Discussion in 'College Football Discussion' started by bruin228, Feb 13, 2014.
Self explanatory. Go Bruins.
Sark > Mora. rabble, rabble, rabble.
New rule changes they r talkin bout will be bad for oregon and good for furd.
Bruins looking for a new LB's coach. Mora promoted Ulbrich to DC when Spanos went to Tennessee (Titans)
Hope we bring home Tony White. LB for the Bruins in the late 90's/early 00's. Was Mt.West recruiter of the year
at SDSU this year.
What's Ken Norton, Jr. doing these days?
About USC - fairly impressed that Sark was able to pull in the class he did. Usually, coaching changes bring an unavoidable aspect of upheaval to a program that often translates into having less-than-stellar class in the first year.
Not sure if Sark will set the world on fire, because he clearly couldn't in Seattle, and as I mentioned on Flufftopia, it's not like UW is chopped liver. Don James and Rick Neuheisel managed to win (and win big a few years) up there, while Sark's tenure was distinctly average.
I am excited for the Huskies (less so now that Stringfellow has done something so retarded, he was looking like a top 10WR in the country to me this coming year). Cyler Myles has the Noodliest Noodle arm on the planet so not as sad about him being an idiot.
Sark recruited a bevvy of 3 and 4* QBs who will fight it out now. The kid from LA might be the best of the bunch as a rs(Freshman).
Replacing Sankey and ASJ will be very tough for the Huskies.
I'm interested in how Corch Pete runs his offense at UW. To me, he could be like latter-day Jeff Tedford to me.
Before Kellen Moore, his offenses were at their best at Boise when they had very good running games. It seemed like he abandoned that. They didn't even really run it very well with Doug Martin. The line has been very weak lately. Too many spread concepts with mobile QB subs.
I don't know. I hope he doesn't over-think it and just throw a bunch of concepts together and hope the individual parts work (Tedford). Go back to what worked. Do a few things very, very well.
Brazzou what do you think the affect of this potential Rule change from NCAA would have on Auburn/Oregon/up tempo teams?
Nick Saban is the devil.
Defenses should be allowed to substitute whenever they want, but the offense shouldn't have to wait on them to do so.
The rule change will definitely have a negative impact on up-tempo offenses if it passes. Especially in the running game, in my opinion. So many of those big-burst runs come on those quick snaps, with quick backs finding gaps in the unprepared defense. The teams that benefit the most from the current set-up are spread running teams, in my opinion. They are hard to stop once they start rolling downhill.
Watching Auburn's offense in person was the first time ive seen it in live action, I was very impressed with it.
It seems like the Refs can already delay if they feel the offense is getting an unfair advantage by just standing over the ball, i guess the NCAA is thinking it can standardize this?
I can't see this rule passing. But it's the NCAA. Who am I kidding?
You'll are overthinking it. It's not the evil NCAA or even a cabal of coaches who prefer running the play clock all the way down and playing three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust type footbaw: it's the referees nearly dying of strokes every time they have to ref a game with these up-tempo teams.
That's not true. It's about certain coaches being outcoached and complaining that it's unfair.
Look who proposed the change.
It's just slow-tempo coaches crying because they believe the hurry-up cheapens the game in some way. Playing at a snail's pace, relying on the kicking game, and playing keep away is more manly footbaw, haven't you heard? It's the way the game was meant to be played.
So - what do you think of the A-11 offense?
From my 25 seconds of Wikipedia research, I don't have a particular problem with it.
However, I don't think the two (A-11 offense and hurry up offense) are even comparable. It looks like the A-11 used a loophole to run their offense, no one intended to create the A-11 offense when they made that rule.
The hurry-up doesn't use any loopholes. People have been running the hurry up for a long ass time, it was just limited to the 2 minute drill. Then coaches realized, hey if we run this all the time, that might work. Obviously, it's worked out pretty well and now the coaches that haven't been able to adjust want to throw a fit like a bunch of 2 year olds.
Punting is winning.- Rick Neuheisel
Well - yes, it was using a loophole in the rule book, but what they were doing was 100% legal. It's just that it completely flummoxed coaches who had to face it (especially when the teams that were running it started whooping on people) that you saw the same phenomenon that coaches who were getting beat started whining about it.
The fumblerooski was a 100% legal play until people started whining about it and got it outlawed.
It's not the same issue. No-huddle is completely legal and not through some loophole like the A-11 was. It's clear cut. As Hugh Freeze and Mike Leach said, the one advantage the offense has is choosing when the ball is snapped. Now these coaches want to take away that one advantage.
It is clearly not about the refs. Coaches proposed this rule and proposed it under the guise of "player safety" which is bullshit. If it's really about the refs(it isn't), I'll start a Kickstarter to buy them all treadmills.
Separate names with a comma.