The NCAA Rules Committee is at it again....

[orangeluvr]

There is no need for such a rule, the ref stands over the ball before every play is run, it's that simple. :yes:

 

[Orangeslice13]

I've searched and been unable to find a team who snapped the ball in less than 10 sec. Houstan was the fastest with an average around 22 sec. I fail to see how this rule change will slow anyone down.

 

[crusse10]

The median number of plays run last year was 76 per game. 40 teams ran more than 76 plays per game. Those numbers totaled exactly 177.9 extra plays per game. In regular season games only, that's 2134 extra plays. That's 2134 extra chances at injury in a season, not including bowl games.

 

[GrowVol]

I don't see this rule change slowing down the hurry up O. If the O still lines up in hurry up mode they're taking more than 10 sec most of the time. The only thing this rule seems to change is the O's ability to quick snap and catch the D offsides when they themselves are not ready to run a play.

Well, if rule goes into affect....won't defenses be able to substitute regardless of if the offense chooses to...hence slowing down the offense.
And catching the defense off guard before D gets set is a great strategy like many other calls.
Should the NCAA take out the Reverse? The Flea Flicker?
Are QB's more likely to get hurt in the shotgun position?

 

[CRAZYVOL24]

Coaches of no-huddle offenses blast NCAA rules proposal - ESPN



How do you guys suppose this will affect our offensive mindset coming into this year? It seems to target the faster moving offensive schemes.

NCAA going at this the wrong way. Teams do not dictate the speed of the game-Referee's do. To slow down a game, do as the NFL did and slow down the Ref's that set the ball. Still gives O somewhat fast pace and most likely reduces the chance for the D to sub. But will also limit the number of plays to help reduce injuries.

 

[crusse10]

For comparison's sake, Florida State finished 88th in plays per game at 70.7. Auburn finished 62nd in plays per game at 73.8.

 

[HuntsVol_AL]

The median number of plays run last year was 76 per game. 40 teams ran more than 76 plays per game. Those numbers totaled exactly 177.9 extra plays per game. In regular season games only, that's 2134 extra plays. That's 2134 extra chances at injury in a season, not including bowl games.

Numbers don't add up, bro.

 

[crusse10]

Numbers don't add up, bro.

Sure they do.

For starters, I averaged the high and low of last year's per-game plays. From that number, I summed the difference of every per-game above the median. So if someone ran 80.5 plays, I'd add in 4.5. Multiply that total number by the number of games, and there you have it. I rounded down the 2134.8 to make it a whole number of total plays.

 

[HuntsVol_AL]

Sure they do.

For starters, I averaged the high and low of last year's per-game plays. From that number, I summed the difference of every per-game above the median. So if someone ran 80.5 plays, I'd add in 4.5. Multiply that total number by the number of games, and there you have it. I rounded down the 2134.8 to make it a whole number of total plays.

177.9 extra plays per game? I don't understand that number.

 

[HuntsVol_AL]

The median number of plays run last year was 76 per game. 40 teams ran more than 76 plays per game. Those numbers totaled exactly 177.9 extra plays per game. In regular season games only, that's 2134 extra plays. That's 2134 extra chances at injury in a season, not including bowl games.

And were injuries correlated with that? And how did you account for faked injuries?

 

[GrowVol]

NCAA needs to make rules that Head Coaches adapt their defenses to what is needed to compete against offenses. Wait a second...is that fair?

 

[crusse10]

177.9 extra plays per game? I don't understand that number.

I added the difference of all teams than ran over 76 plays per game, the average of the highest and lowest plays per game in FBS. If a team ran 76.6 plays per game, then they ran .6 over the median number of plays per game, thus .6 was added to the number of plays/game. The 40 teams that ran more plays than 76 per game totaled to 177.9 plays per game.

 

[bamawriter]

Still missing the point. If uptempo is officiated against, teams will have more incentive to not run uptempo. Much of the advantage of uptempo offenses is running plays quickly. If teams can no longer run plays quickly, they will cease to be an uptempo offense. At which point, they will return to a more traditional (and perhaps more injury-inducing) offensive style, which in general favors heavier bodies. More mass, more energy.

Even the quickest offenses don't run plays every ten seconds. Oregon may be the fastest offense in the game and their stated goal is to snap the ball every 18 seconds.

This will not slow anyone down. It will simple prevent the offense from keeping the defense in a bad package.

 

[crusse10]

Basically, if every offense ran 76 plays or fewer, there would be 2100 fewer opportunities for an injury in a football season.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Still missing the point. If uptempo is officiated against, teams will have more incentive to not run uptempo. Much of the advantage of uptempo offenses is running plays quickly. If teams can no longer run plays quickly, they will cease to be an uptempo offense. At which point, they will return to a more traditional (and perhaps more injury-inducing) offensive style, which in general favors heavier bodies. More mass, more energy.

f=ma or somewhat lighter body able to hit at increased speed = more energy on impact

it's a wash ... injury isn't what bothers me ... it's that defense really is more physically demanding than offense and up tempo offense takes advantage of the replacements rule which becomes a loophole to create a competitive advantage and, hey, it obviously works as, properly played, it's so high scoring.

I don't have an answer to the problem. But it is real and I don't like giving competitive advantage to either side of the ball through what, previously was a good rule to only allow the defense to run in subs when the offense did; but has become a loophole in the up tempo. I want to see teams win when they are executing good offense against a good defense. Not because they were allowed to get a defense gassed, then pretty much score at will.

The 'well get 'em in shape coach' or 'use smaller, faster defensemen', or 'design better schemes' arguments are there, but I just disagree with them. Hurry up as it stands is attempting to gain, in my opinion, an unfair competitive advantage through not allowing a defense time to set, and compounding that issue to confusion when the D gets so exhausted they couldn't think to eat, much less play good ball.

 

[gunner]

10 sec to sub every play doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Me either, who can get lined up, get a play called, and the ball snapped in 10 seconds.

 

[rocktopper16]

But coaches could recruit and condition against uptempo.

You can't condition for an uptempo.

You have to slow the game down.

I've also see uptempo offenses snap the ball before the defense even gets set.

I'm not saying I'm against uptempo offenses, But i certainly hate watching them play.

 

[rocktopper16]

Me either, who can get lined up, get a play called, and the ball snapped in 10 seconds.

Auburn.

They only have 5 plays.

 

[UT_Tix79]

The point of the HUNH is to keep defenses from being able to sub and to snap the ball before defenses can adjust to the formation.

This will allow defenses to substitute players, regardless whether the offense does.

It's a good change. Offenses can still snap the ball just as fast as they want, it'll just allow the defenses to rotate players

 

[GrowVol]

Even the quickest offenses don't run plays every ten seconds. Oregon may be the fastest offense in the game and their stated goal is to snap the ball every 18 seconds.

This will not slow anyone down. It will simple prevent the offense from keeping the defense in a bad package.

Hard for some teams to remain dominate if they can't sub in fresh after every defensive play.
Bama could do the same thing on offense...well,I guess that would be fine, right?
If this new rule stands, lets call it "Saban/Emmert big and slow protection act"

 

[UT_Tix79]

What if there was a rule stating the offense couldn't change personnel unless the defense did. Would that be fair?

Of course not. All they are doing is creating a competitive balance, and keeping the defensive players fresh.

I just don't see the problem

 

[IluvdoubleD's]

Saban gets what Saban wants.

This, but I don't think he will get it this time. It's stupid to have to stop yourself while playing the game and stand there and look dumb faced... like, can I play now...is it o.k? Yeah... ok with you? Can I throw the ball now, is that ok?

Football is evolving and ... the players are more athletic and the game it's self is evolving. One of the best things about football is that it isn't afraid of change. Never has been. Saban is mad because the hurry up is leaving him in the dust. He don't like change.

 

[Sudden Impact]

Sure seems like it's going to penalize even the team that don't run it also. For example down 2 or 3 scores headed into the 4th Qtr. They go into a "no huddle" offense at the beginning of the 4th Qtr. Oh wait, you can't do that you must wait until 2 minutes to do that.

Teams and Coachs alike need to learn how to adjust and we really don't need rules to assist in the adjustment. Sideline management is what it takes.

 

[UT_Tix79]

Someone posted that last season there was a total of 21 snaps, across all of college football, that happened in less than 10 seconds. This is absolutely going to ruin college football as we know it!

Sarcasm off

 

[Orangethumb]

How about they set a rule or limit to the amount of "power" plays Saban can call.

If you think about it, a power offense strives for the same effect of an uptempo offense by wearing you down over the course of a game. So by using the same logic they should limit the power plays because the defense will be more prone to injury.

The rule is dumb.