Travis Recek

[LeakyD]

Recek is having a cry-fest over the NCAA rule affecting tempo offenses. Yesterday he basically scoffed at the article praising Mullen's recruiting style. Can't say I like him much.

[DownwardDawg]

I've never heard of him. Who is he?

[LeakyD]

Fills in for Bo bounds. Texas grad, but loves him some Freeze.

[Political Hack]

I feel so bad for him.

Hope no one out any money Mariota to win the Heisman.

[NewTweederEndzoneDance]

I doubt the rule actually passes. It's pretty dumb unless you just want to blow your wad over Ole Miss fans being upset. But, hey Saban asked for it, so let's make it happen under the excuse of player safety.

[maroonmania]

I would just like to see the rule pass for the sake of fair play. When a defense gets beat would like to see it happen because the offense outexecutes the defense, not because they were essentially able to get the play off before the defense could even get set and organized. Its a legal form of cheating IMO.

[BeastMan]

I doubt the rule actually passes. It's pretty dumb unless you just want to blow your wad over Ole Miss fans being upset. But, hey Saban asked for it, so let's make it happen under the excuse of player safety.

I agree. I think they're is a needed rule change but acting like its b/c of injuries is dumb b/c data doesn't suggest that.

[MafiaDawg]

What's the new rule?

[NewTweederEndzoneDance]

I would just like to see the rule pass for the sake of fair play. When a defense gets beat would like to see it happen because the offense outexecutes the defense, not because they were essentially able to get the play off before the defense could even get set and organized. Its a legal form of cheating IMO.

So its fair to let Saban take his 3 deep of highly talented and specialized players, and make the offense sit there and wait for him to plug in a new situational player after each play? If football was supposed to be "fair" then there would be limits on the talent each team could sign so everyone could get equal talent. If it was fair, everyone would get the exact same amount of money from revenue regardless of what your team brings in.

If an offense goes into hurry up mode and scores a TD, its not because they acted "unfairly", it's because the defense did not execute well enough to stop them, which is exactly what you are asking for.

If sports were meant to be "fair", then in basketball, they should stop play if a guard has switched onto a post player to let the post player get back into position to guard the big guy. Because, how is making a guard play post defense on a Center "fair"?

In sports, the best coaches are always the ones who take advantage of mismatches. If it's a mismatch, its not a "fair" matchup. Which is the entire point. This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

[starkvegasdawg]

I have to say I think it is a stupid rule too. If an offense can get set (including recalling WR's that are 30 yards downfield, then a defense should be able to reset too. A fast paced offense is taking advantage of conditioning and every member of the team knowing what is going on and being on the same page all the time. If the defense wants to stop that then step up and make a play. Decleat a WR going over the middle. Pressure the QB into making a bad read. All competition is about making use of advantages wherever you can find them. If that means running a hurry up to exhaust Saban's 260lbs LB's to where they can't execute then that is on them. Adapt and overcome to borrow a phrase.

[Jack Lambert]

I would just like to see the rule pass for the sake of fair play. When a defense gets beat would like to see it happen because the offense outexecutes the defense, not because they were essentially able to get the play off before the defense could even get set and organized. Its a legal form of cheating IMO.

I agree with you. The offense controls the game. They say when the ball goes into play. The Defense should have a little say them self.

[dawg27]

[QUOTE=NewTweederEndzoneDance;133626]So its fair to let Saban take his 3 deep of highly talented and specialized players, and make the offense sit there and wait for him to plug in a new situational player after each play? If football was supposed to be "fair" then there would be limits on the talent each team could sign so everyone could get equal talent. If it was fair, everyone would get the exact same amount of money from revenue regardless of what your team brings in.

If an offense goes into hurry up mode and scores a TD, its not because they acted "unfairly", it's because the defense did not execute well enough to stop them, which is exactly what you are asking for.

If sports were meant to be "fair", then in basketball, they should stop play if a guard has switched onto a post player to let the post player get back into position to guard the big guy. Because, how is making a guard play post defense on a Center "fair"?

In sports, the best coaches are always the ones who take advantage of mismatches. If it's a mismatch, its not a "fair" matchup. Which is the entire point. This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.[/QU

[dawg27]

Sorry i copied ur post did not mean to i hit reply to soon. What i was gonna say is i agree with u i mean whats next,should the offense tell the defense what play they gonna run each time.

[smootness]

So its fair to let Saban take his 3 deep of highly talented and specialized players, and make the offense sit there and wait for him to plug in a new situational player after each play? If football was supposed to be "fair" then there would be limits on the talent each team could sign so everyone could get equal talent. If it was fair, everyone would get the exact same amount of money from revenue regardless of what your team brings in.

Uh, no. It's fair that schools who bring in more revenue have more money to spend. And it's fair that schools who are able to bring in more talent bring in more talent.

Whether or not the HUNH is allowed has nothing to do with 'fairness' between schools; it's about 'fairness' between offense and defense. I think the offense and defense should both be given a similar opportunity to beat the other. It should come down to talent and execution. And I don't believe allowing the HUNH is in the best interest of football - it skews the advantage to the offense and leads to offenses doing whatever they want. Again, it's not about what is 'fair' between schools...both schools have the same opportunity to run the HUNH. It's about whether or not what is currently allowed leads to better football. I don't think it does.

I've always used the same example, and I think it's a good one. Would we be ok with a catcher throwing the ball back to the pitcher as quickly as he can, and allowing the pitcher to throw the next pitch whenever he wants? No, we wouldn't. Why? Because it would lead to a severe advantage for the pitcher and would lead to essentially no runs ever being scored. The thing that makes it tough is the fact that it's a timed sport. I can't think of a great way to eliminate the HUNH without creating a situation in which the defense can milk the clock in situations where they're up.

I don't love the rule proposal because it keeps the clock running without the offense being able to do anything about it, except at the very end of halves. I guess you could tweak it so that once the offense becomes set at the line, as long as they don't move, the clock stops until the play clock gets to 29. Then, if the offense moves (so if they run up to the line and get set, then look to the sideline for the play), the game clock starts again. That would get pretty tough for the clock operator, though.

So again, I don't know what the perfect rule is, but I don't like the current system where the defense is constantly on its heels.

[mcain31]

The rule change states that the defense must be given 10 seconds to substitute players except for the last 2 minutes of the halves.

[Johnson85]

So its fair to let Saban take his 3 deep of highly talented and specialized players, and make the offense sit there and wait for him to plug in a new situational player after each play? If football was supposed to be "fair" then there would be limits on the talent each team could sign so everyone could get equal talent. If it was fair, everyone would get the exact same amount of money from revenue regardless of what your team brings in.

It's not about being 'fair', it's about deciding whether the game should evolve in the current direction of no-huddle hurry up offense. It's like do you want teams to smoke the long snapper every time to create the opportunity to block a field goal or punt. On the one hand, if people want to stop it, they should just be ready to block up the middle. On the other hand, maybe that's not the way you want the game to be played.

I don't have a strong opinion either way. Usually offenses and defenses evolve in cycles and it's an enjoyable part of the game to watch as styles change. The triple option didn't ruin football, the spread didn't ruin it, and if/when we evolve back to more of a power game it won't ruin it. On the other hand, it does make the game less enjoyable in some ways to have offenses built around not allowing the defense to get set. The offense doesn't necessarily need anytime at the line of scrimmage. They can always run a script of plays. I don't care if they get to substitute, but I think the game is better when the defense at least generally has a chance to set up. As more teams copy it and defense get more accustomed to it, I think it will be less of an advantage, but I do think this may have a fairly permanent shift in the game to advantage the offenses. Teams reacting will look more like basketball and less like football. Not sure that's a terrible thing, but not sure I like it.

[maroonmania]

So its fair to let Saban take his 3 deep of highly talented and specialized players, and make the offense sit there and wait for him to plug in a new situational player after each play? If football was supposed to be "fair" then there would be limits on the talent each team could sign so everyone could get equal talent. If it was fair, everyone would get the exact same amount of money from revenue regardless of what your team brings in.

If an offense goes into hurry up mode and scores a TD, its not because they acted "unfairly", it's because the defense did not execute well enough to stop them, which is exactly what you are asking for.

If sports were meant to be "fair", then in basketball, they should stop play if a guard has switched onto a post player to let the post player get back into position to guard the big guy. Because, how is making a guard play post defense on a Center "fair"?

In sports, the best coaches are always the ones who take advantage of mismatches. If it's a mismatch, its not a "fair" matchup. Which is the entire point. This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

You can agree or disagree on whether the hurry up offense is within the spirit of fairness during gameplay but comparing on the field gameplay rule fairness to "recruiting" fairness is actually the dumbest argument I've ever heard. The ONLY way you could make recruiting fair would be to treat it like an NFL draft which will NEVER happen because you can't take away a person's choice on where they want to attend college. I know we like to think of them as just college athletes but they are indeed STUDENTS first. Would you want someone limiting your choices on where you went to study your chosen vocation?

[bully99]

Recek is just channeling his inner bo bounds. Did he sniff Nick Saban's crotch

[hacker]

So its fair to let Saban take his 3 deep of highly talented and specialized players, and make the offense sit there and wait for him to plug in a new situational player after each play? If football was supposed to be "fair" then there would be limits on the talent each team could sign so everyone could get equal talent. If it was fair, everyone would get the exact same amount of money f rom revenue regardless of what your team brings in.

If an offense goes into hurry up mode and scores a TD, its not because they acted "unfairly", it's because the defense did not execute well enough to stop them, which is exactly what you are asking for.

If sports were meant to be "fair", then in basketball, they should stop play if a guard has switched onto a post player to let the post player get back into position to guard the big guy. Because, how is making a guard play post defense on a Center "fair"?

In sports, the best coaches are always the ones who take advantage of mismatches. If it's a mismatch, its not a "fair" matchup. Which is the entire point. This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

man this is the biggest strawman I've ever had the privilege of seeing constructed

[NewTweederEndzoneDance]

man this is the biggest strawman I've ever had the privilege of seeing constructed

It's no bigger than the "this is for the safety of players" strawman argument being made by some coaches in favor of the proposed rule.

And what everyone seems to have missed is that my post was supposed to be entirely over the top, because to me the idea of "equal opportunity" in the context of running football plays, or "its not fair to the defense" is ridiculous.

[Fader21]

As much as I love defensive games. I want to see it pass. I don't like to see two teams score 50+ points per game

[M.Fillmore]

Rachek has manipulated photos to make local refs look bad and to stir people up and get those re-tweets.
He is a tool.

[PendingTransaction]

I hate this proposed rule change. I takes away the ability for teams with less talent to compete with the Alabamas of the world. Once the ball is spotted and the officials signals the start of the play, the offense should be allowed to play.

I don't think the game should legislate offensive strategy. Next Saban will decide that the read option gives the offense an unfair advantage. Perhaps he will lobby that if any WR/TE is more than 5 yards down field the QB can not run the ball, probably in the name of protecting the QB.

This game has always evolved, even on defense. Look at the change of skills of LBs in the last 10 years. Hell, 30 years ago Dak would not have been a starting QB in the SEC because of how the game was played. As more offense coaches embrace the advantage of a dual threat QB, the traditionalist will lobby for rule change when they can't scheme to take away that advantage.

[smootness]

This game has always evolved, even on defense. Look at the change of skills of LBs in the last 10 years. Hell, 30 years ago Dak would not have been a starting QB in the SEC because of how the game was played. As more offense coaches embrace the advantage of a dual threat QB, the traditionalist will lobby for rule change when they can't scheme to take away that advantage.

As has been stated, though, I don't believe this is just another step in the evolution of the game. There is a clear difference in an offensive strategy that is new, i.e. the spread option or pass-happy Mike Leach strategy, and simply snapping the ball (or threatening to snap the ball) before the defense is able to really get themselves ready. That isn't just a progression of the game, it's basically exploiting a weakness in the rules that allows the offense to do that, and it gives the offense a gigantic advantage, which is exactly why we've seen offense absolutely explode over the last decade.

A majority of schools in the country are now averaging 400-500+ yards/game and 30+ points. Teams like Alabama are getting lit up for 40+ points, and it isn't that big of a deal. You may like that, but I don't.

If a team figures out a great offensive strategy that involves gameplan or newly designed plays, etc., that's great. And sure, it's on the defense to figure out how to stop it at that point. But every offensive strategy has a weakness you can exploit, too. The spread option leaves the QB vulnerable to be hit and takes some time to develop, and the opportunity to force negative plays is there. The pass-happy attack leads to quick 3-and-outs if they aren't completed and puts a strain on that team's own defense.

The HUNH? There is no weakness to exploit. You're running whatever offense you want to run, but you're doing so in a way that means the defense just doesn't have time to do a whole lot to combat it. I don't think the offense should have a massive advantage just by running up to the line quickly; I don't see why fans would favor that.

To change the baseball analogy, would we favor a game there in which it was just a pitching machine throwing pitches so that the offense was in control of when the ball was put in play...and there was nothing to stop the offense from just having another pitch thrown as soon as the previous play was over? So if there's a foul ball that some players chased that left them out of position, an offensive player could just quickly see another pitch and bunt/hit it to where the players aren't in position? Yay, offense! That would be extremely boring to watch.