Proposed CFB rule change

What about 2 minute, end of game situations?

 

Doesn't apply to final two minutes of halves.

 

So player safety is only important 56 minutes of the game

 

Eh. There are still tons of incompletions and out of bounds plays during that time.

 

Eh, stupid rule.

 

Not sure I agree with the justifications the NCAA is putting forth. I think something needed to happen, but probably would have evaluated why the officials place the ball more quickly for some teams than others. This will still allow for a fairly quick pace and I'll be interested to see what happens with teams like Oregon and Auburn. I would think it would hurt Oregon more than anyone.

 

It's because they're nonsense.

 

Eh. I'm not a great deal more fired up about this than I am a whole bunch of other rule changes that proved to be stupid. Maybe it will be another halo rule that gets ditched after one season.

 

Whether you get fired up or not is your own decision. It's still indefensible nonsense.

 

So I hear.

 

"It's ridiculous," said Arizona's Rich Rodriguez.
Rodriguez has also been at the forefront of the fast football trend.
"For me it goes back to the fundamental rules of football," Rodriguez said. "The offense knows where they are going and when they are going to snap the ball. That's their advantage. The defense is allowed to move all 11 guys before the ball is snapped. That's their advantage.
"Is there any hard data, or just somebody saying that?" Arizona coach Rich Rodriguez said. "If there was big concern with that, wouldn't the teams that practice fast be concerned with it? We don't have any more injuries because we practice fast."
"I would think they would have some type of study that proves that," he said.
Rodriguez has been pushing the pace with his teams for more than two decades and doesn't buy safety concerns.

"What's next? You can only have three downs? If you play that extra down you have more chance of injury."
Mississippi coach Hugh Freeze said he found about the proposal when he got a phone call from Auburn's Gus Malzahn, a fellow advocate of up-tempo offense.
"I said, 'Y'all are kidding me. That's not true,' " Freeze said he told Malzahn.
Freeze said he was skeptical of the health risks presented by up-tempo offense because he's never seen any data to support the claim.

"If that was the case wouldn't every team that went fast in practice have more injuries?" he said.
Freeze and Rodriguez both said their offenses rarely get plays off within 10 seconds of the ball being spotted.
"If they say it's not occurring anyway, why put in a rule?" Freeze said. "I just don't really understand what we gain from this other this rule other than a chance to create more chaos."

It's not just the up-tempo coaches who voiced their disapproval with the proposal.
"I just spent two days at Big Ten meetings and it wasn't even brought up," Rutgers coach Kyle Flood said. "It doesn't make sense to me."
The Scarlet Knights ranked 84th in the country in plays per game (71).

Cincinnati coach Tommy Tuberville, a former defensive coordinator whose team averaged 78 plays per game (28th in the nation), said the proposal was never discussed during last month's American Football Coaches of Association convention.
"This came out of left field," he said. "It's wrong."


"If the food tastes good, don't change the recipe," said Baylor coach Art Briles, who has built a program that has traditionally struggled into a winner with perhaps the nation's fastest-paced offense. "We've got a good game. Let's let the fans enjoy it. I just don't see the sense behind it."

As North Carolina head coach Larry Fedora points out, the change of rules in the last two minutes suggests player safety is not the overriding concern.
..so we are not worried about player safety in the last two minutes?

Coaching is a brotherhood and a noble profession. I would hope there are not those in our business who would sneak behind everyone else's back and try to get something passed without the others in the profession having the opportunity to be heard. It's a reaction to the success of Auburn and Texas A&M, clearly," he said. "So rather than innovate defensively and re-spawn defensively, it's like -- and this is the lowest level of bureaucracy that exists in football - it's like rather than adapt our teams or coach our teams, what we're going to try to do instead is invent a rule." — Mike Leach


"The only thing risking injury in an up tempo football game is the defense's pride! Nut up, it's football!"
— Bob Stitt, Colorado School of Mine

 

Jesus [breast] Focking Christ. So many grown men [itch bay]ing. It's exhausting.

And a huge lol to coaching being a "noble profession." Give me a ****ing break.

 

[video=youtube;11Ee02WLxGk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Ee02WLxGk&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

 

It does sound a little bit like Saban et al are scared of ADD nation football. Hm.

 

There's [itch bay]ing about a stupid rule, and there's going to the NCAA to give them a presentation in support of said stupid rule because your defense has trouble with it.

 

Nobody likes a tattletale. Keep it on the playground.

 

Have to tattle now. You, in self defense, whoop somebody ass; you gettin suspended.

 

When you win national titles like it's your job, you do what you want. Hell, I'd be inclined to agree with you if not for all the reactions from coaches running up-tempo styles. They act like football didn't exist before they showed up and like it will cease being popular if their offenses are slowed down.

 

1) Not all of those coaches run high-tempo offenses. You're respectfully invited to re-read the quotes.

2) Saban can do what he wants, sure. Like run and tell the teacher on the kids who aren't playing nice with him. Just like he did.

3) How do you expect the coaches that do run a high-tempo offense to react? Do you think Pete Sampras would have been pleased if in 1994 they decided to play all the majors on clay? What would Rickey Henderson or Vince Coleman have said if MLB outlawed the lead-off?

In other words, of course they're gonna get pissed. The proposed rule is a solution in search of a problem, when in fact the only possible problem is that Nick Saban doesn't like having to defend against up-tempo offenses. And, Indy, how about a tall glass of stfu with your "coaches act like football didn't exist" nonsense. I mean, jesus tittyfocking Christ, Indy, get your head in the game. The coaches wanna run their offense because it gives them a strategic advantage. Gundy mentioned the popularity of the game because it was a more appropriate tween than something along the lines of:

"the focking slimy weasel midget Saban sneaks off to the NCAA with that fat POS Bert and tries to get the rules changed because it's just not fair that I can't get my third down defense on the field like I want and mommy mommy it's not fair...".​

But read Sumlin's comments (below) and Rich Rod's too (above). Try to dispute what they're saying. Take as much time as you need. Oh, and here are Butch Jones' completely reasonable comments on it:

____________________________________________________
*

 

What type of injuries is this rule supposedly preventing?