Saban & Bielema behind the kill uptempo offense rule

[michaeljordan_fan]

Correct ... if it were otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So why is it that some teams are able to substitute without issues, and other teams face struggles? If both schools have the same level of athletic talent, is it a reflection of player intelligence, or poor coaching, or both?

 

[WhiteMamba]

So why is it that some teams are able to substitute without issues, and other teams face struggles? If both schools have the same level of athletic talent, is it a reflection of player intelligence, or poor coaching, or both?

exactly. We both know how SC first then other PAC Schools figured out how to sub on defense very efficiently.

 

[jonvi]

^^^^They have to be conditioned^^^^^

I don't get it.....All the TV timeouts, move the chains....the most you would have to play is three downs. Then they have to mov the chains and the ref holds the ball till they are set. If you can't handle 3 playes, then slug along off the field, you're not D1 conditioned. And if your boy is that beat down tired, call a T.O.

 

[RegentDenali]

exactly. We both know how SC first then other PAC Schools figured out how to sub on defense very efficiently.

Ditto.

Top 50 Defensive rankings for PAC schools in 2013:

20) Stanford
27) ASU
30 ) OSU
31) Washington
44) Oregon

We seem to handle defending against the up tempo just fine.

 

[charlie42s]

exactly. We both know how SC first then other PAC Schools figured out how to sub on defense very efficiently.

Teams just need to be prepared to substitute before their players are winded and teach the substituted players to run off the field and not walk like old men.

Texas was able to substitute and keep Oregon's offense under control during their bowl game. The Longhorn defense did a fine job holding Oregon to 1 offensive TD and 3 FGs. The only "12 men on the field" penalty was called against the Oregon offense.

Now, the Longhorn offense was another matter entirely, it sucked.

 

[WhiteMamba]

Ditto.

Top 50 Defensive rankings for PAC schools in 2013:

20) Stanford
27) ASU
30 ) OSU
31) Washington
44) Oregon

We seem to handle defending against the up tempo just fine.

cherrypicker.. i like the scoring defense rankings better

 

[RegentDenali]

^^^^They have to be conditioned^^^^^

I don't get it.....All the TV timeouts, move the chains....the most you would have to play is three downs. Then they have to mov the chains and the ref holds the ball till they are set. If you can't handle 3 playes, then slug along off the field, you're not D1 conditioned. And if your boy is that beat down tired, call a T.O.

I really don't get Saban bitching about this besides the transparent attempt to gain an advantage over the rest of the NCAA. The guy has the #1 rated D in the country and thanks to oversigning and roster culls, they have yearly rosters where even their 2nd and 3rd stringers were 4-5 star guys. You're telling me these guys aren't conditioned? What a pant load.

 

[WhiteMamba]

It comes down to 2 choices for teams defenses.

1 Adapt and overcome which many teams have.

2 Bitch and whine about it so you can have a rule change that will cater to your needs.

 

[RegentDenali]

cherrypicker.. i like the scoring defense rankings better

LOL.

Stanford is a perfect example. While they don't run an real up tempo offense, their defense defends all the PAC throw at them most of the time. Once and while when things get tight, they fake an injury here or there in critical situations to buy some time to get their D set, but besides that, those guys are very effective and defending against the up tempo. You don't see Shaw running to the rules committee and crying like a girl about shutting down the uptempo.

 

[WhiteMamba]

The majority of the season Sabs has to prepare for grind it out pro style offenses, so in a weeks time he has to prepare for a totally different style of offense. Those games are where his losses come from.

Shoot, even a month plus wasnt enough time to prepare for OKYS skul dragging session.

Nick, welcome to CFB and all of the other conferences. Wouldnt it be nice if we could cater all of our teams gamesto fit what we are comfortable with.

it would be hilarious if they scheduled the Pirates cougs. WSU wouldprobably woop em. After all they gave Auby, a team Bama couldnt beat all they want. In Auby, think they are going to pay WSU back with a visit to Pullman after that?

HELL NO

 

[WhiteMamba]

LOL.

Stanford is a perfect example. While they don't run an real up tempo offense, their defense defends all the PAC throw at them most of the time. Once and while when things get tight, they fake an injury here or there in critical situations to buy some time to get their D set, but besides that, those guys are very effective and defending against the up tempo. You don't see Shaw running to the rules committee and crying like a girl about shutting down the uptempo.

exactly.

 

[jonvi]

I really don't get Saban bitching about this besides the transparent attempt to gain an advantage over the rest of the NCAA. The guy has the #1 rated D in the country and thanks to oversigning and roster culls, they have yearly rosters where even their 2nd and 3rd stringers were 4-5 star guys. You're telling me these guys aren't conditioned? What a pant load.

SU has one 4 star recruit of 2014 and a handfull of 3 and 2 star recruits....along with "Ain't no-one ever heard of em".

The only way SU can compete is if they play up tempo. They go only 2 deep and the second is run into the game for a play or two which lets a gassed player take a break. Sure if SU had depth going 3 deep of 4 and 5 star players, I would want a bunch of time between plays.

Perhaps the NCAA should cap the number of 5 star recruits to any one team to a limit of 5 per season.

Then.....we would have an even playing field that Law and the rest of the SEC would like. Fair treatment is what you guys want.....right?

 

[trojanfan12]

Teams just need to be prepared to substitute before their players are winded and teach the substituted players to run off the field and not walk like old men.

Texas was able to substitute and keep Oregon's offense under control during their bowl game. The Longhorn defense did a fine job holding Oregon to 1 offensive TD and 3 FGs. The only "12 men on the field" penalty was called against the Oregon offense.

Now, the Longhorn offense was another matter entirely, it sucked.

Exactly. When did coaches stop requiring players to run on and off of the field? When I played, if you didn't run on and off the field, you didn't have to worry about getting tired because you wouldn't be playing.

 

[Codaxx]

I disagree. All I've seen is 1 years worth of data, that no one has torn into. Too small a sample size for it to have any significant meaning. Also, the argument that the faster the game, the more snaps, the more injuries simply makes sense. Until someone seriously studies this, no one knows at any level or certainty. For that reason, it is bad that it is being approached as a safety issue.

-
Problem is you dont really disagree. Well at least you didnt 3 pages ago. You admitted the injury argument is "specious" if I recall. I have continually said more information should be gathered, but the only real data we have pts to tempo not being a major factor. The whole argument is ridiculous. We are supposed to believe that football is a safe game at 65-70 plays and deadly at 80-85.

 

[Codaxx]

Nah, just pointing out that you have flaws in your argument.
You said studies had been done proving your point. They haven't.- there are 2, because they are brief and do not meet your requirements does not mean they are not a study. Nobody has claimed them to be a rigorous scientific study.
You said who collects the data and why is irrelevant. Also incorrect. - Not at all. Why does it matter who collects raw data? It matters who gives the analysis and conclusion, but not the raw data. That is why many times you can see the same data used to argue both sides. Most trials are set up to confirm a bias. Almost nothing is done in a truly unbiased setting.
Data is data... bad data is still data, I guess is what you're saying. That's is something from a semantics point I can agree on. (See Bill Clinton and the definition of 'is')

I hope you are practicing to be a politician, because you certainly have the qualities for it.

Nothing political about that, just a appreciation for numbers and data and a mistrust of those that interpret them.

 

[trojanfan12]

I think we can all pretty much agree that the potential correlation between tempo and increased injuries is worth a study being done and having a discussion. That's typically how a rule is created or changed. Someone expresses a concern, the concern is studied and discussed and then a decision is made re: rule changes.


The problem with this is that it seems to be an attempt to circumvent that procedure by putting the rule in place before having the study.

 

[Codaxx]

I think we can all pretty much agree that the potential correlation between tempo and increased injuries is worth a study being done and having a discussion. That's typically how a rule is created or changed. Someone expresses a concern, the concern is studied and discussed and then a decision is made re: rule changes.


The problem with this is that it seems to be an attempt to circumvent that procedure by putting the rule in place before having the study.

Correct. I think people will find style of play is a greater contribution to injury than tempo. I will agree that 80 plays a game will lead to more injuries than 60, when played with the same style. I just do not think that is where any of this is really coming from. I find it ironic that college football has never played more games and we are now looking at the number of plays.

 

[trojanfan12]

Correct. I think people will find style of play is a greater contribution to injury than tempo. I will agree that 80 plays a game will lead to more injuries than 60, when played with the same style. I just do not think that is where any of this is really coming from. I find it ironic that college football has never played more games and we are now looking at the number of plays.

Exactly. Teams used play 11-12 games per season and 12-13 if they made it to a bowl game. Now, with opportunities to play a 13 game schedule (if you played Hawai'i), plus CCG's and bowl games, teams can play as many as 15 games.

USC played a 13 game regular season schedule last year and had we played in the PAC-12 CCG, it would have been 15 games with the bowl game.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Like many other coaches around the country, Malzahn said he was “definitely caught off guard” by a proposal being considered by an NCAA committee that would slow the pace of play in college football.

“I have talked with Troy Calhoun, who is the chairman of the rules committee, numerous times since last Thursday,” Malzahn said on Tuesday. “The bottom line is this is not a rules change year. For a rule to be changed it has to be under the umbrella of health and safety.

“The fact that there is absolutely zero evidence, documented evidence, that it is hazardous--the pace of play--what I asked him to do was move this to next year when it is a rules change year when we can hear both sides and have a healthy debate on moving forward with the rule.”

Seems reasonable I don't see how anyone could legitimately object to this request.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Total Teams Averaging 80 Plays Per Game Since 2003, By Conference

1.Big 12 (15)
Pac 12 (15)
2.Conference USA (14)
3.Mountain West (9)
4.ACC (5)
Sun Belt (5)
5.WAC (4)
6.MAC (3)
7.AAC/Big East (2)
Big Ten (2)
SEC (2)