(02-19-2014 12:44 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 12:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The defense ought to have some fixed amount of time -- what the proper amount is can be debated -- to line up after the previous play is whistled dead.

No. They shouldn't. It's like allowing a team without the ball the ability to call a timeout just before the other team takes a game winning shot in basketball. The offense has control of the pace of the game, not the defense.

But just as the play clock or shot clock limits the ability of the offense to slow down the pace of the game, there ought to be (IMHO) an equivalent limit on the ability of the offense to speed up the pace of the game.

(02-18-2014 09:28 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Even if it gets implemented it won't really slow anybody down. It's rare that an offense snaps the ball before the 30 second mark.

The only bad thing I see is how it will handle situations where the offense is running against the clock.

If I read correctly the new rule allows the defense 10 seconds to substitute, which they now cannot do, that is the big thing IMO. Reportedly in the Sugar Bowl OU snapped the ball 6 times before 10 seconds expired. It happens more often than you might think.

(02-19-2014 12:46 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  NFL teams carry more DL than OL because of specialization. They have their heavies they use for run oriented downs then the quicker players they use for pass rushers. The OL plays regardless of the play called because they are expected to do it all. Not to mention with a 53 man roster they have to be thin somewhere, and typically you'll see a reserve C or G who can play either position.

You can call it what you want. I worked for an NFL team and saw it with my own eyes. We had three down linemen, ALL three who played the same position and role, and we had to carry as many of them as offensive linemen due to fatigue. This did not count the outside linebackers who were the fourth and fifth linemen. The numbers don't lie. Plus, it is not rocket science: there is a reason why every single coach in the histry of football worries about their defense getting tired and no one worries about offense. Offnesive linemen work in a small area and do not have to run as much. Defensive linemen have to follow the ball and run the entire play. I cannot believe we have this debate.

(02-19-2014 12:49 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 12:44 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 12:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The defense ought to have some fixed amount of time -- what the proper amount is can be debated -- to line up after the previous play is whistled dead.

No. They shouldn't. It's like allowing a team without the ball the ability to call a timeout just before the other team takes a game winning shot in basketball. The offense has control of the pace of the game, not the defense.

But just as the play clock or shot clock limits the ability of the offense to slow down the pace of the game, there ought to be (IMHO) an equivalent limit on the ability of the offense to speed up the pace of the game.

I disagree. The games are too long already. There is no need to slow things down because some famous coaches aren't able to adjust to spread offenses. The game evolves, and those who can't evolve with it deserve to get left behind. They certainly don't deserve to change the rules in order to hold back the natural progression of the game's evolution.

The way it's supposed to work is that a new offense appears, and eventually defenses adjust, forcing offensive coaches to come up with something new for defenses to adjust to. We don't have a new offense appear and then allow coaches who are too lazy, stupid, or incompetent to adjust the ability to change the rules so they don't have to adjust.

(02-19-2014 12:49 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  But just as the play clock or shot clock limits the ability of the offense to slow down the pace of the game, there ought to be (IMHO) an equivalent limit on the ability of the offense to speed up the pace of the game.

There is nothing in basketball that limits the ability to speed up the game. This would be the equivalent in basketball of after every made shot, making the referee retrieve the ball and throw it to the inbounder player, allowing the defense to set up a press and preventing the offense from getting a fast break. There are ways to help the defense that do not change the fundamentals of the game. That is what should be explored. The offense should not be forced to slow down.

One thing the defense can do is stop forcing every substitution to be situational. For example the game freezes to reset the chains on a first down. If you are tired, that is time to do a wholesale defensive substitution if you need to. It just means you are playing with your second unit. That can easily be done. But coaches don't want to do it.

Something else to keep in mind. The Kryptonite of a hurry up offense is a three and out. Do that a couple of times and the hurry up team will have a problem because their defense will collapse. You just have to stop them.

(02-19-2014 10:20 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 10:10 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  I like the suggestion above from Wedge that the college uses the referee to hold off a reasonable amount of time to put the ball in play.

they only do that when the offense substitutes. The issue now is the offense is not substituting which doesn't allow the defense to substitute save for on a big play (you can do a mass change while everyone is getting up field), but you cannot substitute situationally. This is not a big deal for the offense as I stated above, because they do not tire out near as fast, as they have the ability to conserve energy when the play goes away from them. The defense can't do that, as they have to run to the ball to try and make a tackle, or be there if the ball carrier breaks a tackle.

No, the NFL always allows enough time for the defense to get on their side of the ball before the next snap, but they don't allow the defense enough time to substitute unless the offense also substitutes.

Where this difference most obviously comes into play is when the offense gets a long gain (say, 20 yards downfield) and then all of the offensive players race up to the new line of scrimmage to try to run the next play. In that situation, the NFL ref stands over the ball until he thinks the defense has been given a reasonable amount of time to get set (not to substitute). The way college refs handle a play like that is slightly different -- the college ref lets the center have the ball to snap it as soon as the chains have been moved after a first down, so if some defensive players are moving more slowly than the chain gang, they might be un-set or even caught offsides.

(02-19-2014 12:50 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 09:28 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Even if it gets implemented it won't really slow anybody down. It's rare that an offense snaps the ball before the 30 second mark.

The only bad thing I see is how it will handle situations where the offense is running against the clock.

If I read correctly the new rule allows the defense 10 seconds to substitute, which they now cannot do, that is the big thing IMO. Reportedly in the Sugar Bowl OU snapped the ball 6 times before 10 seconds expired. It happens more often than you might think.

I believe it was ESPN who reported that about 2% of snaps in college football take place before the 30 second mark.

(02-19-2014 12:44 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 12:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The defense ought to have some fixed amount of time -- what the proper amount is can be debated -- to line up after the previous play is whistled dead.

No. They shouldn't. It's like allowing a team without the ball the ability to call a timeout just before the other team takes a game winning shot in basketball. The offense has control of the pace of the game, not the defense.

I agree with Native.

Some time should be allowed, the game is intended to be decided during each play, not the time in between them. 5-10 seconds or an easing of the 12 man rule should suffice.

(02-19-2014 01:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 12:44 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 12:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The defense ought to have some fixed amount of time -- what the proper amount is can be debated -- to line up after the previous play is whistled dead.

No. They shouldn't. It's like allowing a team without the ball the ability to call a timeout just before the other team takes a game winning shot in basketball. The offense has control of the pace of the game, not the defense.

I agree with Native.

Some time should be allowed, the game is intended to be decided during each play, not the time in between them. 5-10 seconds or an easing of the 12 man rule should suffice.

I figured you'd agree, since you're an Alabama fan and Saban is the main man pushing this. But you're backing the wrong horse in this race. Saban has picked the losing argument, and has diminished his reputation in the process, since he now looks like an incompetent whiner.

(02-19-2014 01:17 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 01:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 12:44 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 12:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The defense ought to have some fixed amount of time -- what the proper amount is can be debated -- to line up after the previous play is whistled dead.

No. They shouldn't. It's like allowing a team without the ball the ability to call a timeout just before the other team takes a game winning shot in basketball. The offense has control of the pace of the game, not the defense.

I agree with Native.

Some time should be allowed, the game is intended to be decided during each play, not the time in between them. 5-10 seconds or an easing of the 12 man rule should suffice.

I figured you'd agree, since you're an Alabama fan and Saban is the main man pushing this. But you're backing the wrong horse in this race. Saban has picked the losing argument, and has diminished his reputation in the process, since he now looks like an incompetent whiner.

Incompetent whiner? No. Narcissistic whiner? Yes. The question is why did Saban hire Kiffin? Answer: It takes one to know one.

(02-19-2014 01:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 01:17 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 01:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 12:44 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 12:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The defense ought to have some fixed amount of time -- what the proper amount is can be debated -- to line up after the previous play is whistled dead.

No. They shouldn't. It's like allowing a team without the ball the ability to call a timeout just before the other team takes a game winning shot in basketball. The offense has control of the pace of the game, not the defense.

I agree with Native.

Some time should be allowed, the game is intended to be decided during each play, not the time in between them. 5-10 seconds or an easing of the 12 man rule should suffice.

I figured you'd agree, since you're an Alabama fan and Saban is the main man pushing this. But you're backing the wrong horse in this race. Saban has picked the losing argument, and has diminished his reputation in the process, since he now looks like an incompetent whiner.

Incompetent whiner? No. Narcissistic whiner? Yes. The question is why did Saban hire Kiffin? Answer: It takes one to know one.

Again, I'll ask...

Has this ever been an issue when football teams have used the 2-minute drill either before the end of the half, at the end of a game or during the game to make up a deficit?

Has anyone ever complained about the speed of the 2-minute drill, which has been in existence as long as I can remember?

Seems to me Mr. Saban, et al is trying to change how football has been played and change the competitive balance of the game itself.

(02-19-2014 01:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  No, the NFL always allows enough time for the defense to get on their side of the ball before the next snap, but they don't allow the defense enough time to substitute unless the offense also substitutes.

No they don't. But, they have to set the ball, and the first down marker, and the defenders are often faster than the refs. But no the NFL does not even allow the defense to get back. If they don't get back, that is on them. It doesn't happen often as the time it takes the refs to set the ball, for the entire offense to get on the line, and be set long enough to snap generally allows the defense to get back, but the refs don't hold it for them.

What I am saying is, if you wanted to, after such a gain (first down), if your defense is on the sideline waiting, you can sub the entire defense out in the time it takes the offense to get up the field, get set, and ref to set the ball. It can be done if you want. Most teams would not want to do that, but it can be done.

(02-19-2014 01:17 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 01:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 12:44 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 12:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The defense ought to have some fixed amount of time -- what the proper amount is can be debated -- to line up after the previous play is whistled dead.

No. They shouldn't. It's like allowing a team without the ball the ability to call a timeout just before the other team takes a game winning shot in basketball. The offense has control of the pace of the game, not the defense.

I agree with Native.

Some time should be allowed, the game is intended to be decided during each play, not the time in between them. 5-10 seconds or an easing of the 12 man rule should suffice.

I figured you'd agree, since you're an Alabama fan and Saban is the main man pushing this. But you're backing the wrong horse in this race. Saban has picked the losing argument, and has diminished his reputation in the process, since he now looks like an incompetent whiner.

That's your only answer?

I thought you were better than that; I thought wrong.

(02-19-2014 01:26 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  Again, I'll ask...

Has this ever been an issue when football teams have used the 2-minute drill either before the end of the half, at the end of a game or during the game to make up a deficit?

Has anyone ever complained about the speed of the 2-minute drill, which has been in existence as long as I can remember?

Seems to me Mr. Saban, et al is trying to change how football has been played and change the competitive balance of the game itself.

Well consider this: ever notice how much more often teams score in a two minute drill versus a normal drive? Now teams are doing it for big stretches of or the entire game. To an extent it is similar to basketball when teams used to occasionally foul bad free throw shooters to put them on the line, and when teams got blatant with Hack a Shaq. it had been done for decades with no fanfare, but when it got out of hand, they changed the rules so that if you foul away from the ball in the last two minutes of a half it is an intentional foul. So to that extent, I don't think it matters that it hasn't been an issue up til now.

I still don't think it is the correct solution, but I understand the reason for the effort.

As I've said before I don't think injuries or fatigue are the true motivation, I think it is all about the teams lining up to freeze the defense into keeping the current player group on the field and then leisurely selecting a play while the defense has to stand ready.

As to offensive line, I remember one year we were at Oxford on a HOT Saturday afternoon and giving them more than they wanted. About halfway through one extended drive the Rebel O-line walked to the line then turned left and trotted off the field and an entire new line trotted out to take their place. First time I've ever watched a defense melt.

(02-19-2014 01:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 01:17 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 01:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 12:44 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 12:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The defense ought to have some fixed amount of time -- what the proper amount is can be debated -- to line up after the previous play is whistled dead.

No. They shouldn't. It's like allowing a team without the ball the ability to call a timeout just before the other team takes a game winning shot in basketball. The offense has control of the pace of the game, not the defense.

I agree with Native.

Some time should be allowed, the game is intended to be decided during each play, not the time in between them. 5-10 seconds or an easing of the 12 man rule should suffice.

I figured you'd agree, since you're an Alabama fan and Saban is the main man pushing this. But you're backing the wrong horse in this race. Saban has picked the losing argument, and has diminished his reputation in the process, since he now looks like an incompetent whiner.

That's your only answer?

I thought you were better than that; I thought wrong.

That was a very weak response on your end. I figured you'd want to debate, instead of trying to change the subject. I didn't figure you'd obfuscate this argument. I figured wrong.

That's exactly what Saban is trying to do with this rule change. He's trying to obfuscate his real intention, in the name of preventing injuries that aren't happening. That's weak, as well as lame, and proves that he's not such a great coach, after all.

I'm wonder how well Saban would do if he had to coach a school that wasn't able to get all kinds of top talent easily. My guess is not as well as most people think. He inherited a very good team at Toledo, but didn't leave the team in as good a shape as the one he inherited. He was also only there one year before going to Michigan State. His other jobs were LSU and his current gig at Alabama, with 2 mediocre years in the NFL in between LSU and Alabama. A blind man could find plenty of talent to recruit to Michigan State, LSU, and Alabama.

It's the talent Saban is able to recruit that's responsible for his record IMO, not his talent as a coach. He's never coached anywhere but schools that have a very easy time getting recruits. I hate to say that about a fellow West Virginian. But I'm of that opinion, since he's put forth this proposal. Incompetence is the only reason I can come up with.

It's certainly not to prevent injuries. They aren't happening.

(02-19-2014 01:37 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 01:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  No, the NFL always allows enough time for the defense to get on their side of the ball before the next snap, but they don't allow the defense enough time to substitute unless the offense also substitutes.

No they don't. But, they have to set the ball, and the first down marker, and the defenders are often faster than the refs. But no the NFL does not even allow the defense to get back. If they don't get back, that is on them. It doesn't happen often as the time it takes the refs to set the ball, for the entire offense to get on the line, and be set long enough to snap generally allows the defense to get back, but the refs don't hold it for them.

What I am saying is, if you wanted to, after such a gain (first down), if your defense is on the sideline waiting, you can sub the entire defense out in the time it takes the offense to get up the field, get set, and ref to set the ball. It can be done if you want. Most teams would not want to do that, but it can be done.

The NFL doesn't allow the defense to lollygag its way down the field, but they give them a few seconds after moving the chains that the college refs don't. Watch an Oregon game sometime, and you'll see a few plays where the other team's defenders have to sprint to get onside before the 1st down play. In the NFL, the defenders have to walk briskly, but don't have to run, as you can see if you watch the Patriots or Broncos run their no-huddle offense.

You're right that if a defense wanted to substitute quickly, like a line change in hockey, they could still do it in most instances, and that's probably what coaches like Saban and Bielema should be told. Either learn to rapidly substitute, or put 11 guys in the game who are fit enough and versatile enough to stay on the field for several plays in a row.

(02-19-2014 01:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  As I've said before I don't think injuries or fatigue are the true motivation, I think it is all about the teams lining up to freeze the defense into keeping the current player group on the field and then leisurely selecting a play while the defense has to stand ready.

As to offensive line, I remember one year we were at Oxford on a HOT Saturday afternoon and giving them more than they wanted. About halfway through one extended drive the Rebel O-line walked to the line then turned left and trotted off the field and an entire new line trotted out to take their place. First time I've ever watched a defense melt.

That's exactly what Saban wants out of this bogus proposed 10-second rule. He wants to be able to beat you before the season starts, or at least get a 30-yard head start on a 100-yard dash, so to speak, by using the Alabama brand to recruit depth that your team can't match. He wants to be able to use 20-30 different players on defense during an offensive possession to match the 12-16 players that the other team's offense regularly uses.

(02-19-2014 01:59 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 01:37 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 01:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  No, the NFL always allows enough time for the defense to get on their side of the ball before the next snap, but they don't allow the defense enough time to substitute unless the offense also substitutes.

No they don't. But, they have to set the ball, and the first down marker, and the defenders are often faster than the refs. But no the NFL does not even allow the defense to get back. If they don't get back, that is on them. It doesn't happen often as the time it takes the refs to set the ball, for the entire offense to get on the line, and be set long enough to snap generally allows the defense to get back, but the refs don't hold it for them.

What I am saying is, if you wanted to, after such a gain (first down), if your defense is on the sideline waiting, you can sub the entire defense out in the time it takes the offense to get up the field, get set, and ref to set the ball. It can be done if you want. Most teams would not want to do that, but it can be done.

The NFL doesn't allow the defense to lollygag its way down the field, but they give them a few seconds after moving the chains that the college refs don't. Watch an Oregon game sometime, and you'll see a few plays where the other team's defenders have to sprint to get onside before the 1st down play. In the NFL, the defenders have to walk briskly, but don't have to run, as you can see if you watch the Patriots or Broncos run their no-huddle offense.

You're right that if a defense wanted to substitute quickly, like a line change in hockey, they could still do it in most instances, and that's probably what coaches like Saban and Bielema should be told. Either learn to rapidly substitute, or put 11 guys in the game who are fit enough and versatile enough to stay on the field for several plays in a row.

But the NFL has what 112 officials who have proven themselves through many years of experience to be the best of the best. FBS has something on the order of 450 working in league play and more than that in early season with all the non-conference games especially so many FBS playing an FCS early in with wide variance in experience levels because the G5 leagues are churning a lot of guys as their best move up to work for P5 leagues and supervisors of officials are cutting some of the ones who don't have it every year.

Lot tougher to rely on good judgment in college.