Home
News Post


The no-huddle hurry-up offense. It's a gimmick that cheapens the game. It's a tactic that helps bridge the talent gap. It's both of these things. It's neither of these things.

Confused yet? Feeling a bit undecided? Don't feel bad, apparently so is the NCAA Rules Chairman Troy Calhoun. A mere week ago, the Air Force coach suggested that a slowdown was coming to improve substitution opportunities that address injury concerns. But in a press conference call on Tuesday, Calhoun seemed to shift gears:

Quote:
"The key is this: I think the only way that it can or it should become a rule is if it is indeed a safety concern. And that can't be something that's a speculation or a possibility..."

Sound Off: Should the NCAA adjust rules to slow down college football's hurry-up offenses?

Game: NCAA FootballReader Score: 9/10 - Vote Now
Platform: SportsVotes for game: 3 - View All
Member Comments
# 1 Jadakiss88 @ 02/20/14 03:32 PM
I am 50/50 I would like to see a tweak in the ruling to still allow defensive players to sub because gassed players have a tendency to get hurt or hurt others due to their lack of stamina at the time. However, being an offensive minded person I don't want to see these creative offenses held back. More research needs to be done but I don't think anything will change in the long run.

Because at the end of the day it's not the speed of your offense but the efficiency in which the offense is run that makes a bigger difference. I don't see Kevin Sumlin making these same claims without Johnny Manziel ever taking a snap at A&M. Just like I don't see Saban whining as much about it if he never lost to A&M or Auburn.
 
# 2 seasprite @ 02/20/14 03:47 PM
Absolutely not IMO
 
# 3 supermanemblem @ 02/20/14 05:29 PM
These offenses are not creative. They rely on smoke, mirror and gimmicks to find mismatches to key on. The read option uses deception. Spread offenses flood the field. Nothing creative about that. The good thing about those offenses is that they are comprised of guys who don't like to get hit, so when they face a physical defense, you can usually call the night nurse for them.
 
# 4 khaliib @ 02/20/14 06:49 PM
Here we go.....

NFL uses concussions to tweak the game to expand/market the game beyond the hard core fan.
NCAA tags along to tweak the game to expand/market "Their Brand" even further.

As a Kines Major, I laugh at the thought that injuries are due to an athletes oxygen uptake.
What a joke!!!

Athletes are getting hurt because NCAA cares so much about the athlete, that they force offseason preparations to fit in a short window.
Because of this, "FLEXIBILITY" has all but been removed from Strength/Training programs due to the time restrictions.
Speed is 1st, Size is 2nd and Nutrition is 3rd in most programs.

This is just another way to exert power to dictate how the game can make profits for the NCAA Brand, that's all.
 
# 5 tarek @ 02/20/14 07:51 PM
I don't know enough about the intricacies of the game to provide an insightful comment. But my questions are as follows:
Does the current speed of the no-huddle hurry-up affect scoring? Is that why there are such high scoring games?
Is there still a place for hard nosed, smashmouth football? It seems the NFL just proved that a dominant defense can crush a dominant offense (Seattle vs Denver).
I'm a fan of tradition, and whilst I understand that different tactics and philosophies come into different sports, I kind of like the traditional gameplans.
For example, with basketball I believe a team needs a 7 footer, and tough rebounding power forward, a strong shooting small forward, a pass first point guard and a shooting guard with size (at least 6'4). Now I accept anomalies, like Kevin Durant being such a dominant small forward, and Kevin Love being a 3 point threat, but small ball annoys me. I want size, tradition and hard nosed play.
I view football the same, I like a team that runs up the guts using a fullback, I like the use of TEs. On occasion I like using shotguns and stuff, but overall I like the traditional game. It seems the fast tempo stuff is all passing based, and doesn't leave much room for defensive plays or battles.
Is this true?
 
# 6 simgamer0005 @ 02/20/14 08:16 PM
Don't you guys see something wrong with these type of rule changes in general? We have gotten so much tinkering with the game in recent years, and I don't think there is any place for it. What the rules committee fails to realize is that their rule changes in the past have made the game faster, more pass heavy, and more dangerous. Yeah that's right. They have implemented rules in the not too distant past to artificially give teams incentive to run hurry up offense. I see this as similar to when they moved the kickoff back to the 30 yard line in 2007. Remember the reason given was (amazingly considering all the emphasis of player safety since) to showcase the most exciting play in college football. (the kick return) Then they eventually realized that that made the game more unsafe, since there were more high speed collisions due to their rule. It's the same thing here, they put in rules to speed up college offenses, then now a few years later realize they need to slow down college offenses. This is not the way college football should be administered. Way too much tinkering with the rule book.
 
# 7 Tovarich @ 02/20/14 08:55 PM
I'd be curious to know what percentage of snaps in college football were taken with the play clock at 30+. Aren't we talking somewhere in the vicinity of half a percent here? I'm in favor of defenses having a chance to substitute for 10 seconds. It would seem to me the number of times any team snaps the ball with 30+ on the play clock outside of the last 2 minutes of a half or game, which I thought I read was the time frame where the rule change would not have applied, is very minimal. Because of that, I really don't get the uproar.
 
# 8 Watson @ 02/20/14 11:08 PM
Don't feed me this BS about it being for the safety of the player. Soccer doesn't need a rule like this, neither does rugby or basketball. That's a hilariously bad reason.

As far as the substitution thing goes, isn't that the point of the offense? To get any advantage possible against a defense? And so they found a way to do that, so instead of making the defense finds a way to adjust, we're going to candy them?

Quote:
These offenses are not creative. They rely on smoke, mirror and gimmicks to find mismatches to key on. The read option uses deception. Spread offenses flood the field. Nothing creative about that. The good thing about those offenses is that they are comprised of guys who don't like to get hit, so when they face a physical defense, you can usually call the night nurse for them.

This guy.
 
# 9 Cubfan @ 02/21/14 03:49 AM
This new rule proposal is a joke i call bs on it being about player safety. There are reports are saying this is coming from Nick Sabin and Bret Bielema. I like that teams run different offenses. The last thing college football needs is bland football. Hey Nick Sabin and Bret Bielema shut up and defend these quick offenses stop trying to legislate everything.
 
# 10 Lukin4 @ 02/21/14 05:50 AM
Sounds like a supposedly great coach is getting beaten by a philosophy that is different to his own. Rather than innovate to regain an advantage, like the truly great coaches of the past have done, he cries foul and raises his concerns based on safety... It always stinks more at low tide...
 
# 11 seasprite @ 02/21/14 07:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by supermanemblem
These offenses are not creative. They rely on smoke, mirror and gimmicks to find mismatches to key on. The read option uses deception. Spread offenses flood the field. Nothing creative about that. The good thing about those offenses is that they are comprised of guys who don't like to get hit, so when they face a physical defense, you can usually call the night nurse for them.
Sounds like everything that you have described is the very definition of "creative".
 
# 12 tbennett54 @ 02/21/14 09:27 AM
Hell no, if this passes I may be done with college football. How can teams like Marshall compete against the power 5 conferences? Maybe that's the point.
 
# 13 elgreazy1 @ 02/21/14 09:43 AM
As much as I hate the gimmick of it, I enjoy the hurry up offenses because they put the ball in the hands of playmakers. That's what every sport wants: dynamic players making explosive, highlight-reel plays that results in points.

I'm not a fan of all the constant tweaks because it's being thrown under the guise of player safety. Plus, there is not a long enough sample size taken to see how new rules affect the game before newer rules are added. Football is definitely morphing into something different. Things are far less structured and "templated" and now taking on elements of basketball, rugby, and hockey. Players are more reactionary which speeds up the game.

With that said, my biggest gripe is that players are no longer students of the game. When tempo has the utmost importance, players tend to lose technique, don't have to learn to diagnose plays, and rely solely on athleticism. It drives me mad when an college QB looks to the sideline to essentially have everything fed to him, it shows there is no onus on the player to learn his craft. This is why coaches love the spread offenses: players only need to learn a small sampling before they contribute, but the players themselves learn nothing of the sport which will keep their careers going long term.

We see the trickle down and trickle up of this already. Defenders are abysmal tacklers, take horrible angles, can't seem to read offenses, etc. Where as on offense, we see WRs & QBs transitioning quickly to the NFL - remember when it took until "year 3" of these positions before they were solid contributors? - but then when these players face smart, schemes/teams, they crumble and get exploited.

In all, it just feels really unfortunate that the game is solely being geared to benefit the offense. We saw this in the NBA in the last decade or so when defenders could no longer get physical, so point totals shot up drastically, offensive stats blossomed, and technique/fundamentals get downright sloppy. There were far too many "kids" basically playing street ball. And since the NBA offenses have more pull, things like "flopping" became a phenomenon. Can you imagine even 5 years ago an NFL player getting away with flopping? What about 10, 15 years? Now we see WR's calling for a flag more so than fighting for the reception.
 
# 14 shanest88 @ 02/21/14 09:52 AM
i think there should be a rule where the ball cannot be snapped within the first 10-15 seconds at the start of the 40 second play clock. This up-tempo offenses are all just a gimick. I dont wanna see gimicks win football games. I wanna see one team say my talent is bettter than yours and we are show you. All these quick WR screeens and passing 60-80 times are all for teams who dont necessarily have the talent to run a real offense and beat someone with their talent. Its becoming ridiculous.
Plus it isnt fair to the defense because you cant just say to a coach, hey as long as the other team doesnt sub you cant sub either. That gives a huge advantage to the offense. I want to see great games with teams physically beating another team. This will never happen though because that would mean the oregons of the world wouludnt even be on the same field as top neir teams. (talent wise)
The game has become way to geared toward the offensive side of the ball. its really a shame. People have forgotten that a great football game also involves great defense. I just the NCAA passes a rule where the offense isnt allowed to snap the wall within 10 or 15 seconds at the start of the 40 second play clock
 
# 15 canesfins @ 02/21/14 12:17 PM
Slow down for what?










 
# 16 fistofrage @ 02/21/14 12:18 PM
I prefer the chess match of strategy. To some extent, the hurry up offenses just try to create a mismatch by not giving the defense time to get set or get the proper personnel on the field. I don't believe the hurry up offenses play the game as its intended to be played. Its more of an exploit to gain an advantage. Just my opinion, but I'd like to see 5 to 10 seconds inbetween plays to give the defense an opportunity to get its plays and personnel in.

If you like hurry up, that's fine too, just my opinion. Whatever the rules are, the coaches need to adapt.
 
# 17 seasprite @ 02/21/14 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fistofrage
I prefer the chess match of strategy. To some extent, the hurry up offenses just try to create a mismatch by not giving the defense time to get set or get the proper personnel on the field. I don't believe the hurry up offenses play the game as its intended to be played. Its more of an exploit to gain an advantage. Just my opinion, but I'd like to see 5 to 10 seconds inbetween plays to give the defense an opportunity to get its plays and personnel in.

If you like hurry up, that's fine too, just my opinion. Whatever the rules are, the coaches need to adapt.

So hurry up offenses arent considered a "chess match of strategy"?
 
# 18 sparkdawg777 @ 02/21/14 01:20 PM
This is stupid, I bet more people get hurt from playing against Alabama than against these up temp offenses. Those guys who a majority are NFL caliber players are playing someone like Georgia State every year. How is that safe for the Georgia State players? Maybe Alabama shouldn't be allowed to play FCS schools.
 
# 19 seasprite @ 02/21/14 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkdawg777
This is stupid, I bet more people get hurt from playing against Alabama than against these up temp offenses. Those guys who a majority are NFL caliber players are playing someone like Georgia State every year. How is that safe for the Georgia State players? Maybe Alabama shouldn't be allowed to play FCS schools.
Like South Carolina State is much better................
 
# 20 supermanemblem @ 02/21/14 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seasprite
Sounds like everything that you have described is the very definition of "creative".
Ask the Broncos and Saints how creative their offenses were when Seattle was smacking them down, or look at how Oregon has trouble scoring 20 on Stanford. These new offenses are not creative. They were created to play as close to the line as the rulebook allows. The problem is that not every team has the players to attack these offenses, but when they do, the "creative" offense is neutered.
 

« Previous12Next »

Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.