New NCAA rules about the play clock

[RebelAlumnus]

I guess you've already forgotten about the 45 from the year before.

The rule is complete ******** and designed to restore power to the "rightful owners." It takes away one of the few advantages smaller schools had in running a no huddle to keep traditional powers and more talented teams like Bama from just out-talenting everyone all of the time. It's not a coincidence that Saban never complained about this until JFF and Sumlin used no huddle to expose Saban and Smart.

 

[PBRME]

They need to go back to the old rules. An incomplete pass stops the clock. Running out of bounds stops the clock. This would eliminate the need for a 10 second rule. If they want to speed up the game then cut out all the media timeouts. Make the commercial spots more expensive to make up for lost revenue. Stop tweaking the damn game for non safety reasons.

I love being able to see us on tv everytime we play, but I miss going to non televised games and how much better they flowed.

 

[kired]

You guys are way overstating how this will affect MSU's offense. We already substitute a ton --- which means this will have no impact. We change WR, RB, or TE pratically every play.

 

[MSUDawg25]

I hate the hurry up offense. It is gimicky and I don't like watching it. That said, it is fair and any rule against it like this one is really just sour grapes.

 

[jakldawg]

THIS is more like it.

An incomplete pass stops the clock. Running out of bounds stops the clock. This would eliminate the need for a 10 second rule. If they want to speed up the game then cut out all the media timeouts.

Don't make up some crap about the offense DELAYING the game by being ready for the next play before the defense.


(good luck with that last part, though).

 

[paindonthurt_]

is this part of the new rule or has it always been that way? I honestly don't know.

I mean how to the rule that? What if offense substitutes and defenses reacts to that but takes their sweet time and causes a delay of game?

 

[NIC.sixpack]

You guys are way overstating how this will affect MSU's offense. We already substitute a ton --- which means this will have no impact. We change WR, RB, or TE pratically every play.

The point is that the rule will do away with something that MSU could use to level the playing field to some extent - not whether MSU takes full advantage of the opportunity. In other words, the "big boys" already have plenty of advantages, and the rule change just gives them another one.

 

[NCDawg.sixpack]

We don't use the hurry up so it has no effect on our offense. Other teams use the hurry up so it affects them negatively and therefore is good for us. Sounds good to me.

That enough convincing?

Same thing I thought. It should be to our advantage, and not so good for teams like Auburn and Ole Miss.

 

[DancingRabbit]

Huh? Those have nothing to do with the play clock.

Bo can throw an incomplete bubble screen and possibly get the next snap off in 4-5 seconds.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Exactly. It's to prevent intentional fumbling. If you fumble into the end zone, tough ****.

 

[wooffster]

There is one touchback rule

If Team A is responsible for the ball becoming dead in the end zone of Team B without Team A possessing it, it is a touchback.

 

[Sack N City]

The reason given for the rule was primarily player safety. ("save the children") But this past year, Dave Bartoo at his site “The College Football Matrix” provided data showing that slow teams had more injuries in 2012.

The types of teams in favor of the rule are the ones who run slow methodical offenses. One is Alabama which is loaded with talent. If Alabama is able to match up their players with another team's layers, Alabama will always win since they have better players. The other is the 3 yards and a cloud of dust teams (Arkansas under Bielema). The third is the wishbone/ flexbone (Air Force) offenses which are designed to eat up the clock.


One reason I like the option of a faster paced game is that it requires teams to use players who are fast, athletic and in shape. It is more like the days of one platoon football.


Before the trend went to the faster paced offense, a number of teams had gotten to the point where they simply used huge (320+ pound) offensive linemen who were strong, but maybe not very athletic, to push defensive linemen out of the way. (Some teams like Arkansas and Alabama still do.) And the defensive linemen and linebackers had to be large to combat the huge offensive line. It was getting to be more like sumo wrestling.

Bad consequences are sometimes caused by ideas which sound reasonable on the surface. For example, we all know the story about planting Kudzu sounding like a good way to control erosion.

What are the potential bad consequences of doing away with a fast paced offense? It appears to me that the results of doing away with the up tempo offense would be an increase in the number of huge offensive linemen and large defensive lineman who are not very athletic. Would high school players try to get up to 350 pounds so they can play college ball. Is that good? Of course not. They have heart attacks and need knee and hip replacements at an early age.

If the argument of Saban and others is taken to its logical extreme and they are so concerned about injuries (please, save the children ), why not let each team have only 10 snaps a game? And require the teams to take a minute break between each play? That will surely reduce the number of injuries.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

I could see this rule backfiring on defenses. A substitution is attempted but somehow goes awry. Ten seconds isn't all that much time considering you might have a player who is on the other side of the field or on the ground having to get out of bounds. Couple that with the new guy coming in and getting into position. It won't be like a standard substitution where the official stands over the ball until the defense is ready. There will be no official over the ball (unless the O substitutes as well) and only the clock staying above 29 allows the defense to get ready. If this rule goes into effect, look for at least twenty timeouts called opening weekend across all games because defenses screw the pooch on substitutions.

 

[dawgoneyall]

Good rule.

Only alternative would be to allow the defense to have a 10 sec timeout for substitutions. But the defense would have to substitute. But that would be very hard to control.

 

[patdog]

If you give the offense the ball at the spot of the fumble if it goes out of the end zone, there'd be no incentive to fumble forward. Just a stupid rule. Only way the defense can get a turnover without actually possessing the ball.

 

[Dawg1976]

Good rule.

Only alternative would be to allow the defense to have a 10 sec timeout for substitutions. But the defense would have to substitute. But that would be very hard to control.

I think the new rule will be just one more headache for the refs to keep up with.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand I like it because I like more old school football. Don't really care much for the fast tempo game. On the other hand I think the rule is bs because it appears more of a sour grapes thing from schools like AL.

College football goes in cycles. At one time the
wishbone was all the rage and no one could stop it. Then they did. I think if the ncaa would just let this play out, defenses would eventually get a handle on the up tempo too.

 

[kired]

You said it hurts MSU and I understand what you're saying. But I'd argue that it helps us more than it hurts us.

1. It hurts UM, Auburn, and Tx A&M more than us. We play them every year. This can only help us.

2. We play two "big boys" every year, Bama & LSU. I agree with your argument that it takes away something that may work to our advantage against them.

3. We play 3 or 4 OOC teams where we're considered the "big boys". Again, this helps us against teams like Troy 2012.

4. We play Arkansas & Kentucky every year. I don't think it has any effect on those games with their current rosters and coaching staffs.

5. We always play another east team, and possibly an OOC team that is better than us. This rule could go either way in those games (are we playing Missouri / OK State... or someone like Georgia).

So this rule should work to our advantage in at least 6 of our games, have no effect in 2 games, work against us in 2 games, and could go either way in 2 more games. Overall I'd say it helps us if our goal is to consistenly win 8-9 games.

But I do think it's a stupid rule...

 

[horshack.sixpack]

My biggest question when watching these fasts paced teams is why do the referees get sucked into their game? In other words, what compels the refs to run around like mad trying to keep up? That has always stood out to me as odd. In fact, when refs are sprinting to keep up with the offense, place the ball super fast, start the clock, etc. it seems a bit like taking sides. Not a great way to put it, but the defense doesn't have the option to slow it down in any way. Seems to me the most fair way to have a "rule" is that the referees should have to always move at their "normal" pace.

That would also take away a lot of hurry up at the end of games and quarters, but honestly, if you've had the whole game to score, why should the refs have to bust it to keep up with how fast you want to play? It's not their fault you're behind at the end of the game...

Other than those observations I'd tell Nicky to get his defense in shape and adapt.