Unfortunately I think the 29 second snap rules passes. There are no coaches or AD's on the committee that will vote. However AB with the upcoming vote of more autonomy for the Big 5 conferences could this rule be moot?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The NCAA is all about PR, and this would be a bad PR move. If this were to pass, they would be pissing off a large majority of head coaches, including some very prominent names that have real influence.
How do you think Auburn and Guz Malzahn would like this?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I know, and these administrators can't risk this blowing up in the NCAA's face because of what will become a huge national story because of the coaches extreme hate for the rule.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think my bigger problem with the proposed rule changes was their "research" conducted on when teams snap the ball. They said they watched a couple of games, but didn't have any sort of hard numbers.
How is that research? It's really not hard to collect that data...
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I'm assuming I just missed it but is there a under 2 minute clause? what about spiking the ball? If it's an incomplete or he goes out of bounds do they still enforce the rule but not if the clock will run (continuously or on the ref's whistle)?.
God this rule is dumb.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
That's what I kind of thought but wasn't sure. And those additional questions were for if the rule were to apply to the under two minutes, sorry if that wasn't clear.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
AB-great point about last two minutes- player safety is abandoned?
If these are proposed rules - are the chances high that they will pass? ... and when?
Also, could it be modified say, changed to 5 seconds?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Well we would have gotten Aaron regardless of Lefty and Shane was there as well, what am I missing. I know Ralph is older than Lefty but I don't see things being that different from now.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
well, I think what VT would be missing if Lefty wasn't in Blacksburg would be two high quality QBs named Ford and Durkin. One of which committed to the Hokies without ever having traveled to the burg. And being in the running at one point for the top QB recruit in the nation in this last year, and again in this year.
I agree that Ralph may have been a great hire but I think the new coaches re-energized the schools image a bit. That it wasn't just those old guys in Blacksburg. I think everyone loves Bud but we can all see its Gray and Brown that most recruits are getting chased after. On the offensive side lil'Beams was bringing the young guns but was definitely helped with Moorehead, Lefty and Grimes going out on the trail with him. With Ralph I think he commands a lot of attention and recruits like his system but it wouldn't have change the perception of what's happening at VT, which was to connect better to young recruits in a world of social media and online recruiting.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I'm not gonna pretend that I buy the safety argument. I'll come out and say it. I'm sick of the rules constantly hamstringing the defenses. Every rules change in the past 30 years has helped the offense and hindered the defense. So, if you don't like the 11 second run-off proposal, I would suggest the following alternatives:
1) Get rid of the "defenseless player" rule. It's a crap rule anyway. These guys are wearing all kinds of padding, not a one of them are defenseless. If you don't want to give the defense a chance to get a breather, then they need a chance to knock the wind out of the receiver to create their own chance for a breather.
2) Anything goes within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. All these quick hitting passes within 5 yards of the LOS are impossible to defend. So if you're going to insist on making your living with those passes, I want the defense to have a chance to stop them. I want full contact, tackling, interference, whatever it takes to discourage the offense from attacking that part of the field on every play. Make em mix it up.
3) Get rid of the legal grounding rule. If the QB throws the football away and there's no receiver in the area, it needs to be intentional grounding, whether he's outside the pocket and threw it past the LOS or not. 5 yard penalty and loss of down.
Basically that's it. If the offense is going to be allowed to do whatever it wants to attack the defense, the defense needs to be unleashed. If the pass is high and the receiver has to jump up to catch it, I want a defender to be able to hit him as soon as he touches the football to keep him from catching it -- like in the good ol' days.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I agree with you. However rules favor the offense to make the game more exciting. It's bot neccesarily fair, but its not exactly a bad reason. If someone does not know the game well enough (which many fans dont), they will not be able to appreciate good defense, but an offense more so.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
If the pass is high and the receiver has to jump up to catch it, I want a defender to be able to hit him as soon as he touches the football to keep him from catching it.
If the receiver has to jump to catch the ball, the QB should have thrown it lower. The defender didn't make him defenseless, his teammate did.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
This is going to:
1. Make the game itself more boring (This would cause lower scoring games)
2. Ruin (or be detrimental to) the careers of coaches who utilize fast paced offenses
3. Unfortunatly make Nick Saban happy
I am all for increasing safety amongst players, but you cannot change the game to the point it is not recognizable, especially when there is no hard evidence to support doing so.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Okay, I agree with you, except for the not-recognizable part. Fast paced offenses weren't always the norm... and yet we recognize football as an offensive, fast paced game (especially in college) now. I think we'll still recognize it even if the rules swing back towards helping defenses.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Ok, I may be exaggerating with that last part a little bit, but 10 seconds of preparation for an offense is a lot of time. And if you look at a lot of the top teams right now (TAMU, Auburn, Oregon just to name a few,) this is going to have major implications on how these franchises will perform over the next few years.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Comments
Unfortunately I think the 29 second snap rules passes. There are no coaches or AD's on the committee that will vote. However AB with the upcoming vote of more autonomy for the Big 5 conferences could this rule be moot?
Don't think there's a chance this passes. They have exactly zero pieces of hard data to support their "claims".
Since when did data matter to the NCAA?
The NCAA is all about PR, and this would be a bad PR move. If this were to pass, they would be pissing off a large majority of head coaches, including some very prominent names that have real influence.
How do you think Auburn and Guz Malzahn would like this?
That was my original point, the committee that will vote on this has a bunch of administrators on it not coaches or AD's.
I know, and these administrators can't risk this blowing up in the NCAA's face because of what will become a huge national story because of the coaches extreme hate for the rule.
I think my bigger problem with the proposed rule changes was their "research" conducted on when teams snap the ball. They said they watched a couple of games, but didn't have any sort of hard numbers.
How is that research? It's really not hard to collect that data...
Shoot, I should start writing grants for all the "research" I do on a typical fall Saturday.
I'm assuming I just missed it but is there a under 2 minute clause? what about spiking the ball? If it's an incomplete or he goes out of bounds do they still enforce the rule but not if the clock will run (continuously or on the ref's whistle)?.
God this rule is dumb.
Under two minutes before halftime/end of the game the rule does not apply.
The rest, I don't know about.
That's what I kind of thought but wasn't sure. And those additional questions were for if the rule were to apply to the under two minutes, sorry if that wasn't clear.
AB-great point about last two minutes- player safety is abandoned?
If these are proposed rules - are the chances high that they will pass? ... and when?
Also, could it be modified say, changed to 5 seconds?
Ill bet there's a certain clock mis-manager in who?ville that thinks this rule is just downright swell.
WHO? ... YOU!
Does anyone think Ralph would have had more success with the offense this season than Lefty? I don't see anything wrong if Beamer did hire Ralph.
I don't know if anybody would question Ralph as an oc. But the staff needed to get younger especially for recruiting.
Well we would have gotten Aaron regardless of Lefty and Shane was there as well, what am I missing. I know Ralph is older than Lefty but I don't see things being that different from now.
well, I think what VT would be missing if Lefty wasn't in Blacksburg would be two high quality QBs named Ford and Durkin. One of which committed to the Hokies without ever having traveled to the burg. And being in the running at one point for the top QB recruit in the nation in this last year, and again in this year.
I agree that Ralph may have been a great hire but I think the new coaches re-energized the schools image a bit. That it wasn't just those old guys in Blacksburg. I think everyone loves Bud but we can all see its Gray and Brown that most recruits are getting chased after. On the offensive side lil'Beams was bringing the young guns but was definitely helped with Moorehead, Lefty and Grimes going out on the trail with him. With Ralph I think he commands a lot of attention and recruits like his system but it wouldn't have change the perception of what's happening at VT, which was to connect better to young recruits in a world of social media and online recruiting.
Leg, couldn't say it any better.
I'm not gonna pretend that I buy the safety argument. I'll come out and say it. I'm sick of the rules constantly hamstringing the defenses. Every rules change in the past 30 years has helped the offense and hindered the defense. So, if you don't like the 11 second run-off proposal, I would suggest the following alternatives:
1) Get rid of the "defenseless player" rule. It's a crap rule anyway. These guys are wearing all kinds of padding, not a one of them are defenseless. If you don't want to give the defense a chance to get a breather, then they need a chance to knock the wind out of the receiver to create their own chance for a breather.
2) Anything goes within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. All these quick hitting passes within 5 yards of the LOS are impossible to defend. So if you're going to insist on making your living with those passes, I want the defense to have a chance to stop them. I want full contact, tackling, interference, whatever it takes to discourage the offense from attacking that part of the field on every play. Make em mix it up.
3) Get rid of the legal grounding rule. If the QB throws the football away and there's no receiver in the area, it needs to be intentional grounding, whether he's outside the pocket and threw it past the LOS or not. 5 yard penalty and loss of down.
Basically that's it. If the offense is going to be allowed to do whatever it wants to attack the defense, the defense needs to be unleashed. If the pass is high and the receiver has to jump up to catch it, I want a defender to be able to hit him as soon as he touches the football to keep him from catching it -- like in the good ol' days.
I agree with you. However rules favor the offense to make the game more exciting. It's bot neccesarily fair, but its not exactly a bad reason. If someone does not know the game well enough (which many fans dont), they will not be able to appreciate good defense, but an offense more so.
If the receiver has to jump to catch the ball, the QB should have thrown it lower. The defender didn't make him defenseless, his teammate did.
This is going to:
1. Make the game itself more boring (This would cause lower scoring games)
2. Ruin (or be detrimental to) the careers of coaches who utilize fast paced offenses
3. Unfortunatly make Nick Saban happy
I am all for increasing safety amongst players, but you cannot change the game to the point it is not recognizable, especially when there is no hard evidence to support doing so.
Okay, I agree with you, except for the not-recognizable part. Fast paced offenses weren't always the norm... and yet we recognize football as an offensive, fast paced game (especially in college) now. I think we'll still recognize it even if the rules swing back towards helping defenses.
Ok, I may be exaggerating with that last part a little bit, but 10 seconds of preparation for an offense is a lot of time. And if you look at a lot of the top teams right now (TAMU, Auburn, Oregon just to name a few,) this is going to have major implications on how these franchises will perform over the next few years.
True, but I think it'd actually be a positive for VT, and that's all I care about.