Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'RayGator's Swamp Gas' started by GATORAZ, Feb 12, 2014.
Well, if you couldn't tell, folks are happy to see you "back". When you have the time. While I may disagree with you on some topics (I am opinionated too), I am one of those folks happy to see your contributions when you have time.
I understand what you're saying and if enough people think the rules should change, I'm cool with that.
But as someone who has played and coached a number of sports, the primary responsibility is on the coach and players to get prepared to play their best to the current state of the rules - which have been as they are forever in terms of an offense being allowed to run uptempo.
There are two real issues at hand when offenses get to the line quickly:
- teams built to play power football have a difficult time when they can't substitute freely... well, deal with it and get better conditioned athletes in your program, even if you have to sacrifice some of the weight and power, or play different line ups against up tempo opponents as compared to more traditional opponents.
- teams that want to do situational substitutions can't get them in... well, deal with it and put more flexible, verstaile athletes on the field (which is what Muschamp does by design as much as possible)
Seahawks didn't have any problem against the Broncos. We didn't have any problem against the Sooners in the BCS CG.
And those were the two statistically best offenses ever in the NFL and CFB respectively. If the two best can be shut down, this is a problem that coaches can solve.
Coaches are going to adapt to the game. We have seen a guy like Saban change his recruiting practices.
I think we are losing the game of football. I also think it is a health risk. How well can you condition and 300lber?
Well, I certainly agree that uptempo offenses could pose a health risk to anyone who can't run several plays in a row without getting so fatigued they are at risk of injury.
Which could mean you need lighter, better conditioned players on your roster to play against that style of offense.
I just view that as part of the game. Vince Lombardi probably rolls over in his grave as it is, looking at the conditioning of many of today's players that play on the line in particular.
I think the health risk is the 300 lbs, not the uptempo.
Brutal, I do not like the second rule for obvious reasons
You don't (and I say this as someone who is a 300lber). But those guys aren't inherent in the game, just the way the game has evolved recently. If the pace of the game accelerates, then the ability of players to play more than a down at a time has to change, too. And those offensive linemen can be big as well, can't they?
I don't know why the ability of the defense to substitute would be sacrosanct, but the ability of the offense to move as quickly as they can would not be.
I believe most forget the origin of the up tempo spread offense.
Smaller teams that knew they were out talented and out manned started using this scheme and it did two things
1. It made the starters of the bigger schools wear down because they couldn't substitute.
2. It made the depth of the other team moot because they couldn't get in the game.
Did it work? Some guy at bowling green and Utah was pretty good at it. West Virginia when Rodriguez was the coach was pretty effective. Worked for Boise state against Oklahoma and Appalachian state against Michigan.
The bigger teams figured what would happen of we started running this offense...and the rest is history.
So NO two minute offense at the end of games will be allowed either...no late game heroics...and if less than 10 secs on clock in SOME situations...well game over..no play...just brilliant...NOT
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 whole notion is blasphemy in the absolute worst way!!!
Yes, the game has evolved. And I don't really buy the rationale for the proposed rule change being player safety, although it could be argued in terms of more snaps, more risks. But football is not a fluid game like soccer or basketball. Football is all about match-ups on the field....speed (personal speed not HUNH speed) versus size. Strength versus quickness, etc etc. Therefore, the ability to substitute effectively to obtain the most favorable match up is sacrosanct, whether on offense or defense. It is THE fundamental aspect of the game. How would baseball change if pitchers were allowed to quick pitch the moment a batter stepped in the box? For fans of this type of offense, there is Arena ball that can be seen on ESPN The Ocho.
While I personally do not like the HUNH offenses, I do believe that the uptempo nature is not only designed to confuse defenses, but officials as well. Allow the defense to get set, allow the officials to observe the formations, etc. If the HUNH offense is so innovative, they will be able to overcome this simple rule change without changing their offenses too much. But if it is requirement for the offense to prohibit your opponent from substituting, and that you snap the ball so fast that officials can't even count the players on the field, can't observe the formations to tell if it's legal, can't watch forward motion prior to the snap, and can't even allow the officials to get into position to determine obvious calls like OL blocking downfield on pass plays, then the offense isn't that innovative....
If you want to argue that player substitutions are sacrosanct to the sport, be my guest. That's definitely a more recent view of the game though. Back in the day, they didn't even substitute players much switching between offense and defense. Substituting players to create competitive advantage is a legit strategy. Running plays quickly to wear the other team down, limit opportunities for the other team to substitute, or just to score quickly, is a legit strategy as well.
But I don't get the comments on the officials. The offense isn't substituting when they're running hurry up. I think the officials can keep tabs on how many of them are on the field. And they should be able to tell whether or not they're lined up properly or any other form of illegal procedure/movement.
The rule on substituting at will was adopted in 1941. Prior to that, when a substitution occurred, the player had to sit out until the next quarter. Due to the lack of depth because of WWII, they changed to rule to allows substitutions at any time. And from that moment, platoon football emerged. For basically 60+ years, that has been a basic tenet of football...
As far as the officiating, we may have to disagree to disagree. Whenever I watch a HUNH team play, I see officials running to spot the ball (which they are NOT obligated to do), many missed pre-snap penalties, and lots of downfield blocking on passing plays that are simply not called. Most of the officials I see in the game are also older, and I am sure they are not in top physical shape. While that is another argument altogether, you can't tell me that these HUNH teams are not intending to take advantage of that.
I have no issue with a team running a HUNH. I don't particularly like it as a style, but I do not have an issue with a scheme that tries to gain a competitive advantage to win a game as long as it is employed within the confines of the rules that are currently written....or adopt the NFL style of setting the ball.
Platoon football and situational substitution are two different things, but that is good background for sure.
You may have a very good point on officials not being in condition to deal with hurry up offenses. As you say, that's a different issue from whether or not those types of offenses should be run, but it is something that officials should be evaluated on. If they can't physically perform, they shouldn't be doing the job.
Agree with playing within the confines of the rules. Not sure if any rules or guidelines are needed around spotting the ball, but I don't think officials should have to run up to spot it.
I only see officials running to spot the ball at the end of halves, and I don't have a problem with that.
Tis better to have premature snapalation than no snapalation at all.
The first rules change regarding targeting just incorporates some common sense into a well-intentioned rule...but please pass the second one. I'm tired of my favorite sport turning into something that resembles arena ball.
Those two coaches were Bret Bielima and Nick Saban from what I've been reading. Here are some excerpts from the article. I agree with the highlighted part 100%.
Right now the proposal is in what is known as a comment period. Coaches can electronically submit their opinions to the NCAA on the proposal, supporting it or opposing it.
Redding said it is "rare though not unheard of for the committee to revisit" a proposal. He added the comments are taken seriously by the oversight panel.
Redding said rules changes that would affect the pace of the game were discussed by the committee last year and during the AFCA convention in January at meeting he attended of about 35 coaches, including Bielema. The proposal passed by the NCAA committee was an idea that came out of the AFCA meeting, Redding said.
Plenty of coaches have made it known they are not happy with the proposal, especially those such as Auburn's Gus Malzahn, Texas Tech's Kliff Kingsbury, Texas A&M's Kevin Sumlin and Arizona's Rich Rodriguez who run fast-paced offenses.
"The 10-second rule is like asking basketball to take away the shot clock - Boring!" Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy tweeted Thursday. "It's like asking a blitzing linebacker to raise his hand."
Two big and slow a$$ offenses/coaches that have no business dictating rules to all the other college football teams in the NCAA. More from the article.
NEW YORK (AP) — Arkansas coach Bret Bielema and Alabama coach Nick Saban 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.
Neither Bielema nor Saban were on the committee and they did not vote on the proposal passed Wednesday to allow defenses time to substitute between plays by prohibiting offenses from snapping the ball until 29 seconds are left on the 40-second play clock.
NCAA coordinator of officials Rogers Redding said Thursday that Bielema was at the meeting in Indianapolis as a representative of the American Football Coaches Association.
"Coach Saban asked for the opportunity to meet with the committee and talk about this," Redding said. "It's not routine, but it's not unique, either."