I did not make this headline up
Gotta disagree here. I'm getting tired of all the 49-42 games where there is no defense being played. Hurry-up offenses skew things too far in the offense's favor.
That's because you're a spread zealot no foolies, Seth!
I'm thinking the NCAA is a little less worried about player safety and a little more concerned with the extra advertising revenue generated from longer games. Maybe its just me though.
Uh what? Hurry up offenses don't actually make the game go faster. In fact a lot of scoring and quickly changing possesions leads to more advertising break oppurtunites than multiple long drives lasting like 8 minutes.
Hmm, maybe I'm missing something, but I think would be a fantastic rule change.
There are a lot of rule changes that could be made that would do a lot more for player safety. That's a justification for a rule meant to limit the number of variables available to a lesser program trying to find a way to knock off one of the power programs. They're protecting something here, but it's not the health of the student athlete.
There's a tweet out there that the two coaches on the rule committee that put this forward have offenses in like the 80something and 100something as far as pace. It seems some people are just looking out for themselves.
I agree with the principle here (giving defenses more of a chance to substitute) but 10 seconds isn't enough - it should be 20.
to everyone asking about statistics, why wouldn't a decrease in the number of plays decrease the chance of injury? Unless injuries are happening during non-playing time on the field, I would have thought reducing plays is a good proxy for reducing injury.
I'm not saying this is the best way to do it (you could, e.g. reduce the number of games in a season which I think would be better all around), nor is it clear that this will successfully reduce the number of plays. But I don't see how the opposing argument is supposed to go. The plays are more likely to be injurious when they are run with less time on the play-clock? This isn't like the QB data where there are big differences between the roles and hits taken by running vs throwing QBs.
I clearly don't have the stats either, but I suppose that rather than simply the number of plays, is there an increased possibility of injury when players are gassed? (poor form, etc.).
Of course it would be difficult to piece those data together to draw any conclusions.
I'm usually a big fan of safety changes in football since I suffered multiple concussions in high school, but we might actually be crossing over into the "just make it flag football" argument territory on this one. The NCAA is worried about players being involved in too many plays in a game? Then how safe is the game to begin with?
Has anyone done a study regarding average number of injuries on a no-huddle team, or on traditional teams that play no-huddle teams? If we're going to play a stats game, then obviously the fewer plays you're involved in, your chances of injury will slightly decrease.
I realize that this rule change as it is right now probably won't affect many teams' style of play on offense, but it just seems to open the window for a further curtailing of the no-huddle down the road. Not a huge deal if it's the NFL, but if you take away the ability to play offense like Oregon or Baylor do, then you might as well just shoot college football right between the eyes.
I think people are overstating the impact this will have in a game. It doesn't apply to situations where the play clock starts at 25 seconds, it makes it more difficult to read a defense first, change a play multiple times and still snap the ball with 18 seconds left on the clock but hurry up teams will still have the opputunity to read a defense and call in a play without huddling or waiting till the play clock will expire.
This isn't official.
The rule also isn't outlawing hurry up offenses.
it's completely accurate.
For snapping the ball too soon? It sounds like the penalty would delay the game more...
I assume the NCAA has reams of data to back up: "“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.”"
As opposed to the rule change being made because (a) certain coache(s) hold major sway in the college football world.
Oh LAWD! What will Gus Malzahn do now???
Sweet. That gives us ten seconds to flip our Dline pre-snap every down.
I always thought it was weird that the offense was able to dictate when the defense could substitute.
It's the advantage of having the ball.
Shouldn't the offense be able to dictate the speed of the game? It would be beyond bizarre for a defensive player to hold out his hand and let his players get in position before allowing the offense to start. This proposed rule is 75% oft he way there.
I'd like to see them limit the ability of coaches on the side line to read defenses and audible based on presnap reads (ie. the whole team is looking to the sideline for the play after lining up). I think it's a huge advantage if a coach on the sideline (especially ones sitting above the field in the press box) can identify mismatches based on their vantage point and experience and then exploit them. Most college defenses have pretty big weaknesses, but it should be up to the players in the field to diagnose them. I'm not sure how you eliminate it though.
I dropped by the Oregon board to see the reaction and they're saying it will have no impact, FWIW.
Madness. My guess is we'll only have to put up with this nonsense for one season.
This could help us a lot I think because we like to sub so much on defense. A lot of our worst plays last year happened when we were barely set before the snap.
like this rule change personally as it hurts exciting offenses like Oregon has. However, this would benefit a team built like Michigan.
Just how in the hell is this going to be enforced? You know that some fan base, somewhere, is going to insist that a defense sent in that substitution at 10.1 seconds, or that the ball was clearly snapped at 29.1013 seconds AND IT COST US THE GAME. CONSPIRACY!
posting this important and relevant information?
BTW, Saban influence may be at work here.
Saban influence is definitely at work here. I don't like the regulation of what a team can and can't do without sufficient evidence that it's going to make the game safer.
Sad that an organisation that celebrates the "spirit of competition" has put in yet another rule changes that negates tactics which help close the gap of a disparity in talent from one team to the next. Nick Saban was really on the bully pulpit about this all year.
This is yet another case of the NCAA "screwing the pooch."
Part of the reason college football is great is because there are lots of different types of offenses, many of them up tempo. That trend even caught on in the NFL, at least with the Eagles. There is also a lot of variance in college. Kids are still growing and learning, coaches take more chances, seem to run more trick plays, etc. There is a wide variety of offensive schemes, many of which rely on strategy to cover up lack of raw talent. Like you said, less talented teams can upset the teams that have natural and dominant recruiting advantages. And that is exciting!
F the NCAA.
Where to start...
Coach Hand is right. This is a bull**** rule change. It takes away an exciting element of college football, and football in general. It changes the strategy in football and makes the game less interesting.
Lemme get this straight. The B1G just added a conference championship game, and everyone agreed to adding a game for a 4 team NCAA playoff. Plus everyteam with a pulse participates in a crappy bowl game, many of which are barely attended. But the NCAA needs to slow down the offenses, to limit the number of plays, to avoid "too many" hits. Riiiiiiiiight.
Most "hurry up" offenses aren't really hurry up, per se. Urbans offense typically races up to the line of scrimmage in a base formation, then stands there for 20+ seconds getting the call from the sidelines. They take just as long to snap as everybody else, but they go "no huddle" simply to prevent the defense from subbing, and for the coach/coordinator to make a play call based on a potential mismatch.
This is probably idiosyncratic, but does anyone else not like the fact that the coaches do the reading of the defense and call the play in a lot of the hurry up offenses? I don't mind the up-tempo offenses or anything like that, but wish there was a way to put more of the weight on the QB for the reading of the defense. In a lot of these offenses the QB runs up to the line and then stands there while the coach or OC reads the defense and calls the play. Now I know the QB still does have some reads and can (in some systems) audible after the coach calls the play, but miss the days when it was up to the coach to call a play (or set of plays) and then up to the QB to make the adjustments in light of the defense at the line of scrimmage.
Welp, the "that's the way it was AND WE LIKED IT!"-manball crowd wins this round, I guess.
In my view, if people want to watch slow, predictable, run-run-pass-punt, boring, huddle-up offenses with fucked up uniforms, ridiculous commercial breaks and no cheerleaders, they certainly can. It's called NFL on Sundays in the fall.
Laissez-faire. Please let creativity, innovation and the notion of unpredictable outcomes remain in the college game for once.
this is big.
#1 It's a proposed rule change...it's not official
#2 It really doesn't mean much other than when Auburn gets a big play it can't run down the field and snap the ball again.
#3 What no one is talking about is that it eliminates the hurry up and snap the ball so official's can't review the previous play mentality.
#4 You're going to see more defensive penalties or 10 men on the field because people will try to sub when they don't truly have enough time.
#5 There is nothing that says the offense can't hurry up and wait for exact 10 second to run off the clock and then snap the ball. That happens most of the time anyway...or they check with the coaches at the line. If you're the defense how are you going to sub, get a play in, get set and adjust to the offensive formation in that amount of time? It can happen...just like subbing and kicking a field goal in 8 seconds can happen. But you want to try it every time?
The NCAA is a joke and this just adds to it. They claim they are all for player safety and thats is what the rule is about so players don't have as many plays on their bodies. This was the reasoning for the running the clock after the kick and what did the NCAA do after that rule? They added another game. Now teams that play in their conference championship game and a bowl game play 14 games, just two short of what most NFL teams play. Starting next year the two teams playing in the national championship will have played 15 games so this is just another fake attempt by the NCAA to care about the student athlete or aka cash cows. Look for the NCAA to ok going to a 13 game regular season schedule soon.
I'm not really a fan of hurry up offenses. I like offenses that control time of possession, but that's just my preference. I don't think that it has any effect on player safety though. While I don't think that there should be a restriction on when (during the play clock) the ball should be snapped, the rule doesn't effect me since I prefer a style of play that differs from the hurry up offenses like Oregon.