Saban & Bielema behind the kill uptempo offense rule

[Edisto_Tiger]

So a group hug killed the fuckin thread?

 

[potzer25]

It won't me surprise when it passes. Big name coaches went to the committee to argue for it, there is a "think of the children mentality" at work, and most proposals get passed. It's a BS method to get changes put through that favor certain coaching styles. Has zero to do with player safety and everything to do with wanting to substitute on defense every play. It will ruin the game. Pure and simple.

Maybe we should stop allowing players to advance the ball after a catch so no one gets hurt trying to bring down the ball with a defender tackling them? Or how about no more touching the QB unless he crosses the line of scrimmage.

 

[Jakology]

It won't me surprise when it passes. Big name coaches went to the committee to argue for it, there is a "think of the children mentality" at work, and most proposals get passed. It's a BS method to get changes put through that favor certain coaching styles. Has zero to do with player safety and everything to do with wanting to substitute on defense every play. It will ruin the game. Pure and simple.

Maybe we should stop allowing players to advance the ball after a catch so no one gets hurt trying to bring down the ball with a defender tackling them? Or how about no more touching the QB unless he crosses the line of scrimmage.

Which is why I'll refuse to watch college football ever again if it happens.

 

[theSabanator20]

Which is why I'll refuse to watch college football ever again if it happens.

Or maybe you'll stop watching because GT sucks ass

Thou jimmies may be rustled, but ye old troll attempt wast hysterical and thoust knows it

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

Or maybe you'll stop watching because GT sucks ass

Thou jimmies may be rustled, but ye old troll attempt wast hysterical and thoust knows it

We are going to have to get HD to get us a #4 for Harvick's new ride.

 

[theSabanator20]

We are going to have to get HD to get us a #4 for Harvick's new ride.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Its easier on offense to do that than it is on defense. Shall we bring up Stanford and your inability to manhandle them like the other teams you played. This is the point i am getting at, its not the same for defenses that play situation style football, which they all do. Bama has to account for two styles of ball in the SEC, smash mouth and spread, so they have to recruit big guys who can move well, doesnt mean they can play three or more downs in a row against those speedy spread teams. In the end it comes down to the argument they had about a 10 second run off to substitute and some guys said most HUHN teams dont snap the ball before 10 seconds has run off anyways, so i dont see what the big deal about this is at this point.

So if most teams don't do it, why is there a need to create a rule?

 

[BamaTee1]

The rule: Offenses that snap the ball before 29 seconds remain on the play clock would receive a 5-yard delay-of-game penalty, except when there is less than 2 minutes left in the 2nd or 4th quarter.

Okay. Lets look at some examples. You're Oregon. You're down by 17 with 8 minutes to go in the 4th. What are you doing? You're calling 4 or 5 plays in advance and you're not stopping. You're snapping the ball in under 10 seconds. Trying to score as fast as possible and come back. But with this rule, you'll have to slow down your pace and watch the clock and wait for it to hit 29 before you can snap. Effectively killing your pace, slowing you down, and slowing your momentum at the same time.

4 minutes left. Down by 10. Trying to hurry up. You're a running the ball because the defense is allowing it and you're gaining 10-20 yard chunks. Instead of pushing further and continuing your momentum, you have to stand there and wait for the play clock to hit 29 before you snap it again. The game clock is running while you have wait. This effectively hamstrings teams who are in a hole late in the game.

Lets say there is 6 minutes left in the first half and you want to try to 2 for 1 the other team. Meaning you want 2 possessions before the half ends. But the clock runs while you wait for the play clock to hit 29 seconds, effectively messing up your strategy to a degree, allowing you less time to work with. This cannot happen.

I honestly can't believe they are even talking about this rule. It is the worst thing to ever happen to football. I really do enjoy college football. But sadly, it appears they are going the same way of the NFL. They are going to invent BS rules to keep players "safe." This is the worst I've seen yet though. I'm in utter shock. The game that we love is slowly dying before our eyes. Both NFL and College now. I'm going to make a stance:

If this rule passes, I refuse to watch college football ever again.

There's no way this rule passes. 0% chance. I refuse to believe it until it happens. Why? Why does all the good in the world have to ruined? Always. Fuck this rule. /Rant

You do realize the play clock starts immediately at the end of the previous play so when the player is tackled it goes to 40 seconds immediately and than 39.38,37,36,35,34,33,32,31,30, snap. How often do you really think everyone can run back to the line get set for a full second (required by rule but abused by the HUNH offenses) and than have to wait for the clock? Hope you enjoy your other hobbies!

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

You do realize the play clock starts immediately at the end of the previous play so when the player is tackled it goes to 40 seconds immediately and than 39.38,37,36,35,34,33,32,31,30, snap. How often do you really think everyone can run back to the line get set for a full second (required by rule but abused by the HUNH offenses) and than have to wait for the clock? Hope you enjoy your other hobbies!

As difficult as you make it out to be, why should the teams who are able to run that efficiently be punished?

 

[BamaTee1]

As difficult as you make it out to be, why should the teams who are able to run that efficiently be punished?

How are they being punished?

 

[ChicagoIrish]

So a group hug killed the fuckin thread?

Lol

 

[RegentDenali]

45 pages and the Bama fans are still attempting to explain it all away with claims were all just jealous of their greatness and name calling.

45 pages and they can't admit this has 0 to do with "player safety". Saban muttered something. They bow. And then act shocked that everyone doesn't do the same.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

How are they being punished?

The few teams who have worked hard at being as efficient as possible with lining up play-to-play now are forced to wait before snapping the ball. This is an unnecessary burden.

 

[trojanfan12]

It's amazing Bo!!! I talk about my team, stick to the subject and get blasted and threatened with a TB appearance and if my experience or history proves itself it would be me and not the instigator!!! Seen it happen many times already. Occupant is such a troll but has the connections I guess? There must be a secret fraternity in here that controls everything and equity is not part of their agenda!!!

It's the Illuminati!!

 

[charlie42s]

It's the Illuminati!!

THEY are out to get BamaTee!

 

[BamaTee1]

THEY are out to get BamaTee!

People are so jealous of the best?

 

[LawDawg]

See. Even the NFL gets it. How's that hole you are digging feel? Like it so far?

You continue to hang your hat on the idea that the D gets to switch IF the O switches. We all get that. That has never been debated here. We know that if the O subs, the D subs. What you should really try to understand is that we are saying that the D should be able to sub, even if the O does not sub. You can disagree what that, as I am sure you will. But stop trying to act like we are asking for what is already in the books - the guaranteed right for the D to switch and set is not in the books.

 

[LawDawg]

It's really funny how you earlier made the argument that no one has posted data to refute your assertion that rested players get injured less, when you have yet to supply any data to support a rule change. It's a poor debate tactic, essentially "Prove me wrong" when you have yet to be proven correct.

Here's data from Page 1 of this thread posted by Codaxx which you ignored or didn't bother to read.

While I have agreed that injury angle seems specious, posting some stats from 1 year provides very little statistical significance. The sample size is too small, to begin with. I think everyone sees that this is being pitched as an injury issue as that is the only way they will get it considered this year.

As someone who likes the proposal, I don't like the way it is being pitched.

 

[BamaTee1]

45 pages and the Bama fans are still attempting to explain it all away with claims were all just jealous of their greatness and name calling.

45 pages and they can't admit this has 0 to do with "player safety"[/B]. Saban muttered something. They bow. And then act shocked that everyone doesn't do the same.

That's pretty absolute. Keep in mind he mentioned looking into it and the committee took it and ran with it. I personally believe Saban believes it needs to be researched but he also wants to see defensive strategy and coaching stay an integral part of the game. The committee however is looking at player safety as the main reason, so to say ALL THIS has NOTHING to do with player safety means lots of people are covering it up! It also shows the narrow mindedness and agenda the majority of you have!

 

[LawDawg]

What is inaccurate about the data?

Sample size renders the stats suspect. I am not saying it is wrong, just that you can't derive the conclusions from it that you are doing. What if, in a 10 year period, that is an outlier year?