Should CFB change the rules to favor more defense?

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.

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 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.

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

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.