landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
Or Offensive face masks.
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.
You must have missed their game against a&m
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.
Exactly what rules would you change?
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?
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).
1) Get rid of the late 1970's rule changes allowing offensive lineman to extend arms.
god, this thread is moronic
How so? It's a relevant topic about college football that has recently received plenty of attention.
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.
Like a pretty good thread to me
Wait, since when does Nick Saban post on MGoBlog?
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.
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
I don't have the stats off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure scoring is generally on a large upward trend.
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.
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.
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.
Anyone who watched the MSU-Purdue game today.
Yay, I love letting small sample sizes influence decisions.
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.)
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.
But they'll never change it. People used to make fun of Arena Football but they've basically turned it into that.
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.
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.
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.
This thread is really dumb, but I actually think all of your suggestions are reasonable.
Yes please to number 1.
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.
I may be in the minority, but watching the game in person today led me to this: I don't like watching uptempo, hyper speed football in person.
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.
I would recommend offensive linemen wearing sock puppets on their hands.
Sadly, this won't stop Borges running into a stacked 9 man box.
No. Stop the other team from scoring. If the offense can get up and get set to go then so can the defense. This just sounds like whining.
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.
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.
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.
The original poster is a Nebraska fan.
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.
There is also an enormous lack of parity in college football compared to other sports.
Offenses are way ahead right now, but not because of the safety rules. Smart coaches at programs with less talent have stopped emulating traditional schemes and hoping to win man-to-man against better teams. It's lead to the spread, zone read, option, wishbone, wing-t, and the combination of 4 verts with running the ball.
Defenses, notably Michigan, jumped ahead in the late 90s with the zone blitz. Defensive coaches need to find a better mousetrap again.
I've grow to dislike the chess analogy. It assumes everyone starts out level, when each side has advantages. The defense has one player you can't block and the offense knows where the ball is going and picks when the play starts. Offenses have realized they can press those two advantages very successfully. There's no reason they should give up those advantages.
Chess isn't a level playing field either
Except that it is. Sure white gets to move first, but somebody has to.
...but if you really want to tilt things back toward the defense, go back to the old rule that made any grasping by a blocker illegal, even if it was inside the frame of the body.
That was the biggest rules change of my lifetime.
should just stop complaining about it. It's a great strategy on keeping the defense on the field with the same personnel. They get to run the play before the defense is set and tire the defense out. That's the purpose of the uptempo offense. Indiana ran it beautifully all game long. If Michigan is doing the same thing, you would not be complaining about it at all.
It's not necessarily the tempo that is causing the rising of the scoring in the game. It's the proliferation of spread offense with innovative minded coaches that is a big factor.
He just misses the days of the black shirt defense.
but I also presume to think UM fans hearts are with the D as well.
The offense/defense balance has become too skewed in the offense's favor. Safety rules like the crackdown on targeting can't be changed, but rules that give the defense more of a chance to substitute between plays would be a good idea. (And I've felt this way for awhile; it's not a reaction to today's game.) Seeing all these 49-42 games with 500+ yards of offense for each team gets tiresome after awhile.
I don't think they should change any rules that favor one side of the ball or another. Its artificial and it bastardizes the game.
But I do not like these sorts of games, either, as a spectator. I've never been so bored by a game before last night. No particular play seemed very important until the last 5 minutes or so. Big third down early in the game? No such thing. Huge PA pass over the top? We'll need 4 more of those. It is just not exciting to me. It reminded me of basketball, in which nothing is ever decided until the last minute or so. Its not for me. But that doesn't mean football should change to fit my viewing taste.
Haven't they already bastardized the game? Isn't this just trying to restore equilibrium?
Interesting question, Chicago B!GRed.
I think change in college football comes and goes in cycles; it may take some time for defenses to innovate and come up with the way to beat the uptempo offense.
It's interesting also that Kevin Wilson today acknowledged that his uptempo offense puts pressure on his team's defense. So while it kept them in the game today until the last quarter, it may have also cost them the game.
The same complaint was made of the pressure the RR offense put on a defense, in terms of how long they had to be out on the field.
It may be that we will see this trend temper itself without any rule changes, especially as defenses catch up and learn what to do to stop it.
I'm not sure what the counterpunch to this could be, given that defenses have a hard time substituting. That really limits what you can call defensively and can cause your D to be more tired. I think changing the rules to allow the defense more of a chance to substitute is only fair.
was light-speed fast compared to what Rich Rod did here. It's much faster than Oregon's as well. It felt like that game was 5-6 quarters long. I thinkthe offense has a huge advantage by being able to come to the line as soon as the ref places the ball and then have the sideline call a play, handcuffing the defense. I don't know what the solution is, but aside from Michigan winning the game, that wasn't very enjoyable to sit through.
The one rule that MUST be changed is that a ball cvarrier be called for face-masking when they stiff arm. It is NEVER called and should be. Why can the offensive player grab a facemask or a helmet and not get penalizied.
Also, the hits like the ones that Roby did today need a stiffer penalty. He made helmet-to-helmet twice before being tossed. I think if a player is kicked out of a game and also the next one, then it might change the way DBs hit.
That's more bang for my buck.
RBs aren't tackling people by the facemask or otherwise jerking their necks. They're just holding them off.
If you hire fatter refs they won't be able to set the ball as quickly and the game will slow down.
with hip replacements.
or refs in wheel chairs
"Remember 17-10 games being fairly common?"
Didn't Notre Dame just beat USC (ya know, one of the game's most storied rivalries) 14-10?
To batte an up tempo offense, teams need an uptempo defense. Problem solved!
Just have the d line start rushing before the ball is snapped and the o line gets set. Knock out a couple of qbs and problem solved!
I think most fans prefer a lot of offense. So yours is a minority opinion. Most people don't want to see a lot of 13-7 games.
When the offense gets a first down, allow the defense time to sub.
that officials has to let the defense sub if the offense sub. If defense tries to sub while the offense doesn't sub and snap a play, tough luck. That's exactly what happened on the first TD play.
Just fake injuries more often
But not really
I'm embarrassed that the D gave up so many yards. Sure, our O put up even more yards, but honestly this was kind of embarrassing. I miss seeing a dominate Michigan D, where all 11 helmets are flying to the ball like hungry, wild dogs.
Oh for Pete's sake people, it's DOMINANT not dominate.
It was 3:47 AM on a Saturday night. Relax.
would be to change the rules on OL holding to what they were 40 years ago, and then instruct the refs to throw the goddamn flag.
I'm guessing you had no problem when NU perfected their option and simply ran roughshod over the Big 8. It's the same principle. They and ND were the only two teams running it as their standard offense and that is why they were successful. This, however, was prior to the great equalizer; the spread. I like it. Defensive masters will still win fb games. Look no further than Alabama to justify that statement. You say you're sick of "pinball games" but every team other than WI and MSU use this as "their balanced attack" as you stated. I see nothing wrong with this. NU,UM, NW all use it as part of their attack and, of course, OSU, uses it as their standard. The difference being though between this and the option of the 90s is the qbs can actually throw the football. I think it makes for a very exciting chess match, myself. ^As a kid growing up I recall the "triple threat" was a back in the single wing that could throw, pass and catch. Now it's reduced to a "dual threat" where you don't have to worry about him catching it out of the backfield, but you pray he's not on target with his passes. I believe today in the Top 20, Oct 19, 2013, 5 teams went down to defeat. History dictates that all things evolve or become extinct. ^Yeah, for those teams that can go out, and we're one of them, and recruit the top prospects in the nation year after year, those teams, if we play "within an accepted element of offense" of course will continue to thrive and nothing will change. You saw what Michigan likes to do. Run the ball between tackles and then throw. But that is not how we gained advantage. It was the added element of the "now accepted" dual threat and principles of the spread that allowed us the victory. Perhaps in two years, we'll be a Bama where we can keep their offense off the field with long extended drives, then actually stop the opposing offense. But not yet. I don't mind at all DCs earning their pay and not being embarrassed by giving up 40 points. ^ The one aspect you are ignoring here, imo anyway, is only a very small amount of teams can assemble the talent required to play the game in the manner you like. Bama can. They've proven that. FSU, is on their tail. They don't ask Jameis to run the spread because it's not needed. Michigan is recruiting in similar fashion and within a couple of years will have that talent assembled. If they have the coaching staff in hand to handle it, we'll take that step. And our talent on both sides of the ball will be too much for the majority of our opponents to handle. ^ You Braska fans weren't here yet some 15-20 years ago, but you enjoyed the same priviliges of OU in the Big 8. Just get more talent. Then Joe Tiller came to Purdue with his version of the "modern spread," actually the run and gun and changed things. Alvarez took over at WI and took home grown, corn-fed boys and put together a great program, one that would eventually move to the top of the league. Barnett at NW, of all places, introduced his offensive philosophy and NW beat UM 54-51 and the Purple were on to the Rose Bowl. Suddenly the Big X was kicking ass everywhere, including the bowl games. Why? Because certain coaches dared make changes and although it wasn't lasting in terms of power shift in the conference, it certainly introduced a new wave that other conferences followed and the results were the same. ^Ultimately the Big Boys regained power but the face of football was changed forever. There was no longer the Big 2 and the rest in the 10 and the 8. There was always a team out there ready to challenge. If you want to regress to those days then yes, your recipe is the correct one. The traditional powers will once again no longer be challenged. But as a fan of one of the traditional powers, I am all in favor of coaching and strategy being every bit as important as simply signing four and five star players and saying, "do this," and expecting victory. If we're really all that, then it's as every bit important that our coaching staff and not just our players be four and five star as well.
Wonderful post. While reading I felt the underlying message was that of act and react. The reaction to these new forms of offense are not at a point where one would call them anywhere near successful. You stated that certain coaches dared to step outside the box with regards to offense. The same will have to be said about defensive coaches to curtail these offensive onslaughts.
People like touchdowns
While it is true that the rules have been skewed to help the offense, teams need to do better on defense. In this day and age your secondary has to be elite, your LBs have to be able to play man coverage and the defense as a whole needs to have great awareness playing zone. I hate watching shooutouts too but nothing is better than watching a defense dominate a great offense.
"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......"
I have to wonder if athleticism and innovation on offense have a lot to do with what you're discussing here as I believe coaches over the past 20 years have been looking for ways to not find themselves in the 17-10 games of old. That being said, which rules in the book would you consider changing specifically? That might help the discussion here.
I think that college football should go to the NFL style of clock management. The clock doesn't stop on 1st downs and put the 2 minute warning in. Regular games are taking 3.5 hours and spread games are taking 4+ hours every week.
Wow you're just a total asshole, aren't you? Given the participation by so many people here, it seems this thread isn't so ridiculous after all.
These newfangled spread offenses need to stay off my lawn!!
If your defense can't get a stop, let the offense flow. There are enough playmakers on defense around the country, make plays!
It'll make a negligible difference, but I've long been in favor of needing two feet in bounds on a catch.
I think that would make a decent difference, especially the first few seasons. Could also rid the clock stopping on every first down. This allows comebacks much more easily. But I like that rule for college. I guess, I just don't know man..
As someone else stated, it's less about rule changes and more about scheme. So you want to offenses just because many coaches around the country have figured out how to score lots and lots of points (under the idea that at the end of the day, whoever has the most points wins)? Pretty sure Fielding Yost ran his teams under the same philosophy, as did the Mad Magicians. No need to change the game just because more teams are doing it now.
Look at the Oregon-WSU game: it looks very similar to UM-IU. The biggest differences were that Oregon was +2 and Indiana was better on 3rd down.
Big scores tend to happen when you play spread vs. spread. A clock-eating Manball offense is the perfect complement to a BBDB turnover-creating defense facing an uptempo spread team.
I was thinking during the game that the pace would be ok if the defense had enough timeouts to call one after 5 or 6 plays. It would be game theoretically interesting if the pace of the offense were somehow tied to the number of timeouts the other team gets. Of course I know that'll never happen, but it would add to the chess match element.
I mentioned this in the Defense snowflake thread, but if you stop the clocks to reset the chains, shouldn't you wait until the chains are set to start the clock? That is the point, right? If it isn't, then we might as well go to the NFL model of running clock.
If it is, you could get crazy and allow the home team to control the chain gang. Michigan could train their chain gang to move slow, while IU could train theirs to go fast. An added element to the home field advantage.
[Note: I don't necessarily advocate the second solution, I think it would be interesting.]
Purdue I think got into MSU's red zone once. MSU only scored 1 offensive touchdown, the other 7 came from a fumble and return.
Yesterday was silly, and I do feel that maybe some of the rules about pass coverage could bet tweaked, but no way should things like the targeting rule and head to head stuff be changed. We simply know better about how serious concussions are nowadays.
Has there ever been a team that plays manball use up tempo as a primary approach (not just when behind with little time left in the game)? It would be interesting to see what a team like Wisconsin could do with a no-huddle offense.
we could decrease the size of hockey rinks and have more fighting...
and instead of hand-checking, let Craft just grab guys...
etc etc etc
seems to know how to get stops. I'll be happy if we get half our yardage in the IU game when we play State.
Not really, but I was stunned after a long incompletion that while 3 defenders were still in the end zones a new ball was already spotted at the 50. You can't have a pace like that without cooperative officials. I sat behind the IU bench and watched the officials being lobbied all game long.
still, I saw how fast the refs placed the ball and backed out of the LOS so the next play could be run. When I watch other games last night, the officials moved much slower.
You can eliminate the O coming to the ball and then waiting for the sideline to scan the D and then call a play by starting a 7-second play clock once the ref steps away from the ball. The offense wouldn't be able to do all the shifting/changing and still get the play off. The ref could stand over the ball for 6-10 more seconds and the defense could sub. The offense would be forced to call two plays each time and then live with the formation and play they chose against the defense that's in. Chess match again.
I like touchdowns too, but I don't really enjoy each team running 80+ plays and getting 600-700+ yards on offense. Defense almost didn't play a part. It was kinda like 7-on-7 or flag football. Speed was the key, not necessarily the players, just the execution.
Until an Oregon plays an Alabama and Oregon embarrasses Bama winning 58-35 and gains 740 yards on Bama's world-class defense, nothing will change.
The point of the "spread" and no huddle offenses is to reduce the 'disadvantage' of not having 340 lb lineman and 245 LBs. By the third or fourth play in a drive at IU's pace, Bama's defense would be gassed and IU has the advanatge. That's the ONLY way IU could ever score on Bama.
If IU is as successful running it's speed offense against OSU. The Buckeyes will be in trouble. They rely on power and big hits from Roby and Shazier. If they can't get squared up, they can't intimidate IU.
will let the defense sub if the offense sub during a no huddle plays which is something that many forget. If offense doesnt' sub and defense sub, offense can snap that defense can get too many men on the field penalty or they get caught with their pants down just like Michigan did on the first TD play.
Complaining about it is stupid because IU is taking advantage of the Michigan defense who can't do anything to stop the offense.
Maybe require 10 seconds to run from the play clock. In addition to the defense not having a chance to set up, refs are running so fast to catch up to the offense so as to not slow them down that they're all out of position, don't have time to check to see if formations are legal, and are themselves out of breath. You want a well-called game -- don't make the refs have to gasp for air all the time.
And the video review booth has no shot whatsoever. You can still run a pretty effective no huddle if you snap it after 10 seconds. But this 7-8 seconds some teams do, while entertaining yesterday, seems to be stretching it to me.
I think it's a fair question to ask. I think it's perfectly understandable that some people enjoyed the old-school tough defensive contests, and don't want to see them go away. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the defense should have a decent amount of time to set up and call a play before the ball is snapped. I don't agree with everything the OP said but will defend his right to say it without being negged to death.
The main advantage is that defenses can't make substitutions and don't have time to fine tune adjustments. But let's remember that it comes with cost to your own defense (who will be on the field very quickly again), and doesn't work that well against defenses that operate more out of a base set (and don't have to disguise looks/rely on blitzes to get pressure). I mean, sure, IU shredded us with their up-tempo offense. But how did they do against MSU again?
Incidentally, this is also why, despite all the theory, up-tempo teams do not actually dominate the upper echelons of college football. Oregon--the penultimate up-tempo team--has not won a national championship. And even the spread teams that have won over the past decade (Florida and Auburn) were of a more rough-and-tumble variety, and used up-tempo more as a tactic to deploy than a general approach or strategy.
So yeah...I think this whole "up-tempo is ruining defensive football" meme is a wee bit overrated.
Why not just do what the NFL does? If the offense subs, the ball isn't spotted until the defense has a chance to sub as well. If the offense doesn't sub, oh well. That's on your D to be conditioned well enough to keep going.
with the OP.
perhaps a minimal time between end-of-play and snap; however, perhaps this requirement should turn off in the last 2 minutes of each half.
defense should get a chance to make some kind of call or substitution.
and also extend the game, again a shot againt the defense. But certain rules which the OP mentioned, like targeting, are for safety purposes. And the reason hits to qbs, kickers and defenseless receivers get flagged and sometimes result in ejection is because of the vulnerability of athletes to helmeted missile shots that not only risk shortening players careers, but their mental well-being as well.
At the pro level, the rules are in place because of player and league squabbles over injury lawsuits and labor wars over the years in which the NFL while seemingly seeking to protect player safety, actually marketed the brutality and violence of the game in order to sell its gladiator tendencies.
In Columbus yesterday, Buckeye All-American Bradley Roby, who has had a rough year both on the field and off, was ejected in the first half against Iowa after nailing a Hawkeye tight end with a helmet shot that violated the NCAA's new targeting rule.
This was after Roby had tackled another Iowa player high using his helmet along the sideline earlier in the game. He was flagged for a personal foul and then ejected after a conference of officials. And their decision was upheld by booth review. The call was correct. And it wasn't a case of the defensive player getting penalized by the circumstances of his contact. Roby came off his coverage and hit the guy in question after he had caught a pass on a drag route, and never really saw Roby coming. It was a vicious hit.
Football is just a dangerous game. I can't think of any other where the concern for safety ought to outweigh any proclivity to wistfully seek a return to the days when safety isn't the primary goal in game management and control. You play the sport knowing the health requirements, risks and dangers.
I said in the game recap thread - this kind of football is less entertaining to me. As far as changing the rules, the biggest one I'd change is PI - it's so arbitrary, and gets called for the offense in the touchiest of situations, but rarely for the defense - and even then, a PI on the D is a spot foul now, which would equate to awarding a turnover if it's on the O and you "assume he's going to catch it." There are already rules against holding, but I think PI should be relaxed so that you can't get PI for using your hands - if you can push a guy off the ball with just your hands, good on you! If he complains tell him to hit the weights - this is football, fergodsakes.
Also - would it kill then to call offensive holding once in a while?
While I think the OP raises a valid point, I think the more relevant question is that if there are so many advantages to the offense in the rules, why doesn't our coaching staff avail themselves of them more?
I don't fault coaches for using it, they're just using the rules to their advantage as they should. But I hate watching it. I think defenses are hamstrung by the safety concern rules, but those rules serve a legitimate purpose. I think rule changes to reduce tempo would help off-set the advantage offenses got from the safety rules. Also, I don't understand why more people don't talk about reducing tempo as way to increase player safety. Fewer plays means fewer opportunities for injury and hence fewer injuries (unless, for some bizarre reason, players are significantly safer on hurry up plays). I'm just an old curmudegon though. I think you should be able to handcheck in pro basketball too.
More plays means more moving which means higher need for aerobic activity and reduces player size, which reduces the force of hits.
I actually like tempo and the element it adds to games, but I think that the bigger problem for defenses is rules that encourage offense - relaxing holding penalties to the point if ridiculousness, and pass interference being an all too common occurrence in the touchiest of ways.
Football is cyclical; right now all of the athletes are on offense as a way to get an advantage over the defense. Pretty soon some smart coach is going to figure out that he needs more athletes and faster players in his back seven, and he is going to coach them to stay on the field longer. That will start the pendulum swinging back the other way.
Also, the defense "needing" to be able to substitute is silly. Have the backups on the sidelines with their helmets on, paying attention to play calls, and if someone needs to substitue against an up-tempo team, do it immediately after they are out of the play. There is still a window to get a couple of guys on and off the field between plays, you just have to be a little more urgent about it.
I have an even better solution: make the fields 500 YARDS long! This would lead to- 1. lower scoring games 2. bigger stadium attendance records 3. bigger game and single season records 4. better conditioned athletes- these stadiums could double as regional airport runways
Often it is because the refs don't control the game. The ref can stand on the ball until the sticks are set however in the Oregon game I saw them running the next play before the crew had a chance to catch up.
It is nothin the team is doing wrong it is the refs not ensuring everyone is ready to play.
To the original question: no. Any change that is implemented to favor one side of the ball is awful and serves only to bastardize the game. In the NFL, rules that were put in play to protect the QB in particular are insane and are a blatant attempt to protect an investment. How does sliding make any sense in the NFL when everyone else needs to be downed by contact? Wanna protect your QB, protect him by blocking. Tough to do that when the QB makes $100M and the line combined makes $40M. Wanna minimize the risk of losing your highest paid player, pay him less so it wouldn't kill you if he got hurt, like it wouldn't kill you if your best LB got hurt.
That aside, fast tempo is OK with me. Some teams need any advantage they can have. If tempo wins Indiana games, God bless them. That's good (offensive) coaching. Might hurt your already poor defense though.
Except that we've already seen rules changed specifically to favor one side of the ball. The change in holding rules in the 70s was done deliberately to favor the offense and get more scoring into the game.
If we undid that, would it bastardize the game?
One subtle but likely effective change would be to bring in the field 2.5 yards on each side, thereby reducing the total width of the field by 5 yards. This keeps all of the on-field goings-on in tact and isn't as obvious to the casual observer, but would decrease the amount of space an offense has to exploit/defense has to cover.
I really enjoyed yesterday's game. I wish our defense would've played better, but games with more possessions and scores provide lots of swings and emotion... not sure why everyone dislikes it so much. I think defenses will eventually find ways to adjust to current offensive tactics.