reasoning behind the proposal was safety. But Air Force coach Troy Calhoun, chairman of the rules committee, appeared to backpedal during a conference call earlier this week, saying the proposal should not become a rule unless data shows increased injury risk.
Auburn coach Gus Malzahn, who told reporters this week there's "absolutely zero evidence" that faster pace increases injury risk, said he had spoken several times with Calhoun. Other coaches have, as well. Spurrier said he left a voicemail for Calhoun expressing his disapproval of the proposal.
"I just told him I was against it," Spurrier said. "It's ridiculous. Let's let everybody keep playing the way they've been playing."
Redding said the football rules committee has the capacity, during a comment period that runs through March 3, to withdraw or modify the proposal with another vote, which could be conducted by conference call or even by email. Although no vote has been scheduled, Redding said, "the committee is probably gonna want to have a discussion about this one."
Several coaches, noting the involvement of Alabama's Saban and Arkansas' Bret Bielema – both outspoken critics of the trend toward ever faster offensive tempo – have questioned the real intent behind the proposal, suggesting it was a shot fired in a philosophical battle. Texas A&M's Kevin Sumlin, for example, told USA TODAY Sports it "is an attempt to limit the creativity of the game."
Last year during SEC media days, Saban asked: "Should we allow football to be a continuous game? Is that the way the game was designed to play?"
Both Saban and Bielema participated in the discussion on the topic during the rules committee meeting last week. Neither voted on the proposal. Bielema participated in his role as chairman of the American Football Coaches Association's rules committee. Saban asked to address the topic during the meeting.
Redding said Saban's presence was unusual but that it wasn't the first time a coach had asked to address the committee. More routinely, coaches have provided input through letters or by talking with members of the rules committee.
Redding said Saban's presentation was "effective," but said the topic was already under discussion.
"To a large extent, what he wanted to have the committee consider, the committee had been talking about for a half day already," Redding said, adding the rules committee had discussed the idea of whether offenses needed to be slowed down for safety reasons a year ago, as well.
"So it's not as if this was brand new, sailing in out of left field on the wings of Nick Saban," Redding said.
Quoting New York Times columnist David Brooks, Redding added: "Partisanship shapes the reality you choose to see. I think that's what's going on here to a large extent."
Neither Saban nor Bielema has commented publicly on the proposal, or their involvement. The topic of whether defenses should be allowed time to substitute before each play was broached, at least briefly, during a session at the AFCA's annual meeting last month. But like several of his peers, Spurrier said he was unaware of the proposal. And he said Saban's input had an effect.
"He took it upon himself to go before the rules committee and get it done," Spurrier said. "They tried to change the rules. But I don't think they're gonna get away with it."
Spurrier's offenses haven't been known for warp speed, but he said the strategy didn't bother him.
"To me, that's part of football," he said. "The 'no-huddle' has always been available. I don't see why we'd take it away right now."
Spurrier noted that South Carolina had successfully slowed rival Clemson's uptempo offense in the past by keeping it off the field. The Tigers averaged 81.5 plays a game in 2013, but managed only 57 in a 31-17 loss to South Carolina. In losses in 2011 and 2012, Clemson ran 60 and 59 plays, respectively.
"Our goal was to stay on the field and run that clock," Spurrier said. "Hopefully, your offense can stay on the field a long time, and all (the opposing offense) can do is sit on the sideline and look at each other."
Spurrier also noted that his defensive players became fatigued during long drives by traditional offenses.
"If they're out there for a 14-play drive, to me that's when they get tired," he said. "When the offense runs for 5 (yards), runs for 4, runs for 5. Not these 35-second drives."
Malzahn suggested the proposal should be tabled and a "healthy debate" should ensue on the idea.
"That's a debate I would really like the rules committee to have," Redding said. "Part of the rules committee's charge is the stewardship of the game. … What kind of a game do we want? That's a discussion the committee ought to have."
-
The last paragraph is very concerning.
-
An actual doctor weighs in from Deadspin.
http://regressing.deadspin.com/no-fast-tempo-isnt-endangering-college-football-playe-1526176098 (http://regressing.deadspin.com/no-fast-tempo-isnt-endangering-college-football-playe-1526176098)
No, Fast Tempo Isn't Endangering College Football Players
The concerns over head trauma have been splashed across the front pages of newspapers and magazines for the past five years, and have led to a host of rule changes in college football. But one proposal for a new change—called the Tempo Rule—has caught the public's attention for, well, not making very much sense.
The Tempo Rule was introduced to the NCAA Football Rules Committee earlier this month and would prevent offenses from snapping the ball within the first 10 seconds after the 40-second play clock resets, allowing a defense to substitute even if the offense does not. (A team that snaps the ball too quickly will ironically be called for a delay of game.) The idea, championed by Alabama coach Nick Saban, is that up-tempo offenses are more likely to cause injuries for defensive players who can't get off of the field in time.
To be clear: There is currently no known evidence that players are being injured by the hurry-up offense or that a rule change would improve player safety. In fact, research shows that it's rare for even fast-paced, no-huddle attacks to snap the ball with 30 seconds or more left on the play clock. So this is a debate about nothing and affecting nothing.
"This rules change is being made to enhance student-athlete safety by guaranteeing a small window for both teams to substitute," Air Force coach Troy Calhoun, chair of the rules committee, recently said. "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."
On the very surface, yes, that is true, but it's a rhetorical sleight of hand, a magic trick that obscures further, better options that achieve the same result. If the concern is that football is so dangerous that we're trying to find a way to expose players to fewer plays, why not shorten the season? Or the length of a game? Why not limit the number of off-season practices? Or why not eliminate what many believe is the most dangerous play in football, the kick-off? Maybe because those options would cut into the amount of billable hours college football is on television and the control coaches have over every facet of the game.
It also ignores the splash benefits of speeding the game up. A faster game that keys on endurance would take away a lot of the incentive for Alabama to carry four 300-pound underclassmen on its defensive line, or an offensive lineman coming in over 380 pounds. These are college kids, and incentivizing them to become morbidly obese to play football seems like it would be a "health risk" that outweighs whatever comes along with a hurry-up offense.
The important thing to realize is that NCAA did not designate this as an offseason where rules changes could be made, with the exception being any that relate to player safety. It's not that the NCAA must be beholden to its own arbitrary limitations of changing rules if player safety is a concern; it's just that the health of college players is being used to smuggle in rules changes that a few disgruntled coaches don't like. What we have here are coaches like Nick Saban, who has openly discussed the difficulty of playing against a hurry-up offense, seeking a tactical advantage under the cloak of player safety.
Arizona coach Rich Rodriguez called the proposal "ridiculous" and Auburn coach Gus Malzahn told reporters on Tuesday, "We play in a very violent game, but as far as this particular rule with no evidence I disagree… I don't think we need to lose sight of the fact that the only way you can change a rule is the health and safety of our players. And it's got to be documented, and there's got to be proof. And there's not."
Both coaches are right. And it appears that the rules committee is listening. Six days after initially supporting the rule change, the chairman of the committee, Troy Calhoun told reporters, "The key is this: I think the only way that it can or it should become a rule is if it is indeed a safety concern. And that can't be something that's a speculation or a possibility I think there's got to be something empirical there where you realize, 'Yep, this truly is a health matter' in terms of not being able to get a defensive player off the field."
Thankfully, the rule proposal will not go into effect unless passed March 6 by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel and coaches have until March 3 to present any evidence that supports or refutes their safety claims. If there's any evidence that players are being injured because of the up-tempo offense, we'll see it there.
-
Saw this quote from Marcus A'Richtius on the Lord Saybinz rule.
"I feel like if you can train offensive players to play five or six plays in a row, you can train defensive players to play that many plays in a row, too," Richt said. "I personally don't think it's a health issue deal, but if there's some evidence otherwise, it will be interesting to see it. ... I think it's somebody's assumption. I don't think there's any hard evidence on it."
-
Saw this quote from Marcus A'Richtius on the Lord Saybinz rule.
"I feel like if you can train offensive players to play five or six plays in a row, you can train defensive players to play that many plays in a row, too," Richt said. "I personally don't think it's a health issue deal, but if there's some evidence otherwise, it will be interesting to see it. ... I think it's somebody's assumption. I don't think there's any hard evidence on it."
Basically, sabbin and tub 'O needs to get their players in better condition...instead of having a 855lb. Gorilla that can only play 3 snaps at the most, before needing a oxygen mask and hydration.
-
Basically, sabbin and tub 'O needs to get their players in better condition...instead of having a 855lb. Gorilla that can only play 3 snaps at the most, before needing a oxygen mask and hydration.
(http://peteygsports.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/bouche.jpg)
-
Basically, sabbin and tub 'O needs to get their players in better condition...instead of having a 855lb. Gorilla that can only play 3 snaps at the most, before needing a oxygen mask and hydration.
Exactly.
I heard a radio host - I believe Cowherd - mention that the HUNH allows for teams that can't compete against the five star defensive tackles to have the chance to win. Saban is bitching that his five star defensive tackles are too fat and out of shape to compete against the HUNH.
You know what that means? Those five star defensive tackles are no longer five stars.
Just like if offenses evolved to only use 5'7 wide receivers that were ultra-quick, 6'2 200 pound corners would no longer be considered the perfect build for a corner.
But isn't this discussion over? I think it's widely accepted that the rule will be shot down until at least next year.
-
Exactly.
I heard a radio host - I believe Cowherd - mention that the HUNH allows for teams that can't compete against the five star defensive tackles to have the chance to win. Saban is bitching that his five star defensive tackles are too fat and out of shape to compete against the HUNH.
You know what that means? Those five star defensive tackles are no longer five stars.
Just like if offenses evolved to only use 5'7 wide receivers that were ultra-quick, 6'2 200 pound corners would no longer be considered the perfect build for a corner.
But isn't this discussion over? I think it's widely accepted that the rule will be shot down until at least next year.
The thing is that those big D lineman can be conditioned to go longer. I've seen fat guys that can. It's a matter of what they train to do. Sure, they are gonna get winded and on average, the bigger they are the windeder they gets. This is just a way to circumvent for Sabs and Porkchop.
-
The thing is that those big D lineman can be conditioned to go longer. I've seen fat guys that can. It's a matter of what they train to do. Sure, they are gonna get winded and on average, the bigger they are the windeder they gets. This is just a way to circumvent for Sabs and Porkchop.
Field goal returns aren't their friend.
-
This pretty much destroys any shred of dignity anyone still defending this has.*
http://cfbmatrix.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-CFBMatrix-Pace-of-Play-Summary-Report.pdf (http://cfbmatrix.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-CFBMatrix-Pace-of-Play-Summary-Report.pdf)
* i.e. Cecil Hurt
Pathetic:
https://twitter.com/LisaHorne/status/496128710907797505 (https://twitter.com/LisaHorne/status/496128710907797505)
-
This pretty much destroys any shred of dignity anyone still defending this has.*
http://cfbmatrix.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-CFBMatrix-Pace-of-Play-Summary-Report.pdf (http://cfbmatrix.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-CFBMatrix-Pace-of-Play-Summary-Report.pdf)
* i.e. Cecil Hurt
Pathetic:
https://twitter.com/LisaHorne/status/496128710907797505 (https://twitter.com/LisaHorne/status/496128710907797505)
I thought it said a lot of nothing. His conclusions were inconclusive.