The End of the 10 Second Debate is Near

[LR54]

Again you're missing the point. If you're for it for "fairness" purposes ok. Fairness seems a silly term here but ok. I don't see the need but we can disagree. It's when you get off into other justifications that your logic falls apart.

It's not logical to allow for the possibility that taking away equal substitutions for the first time in the modern football era, could have the potential for an increased risk of injury?

Since nobody knew it was going to happen, it wasn't planned or anticipated, nobody really knows. Why shouldn't the burden of proof be there?

[Fatty McGee]

It's not logical to allow for the possibility that taking away equal substitutions for the first time in the modern football era, could have the potential for an increased risk of injury?

Since nobody knew it was going to happen, it wasn't planned or anticipated, nobody really knows. Why shouldn't the burden of proof be there?

As I pointed out, if that's your logic, you need to shut down the game.  Because you don't have to guess whether head collisions cause CTE.  You also need to start playing fewer games.  You also need to put BMI limits on the players.

Why would you make rule changes for unknown risks but not the known ones?  If your logic is that you're soooooo concerned about the players, let's start really advocating for them to prevent known risks before we start guessing at others.

That's the problem with the safety argument.

[Pigsknuckles]

Four pages on the end of the ten second debate.

[urkillnmesmalls]

As I pointed out, if that's your logic, you need to shut down the game.  Because you don't have to guess whether head collisions cause CTE.  You also need to start playing fewer games.  You also need to put BMI limits on the players.

Why would you make rule changes for unknown risks but not the known ones?  If your logic is that you're soooooo concerned about the players, let's start really advocating for them to prevent known risks before we start guessing at others.

That's the problem with the safety argument.

Fatty...you make a good point here.  The game of football persists despite the KNOWN risks, such as CTE, and there's really no way to prevent that based on the current technology and how the game is played. 

As a compromise, what I'm wondering is why more thought wasn't given to allowing substitutions only following first downs when the clock stops, and it always takes a little bit to move the chains?  That seems like more of a compromise to allow fatigue related substitutions, and less related to strategy, because it's not "every down" related. 

At any rate, I've never thought the rule would pass.  I wish it would, because I guess I'm more old school and like to see defense play a bigger role.  Watching our Hogs shut down the vaunted Sooner wishbone attack in the 78 Orange Bowl brings back just as many memories as anything else for me.  They were unstoppable, and would have won the NC had we not shut them down.   

[Vantage 8 dude]

Four pages on the end of the ten second debate.

It's Hogville so what did you expect? Heck, I'd almost be willing to bet there'd be at least 10 pages devoted to the true meaning of the word "Is".

[LR54]

As I pointed out, if that's your logic, you need to shut down the game.  Because you don't have to guess whether head collisions cause CTE.  You also need to start playing fewer games.  You also need to put BMI limits on the players.

Why would you make rule changes for unknown risks but not the known ones?  If your logic is that you're soooooo concerned about the players, let's start really advocating for them to prevent known risks before we start guessing at others.

That's the problem with the safety argument.

It's not about making a NEW rule for an unknown risk. It's about returning to the status-quo (equal opportunity to substitute) that was in place prior to 2008. Because the LOSS of equal substitutions was unintended as a result of the timing clock rule change. Since it was unintended, the possible consequences to player safety would be unknown.

It's not raising an additional safety issue, it's simply returning to a known state (equal substitutions) before it becomes one.

My personal preference would be to rescind the 2008 timing clock rule, which never accomplished what it was supposed to in the first place, rather than make a new rule.

[urkillnmesmalls]

It's not about making a NEW rule for an unknown risk. It's about returning to the status-quo (equal opportunity to substitute) that was in place prior to 2008. Because the LOSS of equal substitutions was unintended as a result of the timing clock rule change. Since it was unintended, the possible consequences to player safety would be unknown.

It's not raising an additional safety issue, it's simply returning to a known state (equal substitutions) before it becomes one.

My personal preference would be to rescind the 2008 timing clock rule, which never accomplished what it was supposed to in the first place, rather than make a new rule.

I agree with everything you wrote, but the only consideration right now by the committee is related to the safety concern.  The implication is that this "10 second rule" is shrouded in deceit by BB, that it's really about strategy, and some of it is coming from people here who at least proclaim to be Hog fans.  They're calling BB a liar...is what they're doing. 

The fact is, it wasn't even what BB proposed.  It's much less strategic to suggest subbing only after first downs, than it is 10 seconds on every down.  The committee made that recommendation.  Some are failing to see that distinction for some reason, and it's shedding a negative light on BB that isn't deserved. 

Now...if he comes out next year with a strong stance from a strategic standpoint, then I'm going to be disappointed.  I won't be one of those out there crying for termination, but I will disapprove, and that's coming from someone who would like to see a rule change, or to see it revert back to the 2008 rule. 

If BB is hanging his hat on player safety and showing genuine concern from that perspective, then I struggle to see how he changes gears at that point to it being "bad for the game by limiting defensive strategy."  I'm not sure how he can make that jump without getting ripped to shreds.  I'm guessing that it will be Saban and others that will champion the cause at that point.  At least I hope so.... 

[urkillnmesmalls]

For the trillionth time, you keep focusing on something that doesn't need to be part of the conversation. Not yet, at least, until some data is available (other than the CFBMatrix numbers, of course).

Focus on competitive imbalance.

How does BB switch gears to make that argument now?  He's pigeon holed himself IMO.  He better hope Saban and some others step up to fight that battle.  The media would RIP him for that move wouldn't they? 

[LR54]

I agree with everything you wrote, but the only consideration right now by the committee is related to the safety concern.  The implication is that this "10 second rule" is shrouded in deceit by BB, that it's really about strategy, and some of it is coming from people here who at least proclaim to be Hog fans.  They're calling BB a liar...is what they're doing. 

The fact is, it wasn't even what BB proposed.  It's much less strategic to suggest subbing only after first downs, than it is 10 seconds on every down.  The committee made that recommendation.  Some are failing to see that distinction for some reason, and it's shedding a negative light on BB that isn't deserved. 

Now...if he comes out next year with a strong stance from a strategic standpoint, then I'm going to be disappointed.  I won't be one of those out there crying for termination, but I will disapprove, and that's coming from someone who would like to see a rule change, or to see it revert back to the 2008 rule. 

If BB is hanging his hat on player safety and showing genuine concern from that perspective, then I struggle to see how he changes gears at that point to it being "bad for the game by limiting defensive strategy."  I'm not sure how he can make that jump without getting ripped to shreds.  I'm guessing that it will be Saban and others that will champion the cause at that point.  At least I hope so....

The point I have been trying to make all along is that it can be both a safety issue and a competitive balance issue. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Also, as you correctly stated, it became a de facto safety issue when the rules committee introduced it this year. As such, what would be the point of CBB addressing the competitive balance issue now? The time to do that would be if and when a rule proposal addressed that issue. It's on the table now as a safety issue. CBB didn't put it there, the NCAA rules committee did.

Since it was proposed as a player safety issue, any comments about competitive balance would be irrelevant as far as this proposal is concerned. They would certainly be valid, but unrelated to the current rule proposal.

The fact he had a responsibility to represent the AFCA in the rules committee meetings, or that he commented on the safety issues, shouldn't automatically exclude him from any other discussions on competitive balance issues.

 

[olivebranchhog]

Knocking a bowl win..ANY bowl win with our bowl record is just asinine.

This^^^

[Mike Irwin]

I have no idea what's rolling around in Bret Bielema's head. For all I know he may be using the player safety angle to mask a fear of facing hurry up offenses. However I don't need any data or empirical evidence to know that the potential exists for a serious problem on either side of the ball when players don't get adequate recovery time during prolonged periods of intense physical activity.

I've seen it with my own eyes twice.

Years ago several of my high school teammates got into a potentially life threatening situation during an offseason conditioning session. The coach in charge that day was making us run six 220's (halfway around the track) in under 28 seconds. The problem was he was making us cut across the field by jogging back to the starting point after each 200 and immediately sending us off again.

After the 4th 220 one of the guys collapsed complaining of a numbness in his head. The coach actually kicked at him thinking he was faking.

After the 5th 220 three more guys went down. At that point the coach stopped the drill and after a few minutes he called for an ambulance.

We were later told that the drill did not allow for proper recovery between sprints. Our lungs were not processing enough oxygen. When the oxygen content in the blood dropped below a certain level four of the guys got really sick.

Years later I saw something very similar happen in a high school game. Former Razorback MacKenzie Phillips went down late in the Fayetteville-Springdale game. His heart had stopped beating normally and had begun to spasm.

Phillips had asthma which made the problem much more serious but the other contributing factor was the same. He did not have proper recovery time between the bursts of physical activity he was putting his body through. Without enough oxygen in his blood his heart stopped beating normally.

Phillips later admitted he knew he had a problem but the importance of the game overruled any thoughts he had of taking himself out.

Fayetteville was not running a hurry up offense that night. Logic suggests that Phillips probably would have gotten into distress sooner if they had been.

Situations like this are obviously very rare but if it happened once I'm sure it could happen again.

Does this mean they should slow down these hurry up offenses? Probably not. There are a number of other things coaches can do to prevent what I have described.

However, regardless of his motive, Bielema is not totally full of it when he brings the player safety issue up with regard to a need for proper recovery time.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I have no idea what's rolling around in Bret Bielema's head. For all I know he may be using the player safety angle to mask a fear of facing hurry up offenses. However I don't need any data or empirical evidence to know that the potential exists for a serious problem on either side of the ball when players don't get adequate recovery time during prolonged periods of intense physical activity.

I've seen it with my own eyes twice.

Years ago several of my high school teammates got into a potentially life threatening situation during an offseason conditioning session. The coach in charge that day was making us run six 220's (halfway around the track) in under 28 seconds. The problem was he was making us cut across the field by jogging back to the starting point after each 200 and immediately sending us off again.

After the 4th 220 one of the guys collapsed complaining of a numbness in his head. The coach actually kicked at him thinking he was faking.

After the 5th 220 three more guys went down. At that point the coach stopped the drill and after a few minutes he called for an ambulance.

We were later told that the drill did not allow for proper recovery between sprints. Our lungs were not processing enough oxygen. When the oxygen content in the blood dropped below a certain level four of the guys got really sick.

Years later I saw something very similar happen in a high school game. Former Razorback MacKenzie Phillips went down late in the Fayetteville-Springdale game. His heart had stopped beating normally and had begun to spasm.

Phillips had asthma which made the problem much more serious but the other contributing factor was the same. He did not have proper recovery time between the bursts of physical activity he was putting his body through. Without enough oxygen in his blood his heart stopped beating normally.

Phillips later admitted he knew he had a problem but the importance of the game overruled any thoughts he had of taking himself out.

Fayetteville was not running a hurry up offense that night. Logic suggests that Phillips probably would have gotten into distress sooner if they had been.

Situations like this are obviously very rare but if it happened once I'm sure it could happen again.

Does this mean they should slow down these hurry up offenses? Probably not. There are a number of other things coaches can do to prevent what I have described.

However, regardless of his motive, Bielema is not totally full of it when he brings the player safety issue up with regard to a need for proper recovery time.

Good post and true.

The thing is, if they pass that 10 second rule it really doesn't have a negative effect on HUNH offenses, as they rarely run their plays within 10 seconds of the spot of the ball anyway during the normal course of play.

The advocates of not passing it are merely trying to gain leverage over the defense by not allowing them the opportunity to sub by locking them out by getting back over the ball immediately after the last play ended. I say pass the rule and move on. It won't extend the time that is already the average time for football games, but it will make games more competitive and therefore, more interesting and entertaining.

[Wants2Win]

Good post and true.

The thing is, if they pass that 10 second rule it really doesn't have a negative effect on HUNH offenses, as they rarely run their plays within 10 seconds of the spot of the ball anyway during the normal course of play.

The advocates of not passing it are merely trying to gain leverage over the defense by not allowing them the opportunity to sub by locking them out by getting back over the ball immediately after the last play ended. I say pass the rule and move on. It won't extend the time that is already the average time for football games, but it will make games more competitive and therefore, more interesting and entertaining.

I love the " well it won't even affect anything" argument. If it won't change anything then what is the point of the rule? It has little support and will not pass. Don't be surprised when it is shot down.

[BorderPatrol]

I love the " well it won't even affect anything" argument. If it won't change anything then what is the point of the rule? It has little support and will not pass. Don't be surprised when it is shot down.

Whoa, guess all that went straight over your vertical limits.

bp

[chuggs33]

Coach B is no longer the only outspoken coach about HUNH safety issues.  Nick Saban has stepped up to the mic.


http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10552938/nick-saban-alabama-crimson-tide-says-pace-play-bears-closer-look

The cigarette comment was worded kind of strangely, but I think I understand what he means.

[Ex-Trumpet]

Coach B is no longer the only outspoken coach about HUNH safety issues.  Nick Saban has stepped up to the mic.


http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10552938/nick-saban-alabama-crimson-tide-says-pace-play-bears-closer-look

The cigarette comment was worded kind of strangely, but I think I understand what he means.

Saban's cigarette comment was based on zero fact, also. 

Here's a fact mentioned in the article: 

"...Chip Kelly's Oregon offenses in 2012 averaged 83 plays per game. With the same offensive philosophy, Kelly's Philadelphia Eagles' offense last season ran an average of 65 plays per game..." 

If player safety is truly the reason this rule is being proposed, why don't they concentrate more on how to run fewer plays, like Saban is woefully trying to suggest?  Why not keep the clock running after first downs like the NFL does?  Clearly, Chip Kelly can't run as many plays with this rule (and better defenses probably play a roll here, too).

[three hog night]

I have no idea what's rolling around in Bret Bielema's head. For all I know he may be using the player safety angle to mask a fear of facing hurry up offenses. However I don't need any data or empirical evidence to know that the potential exists for a serious problem on either side of the ball when players don't get adequate recovery time during prolonged periods of intense physical activity.

I've seen it with my own eyes twice.

Years ago several of my high school teammates got into a potentially life threatening situation during an offseason conditioning session. The coach in charge that day was making us run six 220's (halfway around the track) in under 28 seconds. The problem was he was making us cut across the field by jogging back to the starting point after each 200 and immediately sending us off again.

After the 4th 220 one of the guys collapsed complaining of a numbness in his head. The coach actually kicked at him thinking he was faking.

After the 5th 220 three more guys went down. At that point the coach stopped the drill and after a few minutes he called for an ambulance.

We were later told that the drill did not allow for proper recovery between sprints. Our lungs were not processing enough oxygen. When the oxygen content in the blood dropped below a certain level four of the guys got really sick.

Years later I saw something very similar happen in a high school game. Former Razorback MacKenzie Phillips went down late in the Fayetteville-Springdale game. His heart had stopped beating normally and had begun to spasm.

Phillips had asthma which made the problem much more serious but the other contributing factor was the same. He did not have proper recovery time between the bursts of physical activity he was putting his body through. Without enough oxygen in his blood his heart stopped beating normally.

Phillips later admitted he knew he had a problem but the importance of the game overruled any thoughts he had of taking himself out.

Fayetteville was not running a hurry up offense that night. Logic suggests that Phillips probably would have gotten into distress sooner if they had been.

Situations like this are obviously very rare but if it happened once I'm sure it could happen again.

Does this mean they should slow down these hurry up offenses? Probably not. There are a number of other things coaches can do to prevent what I have described.

However, regardless of his motive, Bielema is not totally full of it when he brings the player safety issue up with regard to a need for proper recovery time.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE PRAIRIE DOG PAUSE of the offense...not the snap.

I think the real problem is that the opine this is not a problem because the Offense does not snap the ball in less than 10 seconds..... is WRONG.  When they snap is not the problem...the prairie dog mode is the problem.

The offense gets back to the ball in less than 10 seconds THEN goes into Prairie Dog mode waiting for their alignment/play signals.  The defense is held HOSTAGE during this time and has to get in alignment; because you don't know if they are going to do a quick snap or take a few extra seconds.

[NaturalStateReb]

Four pages on the end of the ten second debate.

Such is life in the offseason.

[superior_wang]

fwiw , Dan Patrick called BB's cal player comments "seedy" this am.

[braxhog]

fwiw , Dan Patrick called BB's cal player comments "seedy" this am.

I'm sure the media will regard Saban's comments as "insightful" though. That's not the "poor little Arky" syndrome, it's just that Saban carries that much juice nationally. His stance is viewed a little different than everyone else's. That's what all those crystal balls will do for you I guess ha ha.

[three hog night]

Sabin getting involved shows that this is going to get attention on the next attempt if this one fails.

[Hawgon]

Just quit the player safety angle.  There are a dozen areas of the game where player safety is demonstrably more at stake than it is here. 

[Vantage 8 dude]

fwiw , Dan Patrick called BB's cal player comments "seedy" this am.

Gosh, color me "shocked" at such a claim by this idiot.

[BR]

NCAA tables the 10 second proposal

[BR]

BREAKING: The NCAA tables the 10 second proposal that would slow down no-huddle offenses.

The rule will not be added to the 2014 college football season, but could be added later after more research is conducted. Read more about the NCAA decision: http://sds.to/NCAAproposal

[Vantage 8 dude]

BREAKING: The NCAA tables the 10 second proposal that would slow down no-huddle offenses.

The rule will not be added to the 2014 college football season, but could be added later after more research is conducted. Read more about the NCAA decision: http://sds.to/NCAAproposal

IMO a totally foregone conclusion!

[LZH]

fwiw , Dan Patrick called BB's cal player comments "seedy" this am.

That's because BB's reputation pre-seeds him!

[EastexHawg]

If football players are at risk of imminent death because of the HUNH and the inability to substitute, why don't basketball and soccer players collapse and die on the court/field?  How do marathon runners survive? 

The facts...and common sense combined with experience participating in and watching sports...don't match the claims.

[adphuh]

It just died per ESPN.  Bielema would be best served to hush, and in the Auburn game dare them to go early by substituting. Having subs ready and running them in. The hurry up folks have no desire to run hurry up in the first 10 seconds any more than other folks do,  but just want to keep teams from subbing. Good strategy, but they certainly aren't ready to center the ball at that point.  probably woudln't take but a couple of times that they would, but the point would be made.

[three hog night]

I hope we have a corner back or DE (areas we are deep) drop every couple of plays and stop play.  It is just as legal as the HUNH prairie dog pause.

[opineonswine]

I hope we have a corner back or DE (areas we are deep) drop every couple of plays and stop play.  It is just as legal as the HUNH prairie dog pause.

Auburn can't decide on a mascot...maybe they can add Prairie Dogs to the list...prettiest little dogs on the prairie...err plains.

[Wants2Win]

It just died per ESPN.  Bielema would be best served to hush, and in the Auburn game dare them to go early by substituting. Having subs ready and running them in. The hurry up folks have no desire to run hurry up in the first 10 seconds any more than other folks do,  but just want to keep teams from subbing. Good strategy, but they certainly aren't ready to center the ball at that point.  probably woudln't take but a couple of times that they would, but the point would be made.

They would simply snap the ball and draw a 12 men on the field penalty. They are coached that way.

[chuggs33]

Rule tabled.  I'm not really surprised.  So, can we stop moaning and complaining about it, at least until after the season?

[urkillnmesmalls]

If football players are at risk of imminent death because of the HUNH and the inability to substitute, why don't basketball and soccer players collapse and die on the court/field?  How do marathon runners survive? 

The facts...and common sense combined with experience participating in and watching sports...don't match the claims.

About 4 marathoners die during races a year...so there's that.  ANY activity that stresses the body is going to put you at risk, and I think everyone knows that.  A fall back position in my mind would be reverting back to the "only after first downs" suggestion, if there's going to be an further discussions related to player safety.  I can see an argument where having a player go full tilt for 8 or more plays in a row, and being held captive, could be a cause for concern for some players predisposed to aerobic duress. 

BUT...I hope we've heard the last from BB on this.  He has continued to profess that his ONLY concern is player safety.  If he starts in on the strategy side next season, then he's going to be HAMMERED by the media relentlessly.  He better leave that battle to someone else. 

[superior_wang]

Gosh, color me "shocked" at such a claim by this idiot.

o good lord whats wrong with DP? he's awesome.

[superior_wang]

About 4 marathoners die during races a year...so there's that.  ANY activity that stresses the body is going to put you at risk, and I think everyone knows that.  A fall back position in my mind would be reverting back to the "only after first downs" suggestion, if there's going to be an further discussions related to player safety.  I can see an argument where having a player go full tilt for 8 or more plays in a row, and being held captive, could be a cause for concern for some players predisposed to aerobic duress. 

BUT...I hope we've heard the last from BB on this.  He has continued to profess that his ONLY concern is player safety.  If he starts in on the strategy side next season, then he's going to be HAMMERED by the media relentlessly.  He better leave that battle to someone else.

the whole safety angle on the ten second rule  is absurd. 40 bazillion ways to get hurt/injured/die..why those pb and J's at halftime might also jack up your cholesterol, diabetes or give you heartburn. why not go the extra step, and say , well weighing 350 lbs  isnt good for your heart and ban giant O linemen? ....just dumb. the true reason is they (BB/ NS, others) just want a competitive edge  on the field...slowing the HUNH will help these slower paced teams. just call a spade a spade would ya BB?

[Ex-Trumpet]

How many on here were complaining when Gus was our OC (CoOC!) and Nutt wouldn't run the HUNH?

[PorkRinds]

I hope that teams start faking injury to combat the timing of the HUNH...it IS a capable approach... and who's the ref to say who is injured?   THEN we will see Gussiah raise all kinds of heck about that!

I'd love to see it too.