Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The NCAA is proposing to institute -- get this -- a "delay of game" penalty for snapping the ball too fast. This is a direct frontal assault on hurry-up offenses such as Rich Rodriguez' at Arizona. Apparently, Alabama's Nick Saban is either behind this, or at least supports it. The NCAA has declared this a "safety" issue, despite the fact that there's no proof whatsoever that people get hurt because of the hurry-up.

Sure, I like old-school football. But making a rule change just for the sake of looking like you're doing something? That's a dumb reason to change the rules. Leave well enough alone, NCAA. This is stupid....

Overshadowed by this is a proposed tweaking of last year's new "targeting" rule, which made no sense. It still doesn't make much sense, but it's a whole lot closer.

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id ... a-proposal

It will never garner the votes to pass.

70% of the offenses use a no-huddle offense now...this doesn't have a prayer in hell.

Bret Bielema from Arkansas was on the committee that proposed this, he's very anti-no huddle.

I think it's a great rule proposal, and hope it passes. College football has gotten ridiculous with the no huddle and it's made a borderline farce of the game IMO. A ten second buffer to allow defenses to substitute is very reasonable and will still allow teams to go fast. And I agree it's a safety issue as well.

Go play tiddlywinks.

It's a really stupid proposal, actually.

Bielema behind the proposal: http://footballscoop.com/news/12562-bre ... econd-rule" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MrTitleist wrote:It's a really stupid proposal, actually.

Bielema behind the proposal: http://footballscoop.com/news/12562-bre ... econd-rule" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You and I disagree. Shoutout to Brett Bielema!

I also heard that they are trying to pass a rule that you have to tell the other team if you are going to Pass or run. That way the defense isn't caught off guard. Also they are looking into the bullying aspect of scoring more points than the other team. It isn't fair that all these kids work so hard, and that mean team makes them feel bad...

SACCAT wrote:I also heard that they are trying to pass a rule that you have to tell the other team if you are going to Pass or run. That way the defense isn't caught off guard. Also they are looking into the bullying aspect of scoring more points than the other team. It isn't fair that all these kids work so hard, and that mean team makes them feel bad...

This!

SACCAT wrote:I also heard that they are trying to pass a rule that you have to tell the other team if you are going to Pass or run. That way the defense isn't caught off guard. Also they are looking into the bullying aspect of scoring more points than the other team. It isn't fair that all these kids work so hard, and that mean team makes them feel bad...

Well played, Sir...well played, indeed.

slulionsfan wrote:I think it's a great rule proposal, and hope it passes. College football has gotten ridiculous with the no huddle and it's made a borderline farce of the game IMO. A ten second buffer to allow defenses to substitute is very reasonable and will still allow teams to go fast. And I agree it's a safety issue as well.

A: Defenses are allowed to subsitute currently if the offense does, otherwise it's game-on. Nothing wrong with that.

B: It's not a safety issue if you'd listen to anyone else not named Nick Saban or Bret Bielema. Even Troy Calhoun, the AFA coach who heads the committee backtracked yesterday & said there was no proof that hurry up offenses cause more injuries...

SACCAT wrote:I also heard that they are trying to pass a rule that you have to tell the other team if you are going to Pass or run. That way the defense isn't caught off guard. Also they are looking into the bullying aspect of scoring more points than the other team. It isn't fair that all these kids work so hard, and that mean team makes them feel bad...

You win!!

I don't see how this hurts no-huddle offenses. There is still enough time for the offense to get signals from the sideline after the defense's time has expired, and how many offenses snap the ball in the first ten seconds of play clock, anyways?

But spinning this as being a safety issue sure seems like crap, though.

bluehenbillk wrote:It will never garner the votes to pass.

I hope you're right.

Me, what I'd do is go back to saying offensive linemen can't extend their arms while blocking. It used to be that they couldn't do that. They had to keep their arms against their body and stick their elbows out like the old electric football players. That, to me, would return the game to much more like football being football. The "flag football" offenses like what Texas Tech runs would have big problems. Their quarterbacks would get killed if they tried to run that offense with their offensive linemen not being able to extend their arms and push with their hands.

It would move football back to being more of a running game. It'd be great.

Overshadowed by this is a proposed tweaking of last year's new "targeting" rule, which made no sense. It still doesn't make much sense, but it's a whole lot closer.

The whole NCAA quit making sense a long time ago. I have no idea as to why the 60 or so schools in the "big leagues" of college football haven't broken off and formed their own organization yet. If I were in their position I wouldn't take the NCAA's crap. They don't need the NCAA nearly as much as the NCAA needs them and I don't understand why they don't make use of that reality.

Do you know what would happen if the 60 or so schools I'm talking about announced tomorrow that they're leaving the NCAA to form some other association? 90 percent of college sports fans would immediately quit giving a crap about the NCAA and focus on the new association. I just don't get why they take the NCAA's BS.

Latest word, via ESPN, is that the pussies (Saban) behind it are hiding under tables because of the backlash.

DOA.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Latest word, via ESPN, is that the pussies (Saban) behind it are hiding under tables because of the backlash.

DOA.

I thought we'd clearly established today that YOU were the pussy.

Pwns wrote:There is still enough time for the offense to get signals from the sideline after the defense's time has expired.

While I agree with the majority of your post, I wouldn't even bother with this. I'll send in two or three plays at the start of a series and run no-huddle with that. Beyond that, after Spring Ball and training camp, a QB should know my philosophy about play-calling based on vertical and horizontal field position, weather, personnel groups, tempo, etc., so s/he ought to be selecting plays on his/her own anyway. I only send in important plays like 4th downs, specials, etc.

SuperHornet wrote:

Pwns wrote:There is still enough time for the offense to get signals from the sideline after the defense's time has expired.

While I agree with the majority of your post, I wouldn't even bother with this. I'll send in two or three plays at the start of a series and run no-huddle with that. Beyond that, after Spring Ball and training camp, a QB should know my philosophy about play-calling based on vertical and horizontal field position, weather, personnel groups, tempo, etc., so s/he ought to be selecting plays on his/her own anyway. I only send in important plays like 4th downs, specials, etc.

I would never allow a QB to call his own plays unless he's Peyton Manning old and in the league for 10+ years. Even then, it's YOUR job on the line.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... saban-rule" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Old Ball Coach calls this for what it is, " The Saban Rule"

South Carolina's Steve Spurrier added his name to the list of coaches opposed to a rule proposal that would slow down college offenses, and he wasn't afraid to point fingers while criticizing it.

"So, you want to talk about the 'Saban Rule'?" Spurrier told USA Today on Thursday. "That's what I call it. Looks like it's dead now, hopefully."

andy7171 wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
While I agree with the majority of your post, I wouldn't even bother with this. I'll send in two or three plays at the start of a series and run no-huddle with that. Beyond that, after Spring Ball and training camp, a QB should know my philosophy about play-calling based on vertical and horizontal field position, weather, personnel groups, tempo, etc., so s/he ought to be selecting plays on his/her own anyway. I only send in important plays like 4th downs, specials, etc.

I would never allow a QB to call his own plays unless he's Peyton Manning old and in the league for 10+ years. Even then, it's YOUR job on the line.

If you can't trust a quarterback to call his own plays, you can't trust him to call an audible. He has no business being out there....

SACCAT wrote:I also heard that they are trying to pass a rule that you have to tell the other team if you are going to Pass or run. That way the defense isn't caught off guard. Also they are looking into the bullying aspect of scoring more points than the other team. It isn't fair that all these kids work so hard, and that mean team makes them feel bad...

The speed of the game is one thing I really like about college football. There are already enough stoppages for measurements, TV timeouts, replays (seems like almost a third of the games have replay now). Let the offenses run at their tempo.

I hate the NFL for having even lengthier timeouts. The uber-fat DT in the NFL doesn't work in college for the very reason of speed. I'd argue letting guys get fat and only playing two plays at a time causes a lot more health risks than forcing guys to play an entire series and stay in shape.