HUNH May Be Killed

[WiregrassTiger]

I'll tweet that mofo. You got a tweeter I can borrow?

[Tiger Wench]

I'll tweet that mofo. You got a tweeter I can borrow?

No but I have a ... never mind.

[Snaggletiger]

The little man in the canoe.

[bottomfeeder]

CGM made a simple statement, "There is no documented proof.."

[AUChizad]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10478887/ncaa-football-rules-committee-troy-calhoun-backtracks-slowdown-proposal

Rules chairman: We need solid proof
Updated: February 18, 2014, 10:15 PM ET
By David Ching

Troy Calhoun is willing to take measures to slow down college offenses, but only if he sees hard evidence that defending an up-tempo offense creates genuine health risks.

Six days after asserting a rule change would be made "to enhance student-athlete safety by guaranteeing a small window for both teams to substitute," the Air Force coach and NCAA Football Rules Committee chairman backtracked in a conference call with reporters, saying he has seen no such data.

"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," Calhoun said Tuesday afternoon. "I think there's got to be something empirical there where you realize, 'Yep, this truly is a health matter' in terms of not being able to get a defensive player off the field."

A few coaches of teams that use no-huddle, hurry-up offenses -- which are becoming more and more common at the FBS level -- immediately blasted the proposed substitution rules change, saying its only intention is to slow them down, Mark Schlabach writes. Story

Calhoun hasn't seen such data because it doesn't exist, according to Auburn coach Gus Malzahn, one of many hurry-up, no-huddle proponents who became outraged last week when the committee proposed a controversial rule aimed at slowing down such offensive schemes -- a measure allegedly intended to improve player safety.

"There's absolutely zero documented evidence that is hazardous on the pace of play, only opinions," Malzahn told reporters Tuesday.

The proposed rule would prevent offenses from snapping the ball within the first 10 seconds after the 40-second play clock resets, allowing a defense to substitute even if the offense does not. Alabama coach Nick Saban and Arkansas' Bret Bielema reportedly addressed Calhoun's committee last week, urging members to support such a measure because of player safety concerns.

Malzahn said that would be a "huge change" for teams like Auburn that use an up-tempo attack, and he is one of many coaches who claim the rule change would needlessly remove some of the competitive advantage that comes with operating at a high speed.

"It's just a complete rule change," Malzahn said. "It would change the dynamics of traditional football in a lot more ways than anyone would think, not just if you get behind by a couple touchdowns and it's late in the game and you couldn't properly come back, but the way you'd coach your quarterbacks. It would just change the dynamics of football."

The rule proposal will not go into effect unless passed March 6 by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel, which will discuss all of the committee's proposed changes. Coaches on either side of the discussion have until March 3 to comment or present any evidence that supports their safety claims.

"I think more than anything else, you just want to make certain that what are some facts you can lean on. And if there's some certainty that there's a concern, then yep, push it forward as a rule proposal," Calhoun said. "If it's not, and try to take the next 10 days or so and kind of what you gather from experts and they say, 'No, at this time it's only speculative,' then the rule should not get pushed up, should not be a rule because now it's not a safety concern."

The NCAA did not designate this as an offseason where rules changes could be made, with the exception being any that relate to player safety. Malzahn said he encouraged the committee chairman to table discussion over the rule until next offseason rather than make a possibly premature decision in two weeks.

"What I asked [Calhoun] to do was move this to next year, where it is a rule-change year, that we can hear both sides and have a healthy debate on moving forward with the rule."

Calhoun said the committee discussed several options, such as adding an extra timeout, that might help prevent player injuries by making it easier for defenses to substitute. He said a trainer from the U.S. Military Academy also addressed the committee regarding a variety of medical issues.

The heated reaction to the rule proposal convinced Calhoun that it would be advisable to have more widespread involvement with his committee, which includes six coaches and six administrators who represent all levels of NCAA football.

"I think what you learn, especially after going through this, is I think you need to have more and more coaches involved in terms of possibilities," Calhoun said. "Probably the other thing too is just, if it really is a safety matter, to have more medical people present too."

[JR4AU]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10478887/ncaa-football-rules-committee-troy-calhoun-backtracks-slowdown-proposal

Looks to me, if that guy has any say, that it won't pass this year because there's not the first shred of solid data to show it's a safety issue.   

Make no mistake, the movement is on to slow football down.  All the pro-sabbinz fucktards have rationalized every reason in the world why slowing football down is a good idea (now they've added the argument that refs can't get set in time to call the game correctly, which allows Auburn to cheat with linemen down field on pass plays and not get called for it), and why their coach isn't a fucking crybaby loser. 

[Snaggletiger]

First off, if there was zero data to support this being a player safety issue, why even put the rule in front of the committee for a vote in the first place?  Troy Calhoun supports the rule...it's brought to his attention that player safety has nothing to do with it and there's not one shred of evidence to even suggest otherwise....now he can't support it.   

And to JR's point about Lord Saybinz' minions coming up with every rationalization to support it...where were these arguments before LS whined about it?  It wasn't an issue for anybody until the exalted one complained.  Even had one Bama fan call our local show and say it has to be slowed down because every play is supposed to be reviewed. HUNH teams are trying to cheat by running a play before the last one can be reviewed.   

[Tiger Wench]

First off, if there was zero data to support this being a player safety issue, why even put the rule in front of the committee for a vote in the first place? 

Because Saban. Duh.  Bitch gets what he wants, a'ight?

[AUChizad]

All the pro-sabbinz fucktards have rationalized every reason in the world why slowing football down is a good idea (now they've added the argument that refs can't get set in time to call the game correctly, which allows Auburn to cheat with linemen down field on pass plays and not get called for it), and why their coach isn't a fucking crybaby loser.

Example of a pro-sabbinz fucktard >>
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2014-02-18/nick-saban-proposed-10-second-clock-rule-alabama-crimson-tide-advantage-ncaa

Nick Saban looking for help? Not buying it
Published Tuesday, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:57 pm EST
Matt Hayes Sporting News

This is what happens when you’re on top and everyone is chasing.

This is what happens when there’s a fresh cut and everyone smells blood.

Here we are, standing on the corner of hyperbole and hypertension, and everyone is throwing stones at poor little Nicky.

Let me ask all of you swirling in the outrage and pompous politicking of it all: do you really think Nick Saban needs another advantage?

Do you really think the best coach in college football; the guy who recruits better than any coach; the guy with the highest-paid staff in the game; the guy who has won three of the last five national championships (and was damn near close to winning five straight), is suddenly worried about an offensive system that threatens his very existence?
 
That he’s so consumed by fixing what’s broken (what is exactly broken at Alabama?), he’d strong-arm the American Football Coaches Association rules committee into an absolutely ridiculous 10-second penalty box for tempo offenses (it’s an awful, proposed rule that won’t pass) just to make sure he can continue to convince 5-star high school phenoms to come to Tuscaloosa and sit behind other 5-star phenoms like game day traffic on the 459 from Birmingham?

You can’t be that simple-minded. You can’t be that eager, that zeroed in on finding that one flaw that can bring down the Nicktator, that you completely ignore the one, overriding factor in this now circus of a witch hunt:

Saban is the best defensive coach in the game. Do you really think he won’t adjust?

“Nick hates excuses,” one former Saban assistant told me Tuesday. “If he’s pushing this for any other reason than player safety, he’s making an excuse. At the end of the day, he has to live with the decisions he has made — and he can’t live with that if, in his mind, if it’s an excuse.”

To say it’s anything other than a safety issue for Saban would mean you’ve bought into the idea that tempo offenses are Saban’s undoing. Nothing could be more ridiculous.

Alabama lost to Texas A&M and its tempo offense two years ago, and beat the Aggies in College Station last year (but gave up 42 points) not because of tempo — but because Texas A&M had the best player in college football.

Alabama played that same tempo offense last season against Ole Miss, and won 25-0. It played the same offense against Auburn, and had Saban put the ball in the hands of his best player (AJ McCarron) on multiple fourth downs instead of his kicker(s), we never would have witnessed the greatest college football play ever — one that cost the Tide a chance to win three straight national titles.

Auburn’s tempo offense didn’t beat Alabama; Saban’s game day decision-making did.

And let’s not forget that Notre Dame ran tempo against the Tide in the 2012 national championship game — and lost 42-14.

Look, I hate to be the guy who defends a guy who doesn’t need it, but someone has to throw some logic into this. Because Alabama lost to Auburn (tempo offense); because Alabama then lost to Oklahoma (tempo offense) in the Sugar Bowl, suddenly Saban is scrambling for answers and his only avenue is the AFCA rules committee?

Here’s a novel idea: maybe Oklahoma simply played better than Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Maybe the Alabama defense last season wasn’t as good as everyone thought it was. And maybe, just maybe, Saban really is concerned about player safety — even though there is zero evidence tempo offense leads to more injuries.

To believe that Saban is the puppeteer behind this awful rules proposal (one more time: it’s not going to pass) means you must also believe that Saban, with every possible advantage already in his possession, would be deliberately deceitful to gain another.

It would also mean that Saban doesn’t trust the foundation and core of who he is as a coach, to believe he can find a way to consistently stop tempo offenses no matter who is playing quarterback. He can’t stop it, so he needs help from the rules committee.

I’m not buying it.

Coaches have egos, and no coach has a bigger ego than the guy sitting in the big chair in Tuscaloosa, who just so happens to be surrounded by hundreds of thousands of similar egos that pack his stadium every fall Saturday. And this coach is the mastermind behind a jerry-rigged a proposal to slow tempo offenses?

Have we dived so deep to find that one thing that can bring down the Nicktator that we’re selling the idea of a megalomaniacal, perfectionist coach who lives for practice suddenly deciding to embrace excuses?

If Saban is being deceitful, if he showed up at the annual AFCA rules meeting to talk about the tempo offense as it relates to potential injuries just to bend ears and gain an advantage on the field, he’s not the coach we think he is.

He’s just some fraud who has somehow stumbled ass-backward into coaching and developing a monster program that recruits and wins multiple national championships on its own.

There’s your hyperbole, everyone.

[Buzz Killington]

Let me ask all of you swirling in the outrage and pompous politicking of it all: do you really think Nick Saban needs another advantage?

Hell to the no!  But the real question is how many damn advantages is he going to try and get?
That answer is as many as he can get away with.

[AUChizad]

[WiregrassTiger]

My hearing is not so hot. What exactly did the brother say at the end about the 80 years? If it was what I thought, he was alluding to small teams not being able to stay close to big teams for 80 years and HUNH being an equalizer. If so, it's a very good point. HUNH increased competition and has made college football better.

[Godfather]

Probably first and only time you will ever see the state of Alabama as a "blue" state.

[Townhallsavoy]

My hearing is not so hot. What exactly did the brother say at the end about the 80 years? If it was what I thought, he was alluding to small teams not being able to stay close to big teams for 80 years and HUNH being an equalizer. If so, it's a very good point. HUNH increased competition and has made college football better.

That is what he said, but it's bullshit.  It wasn't the HUNH that allowed smaller teams to compete with bigger schools.  It was parity in recruiting.  Scholarship limitations.  An increase in quality high school programs and coaching.  More funds being dedicated to football at those "smaller" programs. 

The HUNH is like most other offenses - it works when you have jimmies and joes to execute the x's and o's.  It's not some magic formula that defies the way football is supposed to be played. 

[Snaggletiger]

That is what he said, but it's bullshit.  It wasn't the HUNH that allowed smaller teams to compete with bigger schools.  It was parity in recruiting.  Scholarship limitations.  An increase in quality high school programs and coaching.  More funds being dedicated to football at those "smaller" programs. 

The HUNH is like most other offenses - it works when you have jimmies and joes to execute the x's and o's.  It's not some magic formula that defies the way football is supposed to be played.

Ed Zachary.  We HUNH'd our way to 8 whole wins in 09'. Why?  Because we had Chris Full Todd at the helm.  We HUNH'd our way to the championship in 2010.  Why?  Because we paid to get a much better guy at the helm than Full Todd.

[noxin]

The HUNH is like most other offenses - it works when you have jimmies and joes to execute the x's and o's.  It's not some magic formula that defies the way football is supposed to be played.

I don't think a team with the caliber of Auburn's talent has ever run it.  If they can get it going how Gus wants, it's going to cause a lot of headaches.

[WiregrassTiger]

That is what he said, but it's bullshoot.  It wasn't the HUNH that allowed smaller teams to compete with bigger schools.  It was parity in recruiting.  Scholarship limitations.  An increase in quality high school programs and coaching.  More funds being dedicated to football at those "smaller" programs. 

The HUNH is like most other offenses - it works when you have jimmies and joes to execute the x's and o's.  It's not some magic formula that defies the way football is supposed to be played.

I agree with the Jimmies and Joes but I do think it can help even the playing field. So can the triple option. Anything a little different from what a team is either conditioned/built to defend or accustomed to seeing.

[Snaggletiger]

I agree with the Jimmies and Joes but I do think it can help even the playing field. So can the triple option. Anything a little different from what a team is either conditioned/built to defend or accustomed to seeing.

I agree with the esteemed.....err, what is it you do again?  Case in point...point of order...quid pro bono and Habeus Delecti.  Air Force would beat your ass to a soda water finish with 240 pound offensive linemen if you didn't prepare for dey option.

[AU_Tiger_2000]

That is what he said, but it's bullshoot.  It wasn't the HUNH that allowed smaller teams to compete with bigger schools.  It was parity in recruiting.  Scholarship limitations.  An increase in quality high school programs and coaching.  More funds being dedicated to football at those "smaller" programs. 

The HUNH is like most other offenses - it works when you have jimmies and joes to execute the x's and o's.  It's not some magic formula that defies the way football is supposed to be played.

HUNH helps though.  There is better recruiting parity but there are still only so many cannon armed QB's and 230lb 4.4 40 running backs to go around.  With an innovative offense you don't have to rely on those kind of horses, you can go after the little quick guys which are more plentiful.

[AUChizad]

Ol Ball Coach FTW.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/02/20/college-football-rule-proposal-nick-saban-steve-spurrier/5643397/

Will college football's 'Saban Rule' make it to March 6 vote?
George Schroeder, USA TODAY Sports 5:20 p.m. EST February 20, 2014

South Carolina's Steve Spurrier has joined the chorus of college football coaches opposed to the rule proposal that would force offenses to wait 10 seconds to snap the football. And that chorus could lead to the proposal's early demise.

"So, you want to talk about the 'Saban Rule'?" Spurrier asked Thursday, chuckling. "That's what I call it. (It) looks like it's dead now, hopefully."

That's not certain yet. Neither is the extent of Nick Saban's influence on the NCAA Football Rules Committee when it approved the proposal last week. Rogers Redding, the NCAA's coordinator of officiating and secretary-rules editor of the rules committee, said Saban's impact has been overstated.

The proposal is scheduled to be considered March 6 by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel. If approved, it would take effect next fall. It seems unlikely to pass, however, considering the blowback from several prominent coaches.

The reasoning behind the proposal was safety. But Air Force coach Troy Calhoun, chairman of the rules committee, appeared to backpedal during a conference call earlier this week, saying the proposal should not become a rule unless data shows increased injury risk.

Auburn coach Gus Malzahn, who told reporters this week there's "absolutely zero evidence" that faster pace increases injury risk, said he had spoken several times with Calhoun. Other coaches have, as well. Spurrier said he left a voicemail for Calhoun expressing his disapproval of the proposal.

"I just told him I was against it," Spurrier said. "It's ridiculous. Let's let everybody keep playing the way they've been playing."

Redding said the football rules committee has the capacity, during a comment period that runs through March 3, to withdraw or modify the proposal with another vote, which could be conducted by conference call or even by email. Although no vote has been scheduled, Redding said, "the committee is probably gonna want to have a discussion about this one."

Several coaches, noting the involvement of Alabama's Saban and Arkansas' Bret Bielema – both outspoken critics of the trend toward ever faster offensive tempo – have questioned the real intent behind the proposal, suggesting it was a shot fired in a philosophical battle. Texas A&M's Kevin Sumlin, for example, told USA TODAY Sports it "is an attempt to limit the creativity of the game."

Last year during SEC media days, Saban asked: "Should we allow football to be a continuous game? Is that the way the game was designed to play?"

Both Saban and Bielema participated in the discussion on the topic during the rules committee meeting last week. Neither voted on the proposal. Bielema participated in his role as chairman of the American Football Coaches Association's rules committee. Saban asked to address the topic during the meeting.

Redding said Saban's presence was unusual but that it wasn't the first time a coach had asked to address the committee. More routinely, coaches have provided input through letters or by talking with members of the rules committee.

Redding said Saban's presentation was "effective," but said the topic was already under discussion.

"To a large extent, what he wanted to have the committee consider, the committee had been talking about for a half day already," Redding said, adding the rules committee had discussed the idea of whether offenses needed to be slowed down for safety reasons a year ago, as well.

"So it's not as if this was brand new, sailing in out of left field on the wings of Nick Saban," Redding said.

Quoting New York Times columnist David Brooks, Redding added: "Partisanship shapes the reality you choose to see. I think that's what's going on here to a large extent."

Neither Saban nor Bielema has commented publicly on the proposal, or their involvement. The topic of whether defenses should be allowed time to substitute before each play was broached, at least briefly, during a session at the AFCA's annual meeting last month. But like several of his peers, Spurrier said he was unaware of the proposal. And he said Saban's input had an effect.

"He took it upon himself to go before the rules committee and get it done," Spurrier said. "They tried to change the rules. But I don't think they're gonna get away with it."

Spurrier's offenses haven't been known for warp speed, but he said the strategy didn't bother him.

"To me, that's part of football," he said. "The 'no-huddle' has always been available. I don't see why we'd take it away right now."

Spurrier noted that South Carolina had successfully slowed rival Clemson's uptempo offense in the past by keeping it off the field. The Tigers averaged 81.5 plays a game in 2013, but managed only 57 in a 31-17 loss to South Carolina. In losses in 2011 and 2012, Clemson ran 60 and 59 plays, respectively.

"Our goal was to stay on the field and run that clock," Spurrier said. "Hopefully, your offense can stay on the field a long time, and all (the opposing offense) can do is sit on the sideline and look at each other."

Spurrier also noted that his defensive players became fatigued during long drives by traditional offenses.

"If they're out there for a 14-play drive, to me that's when they get tired," he said. "When the offense runs for 5 (yards), runs for 4, runs for 5. Not these 35-second drives."

Malzahn suggested the proposal should be tabled and a "healthy debate" should ensue on the idea.

"That's a debate I would really like the rules committee to have," Redding said. "Part of the rules committee's charge is the stewardship of the game. … What kind of a game do we want? That's a discussion the committee ought to have."