Nick Saban: "Is this what we want football to be?"

Yes, nick. This is what we want football to be.

I'm telling you... there will start to be rule changes designed to LIMIT the number of plays in a game because of all of this "concussion" business.

The only way to reduce concussions is to reduce collisions... easiest way to reduce collisions is to have LESS plays

I like the variety of college ball.
I want to be able to see all sorts of stuff. It's all phases. Nick knows this.

I heard an interesting suggestion to change the rules on stopping the clock for dropped passes. That'd be one way to reduce the collisions per game.

Not for me. Not everyone has drank that kool-aid.

I bet Saban was PO'ed about something like his S&C guy didn't have them ready, or he got caught in a D he didn't want, maybe Ole Miss was talking smack and he wanted to take a shot at them.

Not sure if they can ever limit the number of plays in a game, maybe add 10 seconds to the play clock as like a "huddle clock" where you can not run a play until those 10 seconds are up. Who knows....

The NFL has different clock rules to speed up the game. I would suspect it would be to not bore fans. I have to admit college games seem to drag a lot of the times. Maybe it would be beneficial to the college game for them to look at some of the NFL rules.

HS ball doesn't need to change. 12 minute quarters and present time rules are fine.

I heard that too..the article said the reason why the clock stopped after a pass was that there was only one ball at the games , so they would have to go fetch the ball and give it to the ref...I think we will see that rule in HS sooner rather than later...the reason it won't pass in college is because ESPN says no because of TV revenue..It ssems to me that most TV games last 3.5 hours these days as opposed to 3 hrs just a few years ago

I would like to see the clock stopped after every play. But then started when it is blown in for every play.

Then your choice of run or pass is not dictated by the clock.

Yeah that's true. I'm kind of okay with that though. The big risks of concussion are for younger kids, right? Isn't it like age 19 and below when second impact syndrome is a factor?

There is no need to run out of bounds. The clock will stop after every play. But then you better hurry up, becasue it will start as soon as they blow it in. This will actually help you come back and your 2 minutes drill.

But on the flip side, if you are trying to run out the clock it can also help. You know don't have to worry about running out of bounds of throwing the ball becasue the clock is going to stop after every play anyways. You just need to snap it late in the play clock.

I think overall the game will be about the same time. Sure on running in bounds the play clcock will stop so you will gain about 15 seconds of game time on that. It takes the officials about 15 seconds to spot the ball. But that will be made up on pass incompletions and out of bounds plays that will now start on the ready for play whistle.

I really don't understand his comment. As we see on her everyday, it is a personal preference as to whether or not this "is what we want football to be." I agree with TOG that the reason I far prefer college to the pro game is the variety of it all. Also, from a fan perspective, you pretty much know what you are getting into when you watch a game (if its going to be a defensive battle, a blowout, or a shootout). Also not following his rationalization that it is unsafe for the defense, how is it not for the offense that keeps lining up to run those plays. And unfair??? What's fair? Line up and wait to make sure the defense is set up in the look they want to be in with the personelle they want before snapping the ball?

I can understand if he doesn't like that style of offense or if any of you don't for that matter but the assertion that it is bad for football is assinine.

More plays = more football = more better.

this may be more closer to the truth and captures two sides of the same side of the argument.

1. not "traditional" football...humbug
2. players control more of the game/flow and it comes out of the coaches hands



When someone says they're concerned about the "safety of the game", I become a cynic of that statement when that person is lining 330lbs Barrett Jones up in the backfield to run lead on a 210lbs linebacker.

This will could either prompt for an official rule change or require different enforcement of the current rules, where officials aren't so quick to mark the ball in play as quickly as they are doing now. Some places in this country, no-huddle cannot be used because of this reason.

When did "safety of the game" suddenly become such a convenient strawman like "support the troops"?

You run a nickel defense? I guess you don't care about the safety of the game, huh?

I don't think sour grapes is the right phrasing and I do think that it has more to do with a conflict of Saban's idealized view of what football is: a game where you physically dominate your opponent and force their submission. With that kind of mindset, it's easy to see why someone would be bothered by teams who want to win through 'finesse' and what appears to be unconventional strategies.

A fair comparison would be the US being pissed that the VC wouldn't fight them the way that they wanted. For those who are keeping score at home, I did just make a direct comparison between spread coaches and the Viet Cong.