VTTW Board Index

http://cfbmatrix.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-CFBMatrix-Pace-of-Play-Summary-Report.pdf (http://cfbmatrix.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-CFBMatrix-Pace-of-Play-Summary-Report.pdf)

What do you make of this? Do you care, or will you continue to let your approach be that "Saban is agin' it, so I am too"?

 I have said before, and I'll have be redundant and say it again. I admit I'm for what is in Bama's best interest, but I've also tried to convey the truth in that I'm a fan of defense first, and taking the Tide's interest out of the equation, I would still want to see the game today that I grew up with. That game consists of a defensive team being able to substitute as needed on every play to counter the offensive strategy it was facing. Other than a dead ball situation, the defensive coaches can no longer run those substitutions in as needed unless the offense also substitutes first. It's taken the coaching strategy effectiveness away from defensive coaches. From an Orange standpoint, Neyland is rolling in his grave and his only salvation is that Bryant is as well. Offensive teams can now substitute at will while defensive teams can not. It gives the offense a big advantage, and destroys the balance of the game we've known.


Big, fast, physical football players hitting each other causes injuries. Pace of offense does not. This is physics and biomechanics and should come as a surprise to nobody. When is Saban going to advocate limits on the size and speed of players? You on board with that.


Yes, I admit my own personal selfishness here. I want the game to be similar to the one I've also known and loved. I guess SEC games will no longer be that much different that the Saturday night 11 PM ESPN game between Fresno State and BYU. May be your cup of tea, but it's not mine.

Also, note when the subject originally came up on the board, injuries were not what I first mentioned because I was less sure of that issue.  However, while I eventually did mention the many more plays being run with a HUNH offense causing many more plays per player per season, and thus increasing the chances for further injuries, note that my response was that others made good points when bringing up the argument that if were going to change this rule in order to decrease them, and why not change other aspects of the game first in order to achieve the same results, and besides football equals injuries per se, and where do we draw the line type of thinking. I had little or no argument for that type of thinking, and said they were valid points.


BG

That's understandable, but I'm no more selfish and no more wrong than Bob Neyland when he was vehemently against one platoon football, and wanted to refused to allow his own committee's majority opinion which opposed his personal view. I like Neyland, and his stance.
BG

I detest two-platoon football, but we found we couldn't lick the two-platoon boys, so we decided to join them.

A rule was changed in 1941 to allow unlimited substitution. By 1945 some teams were using a two-platoon system, now (but not previously) legal. Neyland opposed the rule change, which happened while he was leading his countrymen overseas in WWII.

Neyland didn't attempt to ban an innovation that happened within the existing rules-- it was a rules change he opposed. Quite an apple to your orange.

Secondly,

-- Gen. Bob Neyland, Dec. 4 1951, quoted in the Milwaukee Journal after leading UT to the 1951 AP national title

I suggest Saban take a hint from Neyland and figure shizzle out instead of trying to change longstanding rules.

(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/12/picdump57-18.jpg)

The whole issue for me personally is this: Now for the very first time, defensive coaches can not substitute freely on every play as they always have been able to do, while the offense can still substitute freely on every play it decides to do so.  It's created a huge advantage for the offense, so I like the rule as it gives us back what we always had until the present, and that's the defensive coaches being able to substitute at will as the offense can now only do.

You keep saying that but, as far as I can tell, you have yet to support that assertion with fact.  What rule change took effect recently that prevents defenses from freely substituting on every play "as they always have been able to do"?  How will this proposed rule give "back what we always had until the present"?  How can something be given back when you cannot point to a rule change that took anything away?  Again, what past rule change prevents "the defensive coaches being able to substitute at will"?  What past rule change says that only the offense can substitute at will?  Or, are you saying that the offenses move too quickly for defenses to substitute at will?  That's untrue.  Be prepared and you can easily make substitutions before the ball is snapped.  Just prepare defenses to stop the offenses within the rules that have existed for quite a while.  A rule change didn't create the current offenses, so no rule change is needed to stop them.  Good defensive coaching combined with good defensive players is needed.  You say you like good defensive football, and are a fan of defense first, so demand it.  That doesn't require, or even implicate the need for, a rule change.  It requires coaches to actually earn their ridiculously high salaries.

OMG Did you support tear away jerseys when the Bear was using them and only three or four other teams were using them as well......hmmmmmm?

You keep saying that but, as far as I can tell, you have yet to support that assertion with fact.  What rule change took effect recently that prevents defenses from freely substituting on every play "as they always have been able to do"?  How will this proposed rule give "back what we always had until the present"?  How can something be given back when you cannot point to a rule change that took anything away?  Again, what past rule change prevents "the defensive coaches being able to substitute at will"?  What past rule change says that only the offense can substitute at will?  Or, are you saying that the offenses move too quickly for defenses to substitute at will?  That's untrue.  Be prepared and you can easily make substitutions before the ball is snapped.  Just prepare defenses to stop the offenses within the rules that have existed for quite a while.  A rule change didn't create the current offenses, so no rule change is needed to stop them.  Good defensive coaching combined with good defensive players is needed.  You say you like good defensive football, and are a fan of defense first, so demand it.  That doesn't require, or even implicate the need for, a rule change.  It requires coaches to actually earn their ridiculously high salaries.

OMG Did you support tear away jerseys when the Bear was using them and only three or four other teams were using them as well......hmmmmmm?

OMG Did you support tear away jerseys when the Bear was using them and only three or four other teams were using them as well......hmmmmmm?

Emerald, got to thinking about those jerseys.  I hated the look of the tattered things-that is what I remember the most about them. Heck, i was what 14 years old or so when they came out and I was playing LB at school, but even with playing mostly D myself at the time I doubt I thought too much one way of the other about it helping the offense out over the D, but it did and it was eventually ruled out of the game.


BTW, you mention 4 teams or so that wore them. In the nation? No sir, many wore them even the Vols, at least I think they did. I know Auburn did.


BG

TRO, are you familiar with the changes to the game the 40 second clock has made vs. the old 25 second clock? Let's start from there first before going to your questions. Please let me know your understanding of the changes made a few ago and their impact, and the I will be more than happy to answer your questions which are making me think we are not on same page at all. I assumed you and others knew of the rule changes, and the issues that have risen. If you are aware, let me know and I'll answer your questions. TIA

EDITED to add: Will be away today, so I'll respond back Thursday. Thanks



BG

Pirate, as you know, Nick Saban in no slouch of a defensive coach. I would guess we do the same in that situation, but that is only one example and doesn't do anything for the vast other situations, and no they can not get them in before the possible snap, nor can anybody else.


So is the implication that Neyland was always prepared, and Saban is not? You mention "coaching", and I doubt you will find many people in his profession that question his ability, especially on the defensive side of the ball. You know that.


BG

I've been asked, "What rule change took effect recently that prevents defenses from freely substituting on every play "as they always have been able to do"?


Before we go further, does anyone here know the answer to that question? If so, please respond.  Will answer all your question TRO once we get this out of the way, because the answer to my question will directly affect how I answer to you.


BG

BGH, you seem like a nice guy (yes, even for a saban loving bammer  :naughty:), but if what Clockwork and TRO posted didn't get the point across, I'm not sure supplying you with the answer to a question that was posed to you would help.  It all comes down to one set of fans wanting to win and backing their coach no matter what he does, and other fans who want to win but don't want another coach having undue influence to impact games in his favor. The two will never agree, no matter what fatcs are cited or sound arguments are put forth.  Again, just my $.02.  :tongue:

Doing well, thanks. I hope you haven't changed a bit.  :kiss2: 

I've decided that lurking isn't as fun as joing in.   :naughty:

BGH, you seem like a nice guy (yes, even for a saban loving bammer  :naughty:), but if what Clockwork and TRO posted didn't get the point across, I'm not sure supplying you with the answer to a question that was posed to you would help.  It all comes down to one set of fans wanting to win and backing their coach no matter what he does, and other fans who want to win but don't want another coach having undue influence to impact games in his favor. The two will never agree, no matter what fatcs are cited or sound arguments are put forth.  Again, just my $.02.  :tongue:

If UT was the one with the advantage, I'd say it. And I'd laugh about it.

I don't see what's so complicated about determining which position people take and why. Bama fans want to be able to substitute on defense because Bama consistently has great recruiting classes and has a lot of talented players, starters and backups (subs). Most other schools don't have this and have found that the only way to compete with a school like Bama is to keep the ball moving and keep the opponent's defensive substitutions to a minimum.

It doesn't take a brilliant lawyer such as myself to figure this out. And it isn't complicated to understand that Saban would try to influence the rules to his benefit. If I was a Bama fan (God forbid) I would praise Saban and argue incessantly against those with the opposing view. And if it were Butch Jones doing the manipulating, I would probably sing his praises.

The problem I have is that Saban (and Bama fans) should just admit why they have that viewpoint. It isn't in the interests of safety and everyone knows it. Why not just say, "we have more talent than you and we don't want to level the playing field"?

If UT was the one with the advantage, I'd say it. And I'd laugh about it.

I've been asked, "What rule change took effect recently that prevents defenses from freely substituting on every play "as they always have been able to do"?


Before we go further, does anyone here know the answer to that question? If so, please respond.  Will answer all your question TRO once we get this out of the way, because the answer to my question will directly affect how I answer to you.


BG

Again, I was asked what rule was recently passed that changed the way game is now played. I'll answer that now: The change from the 25 second clock rule to the forty second clock rule. Does anyone here understand, other than it's original intent, how this rule change has impacted the game? TRO, Pirate, Emerald, Bandit, BDV...ANYBODY want to respond to that?

BG

I'm pretty much a purist of the game, and like to see the game played as I always have with defenses on equal footing as the offense. We don't have that now.

Oh, Deere Lowered!  No one can answer that question with a direct/pertinent response because there has been no such rule change.  You have consistently asserted that you are in favor of keeping the integrity of the game, that you like defensive football, that you don't like high scoring (lesser conference) type games, etc., and you have said that you want things to go back to the way they were before.  The question was asked because there was a proposed rule that would slow down current offenses, and you seemed to be in favor of that rule.  If that rule change would make the game "the way it was before" and restore the integrity of the game, then surely there must have been some kind of earlier rule change that favored the offenses to the detriment of the defenses.  The fact is, no such rule change ever occurred, or at least neither you nor anyone else has been able to point to one.  Offensive-minded coaches changed their strategies within the existing rules.  Now it's time for defensive-minded coaches to do the same.  Besides, the proponents of the proposed rule never said its true intent was to slow down fast offenses.  No, they were much more creative than that.  It was for player safety.  They were obviously just thinking of the children.   :rolleyes:  I have never been asked by someone to answer a question I asked of them to help them formulate a response.  Interesting discussion concept.   :wink:

Thanks for your response, I think :laugh: I'll leave my question up for others to answer. I'll give it a dayor so for others to have the time to hopefully read and respond to it, and then I'll answer your earlier questions to me. Thanks.

BG

Again, I was asked what rule was recently passed that changed the way game is now played. I'll answer that now: The change from the 25 second clock rule to the forty second clock rule. Does anyone here understand, other than it's original intent, how this rule change has impacted the game? TRO, Pirate, Emerald, Bandit, BDV...ANYBODY want to respond to that?

BG

Oh, Deere Lowered!  No one can answer that question with a direct/pertinent response because there has been no such rule change.  You have consistently asserted that you are in favor of keeping the integrity of the game, that you like defensive football, that you don't like high scoring (lesser conference) type games, etc., and you have said that you want things to go back to the way they were before.  The question was asked because there was a proposed rule that would slow down current offenses, and you seemed to be in favor of that rule.  If that rule change would make the game "the way it was before" and restore the integrity of the game, then surely there must have been some kind of earlier rule change that favored the offenses to the detriment of the defenses.  The fact is, no such rule change ever occurred, or at least neither you nor anyone else has been able to point to one.  Offensive-minded coaches changed their strategies within the existing rules.  Now it's time for defensive-minded coaches to do the same.  Besides, the proponents of the proposed rule never said its true intent was to slow down fast offenses.  No, they were much more creative than that.  It was for player safety.  They were obviously just thinking of the children.   :rolleyes:  I have never been asked by someone to answer a question I asked of them to help them formulate a response.  Interesting discussion concept.   :wink:

No need.  There are no "facts" that will change anyone's mind, and they are already known anyway.  There is a reason that none of the rule change proponents cited useful statistics or studies to support their arguments/justifications.  None exist.  This dead horse has been beaten more than enough.  :biggrin:
(http://flotgaming.net/forums/images/smilies/icon_beatingadeadhorse.gif)  

BTW, those answers above are "facts." Your contention that that the 40 second rule resulted in no other factors involving the game other than it's intended result is simple not true. Offenses have been given an advantage that in the past did not exit. Defenses can no longer substitute at will when the forty second clock is in play, as the offense can simply snap the ball after the ref makes it ready for play to prevent defensive substitutions from entering the game as they are at now at risk for a too many men on the field penalty, and even if you got them on the field in time, the offense has the ability to snap it before those players are set. I don't expect UT fans to support the proposal, but I did expect some to at least understand the argument that the offense now has an upper hand and that is wrong if you are a fan of great defense and a purist of the game, as no two teams in the SEC hangs their hat on great defense teams in their history, and great defensive games, than the Crimson Tide and the Volunteers.

As mentioned earlier by Emeril (probably not the intent of his post :wink:) an example he brought up that favored offenses was eventually ruled out of the game. This was the tear away jerseys. BTW, Alabama was not the first to use them since Oklahoma used tear-aways before the Crimson Tide.

BG

BTW, those answers above are "facts." Your contention that that the 40 second rule resulted in no other factors involving the game other than it's intended result is simple not true. Offenses have been given an advantage that in the past did not exit. Defenses can no longer substitute at will when the forty second clock is in play, as the offense can simply snap the ball after the ref makes it ready for play to prevent defensive substitutions from entering the game as they are at now at risk for a too many men on the field penalty, and even if you got them on the field in time, the offense has the ability to snap it before those players are set. I don't expect UT fans to support the proposal, but I did expect some to at least understand the argument that the offense now has an upper hand and that is wrong if you are a fan of great defense and a purist of the game, as no two teams in the SEC hangs their hat on great defenses in their history, and great defensive games, than the Crimson Tide and the Volunteers.



As mentioned earlier by Emeril (probably not the intent of his post :wink:) an example he brought up that favored offenses was eventually ruled out of the game. This was the tear away jerseys. BTW, Alabama was not the first to use them since Oklahoma used tear-aways before the Crimson Tide.

BG

First rule of holes ... :frown:

Once again you use opinion is the guise of fact when faced with actual data and statistics (e.g., average number of plays per game, time between snaps, etc.) that are counter to your stance.  It's not that your argument is not understood; it is simply artificial/made up.  It's a typical method of argument when there is nothing of substance to support an assertion.  You can have the last word now, since that seems to be your sole intent at this point, and since your position has been shown to be spurious both here and by the media outlets that have researched the issue.  Have fun continuing to try to convince yourself that your position has even an iota of substance.  It doesn't.  And no matter how many time you chant "The Forty Second Clock Rule," it won't somehow give that rule an effect it has never actually had, as you seem to believe.

Once again you use opinion is the guise of fact when faced with actual data and statistics (e.g., average number of plays per game, time between snaps, etc.) that are counter to your stance.  It's not that your argument is not understood; it is simply artificial/made up.  It's a typical method of argument when there is nothing of substance to support an assertion.  You can have the last word now, since that seems to be your sole intent at this point, and since your position has been shown to be spurious both here and by the media outlets that have researched the issue.  Have fun continuing to try to convince yourself that your position has even an iota of substance.  It doesn't.  And no matter how many time you chant "The Forty Second Clock Rule," it won't somehow give that rule an effect it has never actually had, as you seem to believe.

So you are saying my answers are not fact. Yes, they are fact.  At this point, it's been clear to me both you and Pirate would tell me I'm wrong if I mentioned the sky is often a blue color. Therefore, the answers to your questions are NOT my words. They are direct quotes on the subject of the forty second clock and HUNH offenses by the very foremost authority on rules in college football, who holds the title of both national coordinator of officiating and secretary-rules editor of the NCAA football rules committee. Now you both might win a an argument/debate on rules interpretation with BGHarper, but I promise you both lose hands down in a debate on rules with Rogers Redding, which you both have now accomplished.

BG

His opinion on the matter holds no more weight than mine – it’s an opinion, not fact.  MANY supposed experts that have opposite opinions about matters of which they are both supposedly experts (even on the matter being discussed here).  :crazy:

One “fact” that you cite is that the only time the defense can freely substitute is during a change of possession, penalty, or time out.  This is just wrong.  When the offense subs, the ref holds up the game to give the defense enough time to freely sub (I have booed many times during the stoppage of play when my team has the ball).  If we can’t agree on that one obvious issue, why are we even having this discussion.

By the way, trying to argue against easily verifiable statistical facts using someone else’s opinion on an issue is really not the best way to win an argument.  Again, just my $.02.

I imagine that you will respond with another silly argument (so as to get the last word), please do us all a favor and don’t.  :tongue:  

Let's get this straight now: His "opinion" has FAR more weight of importance than yours. In fact, all of college football rules interpretations rely on his opinion  He is the expert on college football rules, and neither you, me, or TRO are. Of course the D can sub when the O does, but as I pointed out in a later post, after the answers to the questions, Redding is speaking directly of the HUNH and the forty second clock and it's effects on the game. He is not talking about when an offense subs, it goes without saying that of course the D can sub if they do first. We've already covered that in previous threads. Heck, a D can sub virtually all the time as long as the offense huddles, but that's not what we're talking about. We're speaking of the effects of the the the HUNH offense and the forty second clock. That is what the rule proposal is about.

BG