HUNH or Old School Football?

[HuskerOC]

Which do you want?

Or really, which do your prefer?

For its greater part, American college football has been played in a rugby pile type atmosphere for most if its age in which big men were banging heads and shoulders with other big men to advance a ball towards an opponents end zone.

Within the last decade or so, that has drastically changed.

Spread offenses, the Zone Read, and many other favoritism's towards offensive football have opened up the flood gates towards a more wide open offensive style of football vs the old school ground and pound style of a Bear Bryant, Bo Schembechler, or the toss sweep John McKay.

My question is, which style do you really want?

48-42 or 17-14?

Likely beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I definitely didn't enjoy watching an SEC Championship game score of 59-42.

 

[Texas Jefe]

I would like more of a middle ground, if we can find it. Want hard hitting, shut-down defense, with offense that can do more than three yards at a time. Not sure how that may be possible, but WTH.

 

[KnightAndDay]

My preference lies somewhere in the middle, like 27-24

 

[Codaxx]

I always liked games in the over 35 total pts and under 60. Games under tend to be the results of bad oe conservative offenses vs good defense. Games over are generally just bad defense.

 

[outofyourmind]

Here is my preference.


Barry Switzer thru 190 games averaged 33ppg and scored 50+pts 30 times.
Bob Stoops thru 199 games averages 36ppg and has scored 50+pts 42 times.

 

[HuskerOC]

Here is my preference.


Barry Switzer thru 190 games averaged 33ppg and scored 50+pts 30 times.
Bob Stoops thru 199 games averages 36ppg and has scored 50+pts 42 times.

Bring back the 'Bone.

Charles Thompson, JC Watts, Jamelle Hollieway. Marcus Dupree, Billy Simms, the Pruitt brothers, Lloyd Carr, Buster Rhymes, and even Spencer Tillman.

 

[trojanfan12]

I want to see each team play the style that their coaches feel gives them the best chance to win. When 2 teams play each other and they have been coached and prepared in the style that gives them the best opportunity to win, those are the best games.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

I like good football no matter what type of game breaks out. What I dont like is trying to whip the game with rules or catching them off guard. Why cant we matchup your best players at each position against our best and see who is better, why do we have to limit one side in order to win. And yes this goes both ways, but recently most of the rules have been created to protect the offense or offensive players.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Why do I have to choose? I enjoy both styles equally. I don't think either style is a superior way of doing things. What is superior is being stout on both sides of the ball. I can't remember a single national champion who couldn't get a stop on defense when they needed. I can't remember a single national champion that wasn't efficient on offense when they needed to be. At least not recently...

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Outlaw the pass play and bring back the wishbone.


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

 

[mrwallace2ku]

I believe our D-coor M Banker was onto the right D scheme to stop the HUNH offenses last year in the Pac...it was a 3-4 base D scheme. Never worked out well for our team because the opps Os simply ran the rwak down our throats when they saw it. Banker WAS on the right path tho, you just need the Hogs up front to pull it off with. Something Bama has. LBs would either stop the read option plays or drop back in low zone coverages.

Anywhoze the 3-4 Base D don't work @ State, but that is the D to beat it with good defenses up front.

 

[Olyduck]

Which do you want?

Or really, which do your prefer?

For its greater part, American college football has been played in a rugby pile type atmosphere for most if its age in which big men were banging heads and shoulders with other big men to advance a ball towards an opponents end zone.

Within the last decade or so, that has drastically changed.

Spread offenses, the Zone Read, and many other favoritism's towards offensive football have opened up the flood gates towards a more wide open offensive style of football vs the old school ground and pound style of a Bear Bryant, Bo Schembechler, or the toss sweep John McKay.

My question is, which style do you really want?

48-42 or 17-14?

Likely beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I definitely didn't enjoy watching an SEC Championship game score of 59-42.

Your question has fault. Your assumption on scores is wrong.
Oregon vs Auburn was 2 high scoring fast offenses that ended in a score of 22-19
Oklahoma vs Alabama Sugar bowl 45-31.
and as for the SEC Championship game yes 59-42 with 2 fast paced teams happened but lets not forget Georgia vs Alabma 32-28.

 

[HuskerOC]

Your question has fault. Your assumption on scores is wrong.
Oregon vs Auburn was 2 high scoring fast offenses that ended in a score of 22-19
Oklahoma vs Alabama Sugar bowl 45-31.
and as for the SEC Championship game yes 59-42 with 2 fast paced teams happened but lets not forget Georgia vs Alabma 32-28.

Are you saying that a 32-28 final isn't a high scoring game in college football?

Are you also trying to say that while Oregon may be fast, they don't score all that much?

 

[KansasSooner]

Which do you want?

Or really, which do your prefer?

For its greater part, American college football has been played in a rugby pile type atmosphere for most if its age in which big men were banging heads and shoulders with other big men to advance a ball towards an opponents end zone.

Within the last decade or so, that has drastically changed.

Spread offenses, the Zone Read, and many other favoritism's towards offensive football have opened up the flood gates towards a more wide open offensive style of football vs the old school ground and pound style of a Bear Bryant, Bo Schembechler, or the toss sweep John McKay.

My question is, which style do you really want?

48-42 or 17-14?

Likely beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I definitely didn't enjoy watching an SEC Championship game score of 59-42.

What changed was defense being specialized for down and distance, ie the nickel, the dime, etc. Get rid of that and go back to playing straight defense. What you're basically asking for is for offenses to be hampered by situation substitutions on defense. Screw it, let the offenses run wild with the hurry up and make coaches learn to coach defense without having to resort to special packages.

 

[Hornsstampede2.0]

You don't need the gimmicky HURRY UP silliness that is designed simply to manipulate personnel substitution to create offense. That is a cop-out used to justify the actual purpose behind it.

You can have a good offense AND a Huddle.
They are not mutually exclusive.

You can huddle then break the huddle with 5 wide receiver sets.
You can huddle then break the huddle with 2 Tights ends a a fullback.
There is no rule that suggests huddling must produce off-tackle fullback runs for 1 yard.

I don't know about penalizing teams for doing it.....
But, I am 100% for allowing unlimited defensive substitutions if it means ending some of the HUNH silly stuff.

 

[Codaxx]

Bring back the 'Bone.

Charles Thompson, JC Watts, Jamelle Hollieway. Marcus Dupree, Billy Simms, the Pruitt brothers, Lloyd Carr, Buster Rhymes, and even Spencer Tillman.

Did you watch Auburn? That is a pretty damn good copy

 

[KansasSooner]

You don't need the gimmicky HURRY UP silliness that is designed simply to manipulate personnel substitution to create offense. That is a cop-out used to justify the actual purpose behind it.

You can have a good offense AND a Huddle.
They are not mutually exclusive.

You can huddle then break the huddle with 5 wide receiver sets.
You can huddle then break the huddle with 2 Tights ends a a fullback.
There is no rule that suggests huddling must produce off-tackle fullback runs for 1 yard.

I don't know about penalizing teams for doing it.....
But, I am 100% for allowing unlimited defensive substitutions if it means ending some of the HUNH silly stuff.

By the same token you should be able to play defense against any down and distance without needing to make mass substitutions on defense. If that's what the hurry up does away with I'm all for it.

 

[HuskerOC]

You don't need the gimmicky HURRY UP silliness that is designed simply to manipulate personnel substitution to create offense. That is a cop-out used to justify the actual purpose behind it.

You can have a good offense AND a Huddle.
They are not mutually exclusive.

You can huddle then break the huddle with 5 wide receiver sets.
You can huddle then break the huddle with 2 Tights ends a a fullback.
There is no rule that suggests huddling must produce off-tackle fullback runs for 1 yard.

I don't know about penalizing teams for doing it.....
But, I am 100% for allowing unlimited defensive substitutions if it means ending some of the HUNH silly stuff.

Damn.

I have to agree with Horns.

It isn't so much the pace of the plays, but the whole not huddling thing.

Offenses are taking gross advantage of the play clock by lining up offensively like they are ready to take a snap, while they "meerkat" over to the sideline for plays and instruction. Many times they "meerkat" for way more than the 10 seconds this silly rule is actually looking for while actually having the ability to keep defenses hostage to their personnel on the field.

Once the "meerkatting" is over, the defense is then only given a second or two to make any kind of adjustment to the 20 to even 30 seconds of offensive adjustments.

 

[Olyduck]

Are you saying that a 32-28 final isn't a high scoring game in college football?

Are you also trying to say that while Oregon may be fast, they don't score all that much?

Im saying slower offenses can have high scores and that fast offenses can result in low ones.

 

[trojanfan12]

Damn.

I have to agree with Horns.

It isn't so much the pace of the plays, but the whole not huddling thing.

Offenses are taking gross advantage of the play clock by lining up offensively like they are ready to take a snap, while they "meerkat" over to the sideline for plays and instruction. Many times they "meerkat" for way more than the 10 seconds this silly rule is actually looking for while actually having the ability to keep defenses hostage to their personnel on the field.

Once the "meerkatting" is over, the defense is then only given a second or two to make any kind of adjustment to the 20 to even 30 seconds of offensive adjustments.

And so? If the offense substitutes, the defense gets to as well. So what if the offense is adjusting, the defense can too. They also get to substitute anytime the offense does.