Saban & Bielema behind the kill uptempo offense rule

[BamaTee1]

RegentDenali

I do wish they would find a better way than through the play clock. I personally don't think the clock will impact the game very often but there has to better ways. We came up with adding a timeout or two a few pages back, maybe even letting them carry over, if not used, but keeping everything else the same. Seems like that keeps the game much more as it is. However, to look at player safety and the impact on defense, which impacts the direction the game is headed, is nothing but a prudent decision!

 

[lilchi721]

It's the Illuminati!!

No that's not it

 

[charlie42s]

People are so jealous of the best?

Nope, that's not it.

 

[charlie42s]

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?

Excellent, take a year to decide which data to collect and get the teams to agree to gather the data. Then start a 10 year study and after the study is complete an accurate decision can be made about the proposed rule change.

 

[LawDawg]

Excellent, take a year to decide which data to collect and get the teams to agree to gather the data. Then start a 10 year study and after the study is complete an accurate decision can be made about the proposed rule change.

That would be the reasonable thing to do. Or better yet, wait until next year and introduce it as a normal rule change instead of one under the guise of injury.

But, then again, who said anything about the NCAA and CFB is reasonable.

 

[BamaTee1]

Excellent, take a year to decide which data to collect and get the teams to agree to gather the data. Then start a 10 year study and after the study is complete an accurate decision can be made about the proposed rule change.

Is that what they did for all the other rule changes? I also find it perplexing that so many people ,think so much of themselves, they know exactly what is going on in those meetings. All people are focused on, is laughing at it being about player safety and Saban's agenda, and making a big fat joke about it. I personally think they might be looking at how all this impacts the entire game and is it good for college football? Should they tweak it? Change it? Leave it alone? Now the biggest part I notice is how so many have just stayed on track with attacking Saban, basically calling him a pussy, and there is nothing wrong now with so many games ending 55-45, with both teams over 500 yards. Thank goodness for the committee running the game, and not most of you, or scores would be up into the 60's and a mirror an arena football game! Oh wait, that Baylor-Washington ended 67-59. What a quality game! Everyone on the game thread was gagging on the game. I also remember so many game treads where post after post dogged the defenses.

Again, I repeat, there is a committee in every sport that police it and try to look out for the integrity and good of the game. There was once a game that had three phases: offense, defense and special teams. That landscape is changing and they are looking at it. Sound like something you should cry about and get all in a tissy?

 

[Codaxx]

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.

I actually agree with this. It is a very hurried study. Its not to say it is inaccurate, but it is just 1 yr and only a small sample of the overall

 

[charlie42s]

I don't think any rule changes are necessary to the game of college football at this time. Spread offenses can be stopped by defenses. The Big 12 has had a lot of spread offenses for many years and both OU and UT have had Top 10 defenses during that same time-frame.

Since you decided to bring up Baylor and their high scoring offense, Okie State was able to hold them to 17 points this past season and they weren't an elite defense.

There are many different offenses in college and defenses have to be flexible enough to play each of them differently. If not, the defenses will fail to stop the offenses.

If defenses find that they can't substitute on a moment's notice, they need to decide to substitute a play or two before they are completely winded. That way they can run to the sideline and not walk like an old man.

Since you apparently like low scoring games, let's just ban the forward pass.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Since you apparently like low scoring games, let's just ban the forward pass.

If Derrick Henry has the season they think he will next year don't be surprised if they jump on bd that idea.

 

[BamaFanAlways]

I don't think any rule changes are necessary to the game of college football at this time. Spread offenses can be stopped by defenses. The Big 12 has had a lot of spread offenses for many years and both OU and UT have had Top 10 defenses during that same time-frame.

Since you decided to bring up Baylor and their high scoring offense, Okie State was able to hold them to 17 points this past season and they weren't an elite defense.

There are many different offenses in college and defenses have to be flexible enough to play each of them differently. If not, the defenses will fail to stop the offenses.

If defenses find that they can't substitute on a moment's notice, they need to decide to substitute a play or two before they are completely winded. That way they can run to the sideline and not walk like an old man.

Since you apparently like low scoring games, let's just ban the forward pass.

I, personally, don't care one way or another if the rule passes. But it's this kind of whining that gets on my nerves. The rule "might" impact HUNH offenses to a degree, in some situations, and this is the "DEATH" of the HUNH. Let's address a few rule changes that affect the offense positively:

Roughing the quarterback - didn't always exist. The quarterback was fair game, just like anyone in the backfield. As long as he ran the ball, he could protect himself. If he wants to pass, however, he is now somehow special... Why? Player safety? Bull crap. It's so he has a better chance to complete his pass without getting hit. If he doesn't want to get hit, hand the damn thing off. The rule isn't for player safety, it's to keep the game flowing and to protect the offense so more points can be scored.

Defenseless receivers - didn't always exist. They are no more defenseless than anyone else. It's when they are putting themselves in dangerous positions TO ADVANCE THE BALL that they are in danger. If they don't want to get hit, keep your feet on the ground and protect yourself. The rule is not for player safety, it's for the advancement of the offense.

Defensive encroachment - used to mean a defensive player was in the "neutral zone" AT THE SNAP of the ball. Now, if that same player crosses the line and the pansy ass offensive lineman moves, he is penalized, even though he reversed course and is no longer in the neutral zone. Player safety? Give me a break! Just another play to slow down the pass rush on a quarterback that is already protected by special rules...

In case you're lost, most of this is tongue in cheek, but it IS what a lot of you sound like. Rules change, and if they do, you adapt. If they don't, then you learn to live with them and go about your business.

 

[lilchi721]

You know what Saban if you don't like the way the game is going then quit but until then deal with it.

 

[BamaFanAlways]

Let's look at some more rules:

Intentional grounding: The quarterback used to have to have a target to throw at, or it was intentional grounding, no matter where he was. No longer, just get outside the tackle box and throw it past the line of scrimmage. No player safety here, just another way to protect an already specially protected player.

Spearing - if a defensive player lead with his head, it is a fifteen yard penalty and ejection. If an offensive player does it, it is just "part of the game"....

Face mask penalties - if a defensive player puts his hand on the ball carrier's face mask and exerts any force, it is a personal foul. If the ball carrier does so, it is a 'stiff arm' and another "part of the game"...

Hypocrisy much?

 

[BamaTee1]

You know what Saban if you don't like the way the game is going then quit but until then deal with it.

Couldn't it be also said if you don't like the way the game is going (possible rule change) then quit whining until then deal with it?

 

[charlie42s]

You know what Saban if you don't like the way the game is going then quit but until then deal with it.

I gave an Aggie a "Thumbs Up!"

 

[BamaTee1]

I've noticed if a rule change is ok with them everything is great but if it isn't just whine your ass off! Sounds like my kids!

 

[BamaTee1]

I don't think any rule changes are necessary to the game of college football at this time. Spread offenses can be stopped by defenses. The Big 12 has had a lot of spread offenses for many years and both OU and UT have had Top 10 defenses during that same time-frame.

Since you decided to bring up Baylor and their high scoring offense, Okie State was able to hold them to 17 points this past season and they weren't an elite defense.

There are many different offenses in college and defenses have to be flexible enough to play each of them differently. If not, the defenses will fail to stop the offenses.

If defenses find that they can't substitute on a moment's notice, they need to decide to substitute a play or two before they are completely winded. That way they can run to the sideline and not walk like an old man.

Since you apparently like low scoring games, let's just ban the forward pass.

Why does everyone think in such absolutes? Have we fallen so far as an intellectual society?

 

[charlie42s]

Let's look at some more rules:

Intentional grounding: The quarterback used to have to have a target to throw at, or it was intentional grounding, no matter where he was. No longer, just get outside the tackle box and throw it past the line of scrimmage. No player safety here, just another way to protect an already specially protected player.

I disagreed with the change, grounding is grounding, even when it is thrown out of bounds. Only exception is when contact causes the QB to have an errant throw.

Spearing - if a defensive player lead with his head, it is a fifteen yard penalty and ejection. If an offensive player does it, it is just "part of the game"....

I don't believe the offense nor the defense should be allowed to lower their head. It leads to head injuries.

Face mask penalties - if a defensive player puts his hand on the ball carrier's face mask and exerts any force, it is a personal foul. If the ball carrier does so, it is a 'stiff arm' and another "part of the game"...

I believe what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Neither side should be allowed to face mask an opponent.

 

[charlie42s]

Why does everyone think in such absolutes? Have we fallen so far as an intellectual society?

Only my last statement was sarcasm and an absolute.

 

[BamaTee1]

I disagreed with the change, grounding is grounding, even when it is thrown out of bounds. Only exception is when contact causes the QB to have an errant throw.

I don't believe the offense nor the defense should be allowed to lower their head. It leads to head injuries.


I believe what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Neither side should be allowed to face mask an opponent.

You can conveniently tell us how you were against these rules now but the fact is they were all changed and benefited the offenses! Where was all the SportsHoopla then? Those examples are just a few. Want more?

 

[BamaTee1]

Only my last statement was sarcasm and an absolute.

You took it the wrong way. You're thinking in absolutes! You find an example and you think I must be wrong! :rollseyes: Sorry, but just because you find an example or two and act like the problem doesn't exist is outweighed by the other 90 plus percent backing it up! Ok you found some decently low scoring HUNH scores. Good for you!