The NFL has made it clear that if Chip Kelly wants to run an Oregon speed-up offense with the Eagles, he isn't going to get any support from the officials. Unlike in college, where the officials hurried to keep up with the Ducks, the NFL refs will follow their usual time procedures and will not mark the ball as ready until they fulfill their between snap obligations. In one key area, the NFL official who spots the ball must take up a position behind the deepest offensive back before snapping. This can add 10 seconds to the time between plays.

Good.

(07-30-2013 10:38 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  Good.

I don't need to see a play every 5 seconds, but if they get it down around 15 seconds or less that would be good. I hate the maximum slow-down which some teams run (walk?)

the patriots use a variation of oregons fast offense w/ their no huddle... this variation has paid huge dividends for pats so im expecting same for kelly

(07-30-2013 10:42 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 10:38 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  Good.

I don't need to see a play every 5 seconds, but if they get it down around 15 seconds or less that would be good. I hate the maximum slow-down which some teams run (walk?)

If the refs let the Eagles run a no-huddle as quickly as the Patriots or Broncos do, that seems fair.

If the refs slow-walk their chain movement to give dinosaur defenses a break because they can't adjust to different offenses, that wouldn't be fair play.

There is no question the game is speeding up and I have no problem with that. However, what they allow in college is a crime and is essentially cheating. Defensive players should be able to at least get set in a sound defensive position before the ball is snapped. Also, they should be permitted to substitute at least once every four downs. The way the rules are written right now, offenses have an obscene advantage that basically cheapens the game and absolutely cheapens the game's records.

Everyone spends all this time talking about the spread offense but it is really the pace of the offense that is the difference.

I would definitely advocate giving defenses a minimum of 15-20 seconds between plays to get organized. After that, all bets are off and offenses can do whatever they like. In the final two minutes of each half, those rules would not apply and people could go as fast as they can get themselves organized.

Also, in the college game, I would definitely get rid of the clock stopping after every made first down and do a continuous clock like you see in the NFL. That is a stupid rule that has far outlived its usefulness. I would adopt the NFL's clock rules of a two minute warning or stop the clock after made first downs under two minutes of each half. However, stopping the clock after every single first down all game long grossly lengthens CFB games and it gives offenses waaaaaay too many snaps.

(07-30-2013 01:50 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  There is no question the game is speeding up and I have no problem with that. However, what they allow in college is a crime and is essentially cheating. Defensive players should be able to at least get set in a sound defensive position before the ball is snapped. Also, they should be permitted to substitute at least once every four downs. The way the rules are written right now, offenses have an obscene advantage that basically cheapens the game and absolutely cheapens the game's records.

Everyone spends all this time talking about the spread offense but it is really the pace of the offense that is the difference.

I would definitely advocate giving defenses a minimum of 15-20 seconds between plays to get organized. After that, all bets are off and offenses can do whatever they like. In the final two minutes of each half, those rules would not apply and people could go as fast as they can get themselves organized.

Also, in the college game, I would definitely get rid of the clock stopping after every made first down and do a continuous clock like you see in the NFL. That is a stupid rule that has far outlived its usefulness. I would adopt the NFL's clock rules of a two minute warning or stop the clock after made first downs under two minutes of each half. However, stopping the clock after every single first down all game long grossly lengthens CFB games and it gives offenses waaaaaay too many snaps.

Spot on Doc!

(07-30-2013 01:50 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  There is no question the game is speeding up and I have no problem with that. However, what they allow in college is a crime and is essentially cheating. Defensive players should be able to at least get set in a sound defensive position before the ball is snapped. Also, they should be permitted to substitute at least once every four downs. The way the rules are written right now, offenses have an obscene advantage that basically cheapens the game and absolutely cheapens the game's records.

AMEN!!!

However, Doc...

Quote:Also, in the college game, I would definitely get rid of the clock stopping after every made first down and do a continuous clock like you see in the NFL.

If i remember correctly, the reason for this rule in college was specifically to allow the coaches to substitute defensive players after a set of downs? This I actually don't have a problem with in the college game.

I don't feel sorry for the defense not being able to substitute regularly. The college rule mandates that if the offense makes a substitution then the defense must be allowed time as well. That's fair enough.

(07-30-2013 03:40 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  I don't feel sorry for the defense not being able to substitute regularly. The college rule mandates that if the offense makes a substitution then the defense must be allowed time as well. That's fair enough.

I agree.

Imagine how silly basketball games would look if the team with the ball could never run a fast break, but had to patiently wait for all five players on the other team to get set on defense -- and give them the chance to substitute players before the offense tries to score.

Okay, while we're playing that game, just imagine how silly baseball would look if the pitcher could just throw the ball as soon as he got it back from the catcher regardless if the batter was ready or not. That's basically what is happening in college football right now and I think it cheapens the game.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why fans of hurry up spread teams like it - they have an advantage and it helps them be more successful than they otherwise might be. I get that. However, as a fan of the sport in general, I think it's weak sauce.

To me a 70-63 game is every bit as difficult to stomach as a 3-0 game. And if teams do score 60 points per game, or throw for 600 yards per game, or run for 200 yards per game - winning Heisman Trophies and other major awards along the way - I would like it to be because they are special teams and/or players, not just kids who happen to who play for coaches who have learned how to game the system.

If the choice is between playing football at the ridiculously slow pace of MLB, or at an NBA pace, that's an easy choice. If we're going to play football at a MLB pace, every game will last 7 hours.

Referees should be unbiased, meaning they should move at their own pace, whether fast or slow, independent of and un-influenced by the desires of either the offense or the defense.

(07-30-2013 06:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If the choice is between playing football at the ridiculously slow pace of MLB, or at an NBA pace, that's an easy choice. If we're going to play football at a MLB pace, every game will last 7 hours.

I suppose I agree with that false choice but that's not the choice at all. I don't want to play baseball football or basketball football. I want to play football football.

As things stand, the average college football game lasts MUCH longer than the average Major League Baseball game and that is precisely my point.

According to a recent, well-researched and very entertaining Boston Globe story, major league game times are longer than they used to be, reversing a trend. They're back up to an average of nearly 2 hours, 58 minutes this year, matching the all-time high in 2000. That is unacceptably long and the MLB officials definitely need to do something about that.

However, in looking at this Orlando Sentinel article, the average SEC game last year was a full 24 minutes longer than that. That is the SEC. God only knows how long the average B12 defenseless snoozefest lasts?

Look, like all of you, I love college football and follow it intently. However, watching four hour marathons in which nobody plays defense - because the rules make that virtually impossible - doesn't interest me all that much. If I wanted to watch that garbage, I'd tune into the Arena League - or worse yet, the NBA.

(07-30-2013 10:23 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  However, in looking at this Orlando Sentinel article, the average SEC game last year was a full 24 minutes longer than that. That is the SEC. God only knows how long the average B12 defenseless snoozefest lasts?

CFB games aren't longer because offenses want to play faster. CFB games are longer because of long TV timeouts, and more TV timeouts, and longer halftimes because of TV, and because teams are now passing more and running less, thus more incomplete passes and more dead ball time with the clock not running.

And that's what the Orlando Sentinel article says, too.

Hurry-up offenses (if the team is good) ought to have a lower percentage of incomplete passes. They throw high-percentage passes and run more than teams with a star drop-back passer. Look at Oregon: Mariota in 2012 completed over 68 percent of his passes. And the Ducks run more than they throw: 4068 yards rushing in 2012, 2888 yards passing.

They don't want incomplete passes and clock stoppage because the clock stoppage allows the defense to substitute for those 350 lb linemen who get gassed if they have to stay on the field for more than two consecutive plays.

If you want shorter CFB games, then your targets should be TV commercials and teams that pass 60 times a game with a low completion percentage. (I'll add another to that: Teams that commit a lot of penalties, because penalties stop the clock.)

I don't think this is going to hurt him all that much. He still can effectively eliminate teams using subpackages (which are a huge part of the NFL game) against him. I don't think defenses getting set is the major problem. Defenses being able to sub would be a bigger problem.

(07-30-2013 11:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-30-2013 10:23 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  However, in looking at this Orlando Sentinel article, the average SEC game last year was a full 24 minutes longer than that. That is the SEC. God only knows how long the average B12 defenseless snoozefest lasts?

CFB games aren't longer because offenses want to play faster. CFB games are longer because of long TV timeouts, and more TV timeouts, and longer halftimes because of TV, and because teams are now passing more and running less, thus more incomplete passes and more dead ball time with the clock not running.

And that's what the Orlando Sentinel article says, too.

Hurry-up offenses (if the team is good) ought to have a lower percentage of incomplete passes. They throw high-percentage passes and run more than teams with a star drop-back passer. Look at Oregon: Mariota in 2012 completed over 68 percent of his passes. And the Ducks run more than they throw: 4068 yards rushing in 2012, 2888 yards passing.

They don't want incomplete passes and clock stoppage because the clock stoppage allows the defense to substitute for those 350 lb linemen who get gassed if they have to stay on the field for more than two consecutive plays.

If you want shorter CFB games, then your targets should be TV commercials and teams that pass 60 times a game with a low completion percentage. (I'll add another to that: Teams that commit a lot of penalties, because penalties stop the clock.)

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. Of course television is a major part of this problem. However, if teams are more efficient and picking up first downs after every two or three plays, that means that the clock is stopping after every second or third play. Even if teams are going lightning fast, that still lengthens the game. And when teams lose that efficiency it's even worse because in that instance the clock could be stopping after every single play. You don't think that lengthens the game? I'm sorry but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on that one.

For me, the solution is simple. Just eliminate the rule whereby the clock stops after every single first down, except in the final two minutes of each half (if need be). That simple change would make an enormous, positive difference for the sport, IMHO. That would mean that instead of the quickest teams getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 90-95 offensive snaps per game, they would get back to a more reasonable 70-75 as happens with NFL teams that run the fastest offenses. I think that would make the players much safer and it would restore some integrity to the game's record books.

Also, allow defenses to get in a set position before the play starts. Whether that means 10-15 seconds is just fine by me.

With those two simple changes you would still retain your advantage but it wouldn't be so pronounced so as to basically compromise the integrity of the game itself, or the safety of its players, as is currently the case.

I know that this is quixotic and that I'm not going to win. However, I will continue to beat this drum because I really do believe that it is a very important issue to the future of the sport itself.

Chip will be back in college football in 3-5 years.

(07-30-2013 05:06 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Okay, while we're playing that game, just imagine how silly baseball would look if the pitcher could just throw the ball as soon as he got it back from the catcher regardless if the batter was ready or not. That's basically what is happening in college football right now and I think it cheapens the game.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why fans of hurry up spread teams like it - they have an advantage and it helps them be more successful than they otherwise might be. I get that. However, as a fan of the sport in general, I think it's weak sauce.

To me a 70-63 game is every bit as difficult to stomach as a 3-0 game. And if teams do score 60 points per game, or throw for 600 yards per game, or run for 200 yards per game - winning Heisman Trophies and other major awards along the way - I would like it to be because they are special teams and/or players, not just kids who happen to who play for coaches who have learned how to game the system.

Agree again Doc. The Baylor/WVU game last year was an abomination.