Should CFB change the rules to favor more defense?

Submitted by ChicagoB1GRed on

Spread offenses, targeting rules, hamstrung DB's, no-huddle....Baylor scores 71 points, Michigan and indiana combine for 110 points....

Do you really like what you're seeing these days? Pointfests? Was today's game against IU your idea of a good CFB game? Do you find yourself just casually watching games until the second half of the 4th quarter like you do for pro basketball?

Wouldn't a more balanced game be more exciting and interesting?

I'm sick of pinball, video game football, the pendulum has swung too far. Remember 17-10 games being fairly common? When 400 yards of total offense was a lot? Epic battles between Irresistable Forces and Immovable Objects?

Football is a gritty, hardhitting game, not a finesse game.

Time to change the rules and give defense a chance. Give me games with some big hits, slobbernocking, trench warfare, defensive struggles, praying the field goal will be missed......

DB's get thrown out of the game when the other player dips his head at the last minute. Limited how they can engage the receiver.  Quarterbacks are overprotected. Meanwhile, the OL can hold, and hold, and......hold.

I'm looking for a happy medium, balanced game, not puntfests.

 

 

 

uniqenam

October 19th, 2013 at 11:39 PM ^

Absolutely. The spread is fun to watch, but the game of football becomes pretty cheesy when you can't actually have a defensive strategy. Football is awesome because it's a game of master chess, and allowing the spread offense to hurry up so much that defenses can't even set before the ball is snapped is pretty ridiculous. There's pressure (from both yourself and the opposing crowd) not to tap out when you're injured, as anyone laying down is 'cheating' because they need to slow down an offense. 

Brian is a spread zealot, because of the tactical advantage it can offer (that is hard to argue against). However, is it actually good for the game? No. I think it's possible to still allow hurry-up, no-huddle offenses, but give the defense at least a chance to substitute in the first 5-10 seconds after the ball is spotted. As is, it's too easy for an offense to whiplash a defense, with no opportunity for any sort of counter play by the DC.

Mr. Yost

October 19th, 2013 at 11:40 PM ^

If you mean slow the ball down by not allowing teams to line up and snap it...no.

But if there is another way that doesn't completely change the game...I'd at least listen.

One thing I'd like to see, but schools wouldn't be able to afford is the radio in the helmet like the NFL.

I think the offense gets an unfair advantage that they can "check" at the line after seeing the defense. The defense doesn't have enough time to radio down a "check" of their own before the offense snaps the ball. In the NFL you can radio down to your MLB or whomever after the offense had "checked" and at least TRY to readjust.

I really don't understand why anyone huddles in college. You don't have to hurry, but why not sub, line up and then see what the defense is, then call your play? People do it to us ALL the time.

Red is Blue

October 20th, 2013 at 8:27 AM ^

Not really related to the premise of the OP, but it seems like there really wasn't a penalty associated with the late hit when Gardner scored.  Yes M got 15 yds on the kickoff, but it is hard to parlay that into any meaningful advantage (odds are against recovering an onside kick and trying it probably means you give the other team a 15 yd headstart).  Maybe the should have the option to assess the penalty on the play after the kickoff? 

Blue Mike

October 20th, 2013 at 1:57 PM ^

I've been talking about that for years.  What good is it to assess a penalty on a scoring play?  The team should get an option as to when they want the penalty assessed, either on the kickoff or after the kickoff.  Same goes for a penalty on the offense that happens after the scoring play.  Instead of enforcing it on the extra point, give the other team the option of when to enforce it: extra point or kickoff (since moving the kickoff back does help the receiving team).

Nosce Te Ipsum

October 20th, 2013 at 7:44 PM ^

Knowing a few things about ego trips myself it's clear to see that you think way too highly of yourself. If your point is valid then you should be able to explain it. If you cannot do so, like you've shown, then you don't have near the intellect to act so smug. 

MrCarson

October 19th, 2013 at 11:48 PM ^

I think so.  These constant shootouts just aren't that fun to watch, especially when the defense doesn't even have enough time to line up.  I would like a rule that prohibits that offense from snapping the ball with more than 25 seconds on the play clock.

gwkrlghl

October 19th, 2013 at 11:49 PM ^

Just because some teams are scoring tons doesn't mean everyone is. Purdue and MSU played a 14-0 game today. If you somehow comes up with a way to hamper offense, you'll get Oregon and Baylor scoring in the 30's and everyone else in the single digits

Perkis-Size Me

October 19th, 2013 at 11:50 PM ^

I think those days are behind us, especially when you're talking about smash mouth, hard-nosed football with big hits. Concussions have become such a huge issue in the sport that they have to make those big hits illegal, and in the case of professional football, finable.



The sport is just all about minimizing risk to itself right now, especially in the NFL. And unfortunately, that means we're edging closer and closer to glorified flag football. It sucks, and I know I'm addressing just part of your argument, but the sport has to adapt in order to survive.

Yeoman

October 20th, 2013 at 12:30 AM ^

I don't think we know enough about brain injuries yet to know whether the bigger risk is in big hits and concussions or in the accumulation of smaller impacts that linemen suffer on every play.

But if you're right and it's the big hits that are the problem, those tend to happen in space.

And slowing the game down means fewer plays which, all else being equal, would mean fewer impacts of both kinds.

I don't think what we're seeing now is quite the ideal adaptation if the goal is player safety. But if what you're saying is that limiting hits in space tilts the game in favor of an open offensive approach, that's probably true.

MonkeyMan

October 20th, 2013 at 3:19 PM ^

There is an interesting Frontline documantary called "Football High" that covers the multiple hits and long term brain damage that occurs even from minor hits to the head. You can watch it online at PBS. Without a doubt, the highest priority should be to protect the kids- this is more important than high or low scoring rules.

snarling wolverine

October 19th, 2013 at 11:59 PM ^

I think so.  Defenses should have a fair chance to get their personnel on the field.   One thing I love about football is the chess match between the offense and defense, but when offenses rush to the line (and then stand there several seconds looking for the play from the sideline) it doesn't give defenses much of a chance to make their own changes.  

What I would do is require 25 seconds on the play clock to elapse between plays, so the offense couldn't snap the ball before the play clock is at 15.  That would still allow teams to run a pretty quick tempo, just not the hyper-fast speed that some of them currently run.  (I would of course make an exception for the last two minutes of the half, so teams could still rush up to the line and spike it then.)

 

Red is Blue

October 20th, 2013 at 8:38 AM ^

I've got no problem if the O gets to the line fast and runs the play.  But, it does bother me when they get to the line fast to have the guy upstairs read the D to signal down a different play which is relayed to the O from the sideline.  The D doesn't have a chance to make similar adjustments because if they looked over the sideline and reconfigured the O would snap the ball as they are moving.  Seems like that is what needs to be levelized, but making them wait until 25 seconds doesn't seem to be the right approach.

M-Wolverine

October 19th, 2013 at 11:59 PM ^

But they'll never change it. People used to make fun of Arena Football but they've basically turned it into that.

In reply to by M-Wolverine

Bando Calrissian

October 20th, 2013 at 12:02 AM ^

Hell, people used to make fun of the mid-major games in the mid 90s where teams like Marshall would put up a thousand points, play minimal defense, and still win.

Now, it's the norm.

ShruteBeetFarms

October 20th, 2013 at 12:01 AM ^

I would have enjoyed today's game more if our cornerbacks could catch the ball though. I remember the Minnesota game a few weeks ago when Minnesota had one drive that took about two and half quarters.

maizenblue92

October 20th, 2013 at 12:02 AM ^

Subtle changes:

1. You can't snap the ball until the chains are set

2. Tighter enforcement on offensive PI and rub routes

3. Put the umpire behind the play like the NFL so he is out of the D's way (LB's keep getting picked off)

4. Don't allow the offense to start a rugby-style maul with a ballcarrier. These are a hazard to player safety.

Possible radical changes:

1. Two-feet inbound for a catch/NFL-style process rule

2. Tighten hashes (not as tight as the NFL, sort of that middle-zone area). It would put the game in the middle of the field and less on the perimeter.

CompleteLunacy

October 20th, 2013 at 1:43 PM ^

The BTN crew was not exactly stellar yesterday, but early in the game they did bring up an important point with IU's tempo offense...that they got off a play before the chains were even set. The ball was set, fo course, but that's a minor change that may add a couple seconds naturally to a defense to adapt. It's not much, but it could be the difference between being ready and not being ready. I'm not advocating a "wait till 25 seconds on teh playclock to snap" rule, because that would mess up end-of-game scenarios...but subtle rules can be changed to give the defense more of a chance. There does seem to be something inherently wrong with the fact that an offense can snap the ball before the chains even get set.

ppudge

October 20th, 2013 at 12:12 AM ^

2 changes are all I need to see: 1) allow d-backs to have contact with a man if they are looking at the ball. Even if there early. 2) put gloves, similar to boxing gloves, on the o-linemen so they can't grab hold of defensive players.

snarling wolverine

October 20th, 2013 at 12:53 AM ^

Your argument makes it sound like the two sides of the ball substitute in the same way.  They don't.  Defenses, under normal conditions, will substitute much more often, partly because players simply get more tired on that side of the ball and partly because there are lots of different personnel groups that are used in different situations.   On offense, substitution within drives is usually pretty limited, usually coming down to swapping a TE for WR or maybe a FB. The OL and QB won't be pulled, and the RB and outside WRs generally won't be either.   Anything that works to limit substitution is going to favor the offense.

jmblue

October 20th, 2013 at 1:09 AM ^

No. Stop the other team from scoring

Well that's the thing: under the current rules, it's becoming harder to stop the other team from scoring.  Scoring is up across the country and there is no reason to believe that will change as more and more schools try to copy the Oregon model of running plays as fast as possible, before the defense can get set, let alone substitute.

About 20 years ago, the NCAA outlawed having more than 11 players in the huddle (which had been one of Moeller's favorite tactics, to make the defense have to guess which guys would be pulled) because it felt it gave offenses too much of an advantage. It may want to look into changing some rules now for the same reason.

CompleteLunacy

October 20th, 2013 at 1:48 PM ^

The first, another poster suggested above, is an offense can't snap the ball before the chains are set. Right now they only have to wait for the ball to get set, but there are many times the chains weren't even set before IU snapped the ball.

The second, more radical, suggestion...allow defenses a certain amount of time to substitute players on any new set of downs (or something to that effect). Right now they only get time to substitute if the offense makes substitutions. And an offense can substitute whenever they feel like it...a defense cannot when the offense is driving. 

FGB

October 20th, 2013 at 12:27 AM ^

Is possibly the fastest i've ever seen.  And I live in Eugene.  I'm generally fine with "uptempo" but It really does seem to take something away from the game if half the time the defensive team doesn't have everyone on the field, let alone lined up in the right place, let alone set in a stance, let alone executing a defensive play.

A simple rule like you have to wait to snap it until maybe  3 or 4 seconds after the ref sets it and gets back into his position, except under 2 minutes in a half.

It would still allow uptempo, but not "maniac-speed" or whatever Indiana is doing. This is gonna sound like sour grapes after that game, but buiding an offense around catching the other team not ready is sorta dumb for the game.  It'd be like if you could throw a pitch at any time so the batter always has to be ready to run into the box, or if you could inbound the ball in basketball at anytime without having to wait for the whistle.  Yes, I know it's within the rules, but it nonetheless changes the fundamental concept of what the game is about.