Slowing the blur offenses - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Slowing the blur offenses (/thread-6740.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Slowing the blur offenses (/thread-6740.html)
Slowing the blur offenses - BostonCard - 02-13-2014
http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_25128758/ncaa-proposes-rule-change-slow-up-tempo-offense
On the one hand, this benefits Stanford as it allows for substitutions and gives the defense 10 seconds between plays. Since we don't use this type of offense, and our opponents do, good for us.
That being said, I disagree with the proposed rule. If the offense can get to the line and snap without substituting, the defense should get to the line and be ready without substituting. And for what it is worth, we beat all the spread teams we faced.
BC
Re: Slowing the blur offenses - washingtonismoney - 02-13-2014
(02-13-2014, 07:15 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:On the one hand, this benefits Stanford as it allows for substitutions and gives the defense 10 seconds between plays. Since we don't use this type of offense, and our opponents do, good for us.
I disagree. This is bad for us. We're one of the few slow-paced teams that can stop fast-paced teams. That's a distinctive edge. Were this rule to pass, and it blunted the effectiveness of fast-paced teams, we'd lose some differentiation.
Re: Slowing the blur offenses - stupac2 - 02-13-2014
(02-13-2014, 07:22 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=9557.msg83861#msg83861 date=1392344156]
On the one hand, this benefits Stanford as it allows for substitutions and gives the defense 10 seconds between plays. Since we don't use this type of offense, and our opponents do, good for us.
I disagree. This is bad for us. We're one of the few slow-paced teams that can stop fast-paced teams. That's a distinctive edge. Were this rule to pass, and it blunted the effectiveness of fast-paced teams, we'd lose some differentiation.
[/quote]
I doubt it would. The spread coaches going into high dudgeon about this are just doing what they have to do (I think the offensive part of this, in their minds, is the idea of attacking the spread at all, not the efficacy of this particular rule), but really this won't make much difference. For instance, someone on reddit looked at last year's Oregon-Stanford game and Oregon hiked it with >29 seconds on the clock 4 times, and none of those were faster than 31s. I really doubt that giving the defense 1-2 extra seconds to sub on ~5 plays per game is going to matter at all.
Re: Slowing the blur offenses - dabigv13 - 02-13-2014
True it is rare to snap it that quickly, but this rule is really about getting rid of the threat of snapping that quickly. With a guaranteed buffer, defensive teams are going to be much more willing to substitute players without worrying about being out of place or getting a 12 man penalty.
I think it would probably help us on the whole. Obviously we don't run no huddle, so it wouldn't hurt our offensive output at all. And I don't know how losing differentiation really matters; if this means one more loss for Oregon, WSU, or Arizona, and one more win for ASU, USC, UW, whatever.
Re: Slowing the blur offenses - Bruce Wang - 02-13-2014
If this really reduces the risk and number of injuries, I'm for it. That consideration needs to be front and center of any changes to the game.
Re: Slowing the blur offenses - PrinceLightfoot - 02-13-2014
Reducing risk and injuries should be primary concern, but there is no data that suggests there is more injury on either side of the ball in games that involve a high tempo team. I find what is happening behind the scenes much more intriguing with two heavy-weight SEC coaches, Bielema and Saban, directly influencing the rules committee. Instead of beating the high tempo teams with defense, they are pushing the change in rules. That just doesn't sit right with me.
http://footballscoop.com/news/12562-bret-bielema-10-second-rule
Ben Gardner tweeted the following comments in regards to the proposed rule change:
Quote:The new rule proposal in cfb is not needed if you ask me. There's an easier way to slow down offenses; don't let them get 1st downs. If a team can't move the chains, they have to slow it down themselves to let their defense rest. It can be done, takes the right mindset.
I could not agree more.
Re: Slowing the blur offenses - OutsiderFan - 02-14-2014
It is unsavory to have coaches who can't beat or join the competition, try to change the rules for their own benefit. It smacks of old industry trying to get laws passed that protect it from the realities of technological innovation and evolution, which really bothers me. It's not like those disrupters were able to change the rules to find a firmer competitive footing.
I'm in the Ben Gardner camp on this one. The game is always better when it's "fresh" and being constantly evolved. Defenses will adapt. They always do. And if they don't new thinking and ideas from upstarts will be rewarded. Perish the day when there is no "disruptive technology" available to a historically weak team to compete with the established powers in college football.
Yeah, like the "disruptive" Wishbone triple option technology - Redrum - 02-14-2014
allowed those historically weak Oklahoma and Texas teams to finally get their day in the sun.
Re: Slowing the blur offenses - Extra Point - 02-14-2014
(02-14-2014, 05:24 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:It is unsavory to have coaches who can't beat or join the competition, try to change the rules for their own benefit. It smacks of old industry trying to get laws passed that protect it from the realities of technological innovation and evolution, which really bothers me. It's not like those disrupters were able to change the rules to find a firmer competitive footing.
I don't think the hurry-up approach is an inovation designed to exploit the current defensive schemes. It is designed to exploit a flaw in the rules that don't allow defenses to adapt and use their full potential. It smacks of old industry complaining when the government corrects a tax loop hole that gives them an unfair advantage.