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

#126
#126
ProfessorD said:
If the ncaa wants to change a rule how bout if a player fumbles a ball on quarter inch line and it roles out of bounds in the endzone he gets the ball on the damn quarter inch line.
Also if the offense does not sub out players and the defense is allowed to is that not unfair to the offense? I know they control the ball and can sub if they want to but that is the whole point of up tempo so that you can run plays against certain personnel and wear down the d. Instead of new rules how bout teams just condition more. If the offensive line can keep up why can't the defensive lines?
Click to expand...

After looking into this, I see no problem with the rule except for that the should limit subs to like two to three times a drive. Statistics showed Auburn (obviously one of the faster teams) when playing Bama didn't get a quick snap off faster than 11seconds. I understand wanting to sub but people will sub like every play to slow it down. Either make it two or three subs per drive or once per first down. Otherwise stop.
 
#129
#129
crusse10 said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's a lot less collision in a up tempo offense. I've watched enough football to see that. We can't use legislation to solve problems, its going to kill football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#130
#130
I lost over 30 pounds last year. It's the average weight difference between a 3-4 and 4-3 lineman. My body felt better, my joints hurt a lot less, and I suffered less injuries. Compare injuries on pro style teams opposed to up tempo teams. Up tempo has less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#131
#131
HuntsVol_AL said:
I'm hoping that you had an opportunity to review the article that was referenced: Speed May Kill, but Slow Can Get You Hurt? -

I have compiled a short list of you calling people dense, morons, and generally attempting to denigrate people who oppose your assumption. I don't need you to come full circle, but can we at least entertain the idea that you might be wrong?

Your conclusion seems a logical conclusion, but the numbers simply don't bear it out. And it's plain to see that there are some really good reasons why your conclusion might be wrong.

I know that I shouldn't be butthurt over some internet stranger bullying me because I don't agree, but it bothers me...
Click to expand...

Don't worry. Anyone with half a brain understood your point and recognized that other guy as a douche.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#135
#135
I saw nothing from UT this year to indicate "hurry up" is a part of this offense. This team would have been better to huddle. No indication that it's anything like Oregon or Aubarn.

So, anything that hurts those guys don't bother me a bit.
 
#136
#136
orangeslice13 said:
Then why do we have a play clock?
The O should be allowed to take all the time they need.
Click to expand...

I know your question was meant mockingly, but I'm going to answer it at face value.

Because watching someone stand around for minutes at a time is boring. Also, it's unbalanced in that if at any point one team was ahead and with the ball they would automatically win.
 
#137
#137
Col_Cathcart said:
I know your question was meant mockingly, but I'm going to answer it at face value.

Because watching someone stand around for minutes at a time is boring. Also, it's unbalanced in that if at any point one team was ahead and with the ball they would automatically win.
Click to expand...

My point was at some point (1967 I think but I'm probably wrong) they added a play clock to eliminate just what you said. I'm sure there were people upset about it at the time. These rule changes come along all the time to correct a problem. (10 sec run off rule) Its nothing new.
 
#139
#139
I wish that they'd just let them play. Schemes like the no-huddle and spread offenses are the reason that football today is much more enjoyable to watch than it was 100 years ago. It's the reason why true coaches are surviving, and others are getting passed by the game. And it's the reason why football is becoming more about smarter coaches and better athletes, as opposed to smarter athletes.

If you stop the evolution of a species, then it eventually dies out. The things the NCAA is trying to stop is simply trying to stop the evolution of the game of football. The game is getting faster. It's happened in basketball. The games have progressively become higher paced, more shots taken, more trips down the court, more points scored.

Just leave it alone. If you don't want to get hurt, then don't play the game. If you don't want to get burned, don't become a firefighter. JMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#140
#140
orangeslice13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Soo why have the rule? It won't change anything - therefore it is unnecessary.
 
#141
#141
This rule has no clear benefit other than "nerfing" the hurry up. Also if reducing injuries is the aim then loosening the targeting rule pretty much negates that. Not that I like the targeting rule but using that as a justification for neutering the hurry up in the same breath as scaling back targeting? That's just sloppy. This one is all NCAA politics.
 
#142
#142
SmokinBob said:
Soo why have the rule? It won't change anything - therefore it is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

The rule isn't about slowing anyone down, it's about allowing the defense to sub.

It's amazing how the rule change is being presented as something that it's not.
 
#143
#143
bamawriter said:
The rule isn't about slowing anyone down, it's about allowing the defense to sub.

It's amazing how the rule change is being presented as something that it's not.
Click to expand...

Why should the defense be allowed to sub if the offense isn't going to? If you're fat and slow, you're paying for it these days.

Momentum equals mass times acceleration. No huddle offenses reduce the amount of mass while maybe slightly raising acceleration. Usually means a lot less force.
 
#144
#144
bamawriter said:
The rule isn't about slowing anyone down, it's about allowing the defense to sub.

It's amazing how the rule change is being presented as something that it's not.
Click to expand...

Rule change is not necessary. Defense can sub on every play now. The offense should dictate tempo. It is called offense for a reason.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#145
#145
bamawriter said:
The rule isn't about slowing anyone down, it's about allowing the defense to sub.

It's amazing how the rule change is being presented as something that it's not.
Click to expand...

The rule is about allowing Nick Saban to recover one of his primary advantages - depth.

The Alabamas of the world typically have 20-25 players that would be starters on 80 percent of the programs in the country. This allows them to keep fresh players in the game when schools with less depth have to play the starters more reps to compete.

We did it all the time in the 90s. I always loved how in the second half, we'd get a lead and run the ball off-tackle 6-7 times in row. Then you'd see a complete swap of the OL. We did it because our 2-deep OL was better than a lot of starters.

When you have such a benefit, it even affects the strength and training philosophy. He can train his guys for short-term, max strength play and only use them 3-4 plays at a time.

The no-huddle nullifies those benefits. When Saban can't use his advantage, he wants to change the rules so he can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#146
#146
*BREAKING NEWS*
NCAA Rules Committee has now proposed a rule that says players won't be able to run missed FGs out of the end zone because 100 yards is too far for players to run. They believe that this will also make the game safer for the players.













In other news, Nick Saban supports this rule change also. :whistling:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#147
#147
thebjd said:
Rule change is not necessary. Defense can sub on every play now. The offense should dictate tempo. It is called offense for a reason.
Click to expand...

The rule will not affect tempo in the least. There is not now, nor has there ever been, an offense that comes anywhere close to snapping the ball every ten seconds. The fastest offense in the country last year was averaging over twice that.

This is about the offense rushing to get set so that the defense can't sub. Then, after getting set, they do the meerkat routine and get the play called in from the sideline.

To be clear, I do think this proposal is meant to address a very real issue. However, I'm not personally in agreement that it is the correct way to deal with that issue.
 
#148
#148
Roustabout said:
I saw nothing from UT this year to indicate "hurry up" is a part of this offense. This team would have been better to huddle. No indication that it's anything like Oregon or Aubarn.

So, anything that hurts those guys don't bother me a bit.
Click to expand...

We are a hurry up offense of sorts. Hurry up starts after the first first down. Unfortunately we didn't get a lot of those....which is why u didn't see it much. However on some drives e had that were long, u should have seen a Mich high sense of urgency.
 
#149
#149
bamawriter said:
The rule will not affect tempo in the least. There is not now, nor has there ever been, an offense that comes anywhere close to snapping the ball every ten seconds. The fastest offense in the country last year was averaging over twice that.

This is about the offense rushing to get set so that the defense can't sub. Then, after getting set, they do the meerkat routine and get the play called in from the sideline.

To be clear, I do think this proposal is meant to address a very real issue. However, I'm not personally in agreement that it is the correct way to deal with that issue.
Click to expand...

I actually have no problem with the offense rushing to the line to get lined up and then taking their time to get the play. It kills me to watch the O make a big gainer and rush to the line only to see a DL guy barely make it across and turned around before the ball is being snapped though.
 
#150
#150
orangeslice13 said:
My point was at some point (1967 I think but I'm probably wrong) they added a play clock to eliminate just what you said. I'm sure there were people upset about it at the time. These rule changes come along all the time to correct a problem. (10 sec run off rule) Its nothing new.
Click to expand...

The concern with this particular rule change is that they haven't really presented evidence of a problem (unless that problem is bama can't seem to adequately defend HUNH offenses).

Offenses have been gradually speeding up for years. If there had been a corresponding rise in injury rates, don't you think those statistics would have been front and center when they presented this rule change? People say that there are "more opportunities" to be injured. Well, it's been happening for years. These opportunities aren't just theoretical. You can literally count the number of plays and the number of injuries and see if there's a statistically significant correlation. I suspect that the reason the NCAA isn't showcasing those numbers is because such a correlation does not exist.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top