🏈 Cecil Hurt: There is no conspiracy in proposed rule changes

[UAgrad93]

I was listening to WJOX Roundtable with Jay Barker, Del Greco, and Kurrie this morning when Jay mentioned someone had spoken to Rogers Redding about this proposal. According to Redding, these proposals are a mere formality and most often, the rule is passed. They then had a clip of Kevin Sumlin saying they were "caught off guard" by this proposal. I call
on this!! No way they new nothing of this!!!

 

[ElephantStomp]

[MENTION=12209]TerryP[/MENTION]

I don't like the proposal because there's no need for it. The offense has the same players on the field just as the defense does unless they substitute then in that case the defense can too.

It's rather annoying that some of the proponents use the "player safety" excuse for the proposal which is just stupid. Also, the advantage goes to defenses. The HUNH works in the NFL just fine and defenses have done pretty good.

I just think there's no need for the proposal other than the rules committee is listening to those bitching about the HUNH more than they should which could be the case

 

[TerryP]

[MENTION=14203]ElephantStomp[/MENTION]

A couple of thoughts for you to consider:

• The NFL and college work on different clock systems making the comparison difficult, if not misplaced.
• The NFL, with the implementation of the HUNH, made it a point that the offense wouldn't dictate the pace at which the officials handled their jobs. That's not the case with college.
• Stupid? No. Calculated? Yes. Right? No. As stated, tacking on the "safety" aspect allows a rule change to be implemented immediately versus every other year as is the case with college football rule changes.
• The way the rules are written the defense is supposed to be able to substitute as freely as the offense. They haven't been able to do so. As stated in this thread, this HUNH style has eliminated the ability to substitute and there's the reasoning behind the 10 seconds.

Another question if you don't mind.

If an offense is allowed to substitute when it feels like doing so, shouldn't the defense be allowed to do the same?

 

[ElephantStomp]

[MENTION=12209]TerryP[/MENTION]

Valid points. I hadn't thought about the defense being able to substitute when it wanted to like the offense.

It just smells to me of if you can't beat them make rules so you can. I don't disagree with Saban on a lot of things, but his player safety thing I do. Makes sense about wording in the sense of when the rule is implemented and all that

 

[TerryP]

[MENTION=14203]ElephantStomp[/MENTION]

You bring up a point here that I think has been severely skewed.

When Saban first commented on the no-huddle offense back in Oct. of 2012 his comments were reported as him saying, "the hurry-up style of play leads to more injuries." Anytime this is mentioned—Saban and the hurry-up—its done with the context of "Saban thinks the hurry up means more injuries to players but there's nothing to support that."

Now, I ask, how correct is what they're saying.

Extremely when it comes to "nothing to support that."

However, is that what Saban said? Did he present his case stating we should change the system because that means more injuries to defensive players?

Here's the actual text of his comments.

"I think that the way people are going no-huddle right now, that at some point in time, we should look at how fast we allow the game to go in terms of player safety. The team gets in the same formation group, you can't substitute defensive players, you go on a 14-, 16-, 18-play drive and they're snapping the ball as fast as you can go and you look out there and all your players are walking around and can't even get lined up. That's when guys have a much greater chance of getting hurt when they're not ready to play.

"I think that's something that can be looked at. It's obviously created a tremendous advantage for the offense when teams are scoring 70 points and we're averaging 49.5 points a game. With people that do those kinds of things. More and more people are going to do it."
​

Considering how his thoughts are framed in today's conversations in the media, etc., are they being taken in context? OR, is this a case where someone heard the comment, repeated it as "Saban said no-huddle leads to more injuries," and now it's taken a life of its own?

 

[TerryP]

There's another aspect of this story that bothers me.

If you listen to coaches like Rich-Rod, Leach, Sumlin, et al, you're led to believe that this was something that was just "dropped" on them. They've even gone to the point of suggesting it wasn't discussed at the AFCA meetings a month or so ago.

All coaches are able to attend meetings of the rules committee. It was discussed there. Why weren't these coaches there? Why weren't they aware it was going to come up?

There were a group of coaches there. I've seen the number listed at around 20 or so and the room was split around 50-50 for and against.

As I wondered about whether these coaches that have been vocal about the proposal bothered to actually pay attention to the different meetings that were happening during those few days I come across this comment by Hugh Freeze.

"I understand from reading today that he may have been in the committee meeting. Certainly he's entitled to do that. Maybe it's my fault that I didn't know. I would have loved from somebody on our side to be there to present also."
​

That leads me to believe these coaches were busy with their "own things," and not paying a great deal of attention to the smaller meetings which happen, annually, at conventions like this. Because they weren't paying attention, they missed out on the opportunity to voice their opinions.

 

[Crimson&WhiteGecko]

Yeah, context means nothing in todays media. Nothing...

I came across Jay Mohr sports & his entire staff was blowing each other outta context on CNS comments... I wanted to call & ask them to read word for word their source on CNS comments but they were too busy choking on each other.

 

[TerryP]

I was listening to WJOX Roundtable with Jay Barker, Del Greco, and Kurrie this morning when Jay mentioned someone had spoken to Rogers Redding about this proposal. According to Redding, these proposals are a mere formality and most often, the rule is passed. They then had a clip of Kevin Sumlin saying they were "caught off guard" by this proposal. I call
on this!! No way they new nothing of this!!!

My opinion: It seems like Redding is paving the way, and preparing for the backlash, when/if it does pass.

(Interesting he points to one team, and not Oregon, Baylor, et al. Wonder why?)

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Rogers Redding, NCAA official czar: Auburn never snapped ball with more than 30 secs on the clock and once with 30 secs in BCS title game</p>&mdash; Mark Schlabach (@Mark_Schlabach) <a href="https://twitter.com/Mark_Schlabach/statuses/434865084859285505">February 16, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>More Redding: Las season, about 78% of snaps were with the clock reading between 20 seconds and lower</p>&mdash; Mark Schlabach (@Mark_Schlabach) <a href="https://twitter.com/Mark_Schlabach/statuses/434865197128249344">February 16, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[planomateo]

Conversation at lunch today.

Aggie: I heard that Saban was behind the HUNH NCAA proposed rule change.
Me: Have you seen who is on the rules committee?
Aggie: I heard he called one of the other coaches and put them up to it.
Me: Yeah, I heard Saban called Peyton Manning before the SuperBowl and told him to throw the game. He has that kinda pull.