Saban gets smoked by hurry up offenses, so he wants to change the rules. Spurrier calls B.S. in typical Spurrier fashion. Classic. I just hope this doesn't get legs. What a load of crybaby crap.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10494833/steve-spurrier-s...
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
If Saban and Spurrier want to spend their offseason trading verbal jabs through the media, fine.
All I care about is Beamer and Co. getting ready for the season and making our team the best they can be.
This rule could actually be a big deal if it gains any traction and affect our game play.
But VT doesn't run the hurry up. So if it does gain traction the only way I could see it affecting our game play is in a positive manner. Give Bud extra time to run out the exact defense he wants on the field and get them set? I think that's advantage Bud.
The Saban Rule would benefit VT because we are a defensive team, and for too long college football has been trending towards the offenses at the expense of defenses. I have listened to UNC press conferences on the radio since Fedora was hired down here, and his main strategy is to play an East-West game for so long during the game without letting the defense sub that they get tired so they can beat them late. That's not football, thats a bastardization of the game. Football is at its best when you line up your best against their best and may the better unit win.
If you ask me, this whole hurry up offense is a very similar tactic to the 4 Corners offense in basketball, just with a different result. You're making the defensive game meaningless because you just wait them out and then attack. Its weaksauce and I applaud Saban for calling it out like it is.
I disagree slightly with this. Football is more than just the best players against best players, but the best strategies against the best strategies. If one coach's strategy is to tire the other defense (even if just to level the field against better talent), and that works for them, then good for the coach's scheme and the players that fit in that scheme. If they're not breaking rules, then go with a strategy that works.
Rather than trying to beat the other team with same types of talent and the same strategy, they're trying to beat them with players still talented (albeit in different ways), and a different strategy.
It may distort the pure talent vs. talent match up, but winning is winning.
You could say the same thing about 4 corners. Its one strategy to take the opponent's best players out of the game, but it goes against the heart of the game.
In my opinion, taking the defense out of the game for the opponent might be a strategy, but it goes against the heart of the game. Football is at its best when you man up and play ball. When you start scheming based on a loophole, that is when the game starts to erode, and in my opinion, thats where we are right now with this hurry up offense.
No way is it as extreme as 4 corners. And I have seen good defenses obliterate this strategy.
Loophole, Heart of the game, and Eroding the game are a bit hyperbolic for my taste. It's one thing to say 'I want football to be like the Lunchpail Defense that we know and the jumbo package at Stanford', and it's another to say that the HUNH is going to
ruinerode the game. Is it different? Obviously. Will Defensive Coordinators find a way to nullify the substitution effect? Probably, it always take a while for coaches to catch up though. As long as it's not impacting the players health injury wise, I have no aversion to it. Just don't act like the sky is falling because of it while there are much bigger things threatening college football.I have a very easy way for a defense to put a stop to this strategy: stop the offense. Defense does its job, they're only out there for 3 plays at a time.
It goes against the heart of the game? Why don't we remove the forward pass too?
TV ratings would disagree. Fans love watching these spread offenses.
Personally, I my two favorite offenses to watch are Oregon's and Clemson's. I will never turn on a BC game (unless it has some bearing on VT's standings).
It's more like an up-tempo, run the break every chance you get, basketball strategy than a 4-corners team IMO.
Basically, the Phoenix Suns under Mike D'Antoni.
Why would you change the rule? The team with possession SHOULD be able to control the pace at which the game is played. This just makes sense to me.
If your defenders aren't in shape, why shouldn't I be allowed to expose that?
I like the rule and say we keep it. There is so many rules that protect and aid the offense. You can only hit a guy in 3 square inch area, if you look at the QB wrong it's a 15 yarder etc, etc... it's time the D got some help.
I'll probably never say this again in life, but I agree with Spurrier.
If someone is lauded as the best coach in the entire universe, he should be able to adapt to newer strategies thrown at him. Period. Especially since the hurry-up offense isn't nearly as new as everyone makes it seem (Houston and Hawaii come to mind). And it certainly isn't an indefensible strategy, either. See Stanford and Oregon the past couple of seasons.
And as far as the Hokies are concerned -- since I've seen it brought up here -- that goes for Bud Foster too.
This ^^^
And I disagree that it goes "against the heart of the game." I love watching a team, down a score with no timeouts, no huddle it down the field. I also enjoy watching Oregon. And I enjoyed watching manball Stanford take them down.
What I don't like is Saban wanting to change the rules because he can't cope with a hurry up offense. Bud can deal with it, and Bud would not flake out and try to put a rule change in. He just makes brilliant adjustments that kill the other team's will to live. THAT is the heart of the game.
Yep.
And the whole "four corners" comparison didn't make sense either. The hurry-up is designed to move the ball and score quickly -- which is the exact opposite of what the four-corners was supposed to accomplish.
Though I wish the rule weren't being put in place, his 4 corners comparison does make sense. The 4 corners offense was designed to slow the game down, yes, however, the idea behind it was simply handicapping the other team. If the other team didn't have the ball, they couldn't score. It wasn't as much a game of basketball as it was a game of keep away. I understand his comparison. The reason I disagree with his comparison is that the hurry up offense, while yes, it does wear the defense down, and yes this does give an offense an advantage, I think it is successful largely due this: When you give fast, athletic guys 50 chances to score over the course of a game, they may score a few times. When you give them 100 chances to score, in theory, they'll score twice as many times. With the idea that the team with the most points wins, this strategy is one that is valuable to many teams, especially those with weaker defenses. I know we have a defense first team here at Tech, and so we favor that, and that's okay. I don't have a problem with the way our team plays. But I also don't have a problem with the way Oregon plays. In some ways, it does hinder the other team....but if the other team would do a better job of conditioning, or simply stop the offense in three plays, then they wouldn't have to worry about it.
stanford agrees.
agree
I read from a different source (of which I forget or I would include it) that even the fastest hurry up teams rarely have a snap with less than a 10 second run-off. Is this is the only proponent of the rule change change, I don't think it would be much of a change for most hurry-up offenses.
I can't recall is this includes allowing the defense to substitute every play, which would definitely change things, but if not, even a 10 second wait would not drastic affect. (Though it seems unlikely it will pass)
edit: it seems like the rule is to give ten seconds to allow the defense to substitute, but doesn't mandate that the offense must wait for substitutions. 10 seconds isn't a lot of time, so even if the offense runs up to the ball and has to wait an extra second or two, the defense wouldn't have time to do much except substitute their 2nd string, if that. But again, most of the hurry-up offense take at least 10 or so seconds anyways, so it wouldn't have much impact except on the fastest of fastest teams.
Preventing a 9th second snap would prevent an offense from trapping a defense in the process of swapping out players during a substitution.
You can prep to substitute then have the guys get off the field while new ones come on, not drawing a 5 yd penalty.
I disagree with the rule. Sometimes you have instances when it comes down to who not has the best players, but who has the best strategy. Football is a lot of X's and O's, and teams with less overall "talent" can beat better teams because they have a better game plan.
I mean, sure, this rule would probably benefit VT in the long run given that we are usually a defensive team, but isn't it more satisfying that you beat an opponents best?
What about spiking the ball to stop the clock? The rule would only allow that in the last two minutes maybe. Sometimes you want to save clock with more than two minutes to go because you need a couple scores. If you don't have timeouts then you can lose a lot of clock.
If there's a rule change that should be implemented, it's that if the QB doesn't actually throw the ball when he's spiking it, then it's intentional grounding or a fumble. That's the only thing that bothers me about the game that I think needs a rule change.
Isn't already treated kind of like a fumble, minus the stats? I might be wrong, but I thought the LoS moved back to where the ball was spiked. Kind of like how a lot of fumbles are when the fumbler falls immediately on the ball.
For a kneel-down, the LoS is moved back, just like any run. For spiking the ball, though, it's considered an incomplete pass so the LoS does not move. My issue is that many times, the QB doesn't bring his hand up over his shoulder (or even stand completely up) and just puts the ball into the dirt behind his linemen. There's obviously no attempt at completing a pass to a receiver. I just think he should at least have to chuck it out of bounds near a WR.
I see many INTs waiting to happen in that case.
Perfect.
What if we're on offense?
Then I want the guys in the booth ducking. All I'm saying is that the QB "spike" should have to follow the same guidelines of any other pass. Near an eligible receiver or across the line of scrimmage. Chuck it through the goal posts for all I care, but there has to be an element of risk to it, just like every other play.
In College I think the rule is the clock doesn't stop until the ball hits the ground out of play. Spiking it at his feet one second, throwing it out of bounds and hitting 3-4 seconds. That has been the difference in a lot of games between leaving 1 second on the clock and game over.
So maybe your team should have played a little better up to that point. I do not see it as a positive that this rule has been the difference in a lot of games.
I despise the spiking the football play as it now stands. It is not a competitive play. It is a risk-free play for the offense that negates the efforts of a team that has thus-far beaten the team taking the spike. At a very minimum, there should be penalty yardage for this play. Something that acknowledges the defense has been doing its part in keeping the ball in the field of play and the clock winding.
I just don't see anything added to the game by it. It was an arbitrary rule set up to make the end of games more exciting for fans (read: more money from networks), and spits in the face of tradition and the superior effort and strategy and yes, sometimes just plain luck of the team on defense.
For this to be true, then the pass would have to go across the line scrimmage and either be catchable, or the QB has to be out of the tackle box. So, it doesn't sound feasible.
During field goals and point after attempts, are you also a proponent for the holder to be considered down for having one knee on the ground?
Yes, there are some stupid caveat rules, but they're there to help, not hinder the game.
For field goals and PAT's, no, because that is still a competitive play. Although a drop-kick revival would definitely be interesting.
Honestly, with the type of defenses we field from season to season, this rule wouldn't matter in our games either way.
Running a hurry up, high powered offense is as much a scheme as running a ground and pound game. It all takes strategy. And for people saying that these hurry up offenses cause injuries because they can't substitute and defensive personnel is getting to tired... watch a game with a team that gets the running game going. There is nothing more tiresome and demoralizing than a team that is running between the tackles and picking up 3 or 4 yards a carry. Then if you can get you an 8 or 9 minute drive and capitalize on it with a td it takes a lot out of a defense. Yeah you can sub against these teams but ask those big boys up front how they feel after the game when they are getting blown off the line and put down on their asses. Just as dangerous... football is a big boy sport. Also, high powered, spread offenses is the way of the future. That is a big reason 7on7 is becoming so huge.
Right. Now imagine being backfield on a team that consistently gets hit for 3-7 yds per play on short passes.
Just as hard on those guys and just as mentally frustrating.
Did anyone else read how Bret Bielema stuck his foot in it?
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/02/20/bret-bielema-cites-p...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140221/bret-bie...
I just saw that. Yesterday I was going to make mention of the fact that he and Saban were offering up the flimsy excuse that somehow this was all tied to safety. I think this shows just how disingenuous they really are about this rule change.
If there were any truth in this, Cal and the kid's parents would be the ones pushing for the rule change.
Next,
Nick Saban proposes to ban being able to return missed field goals
And banning QBs that can run a 4.7 or better.
And Mike London tries to ban using timeouts earlier than the last 30 seconds of the game.
"Using timeouts isn't banned?"
-Mike London
I knew that was a real quote from him.
I am surprised no one has played the 'cowardice' card on Saban and Bielema.
I'm sure there are plenty who are thinking it. Football is all about evolution: the offense finding something new that works, and the defense evolving to stop it. That's the way it has been, and that's how it will continue to be. Before long we'll have to start giving jetpacks to the safeties to guard against the bionic arms of quarterbacks.