Photo

NCAA proposed rule change


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 SammyBirdland

SammyBirdland

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,019 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 07:20 PM

NCAA football rules committee proposes offense can't snap the ball until play clock reaches 29 seconds or less. Would reduce total plays.


¡Hasta la vista, pelota!

#2 Ricker Says

Ricker Says

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46,188 posts
  • LocationGermantown, MD

Posted 12 February 2014 - 07:27 PM

I don't like it. Hopefully that is not the case within 5 minutes remaining in each half.
@0TheRick0 (AKA The Rick)
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." ~ The Earl of Baltimore

#3 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 07:35 PM

I hate how long college football games can be. Way too many plays. Somehow they have to find a way to keep the clock running more.

I don't think you stop a team from hiking ball early but stop with the clock stoppage after 1st downs. Stupid rule.

#4 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 12 February 2014 - 07:37 PM

I know we discussed this before but they have to lower the shot clock in CBB. 35 sec is way too long. Get the game moving.
At least 30 sec clock. Ideally, 25 sec clock.

#5 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    SportsGuy's Muse

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,557 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 12 February 2014 - 08:21 PM

sad_ducky.gif
  • Ricker Says and The Epic like this

There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note

"Now OPS sucks.  Got it."

"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."

"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty

@bopper33


#6 waroriole

waroriole

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 502 posts

Posted 14 February 2014 - 04:47 PM

If you can't beat em, change the rules. Right Nicky?



#7 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 19 February 2014 - 06:35 PM

ESPN: Rules chairman: We need solid proof

 

http://espn.go.com/c...owdown-proposal


@levineps

#8 Ricker Says

Ricker Says

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46,188 posts
  • LocationGermantown, MD

Posted 19 February 2014 - 06:36 PM

Love how this is turning into a Malzahn/Saban debate. As it should. Saban is a dick. Can't stop the fast offenses... make a rule against it. What a joke.


@0TheRick0 (AKA The Rick)
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." ~ The Earl of Baltimore

#9 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,772 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 19 February 2014 - 10:34 PM

Love how this is turning into a Malzahn/Saban debate. As it should. Saban is a dick. Can't stop the fast offenses... make a rule against it. What a joke.


Totally agree. Stupid rule suggestion IMO.

#10 waroriole

waroriole

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 502 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 09:29 PM

Did anybody see Bielema link the Cal kid's death to HUNH? I knew he was a slimeball, but exploiting a kid's death for this is about as low as you can get. He apparently has no shame.

#11 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 13,420 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 26 February 2014 - 11:20 PM

ESPN: Poll - 93 [FBS] coaches against proposal

 

http://espn.go.com/c...-poll-concludes

 

It would be one thing if there were actual data that showed that fast-paced offenses had an impact on player safety. But since that data does not exist, it's blatantly obvious that the coaches in favor of the rule change, and many of those against as well, are basing their opinion strictly on a strategic basis. And given that, I am totally against changing rules to suit the self-interests of a small minority. Compile some data that indicates it is a safety issue and I might change my mind.

 

Oh....and 'eff Nick Saban and Bret Bielema.



#12 BSLMikeLowe

BSLMikeLowe

    CFB Analyst

  • Moderators
  • 13,420 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 05 March 2014 - 05:09 PM

ESPN: Ten-second rule proposal tabled

 

http://espn.go.com/c...d-rule-proposal


 

The NCAA Football Rules Committee on Wednesday tabled the controversial 10-second rule proposal that would have slowed college offenses, sources told ESPN.com.

 

The committee's decision came the day before the NCAA's 11-member playing rules oversight panel was scheduled to vote on whether to make the proposal a rule for the upcoming season. The committee's decision means the oversight panel will not vote on the proposal.

 

The 10-second proposal would have prohibited snapping the ball until at least 10 seconds run off the 40-second play clock, allowing defenses to substitute. The only exceptions would be in the final two minutes of each half and if the play clock began at 25 seconds.



#13 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 10 April 2014 - 03:05 PM

ESPNRules committee talks changes

 

On the agenda for discussion:

Reducing the number of timeouts allotted to each team in a game; widening the lane; limiting a coach’s ability to call a timeout in a live ball situation; allowing 10 seconds total in a backcourt situation rather than a new 10 seconds after an out of bounds play; reducing the shot clock; considering the NBA continuation; eliminating the de facto timeout that ensues after a player fouls out; and not allowing a player to score when a charge has been called.

Sign me up for this one - I'd do 30.

 

The most controversial -- like reducing the shot clock -- will no doubt be the hardest to sell, but Hyland remembered when coaches also were reluctant to add a 3-point line and any shot clock at all.

 

“I think it’s time to really consider 30,” Brey said. “If it went to 24, they’d burn the castle down.”


@levineps

#14 Ricker Says

Ricker Says

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 46,188 posts
  • LocationGermantown, MD

Posted 10 April 2014 - 03:08 PM

There's really no good reason not to make it 25... especially in a 40 minute game... but yeah, there's no way they aren't going to babystep their way to that point... so I'll be OK with 30 for now. I really hope this happens. That is a nice game changer for the sport.


@0TheRick0 (AKA The Rick)
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all." ~ The Earl of Baltimore

#15 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 10 April 2014 - 03:12 PM

There's really no good reason not to make it 25... especially in a 40 minute game... but yeah, there's no way they aren't going to babystep their way to that point... so I'll be OK with 30 for now. I really hope this happens. That is a nice game changer for the sport.

I'd be more than happy if they went down to the NBA amount, but not counting on it. 35 is just insane especially at the end of the half/game when they are just holding the ball for the last shot.


@levineps




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners