Will refs slow down the HUNH offenses this year?

[4down20]

This may come as a shock to you - but I get that. I also remember how many teams went to no-huddle with the new timing rules, leading to what I call the "prairie dog" effect at the line of scrimmage.

However, my impression from last year and before is that Oregon tends to snap the ball with more than 15 seconds left on the play clock. If that is true, then a changing in timing rules back to the 25 second clock should cause them no issues in terms of slowing their offense.

The 25 second clock slowed offenses down more because the refs took longer to spot the ball. Refs weren't worried about spotting the ball faster because it didn't affect how much play clock time the offense had left.

The prairie dog effect I hate.

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

reminds me of lardass and the barf-o-rama. You playing the role of lard ass, of course.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S7kg1IhZ7M]Barf-O-Rama - YouTube[/ame]

 

[nddulac]

The 25 second clock slowed offenses down more because the refs took longer to spot the ball. Refs weren't worried about spotting the ball faster because it didn't affect how much play clock time the offense had left..

Irrelevant point is irrelevant. If my impression is correct, the Ducks are snapping the ball within 25 seconds of the previous whistle. So unless the refs are taking 30 seconds to spot the ball (which they never have) then what I said holds true.

I know - it's higher math. And math is hard.

 

[4down20]

Total "deflection" here...coming from a clown whoze team hasn't had a true regular season OOC "road game" in about twenty years.

And?

 

[4down20]

Irrelevant point is irrelevant. If my impression is correct, the Ducks are snapping the ball within 25 seconds of the previous whistle. So unless the refs are taking 30 seconds to spot the ball (which they never have) then what I said holds true.

I know - it's higher math. And math is hard.

Yeah, the NCAA implemented the 40 second clock for the purpose of speeding the game up, knocking off about 20 minutes of overall game time, but apparently they should have contacted you first so you could tell them math is hard.

Your math isn't even the right way to do the math, since you ignorantly use the max amounts rather than the minimums. And that you want to sit here and argue about without apparently doing even a tiny bit of research on the topic only magnifies your ignorance.

For the fastest teams - they at times snap the ball within 8-10 seconds of the previous end of play in the current rules. Not always that fast, but that's about as fast as it ever gets when they don't prairie dog.

Dipshit. Tell me again how the max amount of time has to do with teams trying to snap the ball asap.

 

[10G FIBER]

Dipshit? Let's just wait to see how this plays out before calling people names. That would be the humane thing to do. Thanks.

 

[4down20]

Dipshit? Let's just wait to see how this plays out before calling people names. That would be the humane thing to do. Thanks.

When it comes to the play clock and the changes made, there is nothing to see play out. It was changed in 2008 and was done specifically to speed the game up as I mentioned.

So yeah, he's a dipshit.

I realize some of you guys are new, but lets just say this topic has been debated inside and out a few times around here in great depth.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

What?

420d in "another" dispute on the HUNH?


He won't be satisfied till Saban gets to "milk" EVERY clock in the country like a breast feeding child in a public restaurant.

 

[4down20]

What?

420d in "another" dispute on the HUNH?


He won't be satisfied till Saban gets to "milk" EVERY clock in the country like a breast feeding child in a public restaurant.

You drunk?

 

[nddulac]

Dipshit.

Lighten up, Francis. Let's stick to the topic.

Tell me again how the max amount of time has to do with teams trying to snap the ball asap.

Suppose a team (under the current 40 second rule) snaps the ball with 17 seconds remaining on the play clock. That means they took 23 seconds from the previous whistle to put the ball in play.

Now - consider a team that takes 23 seconds from the previous play to put the ball into play under the old 25 second clock rules. For the same of argument, let's say the refs take 10 seconds to spot the ball. That leaves the team 13 seconds to line up and snap the ball. Under that scenario, there would be 12 seconds remaining on the play clock when the ball is snapped.

These two scenarios burn the exact same amount to game clock and make no difference in how many plays a team can run. I made no claims about how long the game takes en toto. Although, I would argue that if college football games are to be shortened for TV, they should have started by shortening the halftime break, rather than messing with the timing rules for the game.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

You drunk?

I musta said sumptin "true" is all...

...like Saban "suckling" on a public teet...

 

[4down20]

Suppose a team (under the current 40 second rule) snaps the ball with 17 seconds remaining on the play clock. That means they took 23 seconds from the previous whistle to put the ball in play.

Ok, but the fastest teams sometimes snap the ball within 10 seconds.

Now - consider a team that takes 23 seconds from the previous play to put the ball into play under the old 25 second clock rules. For the same of argument, let's say the refs take 10 seconds to spot the ball. That leaves the team 13 seconds to line up and snap the ball. Under that scenario, there would be 12 seconds remaining on the play clock when the ball is snapped.

When the rules committee briefly considered making it so a team couldn't snap it within the first 10 seconds after the play clock started, there was a bit of an outrage about it. The rules committee ended up shelving the idea before they even got a vote on it. This just happened a few months ago. So if the refs take 10 seconds, it would be slowing those offenses down.

These two scenarios burn the exact same amount to game clock and make no difference in how many plays a team can run. I made no claims about how long the game takes en toto. Although, I would argue that if college football games are to be shortened for TV, they should have started by shortening the halftime break, rather than messing with the timing rules for the game.

But your numbers don't reflect the reality as your 10 seconds to spot the ball is already past the time some teams snap the ball in already. And just so you know, when it came to that particular argument, I thought 10 seconds was fine before snapping - I'm just putting the facts out there. I didn't think the 2 seconds were all that important, but HUNH people did.

As for making games faster, again they did that back in 2008 and they did it because the NFL had already done it and were getting games done about 20 minutes faster. To be more exact, they wanted to get the games in a 3 hour window, where they were averaging about 3:20. With the 40 second playoff clock, they get around 2:55-3:00 on average.

 

[4down20]

I musta said sumptin "true" is all...

...like Saban "suckling" on a public teet...

Please keep your fetishes to yourself. You know what happened last time.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Please keep your fetishes to yourself. You know what happened last time.

A Sooner "curbstomp"?

 

[4down20]

A Sooner "curbstomp"?

Blue because ice cream has no bones.

 

[4down20]

Lighten up, Francis. Let's stick to the topic.

Suppose a team (under the current 40 second rule) snaps the ball with 17 seconds remaining on the play clock. That means they took 23 seconds from the previous whistle to put the ball in play.

Now - consider a team that takes 23 seconds from the previous play to put the ball into play under the old 25 second clock rules. For the same of argument, let's say the refs take 10 seconds to spot the ball. That leaves the team 13 seconds to line up and snap the ball. Under that scenario, there would be 12 seconds remaining on the play clock when the ball is snapped.

These two scenarios burn the exact same amount to game clock and make no difference in how many plays a team can run. I made no claims about how long the game takes en toto. Although, I would argue that if college football games are to be shortened for TV, they should have started by shortening the halftime break, rather than messing with the timing rules for the game.

And btw, the thing about the HUNH isn't so much about when they actually snap the ball. It has much more to do with when it's possible for them to snap the ball because it forces the defense to be ready from that point on, even if they take another 20 seconds to snap the ball.

 

[theSabanator20]

I can't even tell you how many 1st downs have been assumed because of offenses using the HUNH. And how many embarrassing, unnecessary false starts result from it. It completely ruins the fundamentals of the game.


My only question to HUNH fans is this... How effective is your offensive scheme when you are not trying to snap the ball 15 seconds after the previous play? Could you run the offense with the same efficiency if you "milked" the clock? Or do you prefer the backyard bullshit of "Hurry Billy, say hut, they aren't ready!!!" Seems to me that the only advantage a HUNH team WANTS to have is the element of surprise. It's like X's and O's are irrelevant to HUNH teams. IMHO, fear instills a team when it can't beat another team by out scheming it, but rather trying to kick it while it's down.


There is a reason that shooting doves off of a power line is illegal. No, it's not because of the electrical hazard. It's because you have to give the doves a fighting chance.

 

[ElTexan]

the HUNH offense acronym has been around for a while.
I dont like it because it isnt exactly accurate. the offense may run fast and not use a hudle but thats not to say it isnt option, read, tripple option, air raid, and so on offense. you can run any kind of offense you want. you could even go old school smash mouth power run game if you wanted.

And what about Hurry Up No Huddle contradicts anything you mentioned?

 

[Olyduck]

And what about Hurry Up No Huddle contradicts anything you mentioned?

saying a team runs HUNH offense doesnt acrtually describe the offense they run.

 

[nddulac]

Ok, but the fastest teams sometimes snap the ball within 10 seconds.

Then my estimate of the refs taking 10 seconds to spot the ball is clearly too long. I was being generous in overestimating this. Shorter spot times only strengthen my argument that going to a shorter play clock will not hamper hurry-up teams since they are already not using the full 40 seconds to put the ball into play. Shorter spot times give them an even larger cushion.

That said, here is a little bit of data/analysis:

In 2007, Oregon finished the season 9-4 while gaining a total of 6078 yards of total offense, averaging 5.9 yards per play (according to that bastion of reliability known as Wikipedia.) That works out to 79 offensive plays per game. Average time of possession 28:37.

In 2008, Oregon finished 10-3 (although the Wikipedia data seem to only include 12 games since the total yards gained divided by the average number of yards per game is only 12 - ain't Wikipedia grand?) while gaining 5738 total yards, averaging 6.5 yards per play. that is 73.6 plays per game. The average TOP is not reported.

Wikipedia does not have the data for the other seasons, although I would love to see it and map how the average number of offensive plays per game has changed for Oregon over the time the new timing rules have been in place.

Anyhow, based on these data, it would be tough to conclude that the change in timing rules in 2008 led to Oregon getting more snaps per game or otherwise gaining an advantage. Obviously there are more variables that can be considered. For example, more data are needed to conclude if their plays are taking more time or not.