Sound Off: Time To Slow Down College Offenses?
 

The no-huddle hurry-up offense. It's a gimmick that cheapens the game. It's a tactic that helps bridge the talent gap. It's both of these things. It's neither of these things.

Confused yet? Feeling a bit undecided? Don't feel bad, apparently so is the NCAA Rules Chairman Troy Calhoun. A mere week ago, the Air Force coach suggested that a slowdown was coming to improve substitution opportunities that address injury concerns. But in a press conference call on Tuesday, Calhoun seemed to shift gears:

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset"> "The key is this: I think the only way that it can or it should become a rule is if it is indeed a safety concern. And that can't be something that's a speculation or a possibility..." </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Sound Off: Should the NCAA adjust rules to slow down college football's hurry-up offenses?

I am 50/50 I would like to see a tweak in the ruling to still allow defensive players to sub because gassed players have a tendency to get hurt or hurt others due to their lack of stamina at the time. However, being an offensive minded person I don't want to see these creative offenses held back. More research needs to be done but I don't think anything will change in the long run.

Because at the end of the day it's not the speed of your offense but the efficiency in which the offense is run that makes a bigger difference. I don't see Kevin Sumlin making these same claims without Johnny Manziel ever taking a snap at A&M. Just like I don't see Saban whining as much about it if he never lost to A&M or Auburn.

Re: Sound Off: Time To Slow Down College Offenses?
 

Absolutely not IMO

These offenses are not creative. They rely on smoke, mirror and gimmicks to find mismatches to key on. The read option uses deception. Spread offenses flood the field. Nothing creative about that. The good thing about those offenses is that they are comprised of guys who don't like to get hit, so when they face a physical defense, you can usually call the night nurse for them.

Here we go.....

NFL uses concussions to tweak the game to expand/market the game beyond the hard core fan.
NCAA tags along to tweak the game to expand/market "Their Brand" even further.

As a Kines Major, I laugh at the thought that injuries are due to an athletes oxygen uptake.
What a joke!!!

Athletes are getting hurt because NCAA cares so much about the athlete, that they force offseason preparations to fit in a short window.
Because of this, "FLEXIBILITY" has all but been removed from Strength/Training programs due to the time restrictions.
Speed is 1st, Size is 2nd and Nutrition is 3rd in most programs.

This is just another way to exert power to dictate how the game can make profits for the NCAA Brand, that's all.

I don't know enough about the intricacies of the game to provide an insightful comment. But my questions are as follows:
Does the current speed of the no-huddle hurry-up affect scoring? Is that why there are such high scoring games?
Is there still a place for hard nosed, smashmouth football? It seems the NFL just proved that a dominant defense can crush a dominant offense (Seattle vs Denver).
I'm a fan of tradition, and whilst I understand that different tactics and philosophies come into different sports, I kind of like the traditional gameplans.
For example, with basketball I believe a team needs a 7 footer, and tough rebounding power forward, a strong shooting small forward, a pass first point guard and a shooting guard with size (at least 6'4). Now I accept anomalies, like Kevin Durant being such a dominant small forward, and Kevin Love being a 3 point threat, but small ball annoys me. I want size, tradition and hard nosed play.
I view football the same, I like a team that runs up the guts using a fullback, I like the use of TEs. On occasion I like using shotguns and stuff, but overall I like the traditional game. It seems the fast tempo stuff is all passing based, and doesn't leave much room for defensive plays or battles.
Is this true?

Re: Sound Off: Time To Slow Down College Offenses?
 

Don't you guys see something wrong with these type of rule changes in general? We have gotten so much tinkering with the game in recent years, and I don't think there is any place for it. What the rules committee fails to realize is that their rule changes in the past have made the game faster, more pass heavy, and more dangerous. Yeah that's right. They have implemented rules in the not too distant past to artificially give teams incentive to run hurry up offense. I see this as similar to when they moved the kickoff back to the 30 yard line in 2007. Remember the reason given was (amazingly considering all the emphasis of player safety since) to showcase the most exciting play in college football. (the kick return) Then they eventually realized that that made the game more unsafe, since there were more high speed collisions due to their rule. It's the same thing here, they put in rules to speed up college offenses, then now a few years later realize they need to slow down college offenses. This is not the way college football should be administered. Way too much tinkering with the rule book.

Re: Sound Off: Time To Slow Down College Offenses?
 

I'd be curious to know what percentage of snaps in college football were taken with the play clock at 30+. Aren't we talking somewhere in the vicinity of half a percent here? I'm in favor of defenses having a chance to substitute for 10 seconds. It would seem to me the number of times any team snaps the ball with 30+ on the play clock outside of the last 2 minutes of a half or game, which I thought I read was the time frame where the rule change would not have applied, is very minimal. Because of that, I really don't get the uproar.