VTTW Board Index

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2014/butch-jones-kevin-sumlin-ncaa-rule/

Well, you can't question Saban's concern for player safety.  I mean, look at all those medical hardships he's handed out over the years. :rolleyes:

Yeah, if it's about player safety, why allow it for the last two minutes of the half?   :dielaughing:

Saban can't even lie all that well..... :naughty:

He's really tarnishing his legacy.  "Oh...wahhhhh!   I can't compete with the hurry up.  Wahhh!  Mark please change the rule for me".


That and hiring Lane Kiffin....he's really starting to lose it.   :naughty:


This ridiculous rule change is likely to be terminated with extreme prejudice, IMO. 

I'm a fan great defensive play, and have been since day 1. If you like 56-48 type of games, then so be it. I like hard hitting, and tackles that knock the socks off offensive players. So did Bryant, so did Neyland.

Here's a post from another Bama fan on one of the Tide sites. It says it all!

BG



In light of recent struggles in baseball, auburn announced today that it's staff will be instructed to quick pitch on every throw to every batter. "We believe pitching to hitters who are not set, hopefully not even fully in the box, will give our inferior team an opportunity to become more competitive," Jay Jacobs said.

He also said basketball changes were coming, to include grabbing the ball from the official after each dead ball and attempting to in-bound before the defense can get set.

The swimming team is also getting involved, making the commitment to jump in the pool before the gun on every event. "We believe that 15-20 meter head start will allow us to train less often and use slower, less-athletic swimmers yet still win most meets," Jacobs noted.

He went on to say auburn was researching possible advantages for their equestrian program, but thus far the horses have declined to participate based on moral and ethical objections.

I know that's supposed to be parody, but those are apples/oranges comparisons, and you know it. 

Hey, I don't like these gimmicky offenses either.  But if a coach has a problem with them, he needs to come up with a defensive scheme to stop them, rather than trying to bend the rules in his favor. 

I like defensive football. I'm not a fan of 56-48 games. But to change the rules to prevent that from happening and to force everyone to play the same old school type of football as you do is ignorant and incredibly asinine. I lose a lot of respect for Saban trying to throw his weight around on this issue. He should go piss up a rope.

I hate the spread offense as a general rule. I'm waiting for a rule proposal forcing teams to have six down linemen and one set back besides the QB.

Nick Saban did not initiate this. Someone from the committee wanted his input, he didn't volunteer it. They asked him to write his opinions-he did. They later called him while he was at Lake Burton, and requested he come and give his thoughts before the committee. He rejected this until another member of the committee requested his appearance.

As far as coming up with a defensive scheme, the Tide was lacking badly at corner, and as far as having a decent pass rush. While another scheme may be beneficial, the type players he recruited at corner (2 5*) and  pass rushers (3 five stars per 247) will go along way. He's going more after the puss rushing DE with quickness (Da'Shaun Hand) than those with size. He's already adapting in his recruiting.

As far my argument that the game wasn't intended to be played with the offense snapping the ball before the defense could either substitute or even set-up. I have no doubt the that was not the intention for the game. I admit I'm old fashion as far as thinking the defense should have the time to set-up, but I honestly like low scoring games with hard hitting, and the HUNH will change all of this. This is the SEC, not the Mountain West.

BG

I like games after dark in September and October, and games in the "heat" of day in November. Please let me know when we can implement rules requiring this.

I'm not buying that.  You're telling me that the committee would "request" Saban and Bielema to testify, but not give equal time to coaches with opposing points of view? 

Not the same thing at all. Do you really think there should be no rule changes when defences don't even have to to set up or even substitute? Do really think this doesn't take away from the integrity of the game, which the defense was always allowed to do in the past? That analogy of throwing the baseball before the batter sets up in the box is not so far off at all.

BG

That's exactly what happened whether you buy it or not. That is also why the opposing coaches were upset, and probably rightfully so.


BG

But they ARE allowed to substitute, whenever the offense does.  So assuming the defense takes advantage, neither unit should be any more fatigued than the other.

If that's true, then it just confirms what a lot of people across the country have long suspected- that Saban gets special treatment from the NCAA, and his BFF Mark Emmert.  And it's public record that Saban was lobbying for this early in the season last year.  So even if he didn't "write" this legislation, he certainly had a huge influence in it reaching this point.

Nothing has changed between what the defense was allowed to do in the past and what they are allowed to do now. The defense has always been at the offense's mercy. Tell your butthurt coach to adapt with the game or go back to the NFL.

Exactly. Saban wanted it, he was on record as wanting it, and now his buddies are trying to make it happen.

Good, I hope he did have an influence.

Here's what one local writer wrote today: For the moment, let's assume that all the worst-case scenarios are true, that Saban was deviously seeking an advantage for his team against other teams. I carefully researched Saban's job description in preparing this column, and guess what? That is precisely what he is supposed to do. In fairness, at least one coach on the other side of the issue - Arizona's Rich Rodriguez - acknowledged as much as he made the rounds on the national radio shows on Friday, noting that he had "no problem" with Saban making his point. Others have been less forgiving, including some who had no problem changing the recruiting rules when they thought Saban had an advantage because he and his staff worked too hard.

The next step in that criticism is that Saban got a chance to present his side of the argument to the NCAA committee and the hurry-up, no-huddle coaches were caught unawares.

Really? The HUNH coaches weren't ready when Saban was? They needed him to wait until they were ready? The irony is delicious."




BTW, the NCAA meets again, and this issue will no doubt come up again. I understand you guys don't like Saban, but I assure you the integrity of the game is what is in question with defenses now not having time to even set-up. Great hard hitting defensive games, that has always been the hallmark for both Tennessee and Alabama, may not be the same again.


BG

Actually I've always respected and admired Saban and probably been his biggest defender among the entire UT fan base. But this issue makes him seem like a two-bit hypocrite because we all know it has NOTHING to do with the "integrity of the game." It's all about a guy who's an old-school coach and has been very successful with old-school methods realizing the game is about to pass him by and, rather than change and adapt with it, decides to try and use his influence to force the game to mold to him. It's about a coach who considers himself bigger than the game.

Nothing wrong with using your legacy to your advantage; Neyland was able to do it to prevent two-platoon football until after his death. But that didn't make Neyland right on that issue and, personally, I hope his coaching peers collectively tell Saban where to go stick it.

"It's all about a guy who's an old-school coach and has been very successful with old-school methods realizing the game is about to pass him by and, rather than change and adapt with it, decides to try and use his influence to force the game to mold to him."..................and there's  nothing wrong with that.




While I'm of course in favor for what's in Alabama's best interest, I'm telling you I really like the defensive game, and what we've known in this conference, at least to a certain extent, is now in jeopardy. While I know mostTennessee fans will always pull against what an Alabama coach is advocating, this issue affects to the core of what Tennessee Volunteer football has always been about. If I grew up watching Jackie Walker, Hacksaw Reynolds and Steve Kiner (which I did) if I were a UT fan, I surely know which side of this issue I would be for.


BG

LOL. You accuse everyone else of being against it because Saban is for it, but don't have the fortitude to say that you're for it because Saban is for it?

I've enjoyed the debate. Hope we can do these types of threads much more often. After this, I'm off to bed so maybe we can continue tomorrow if you guys want. You must not have read my other post when I said I was clearly in favor of what benefits Alabama; of course I am. I then went on to explain, that while that's true, I'm also a purist when it comes to this game, and I want defenses to have the time to set up as they always have. I don't want defense as we've known it for years to no longer exit. See my above post for reference.

Also, I never responded to the assertion that nothing has really changed, and defenses have time to substitute as usual. While the refs did make a better effort to make sure defenses had time to substitute when offenses brought on new personal to the field, there was little time to set up on defense if there were no substitutions made by the offense. While defenses are running to get in place, the ref can still put the ball down for in-play, and immediately the offense can snap it while the defense is still setting up. It's ruining the game we knew, and I promise you that is the football fan in me talking, not just the Crimson Tide fan. I didn't grow up waiting anxiously to watch a WAC game with a 52-48 score, with not one single tackle worth noting. I grew up waiting for lb's such as Leroy Jordan or Steve Kiner to lay someone out in a tough in the trenches, lay it all on the line, SEC game.



BG

If anything is threatening the 'integrity' of football, it's one coach trying to throw his weight around and force the game to mold to him. Saban's fear of Gus Malzahn is almost laughable.

This. Saban's butthurt is the only injury evidence we've seen to this point. That the NCAA is consulting with him on this question, no matter who initiated that contact, is embarrassing for them. They could write the book on how to lose credibility.

BG Sorry man this does not pass the sniff test as a good rule.  First of all if there was a patient safety issue at the core of this arguement then why did they not also include it in the final two minutes of a half as part of the rule change.  Secondly, while most offenses do not snap the ball within the first ten seconds of the 40 second clock, (the average is 17 seconds for most hurry up offenses) the way the propposed rule change is worded is that the offense must give the defense a chance to change personnel.  THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIZZLE.  If Satan can't think fast enough to get his defensive players on the field as soon as the previous play is over -- too damn bad.

I love defensive football, but I also like the hurry up offenses adding a new dimension to the game.  Saban and Beilema are "Old School" coaches.  Beilema is Big Ten Three Yards and a Cloud of Dust coach.  Saban is bascially in that same mold since he came from the Big Ten (Michigan State) and what is in the DNA is in the DNA.  Yeah ole Sabanator recruited more for speed, his comments after the Auburn game revealed his true feelings when he said "we got outquicked the entire game" and admitted he had to change his approach.

 

Yes, it is.


Yes, I believe there should be no rule change.


What rule changed what defenses were allowed to do in the past?  None that I know of.  The "integrity of the game" argument is just plain silly.  As long as the existing rules are being followed, the "integrity of the game" remains intact.  Changing the rules because you can't figure out how to stop an offense (or move on a defense) definitely takes away from the integrity of the game.


It's not only far off, it's completely wrong.  It's more like an umpire not giving a batter extra time and the pitch being thrown as soon as the batter is in the box, which I think is just fine.

If a coach doesn't like the hurry up offense, Then FIND A WAY TO STOP IT!  If a coach likes defensive football, then DESIGN ONE THAT WORKS!  Don't beg for a rule change because you're not doing your job, especially in the totally unsupported guise of safety.  I have no idea what Saban or any other coaches want, but the proposed rule change is just plain stupid.   

I like they way you think on this issue, you should be a lawyer ...

Some are questioning the safety issue; Ok, so Texas Tech ran the most plays per game in the HUNH with 90 plays per game. Stanford had one of the lowest plays per game iat 65 running a standard pro-set offense. Taking that difference in the numbers gives us and additional 25 more plays per game. Figuring a 12 game season, that's 300 more more plays per season for Tech's HUNH in comparison to Stanford.

 For those claiming there are no substantiated studies to prove there are more injuries since the advent of the HUNH in today's game, that is true. However, given those above numbers, there is no doubt the more plays a player is involved in, the greater his chances of being injured. Few things are an absolute, but that is one of them.



BG

And yet somehow UGA and UF (two of the SEC's old school offenses) were decimated by injuries this season, while Auburn managed to remain relatively injury-free.

Number of plays is being cited as a safety issue, yet the NCAA allows unlimited overtime. And a limit on scholarships.

I don't know why teams can't get defensive subs in against a hurry-up team. If an offense gains 10-15 yards or more, why can't you have defensive subs ready to go in? By the time the offense gets to the new line of scrimmage, the refs spot the ball and the chains move, the defense could get in the subs.

I'm having a hard time believing that this is a change for safety reasons.

That still doesn't change the argument that more plays per season equate to more injuries.



BG


 

More plays per season increases the possibility of more injuries.

But, in addition to what I said above about overtime and scholarships (and limited travel squads), we now have a 12th game, conference championship games and more bowls than ever before. Do you see a chance that they will cut those back in the name of safety?

Honestly, for me, it's not even about the rule itself at this point.  The world will keep spinning whether or not the rule is enacted.  What it IS about is one coach having WAY too much influence on the sport, and per all outward appearances, having a lot of important people in Indy safely tucked away in his back pocket.  Knowing what we know now, what are we supposed to think when bama recruits show up on social media flashing stacks of cash, and the NCAA doesn't even lift a finger to investigate?

Then, as droner points out, they should change the overtime rules, decrease the number of games per season, number of bowl and/or playoff games, etc.  This reminds me of the homeowners association here wanting to ban trailers parked on the neighborhood streets purportedly out of "safety" concerns.  Yet, I have never lived on any roads nearly as wide as the ones here, and there was no record of any accidents or injuries related to a trailer parked on a neighborhood street.  When I called them on it, and said they should just admit it was for purely aesthetic reasons, they said they were being proactive and preventing the potential for accidents and injuries.  So, I asked why they didn't put all-way stop signs at every intersection and reduce the speed limit from 25 to 10 on all neighborhood roads.  Those two things would likely address safety more effectively than the trailer ban.  They wanted it prettier and justified the proposed rule by claiming it was for safety.  The coaches calling for this rule change simply don't like dealing with fast-paced play, so they want to slow the game down by claiming it's a safety issue when other rules changes would address safety much more directly.  You need to call this what it is; a proposed rule change designed by those who don't want to deal with actually defending against the completely legal offenses on the field and within the existing rules.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Then again, your coach wants the change, so you're going to defend it to the end, no matter its illogic.  So be it.

Lets change it from 4 quarter game to just 2 quarters.

Come to think about that....don't. Dooley would still be here!!

Some really good comments made, and I appreciate that. Really like good debates on issues, and this board gave us that. As far as some of the comments on the safety issues, some have real merit and I agree with a lot of them.

BG

Horse manure.  Every time something controversial with bammer comes up, there is a chorus...one that is likely orchestrated...of misinformation that comes out.  For instance, when bammer was hit with the scandal over selling textbooks (which affected all athletics, not just football) a particuarl bammer buddy of mind stated that "they were only getting $10!" and he was sincere (of course, he gets a lot of stuff wrong but that's another story).  So every time bammer is caught in something, there is a "A STORY" about how it ain't really that way, or this ishow it really was, et, etc, and "THE STORY" is usually self-serving BS.  I don't see this as any different.

And BTW BG...check your spelling.  Cause I can only hope thi sis true....He's going more after the puss rushing DE with quickness

The more "pusses" saban recruits, the happeri I am.   :naughty:

OF course, we have all rushed a few....okay I'll stop.  Comedy gold, dude!   :naughty:

Geez, I hope "puss" rushing wasn't prophetic! :laugh: As far as checking my spelling or anything else in my post, I try but I fail far too often...ask Pirate.... me and the edit key are inseparable! :laugh:



BG