New NCAA rule targeting up-tempo teams?

So have you heard this BS? A new rule is being proposed to limit how fast teams can snap the ball. On a 40-second play clock, teams will not be allowed to snap the ball in the first 10 seconds of the play clock. If they do, they flagged for, get this, delay of game. And you'll never guess who's behind this crap. Yep, a couple of SEC good ol' boys, Beilama and Saban. Seems that they don't like what up-tempo offenses do to their team so they've gone to the NCAA to whine about it, trying to claim it's a player safety issue for defenders even though there is no documentation that shows defensive players suffer more injuries facing up-tempo offenses.

Good rule.

I don't think so. Football is about innovation especially in college were there is such a wide disparity in talent. Its not about safety for those coaches its about there playing style. Also how in the world is it a safety issue anyway? Because their tired? That doesn't cause injuries except maybe cramps.

Natethegreat":2td56iyd said:

I don't think so. Football is about innovation especially in college were there is such a wide disparity in talent. Its not about safety for those coaches its about there playing style. Also how in the world is it a safety issue anyway? Because their tired? That doesn't cause injuries except maybe cramps.

Click to expand...

I think its more about giving the defense a fair shot/allowing for substitution. Im not a fan of games where the score is 65-50 so its probably why I enjoy this proposed rule.

ImTheScientist":28cgakx6 said:

Natethegreat":28cgakx6 said:

I don't think so. Football is about innovation especially in college were there is such a wide disparity in talent. Its not about safety for those coaches its about there playing style. Also how in the world is it a safety issue anyway? Because their tired? That doesn't cause injuries except maybe cramps.

Click to expand...

I think its more about giving the defense a fair shot/allowing for substitution. Im not a fan of games where the score is 65-50 so its probably why I enjoy this proposed rule.

Click to expand...

It's about Nick Saban not winning another NC because of Auburn. Embarrassing.

Seriously, why does the defense deserve the chance to substitute? More importantly, how would not allowing a snap before 10 seconds stop that? If the team snaps on 11 seconds, the defense won't be ready and won't have substituted. It's a stupid rule based on a petty hand-wave argument.

Sarlacc83":3bpa1a9v said:

ImTheScientist":3bpa1a9v said:

Natethegreat":3bpa1a9v said:

I don't think so. Football is about innovation especially in college were there is such a wide disparity in talent. Its not about safety for those coaches its about there playing style. Also how in the world is it a safety issue anyway? Because their tired? That doesn't cause injuries except maybe cramps.

Click to expand...

I think its more about giving the defense a fair shot/allowing for substitution. Im not a fan of games where the score is 65-50 so its probably why I enjoy this proposed rule.

Click to expand...

It's about Nick Saban not winning another NC because of Auburn. Embarrassing.

Seriously, why does the defense deserve the chance to substitute? More importantly, how would not allowing a snap before 10 seconds stop that? If the team snaps on 11 seconds, the defense won't be ready and won't have substituted. It's a stupid rule based on a petty hand-wave argument.

Click to expand...

Defense is reactionary..... offense dictates personnel. Pretty simple stuff really.

If 11 second snap doesn't change anything then why the issue with it? :snack:

ImTheScientist":p99iv1j3 said:

Sarlacc83":p99iv1j3 said:

ImTheScientist":p99iv1j3 said:

Natethegreat":p99iv1j3 said:

I don't think so. Football is about innovation especially in college were there is such a wide disparity in talent. Its not about safety for those coaches its about there playing style. Also how in the world is it a safety issue anyway? Because their tired? That doesn't cause injuries except maybe cramps.

Click to expand...

I think its more about giving the defense a fair shot/allowing for substitution. Im not a fan of games where the score is 65-50 so its probably why I enjoy this proposed rule.

Click to expand...

It's about Nick Saban not winning another NC because of Auburn. Embarrassing.

Seriously, why does the defense deserve the chance to substitute? More importantly, how would not allowing a snap before 10 seconds stop that? If the team snaps on 11 seconds, the defense won't be ready and won't have substituted. It's a stupid rule based on a petty hand-wave argument.

Click to expand...

Defense is reactionary..... offense dictates personnel. Pretty simple stuff really.

If 11 second snap doesn't change anything then why the issue with it? :snack:

Click to expand...

Because it's an arbitrary distinction between 10 and 11.

And good defenses aren't reactionary. They dictate the field, like Seattle did against Denver. This proposed rule is an example of cheating to get what you want instead of adapting. Even stupider, up-tempo offenses have the huge downside of tiring out their own team defenses if they fail. I'm a Ducks fan. I've seen it happen many times. Stanford didn't whine to the Pac-12. They adapted and have beat the Ducks 2 years running. One would think a coach like Saban could do the same.

Sarlacc83":w43vh3ht said:

ImTheScientist":w43vh3ht said:

Sarlacc83":w43vh3ht said:

ImTheScientist":w43vh3ht said:

I think its more about giving the defense a fair shot/allowing for substitution. Im not a fan of games where the score is 65-50 so its probably why I enjoy this proposed rule.

Click to expand...

It's about Nick Saban not winning another NC because of Auburn. Embarrassing.

Seriously, why does the defense deserve the chance to substitute? More importantly, how would not allowing a snap before 10 seconds stop that? If the team snaps on 11 seconds, the defense won't be ready and won't have substituted. It's a stupid rule based on a petty hand-wave argument.

Click to expand...

Defense is reactionary..... offense dictates personnel. Pretty simple stuff really.

If 11 second snap doesn't change anything then why the issue with it? :snack:

Click to expand...

Because it's an arbitrary distinction between 10 and 11.

And good defenses aren't reactionary. They dictate the field, like Seattle did against Denver. This proposed rule is an example of cheating to get what you want instead of adapting. Even stupider, up-tempo offenses have the huge downside of tiring out their own team defenses if they fail. I'm a Ducks fan. I've seen it happen many times. Stanford didn't whine to the Pac-12. They adapted and have beat the Ducks 2 years running. One would think a coach like Saban could do the same.

Click to expand...

Saban is the devil, though. Whiny little twaffle.

I'm a little surprised Saban didn't ask the NCAA to make it illegal to return missed field goals because all that extra running might result in more injuries.

If these coaches don't like up-tempo offenses.. maybe they should.. I don't know.. stop them?

Sarlacc83":1ki7pc2x said:

And good defenses aren't reactionary. They dictate the field, like Seattle did against Denver.

Click to expand...

So when the offense comes out with 4WRs the defense is dictating that? LOL....get real bro.

They should just change the rules about stopping the clock after each first down and others to the NFL style because this is about tv and how college games are running way too long.

ImTheScientist":sj5cv7ui said:

Sarlacc83":sj5cv7ui said:

And good defenses aren't reactionary. They dictate the field, like Seattle did against Denver.

Click to expand...

So when the offense comes out with 4WRs the defense is dictating that? LOL....get real bro.

Click to expand...

LOL, to you too, bro. Did you watch the Broncos? Seattle dictated where those receivers went and what parts of the field they could use. You're talking about personnel packages which don't mean crap to how a great defense is going to attack. It wouldn't matter if it's 2, 3, 4, or 5 receivers. They'll recognize the play, and do what they want. Which is why Seattle didn't switch their gameplan against Denver. They did what they always did.

Screw Saban.

SonicHawk":102fvoh6 said:

Screw Saban.

Click to expand...

Feel free to deposit here >>> [urltargetblank]http://seahawks.net/viewforum.php?f=23[/urltargetblank]

It is probably because Saban doesn't like it and is whining, yes. But, unfortunately, the rules have been changed for whining before and they will probably change again. With the rule, the good teams will adapt so that it benefits them, and without the rule good teams will adapts so it benefits them. Life goes on.

Any defensive coach is going to lobby for this to shut down the advantage, I don't see it passing. Next will be that defensive players can't move till ball is snapped because the offense can't run the initial play delaying games longer due to audibles.

Satan, I mean Sabans whole argument is that guys are getting hurt because of the hurry up. Yet study's show the opposite is true. His entire fight is as stupid as coaches who fought agains the forward pass and dunks in basketball.

Snapping the ball with 30 seconds on the play clock seems reasonable to me, maybe a 2 minute drill exception. That's still a pretty fast offense. It would mean fewer plays in a game, and fewer plays means fewer possibilities for injury... and if someone does get injured, especially a concussion, that extra time between plays allows the player, sidelines and officials to spot the injury before the next snap.

What about on fourth down plays? No quick snaps? QB's can't draw the D off sides untill after 10 seconds but the offense has to still be set for 10 seconds before the snap?