["What rule change took effect recently that prevents defenses from freely substituting on every play "as they always have been able to do"?]

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

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

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?

Hated them, but loved them when someone grabbed Johnny Musso's jersey and it ripped, and he took off on a 25 yard run. Otherwise, hated them.


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

[d: Will be away today, so I'll respond back Thursday. Thanks]

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.

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

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.

The point of this is Neyland had his own prejudices and opinions about one-platoon football that were unpopular to the majority of other coaches. That doesn't mean he's wrong, or Saban is wrong, it means this is how they wish to see the game played, and both are willing to attempt, by either not letting a rule come up for vote, or by making a simple presentation to a committee on their viewpoint, to get what is best for them and their schools.


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.

There is no right or wrong answer, it's just what you wish the game to be.



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

[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"?]

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

[the first time a coach had asked to address the committee]

One other thing....

Redding said Saban's presence was unusual but that it wasn't the first time a coach had asked to address the committee. More routinely, coaches have provided input through letters or by talking with members of the rules committee.

This should lay to rest the BULLshizzle story by bammer fans that the committee "invited" Saban to speak on the rule.     Mr. Saban "invited" himself, apparently.   

I've googled the sequence of events leading up to Saban's appearance before the committee, and have come up with nil. With that being the case, I tonight posted this question on the events on BamaOnline's Round Table board because I'm pretty confident that is where I got it. Take a look on that board if you wish for my question, and I believe you can read it and responses without an account. The first person to respond said Finebaum was the source of that info I read and quoted here. He said Finebaum has now admitted it was incorrect, so I will have to admit the same.


BG

[conspiracy theory that Saban was manipulating the committee]

I dunno, but the OBC had plenty to say about it.  Whatever else one might think about Spurrier, he usually calls it like it is.  

Redding said in an interview with Ivan Maisel on ESPN Radio that the committee's mind was pretty much already made up with a framework of the rule in mind before Saban's presentation. Maisel commented this pretty much blew up the conspiracy theory that Saban was manipulating the committee on the proposed rule change, and Redding added, "it's just not so" regarding Saban, and went on to talk about a person's perception affecting what they believe is reality, obviously meaning if you don't care for Saban and distrust him, you could very well think he's manipulating the committee.

He earlier spoke of how the committee was to a great extent made up of athletic directors and conference commissioners who have been considering the proposal for at least two years. It didn't sound like these administrators would be much persuaded by Nick Saban's stance on the issue.

BG

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=10482610

Post a link to these alleged comments by a former Dolphin disputing the contents of the article.  

Here it is: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/09/bell-disputes-account-of-sabans-treatment/

BG

[the first time a coach had asked to address the committee]

One other thing....

Redding said Saban's presence was unusual but that it wasn't the first time a coach had asked to address the committee. More routinely, coaches have provided input through letters or by talking with members of the rules committee.

This should lay to rest the BULLshizzle story by bammer fans that the committee "invited" Saban to speak on the rule.     Mr. Saban "invited" himself, apparently.   

What else did Rogers Redding say about allegations being made that Saban was the driving force behind the proposed rule change?

BG

While a former Dolphin player disputed some of the facts the ex-Auburn player made, after reading many posts both here, and other threads, I have little doubt this man-Nick Saban-should be drawn and quartered for the sake of all humanity.


BG

...and rated as the #1 WR in America.  So in 2015, we should have Williams, North, Malone, and Pearson.  That should scare the hell out of some opposing Ds.

http://allfortennessee.com/2014/02/19/2015-vols-commit-now-rated-five-star/

I've read nothing about him on the Crimson Tide sites until a couple of days ago. BOL (Bama OnLine on 247) wrote an article about him, and mentioned the family was originally from T-town, and his dad even signed with Bama as a rb out of HS. For whatever reason, the dad was only was at Bama for one year. Gotta really like his size, and a read where one of the national recruiting analyst on 247-Barton Simmons-mentioned he thought he is ahead of North, and I believe Malone, at the same stage. Good get for you guys.


BG

[puss]

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.   

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

Geez, I hope "puss" rushing wasn't prophetic! 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!



BG

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

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.

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



BG


 

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

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

[nd there's nothing wrong with that.]

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

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.

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

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? 

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

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.

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

[did not initiate]

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.  

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

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

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.