|
Post by 19delta on Oct 4, 2012 8:14:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by wybulldogs on Oct 4, 2012 8:20:26 GMT -6
Sounds like sour grapes. Condition better or find a way to platoon players.
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Oct 4, 2012 8:32:13 GMT -6
Yes, nick. This is what we want football to be.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Oct 4, 2012 9:18:47 GMT -6
Yes, nick. This is what we want football to be. Speak for yourself. If I wanted to watch 70-64 games regularly I would have watched Arena football and I didn't. Neither did a lot of people. Sour grapes? Over what, winning 33-14 and giving up just a little over 200 yards?
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Oct 4, 2012 9:20:10 GMT -6
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
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Oct 4, 2012 9:29:19 GMT -6
I think defense will catch up in time..wvu and texas will be interesting saturday nite...I am surprised that more defenses don't get off the ball "slowly"
|
|
|
Post by tog on Oct 4, 2012 9:45:33 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by mrjvi on Oct 4, 2012 9:45:59 GMT -6
IMO, I think fast pace offenses would be a stupid reason to change the rules of the game.
|
|
kyle
Sophomore Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by kyle on Oct 4, 2012 10:29:24 GMT -6
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 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.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Oct 4, 2012 10:33:42 GMT -6
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 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. Wow. That would DEFINITELY take downs away from offenses if the clocked did not stop on an incompletion.
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Oct 4, 2012 10:47:49 GMT -6
Yes, nick. This is what we want football to be. 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....
|
|
kyle
Sophomore Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by kyle on Oct 4, 2012 10:57:28 GMT -6
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. Wow. That would DEFINITELY take downs away from offenses if the clocked did not stop on an incompletion. It would be interesting to see the sweep called instead of the spike.
|
|
|
Post by mitch on Oct 4, 2012 11:30:11 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by bluedevil4 on Oct 4, 2012 11:35:18 GMT -6
I think Nick is just PO'd because fewer teams like his are playing not to lose, and now teams like Oregon and WVU are playing to win.
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Oct 4, 2012 11:49:43 GMT -6
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 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. 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
|
|
|
Post by casec11 on Oct 4, 2012 11:53:26 GMT -6
I do kind of miss watching games where I am interested in every play because "this could be the big play" now there are so many big plays it loses its luster. There is something about a defensive battle that keeps me interested.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Oct 4, 2012 12:08:16 GMT -6
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 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. 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.
|
|
kyle
Sophomore Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by kyle on Oct 4, 2012 12:28:25 GMT -6
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. Wouldn't that get rid of all ability to control the clock? Or would running out of bounds stop the clock still?
|
|
kyle
Sophomore Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by kyle on Oct 4, 2012 12:33:43 GMT -6
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. 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 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?
|
|
|
Post by power4545 on Oct 4, 2012 12:33:52 GMT -6
Sounds like sour grapes. Condition better or find a way to platoon players. I agree, sounds like Saban is just frustrated over this new style of offense. This entire debate reminds me of the Auburn/Miss St game a couple years ago that ended 3-2 and people saying how these slow games are going to ruin football. I guess just the opposite side of the spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Oct 4, 2012 12:38:38 GMT -6
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. Wouldn't that get rid of all ability to control the clock? Or would running out of bounds stop the clock still? 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.
|
|
kyle
Sophomore Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by kyle on Oct 4, 2012 12:42:37 GMT -6
Wouldn't that get rid of all ability to control the clock? Or would running out of bounds stop the clock still? 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. Well I think Saban would hate that
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Oct 4, 2012 12:45:48 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by paulfrantz on Oct 4, 2012 13:05:42 GMT -6
There is a very simple way to stop offenses from running this. Do it on the field. I'm pretty sure football is about doing what works. Offensively or defensively. Shut them down and they won't do it anymore. And the part about the defense isn't ready, REALLY?!? then GATA, if they're not ready at the snap, it's the coaches fault. This isn't something they added in the week before your game. You knew what they ran, you had a week to prepare.
|
|
jonnyjon
Sophomore Member
cOUrage
Posts: 141
|
Post by jonnyjon on Oct 4, 2012 16:02:26 GMT -6
More plays = more football = more better.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Oct 4, 2012 17:45:38 GMT -6
I know this is a basketball reference but I will try and related it to football.
In my state we do not have a shot clock and every year certain coaches (ones with lots of d 1 and d2 talent) complain because they have to face a team who will spread the court, control the time of possession and win ball games against these better teams.
Nick Saban would be one of those coaches with better athletes, is at a school with much better talent and he does not think he should be bothered with team who do not allow him to control them.
Four corners is to basketball what the spread no huddle is to football. IT makes you have to approach the game differently.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Oct 4, 2012 20:42:42 GMT -6
I think it's a general statement from a football purist point of view.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?
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Oct 4, 2012 22:33:05 GMT -6
Agree with the "safety of the players." That is like "if it only helps one child." LOL
But, didn't we go for most of football history with the refs taking a little time to spot the ball? Now it is almost instantly. I think that is the problem Saban has.
Isn't there some middle ground?
Maybe at least 5 seconds to spot the ball. 5, 10 whatever.
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Oct 4, 2012 22:35:45 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Oct 4, 2012 22:40:37 GMT -6
For those who are keeping score at home, I did just make a direct comparison between spread coaches and the Viet Cong. Sounds right to me.
|
|