HUNH May Be Killed

[WiregrassTiger]

ok, this is even more concerning. Do you think that some little known coach on the rules committee from SW Baptist Texas tech might be enamored with Saban, who just happens to pop into the room for this discussion? Do you think Saban swings enough weight to be able to help out this kids career a few years from now with a phone call?

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/02/whos_on_ncaa_football_rules_co.html#incart_flyout_sports
Who's on NCAA football rules committee? Not many people who run a lot of plays

 
Print
Jon Solomon | jsolomon@al.com By  Jon Solomon | jsolomon@al.com   
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on February 14, 2014 at 11:41 A
The idea to slow down hurry-up offenses in the name of safety has brought new attention to the NCAA Football Rules Committee, which originated the proposal. There is significant skepticism about whether the science exists to enforce this rule now.

Which begs the question: Who exactly is on this football rules committee?

They're a 12-person collection of of coaches, school administrators, and conference officials. None of them come from one of the five major conferences in college football. And collectively their schools and conferences run less tempo than the national average.

Offensive play numbers suggest that defensive-minded coaches Nick Saban and Bret Bielema stated their slow-the-tempo case to a committee that doesn't fully represent the evolution of football.

Nine of the 12 committee members represent schools or conferences whose offense ran fewer plays than the 2013 national average of their respective NCAA division. Five of the six coaches on the committee ran fewer plays than their divisional average.

Two of the coaches -- committee chair and Air Force coach Troy Calhoun and New Haven coach Peter Rossomando -- were significantly below their division average by more than four plays per game. Air Force, which went 2-10 last season out of the Mountain West, averaged 67.6 plays and was well below its conference's nation-high average of 76.1.

Football Rules Committee Members and Plays Per Game
Alfred White, C-USA assoc. commissioner 71.4 71.8 (FBS) Not applicable
Todd Berry, Louisiana-Monroe coach 71.7 71.8 (FBS) 6-6
Troy Calhoun, Air Force coach 67.6 71.8 (FBS) 2-10
Ken Beazer, Southern Utah AD 66.5 70.5 (FCS) 8-5
Thomas Yeager, Colonial Athletic Association commissioner 70.4 70.5 (FCS) Not applicable
Robert Nielson, Western Illinois coach 72.4 70.5 (FCS) 4-8
David Sharp, Ouachita Baptist AD 75.9 71.8 (Division II) 7-3
Keith Allen, Southwest Baptist coach 69.2 71.8 (Division II) 1-10
Peter Rossomando, New Haven coach 62.4 71.8 (Division II) 8-3
Gregory Wallace, Grinnell College AD 68.5 70.6 (Division III) 2-8
Michael Mattia, Johns Hopkins associate AD 81.1 70.6 (Division III) 10-1
Brian Surace, Fairleigh Dickinson coach 69.3 70.6 (Division III) 1-9


Note: Plays per game for committee members who represent conferences were taken from their conference average, not an individual school.

NCAA rules state the committee must be represented of six Division I members, three Division II members (including two coaches), and three Division III members. Five of the 12 current members have their term expire in September, when the proposed rule would go into effect: White, Beazer, Sharp, Allen and Wallace. Only Sharp, whose school exceeds his division's plays per game average, is eligible for reappointment among those five members who roll off.

The proposal must still be approved on March 6 by the NCAA Rules Oversight Panel, which consists of these members.

[WiregrassTiger]

Everything I read seems to indicate that the rules committee (which knows nothing about the game and will only consider "safety issues") will most likely rubber stamp it.

According to the article, it appears there is also an oversight committee. Will be interesting to see who is on this. I hope it's more than 12 people.

[Townhallsavoy]

According to the article, it appears there is also an oversight committee. Will be interesting to see who is on this. I hope it's more than 12 people.

Nope.  Three people.

Nick Saban
Mark Emmert
Paul Finebaum

[GH2001]

Oversight committee is a joke.

[The Prowler]

I would be ashamed to call myself a bama fan, if I were one. uat has a coach that's one of the biggest crybaby pussies in the Country that he had to go behind the AFCA's back and try to get this rule passed. uat fans, y'all realize y'all are now linked with the fat crybaby that everyone was, and still is, making fun of, Bret Beliema.



Maybe the committee should get the opinion of a DC that's better than those two whiny babies...someone that's been around and doesn't piss all over themselves when there's a change to the opposing offenses. I'm talking about Auburn's DC Ellis Johnson.

[noxin]

Nope.  Three people.

Nick Saban
Mark Emmert
Paul Finebaum

I call bullshit.  Nick Saban can't see over anything

[WiregrassTiger]

So, since there doesn't need to be any evidence to support a player safety issue rule change, it's common sense that a LB weighing over 215 is too dangerous to tackle runners or blitz.

[Snaggletiger]

Pinched -n- Pasted from Mark Bradley @ teh ajc. I am a gay twerker that has no balls!!!!  I also have no idea how to use the quote function to post stories, so I annoy the piss out of others.  I like male genatalia in and around my mouth.


We’re about to see if Nick Saban really does run college football. (You know, the way Mike Krzyzewski, who like Saban has four national championships, runs college basketball.) Ralph D. Russo of the Associated Press reports that King Crimson — along with Arkansas coach Bret Bielema — “voiced their concerns about the effects of up-tempo, no-huddle offenses on player safety to the NCAA committee that passed a proposal to slow down those attacks.”
The AP also quoted NCAA coordinator of officials Rogers Redding — who used to be the SEC’s coordinator of officials; the SEC office is based in, er, Alabama — as saying: “Coach Saban asked for the opportunity to meet with the committee and talk about this. It’s not routine, but it’s not unique, either.”
The NCAA rules committee passed a proposal Wednesday that a rule be implemented that would allow defenses to substitute over the first 10 seconds of the 40-second play clock and would penalize any offense that snaps the ball before the play clock reaches 29 seconds for delay of game. (Quicker snaps would be allowed in the final two minutes of the first half and the final five of the second.)
As has been voluminously noted, Saban’s Alabama suffered its first loss in more than a calendar year when it was beaten by Auburn, one of those hurry-up crews, on Nov. 30, 2013. (Then again, if Bama hadn’t itself been in a hurry to try a 57-yard field goal on the game’s final play, it might have won in overtime.) But this rage against the hurriers has been boiling up in Saban, a defensive man by trade, for a while.
According to Andrew Solomon of Al.com, Saban spoke out against the hurryin’ in October 2012, after Alabama played go-faster Ole Miss, which would lead the SEC in plays per game in 2013. He mentioned his concern for player safety. He also said: “I just think there has to be some sense of fairness in terms of asking, ‘Is this what we want the game to be?’ “
And now he has made his pitch to the rules committee, which has passed its goofy proposal — again we note the incongruity of a team trying its hardest not to dally being called for delay — along to the playing rules oversight panel, which convenes March 6, for final approval. (Noted the AP: “Redding said it’s not a rubber-stamp panel, but more often than not it approves proposals.”)
Reaction from the hurry-up coaches, of which there are many, has been incredulous. This from Oklahoma State’s Mike Gundy, to whom incredulity comes easy:

Yes, there’s raging self-interest all around. The hurriers want nothing to halt their hurryin’. The older-school guys want their players to have the chance to compose themselves and align themselves properly. But that part about safety is a fairly thin limb. Here’s AP again: “Redding said the proposal was not made based on a study of data. ‘I can’t say there is hard physical evidence,’ he said. ‘It’s more common sense.’ “
Actually, it’s a case of the game’s most powerful coach seeking to exercise his imperial power to regain a competitive advantage. Given a chance to read and react, Alabama’s defense is apt to win on most plays. Pare the read/react time and it’s a closer call. Put simply, the coach who almost gets his way wants to get it again.
This is not, it must be noted, anything new. Duke’s Krzyzewski has essentially ruled the ACC for years, and before him North Carolina’s Dean Smith did. (When Krzyzewski was still relatively new at Duke, he famously raged against the “double standard” — meaning ragingly pro-Carolina officiating–  that existed in that league. How times change, huh?)
In his autobiography, the late Jim Valvano reported that lesser ACC coaches would seek to tweak El Deano wherever they could. When assessing officiating at their summer meeting, Valvano wrote, the other coaches would take note if Smith praised a given referee — and then they’d vote to blackball him. Heh, heh.

[AUChizad]

Everything I read seems to indicate that the rules committee (which knows nothing about the game and will only consider "safety issues") will most likely rubber stamp it.

The thing is? Logic would lead me to say "Well, that's incredibly stupid. No way something like that would pass." You've got to snap the ball before 10 seconds, but not too much before 10 seconds. How would that even be enforced? And by this rule, you could line up 20 guys on the defensive side of the ball, as long as only 11 were on the field by 10 seconds. It's just an asinine rule for so many reasons.

But throw all that out the window when you consider the horrible targeting rule, and even more terrible way in which it was subjectively enforced. I don't put any of this shit past them anymore. Throw in the fact that it is only even being considered because Saban Almighty hath spoken, and I have my doubts they won't bow to his commands.

[WiregrassTiger]

I cannot believe Saban may actually ramrod  this horseshit through. Well, I guess I can believe he's trying it and that he's this close. But, if he actually pulls it off, I hope the dissent has a plan. I mean like a major plan. Boycott games, whatevah. Go nuclear. It's time. We cannot stand for this, imo.

If there were a shred of evidence from a credible study, it should be considered. It should not even be discussed until several different outside groups study the data.

[The Prowler]

THS makes some really good points. The 10 second clock starts when play is considered dead. If the play gained a 1st down, then sabbin will want his heavy package back on the field, instead of possibly his nickel package. So, his fat ass linemen will have to do wind sprints nearly every other play. There have been times, in the past, where the refs don't even spot the ball before 10 seconds have run off after the play is dead. So, by the 3rd qtr, it's possible that uat's linemen will be suckin wind because they'll have run the equivalent of 5 50 yard wind sprints, just by substituting.
If you happen to be a team that substitutes on a regular basis, like Auburn, it isn't going to affect you at all.

[Townhallsavoy]

THS makes some really good points. The 10 second clock starts when play is considered dead. If the play gained a 1st down, then sabbin will want his heavy package back on the field, instead of possibly his nickel package. So, his fat ass linemen will have to do wind sprints nearly every other play. There have been times, in the past, where the refs don't even spot the ball before 10 seconds have run off after the play is dead. So, by the 3rd qtr, it's possible that uat's linemen will be suckin wind because they'll have run the equivalent of 5 50 yard wind sprints, just by substituting.
If you happen to be a team that substitutes on a regular basis, like Auburn, it isn't going to affect you at all.

[The Six]

THS makes some really good points. The 10 second clock starts when play is considered dead. If the play gained a 1st down, then sabbin will want his heavy package back on the field, instead of possibly his nickel package. So, his fat ass linemen will have to do wind sprints nearly every other play. There have been times, in the past, where the refs don't even spot the ball before 10 seconds have run off after the play is dead. So, by the 3rd qtr, it's possible that uat's linemen will be suckin wind because they'll have run the equivalent of 5 50 yard wind sprints, just by substituting.
If you happen to be a team that substitutes on a regular basis, like Auburn, it isn't going to affect you at all.

I'm not as concerned about it affecting the game as I am the message it sends. You think Alabama is bending the rules now? Watch out and see how the find new ways to recruit and not get called for holding ever.

[GH2001]

The 10 second clock starts when play is considered dead.

thats not how I understand the rule at all.....I thought it meant 10 seconds off the Play Clock, not 10 seconds in general.

[AUChizad]

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/02/ncaa-football-rule-change-fear-morning-win/

Fear is the only thing driving a proposed NCAA football rule change

By Nate Scott
February 14, 2014 7:39 am ET   

Jayne Kamin-Oncea-USA TODAY Sports

Today’s Big Winner: People who fear change in college football

It almost reads like a satire headline when you actually write it out, but this is true: The NCAA Football Rules Committee discussed a possible rule change that would make it so that offenses had to wait 10 seconds each play before they snapped the ball. If they didn’t wait 10 seconds, they would be penalized five yards.

High-tempo offenses? Gone. No more. Not when a penalty awaits anyone who dares speed up the gentlemanly pace of a football game.

The logic behind the rule change is that it’s for player safety.

From George Schroeder’s USA TODAY Sports article:

    The reasoning behind the proposed change, according to Louisiana-Monroe coach Todd Berry, a member of the committee, is safety. The more plays in a game, the greater the risk of injury. Or so goes the theory, which Berry calls “common sense”.

Eh, I mean, yeah? If there are less plays in a football game, there are less opportunities for people to get injured. Of course, by that logic, the best way to prevent any injuries is for no plays to happen.

Auburn had one of the fastest offenses this year and they and their opponents averaged roughly 143 plays per game total. Alabama, with their more methodical offense, averaged about 124 total plays in their games. Is there any data that suggests 19 extra total plays a game significantly increases injury risk?

It’s a bizarre logic, especially when there’s no data showing that injuries increase in those extra plays but a heck of a lot of data that shows that fast-pace football is a significant advantage to some teams.

It also exposes a hypocrisy in some of these defense-first, “old school” college football coaches, who are shouting about player safety when it comes to the amount of time offenses have to hike the ball and then in the next interview will decry that the game is changing and defenders aren’t allowed to hit like they used to.

Again, there’s just no data out there, at least not that any of these coaches have seen, that suggests that extra plays in a game significantly increases injury risk. But there is a lot of data that suggest defenders hitting people in the head does pose a significant injury risk.

Here’s the thing, though. This proposed rule change has little to do with player safety. It has a lot more to do with the fact that defense-first teams are tired of the Auburns and the Oregons of the world speeding up the play and tiring out their defenses. With a new rule demanding a 10-second delay for offenses to snap the ball, a coach like Nick Saban can get four new pass rushers onto the field for every down, thus negating a major advantage for the offense.

Again, from Schroeder:

    “If somebody presents proof that it’s a huge safety concern, that’s something different,” [Ole Miss coach Hugh] Freeze said. “But if it’s just so we can rotate four fresh defensive linemen in against your offensive line that’s not being rotated, I’m not a fan of that.”

And there it is. Show us the data that suggests 20 or so extra plays a game significantly increases injury risk, and maybe we’ll listen. For now, though, this sounds like a rule-change proposed in the name of safety that cares little about safety and more about protecting coaches who liked football the way it used to be played.

And besides, if more plays is a greater risk of injury, wouldn’t it make more sense just to shorten the game?

[AUChizad]

Best piece I've seen yet.

http://www.collegeandmagnolia.com/2014/2/14/5409262/10-second-rule-nick-saban-bret-bielema-gus-malzahn

[WiregrassTiger]

Isn't Mar 6th the big day? The day that we find out if the NCAA headquarters should relocate from Indy to Tuscaloosa.

[Townhallsavoy]

After reading and listening and thinking about the rule change, I don't think the actual rule change is a big deal for us at all. 

We ran zero plays within the ten second window that they're thinking of opening up for defensive substitution.  We also substitute a good bit throughout the game.  Further, if defenses are trying to run guys on and off the field within ten seconds and get them lined up correctly as the ball is being snapped, I actually think that would benefit the offense more than the defense.

But this rule change is about precedent.  As someone mentioned in an exaggeration, what else can Nick Saban ask for in the name of safety or in the spirit of competition?  What further precedent will this set in allowing defenses time to substitute and get lined up correctly? 

First it's a ten second window.  Five years from now, it's a ten second window for substitutions and a five second window for presnap reads. 

You know, because a defensive linemen not being in a proper stance ready for the play is a sure-fire way to get PTSD and commit a murder suicide on his family. 

[WiregrassTiger]

After reading and listening and thinking about the rule change, I don't think the actual rule change is a big deal for us at all. 

We ran zero plays within the ten second window that they're thinking of opening up for defensive substitution. We also substitute a good bit throughout the game.  Further, if defenses are trying to run guys on and off the field within ten seconds and get them lined up correctly as the ball is being snapped, I actually think that would benefit the offense more than the defense.

But this rule change is about precedent.  As someone mentioned in an exaggeration, what else can Nick Saban ask for in the name of safety or in the spirit of competition?  What further precedent will this set in allowing defenses time to substitute and get lined up correctly? 

First it's a ten second window.  Five years from now, it's a ten second window for substitutions and a five second window for presnap reads. 

You know, because a defensive linemen not being in a proper stance ready for the play is a sure-fire way to get PTSD and commit a murder suicide on his family.

This isn't the point with most of us. It's the fact that they will be able to substitute and HUNH teams will lose the advantage of tiring out the DL. I think it is a big deal for that reason alone.

[AUTailgatingRules]

I'm going to laugh my ass off the first time a big fat D lineman pulls a hammy running sprints from the sideline trying to get lined up in 10 seconds.