http://alabama.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1609318
Cecil Hurt
TideSports.com Columnist
The piercing loud noise you might have heard in Lee County on Wednesday afternoon was no weather alert.
Instead, it was a collective cry of "Conspiracy!" from the Auburn fan base.
In actual fact, not every decision made by the multitudinous NCAA committees is directly related to the Alabama-Auburn football game, no matter how steadfastly citizens of this state might believe otherwise. Still, when the NCAA Football Rules Committee proposed an alteration that would give defensive units a 10-second window for substitution, and penalize offenses for "delay of game" (a somewhat ironic use of the phrase) if they snap the ball before the 40-second play clock has run down to 29 seconds, the ramifications were clear. The effect would likely be to slow down hurry-up, no-huddle offenses. Thus, teams like Auburn (and Oregon, Baylor and numerous others) would lose the threat of instantly snapping the ball as well as losing the advantage of keeping defenders on the field play after play.
The committee cited "safety concerns" as the reason for its recommendation. Around the country - not just in Auburn, to be fair - many people cite "Nick Saban."
There is a substantial laundry list of reasons for that reaction, and the more general outcry from the many media members who like the no-huddle, fast-paced style because (a.) they like scoring, and (b.) there is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that the hurry-up "levels the playing field." As far as pinning it on Saban, that happened for a couple of reasons. First, Saban and Arkansas coach Bret Bielema have been outspoken proponents of the safety ramifications of slowing the game down. Second, plenty of people blame Saban for anything they don't like - even the actions of a committee of which he is not a member.
On a deeper level, there is a fear that the rule change will favor the favored few who can recruit mammoth defensive linemen and bruising backs, teams in the Saban/Alabama mold.
Now, a recommendation is not the same as an implemented rules change. The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Committee (why have just one committee when you can have two?) will consider the proposal early next month, and they may reject it or postpone a decision until more evidence on the possible correlation between fast play and injuries can be accumulated. Frankly, I would like to see more study of the hypothesis.
It is entirely possible that 2014 will be played under the same rules as the 2013 season was. The Rules Committee also proposed altering the automatic ejection for targeting if replay overturns the 15-yard penalty. Nick Saban also spoke in favor of that change, although since everyone likes it, no one is alleging a conspiracy.
In any case, there will be a healthy debate about allowing defenses to have a window for substitution. That seems fair, even if plenty of people don't see it quite that way.
Cecil Hurt
TideSports.com Columnist
The piercing loud noise you might have heard in Lee County on Wednesday afternoon was no weather alert.
Instead, it was a collective cry of "Conspiracy!" from the Auburn fan base.
In actual fact, not every decision made by the multitudinous NCAA committees is directly related to the Alabama-Auburn football game, no matter how steadfastly citizens of this state might believe otherwise. Still, when the NCAA Football Rules Committee proposed an alteration that would give defensive units a 10-second window for substitution, and penalize offenses for "delay of game" (a somewhat ironic use of the phrase) if they snap the ball before the 40-second play clock has run down to 29 seconds, the ramifications were clear. The effect would likely be to slow down hurry-up, no-huddle offenses. Thus, teams like Auburn (and Oregon, Baylor and numerous others) would lose the threat of instantly snapping the ball as well as losing the advantage of keeping defenders on the field play after play.
The committee cited "safety concerns" as the reason for its recommendation. Around the country - not just in Auburn, to be fair - many people cite "Nick Saban."
There is a substantial laundry list of reasons for that reaction, and the more general outcry from the many media members who like the no-huddle, fast-paced style because (a.) they like scoring, and (b.) there is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that the hurry-up "levels the playing field." As far as pinning it on Saban, that happened for a couple of reasons. First, Saban and Arkansas coach Bret Bielema have been outspoken proponents of the safety ramifications of slowing the game down. Second, plenty of people blame Saban for anything they don't like - even the actions of a committee of which he is not a member.
On a deeper level, there is a fear that the rule change will favor the favored few who can recruit mammoth defensive linemen and bruising backs, teams in the Saban/Alabama mold.
Now, a recommendation is not the same as an implemented rules change. The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Committee (why have just one committee when you can have two?) will consider the proposal early next month, and they may reject it or postpone a decision until more evidence on the possible correlation between fast play and injuries can be accumulated. Frankly, I would like to see more study of the hypothesis.
It is entirely possible that 2014 will be played under the same rules as the 2013 season was. The Rules Committee also proposed altering the automatic ejection for targeting if replay overturns the 15-yard penalty. Nick Saban also spoke in favor of that change, although since everyone likes it, no one is alleging a conspiracy.
In any case, there will be a healthy debate about allowing defenses to have a window for substitution. That seems fair, even if plenty of people don't see it quite that way.
