Rules Committee recommends 10 second substitution window

Gus met with the media today. Of course, this was discussed. Here are some quotes reporters have tweeted.

Gus Malzahn says he’s been in contact with Troy Calhoun, chair of the NCAA football rules committee.
Malzahn’s case (to Calhoun) is that this isn’t a rule-change year … and any changes should be made for 2015.
Malzahn: "I've never felt that, on either side (of the ball), that it was a health and safety issue.”
Malzhan on the decision to create a rule change: "I was definitely caught off-guard. The bottom line is that we have to gather the facts."
Malzahn says passing the 10-second rule would force him (and other HUNH guys) to change how he coaches.
Malzahn’s biggest point: “There’s no evidence” that fast-paced football leads to injuries.
Gus Malzahn says he is not tweaking HUNH as Auburn prepares for spring practice with rule proposal on docket. Business as usual.
Auburn's Gus Malzahn says "there is absolutely zero evidence" that a fast-paced offense causes more injuries.
Auburn's Gus Malzahn said discussion about a rule change to slow offenses should be next year, adding "healthy debate will be very useful."
Auburn's Gus Malzahn says "I'm first concerned about players' safety," but "without any documented evidence, I disagree" about changing rule

Gus Malzahn said implications of a rule change goes beyond holding offenses 10 seconds. "It changes the dynamics of traditional football"

The last one made me laugh. It really did.

CoachJeff said:

let them play how've they wish, but if they get to the line and do the prairie dog thing that starts the 10 second substitution window.

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but I don't know exactly what you mean. Could you explain it so that a country boy like me can understand?

When it comes down to it, I really just don't care for this rule because it specifically attacks the offensive scheme...even though admittedly in a minuscule fashion. I think college should look to the NFL for the answer. Why do we see so few pro offenses regularly stay in no-huddle? Because of a running clock that limits possessions and therefore makes each snap more valuable. Teams who have a Peyton Manning or Tom Brady may base in a no-huddle concept, but most teams measure their use of tempo. Heck, what is the tried and true way to derail Peyton? Scheme up ways to get them off the field quick and play efficient time-of-possession football to bleed the game away from him (and therefore make him force throws thus creating mistakes that salt the game).

The problem with no-huddle in college isn't the no-huddle but the combination of no-huddle and frequent clock stoppages that create an astronomical number of snaps compared to the professional game. I believe a clock that runs more would make teams more concerned of the risks with the no-huddle. Look at Oregon, they are regularly a pretty high 3-and-out team compare to "traditional" elite offenses. Possession isn't as valuable in the college game because the stoppages create so many possessions. You simply can't afford Oregon's negative plays and 3-and-outs as much with a faster moving game clock.

The result of less clock stoppage on first downs and out-of-bound plays (except at end of half situations) would be coaches would have to weigh the balance of no-huddle and possession optimization more than they do currently.

Rules Committee chairman Troy Calhoun speaks on the rule. Clicky

Air Force coach Troy Calhoun, chairman of the NCAA Football Rules Committee, has expressed concern there's not evidence to support a proposal allowing defenses 10 seconds to substitute before offenses snap the ball.

In two national interviews this week, Calhoun raised doubts about the rule as a safety precaution. The proposal caused an uproar within the coaching community, especially by up-tempo coaches such as Gus Malzahn, who wants to table the rule until next year.

Calhoun previously said the committee "felt like it was time to act in the interests of protecting our student-athletes." But on the Tim Brando show this week on SiriusXM, Calhoun said, "If there is no medical data that can support it, then there's no way. There should not be a rule. Now, if you go and there's truly ... a resounding concern by people who should have the right insight and right background from the medical community that, indeed, if you don't have a substitution pattern in place or be able to provide adequate rest and recovery for somebody, then I think you have an obligation to bring that up."

In hindsight, Calhoun told Brando he doesn't think the rules committee had enough of the medical community at the meeting to inform members. Many medical personnel and researchers say there could be health benefits, but there's no evidence.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. I was shocked to read the last two paragraphs:

Duma likens the NCAA's situation to the debate a couple decades ago about whether to install air bags in cars. When he was a graduate student, Duma asked an engineer at Chrysler if he was worried about being sued if the company didn't put in air bags.

"He said we're going to get sued no matter what," Duma said. "I think that's the case here. There's going to be lawsuits no matter what you do. You really have to use the science to do what you think is best and let the data show it."

Click to expand...

Well, if someone gets hurt under these conditions and this never makes it to the committee for a vote, you can bet that there will be lawsuit, and this statement will come up in court. You can talk about these things behind closed doors, but you can't talk about them in public. When will these meat-heads learn?

Anyone hear Matt and Scott his afternoon on WJOX? Obnoxious in declaring no evidence that this rule is neccesary.

I hope they get food poisoning.

CrimsonProf said:

Anyone hear Matt and Scott his afternoon on WJOX? Obnoxious in declaring no evidence that this rule is neccesary.

I hope they get food poisoning.

Click to expand...

It could be that many in the medical community aren't looking in the right place for data. Certainly there would not be strong enough data looking at college football injuiries. What percentage of college teams play an "up tempo" style similiar to a continous play sport? I couldn't even hazard a guess. Maybe a better place to look for a correlation would be a similar "continous play" sport like rugby or, to a lesser extent, soccer. I'm almost certain I have seen data for soccer of a higher incidence for injury late in match play.

Just asking. It could be food for thought.

CrimsonProf said:

Anyone hear Matt and Scott his afternoon on WJOX? Obnoxious in declaring no evidence that this rule is neccesary.

I hope they get food poisoning.

Click to expand...

Those are two of the biggest buffoon that I've ever heard. I wish they'd go back to Texas, or wherever they came from.

RTR91 said:

Gus met with the media today. Of course, this was discussed. Here are some quotes reporters have tweeted.

Gus Malzahn says he’s been in contact with Troy Calhoun, chair of the NCAA football rules committee.
Malzahn’s case (to Calhoun) is that this isn’t a rule-change year … and any changes should be made for 2015.
Malzahn: "I've never felt that, on either side (of the ball), that it was a health and safety issue.”
Malzhan on the decision to create a rule change: "I was definitely caught off-guard. The bottom line is that we have to gather the facts."
Malzahn says passing the 10-second rule would force him (and other HUNH guys) to change how he coaches.
Malzahn’s biggest point: “There’s no evidence” that fast-paced football leads to injuries.
Gus Malzahn says he is not tweaking HUNH as Auburn prepares for spring practice with rule proposal on docket. Business as usual.
Auburn's Gus Malzahn says "there is absolutely zero evidence" that a fast-paced offense causes more injuries.
Auburn's Gus Malzahn said discussion about a rule change to slow offenses should be next year, adding "healthy debate will be very useful."
Auburn's Gus Malzahn says "I'm first concerned about players' safety," but "without any documented evidence, I disagree" about changing rule

Gus Malzahn said implications of a rule change goes beyond holding offenses 10 seconds. "It changes the dynamics of traditional football"

The last one made me laugh. It really did.

Click to expand...

Gus was probably one of the idiots complaining because Saban worked too hard recruiting. I would bet that he had no problem with the targeting rule, or any other rule that benefits the offense.

Hey Gus! Until you actually win something, how about shuttin' your big yap!!!

As I suspected, there are many studies showing a positive correlation between fatigue (latter second half injuries) in continous play sports like soccer and rugby. I would understand the argument that this data isn't applicable because american football isn't a "one team, no substitution, continous play sport". However, it stands to reason that fatigue is fatigue, regardless of how it is acquired, and does correlate to higher injury risk.

RTR91 said:

Gus met with the media today. Of course, this was discussed. Here are some quotes reporters have tweeted.

Gus Malzahn says he’s been in contact with Troy Calhoun, chair of the NCAA football rules committee.
Malzahn’s case (to Calhoun) is that this isn’t a rule-change year … and any changes should be made for 2015.
Malzahn: "I've never felt that, on either side (of the ball), that it was a health and safety issue.”
Malzhan on the decision to create a rule change: "I was definitely caught off-guard. The bottom line is that we have to gather the facts."
Malzahn says passing the 10-second rule would force him (and other HUNH guys) to change how he coaches.
Malzahn’s biggest point: “There’s no evidence” that fast-paced football leads to injuries.
Gus Malzahn says he is not tweaking HUNH as Auburn prepares for spring practice with rule proposal on docket. Business as usual.
Auburn's Gus Malzahn says "there is absolutely zero evidence" that a fast-paced offense causes more injuries.
Auburn's Gus Malzahn said discussion about a rule change to slow offenses should be next year, adding "healthy debate will be very useful."
Auburn's Gus Malzahn says "I'm first concerned about players' safety," but "without any documented evidence, I disagree" about changing rule

Gus Malzahn said implications of a rule change goes beyond holding offenses 10 seconds. "It changes the dynamics of traditional football"

The last one made me laugh. It really did.

Click to expand...

So what is it Gus? You have minions out there declaring that it is an unnecessary rule because you only run a few plays a game that are snapped prior to 29 seconds - then you say you will have to change your entire offensive game play?

I guess I am in the minority but I hope that the boogs and other teams that run these up-tempo offenses can keep running them. I would rather Bama just figure out how to beat them and shut them up. Bama and Georgia should have beat them last year and LSU and FSU did. I think the officiating crews should add a couple of extra guys to make sure the proper formations are run and that lineman aren't more than 3 yards down field when the QB throws the ball. Also let the chains get set before you can run a play.

Anyone who wants to see this rule through the prism of slowing down the hurry up offenses just because defenses can't handle them is really missing the point. I do not like rules that "ruin" football for the sake of safety. I don't... but what we've seen with these hurry up offenses is not football as intended, it's a gimmick, it's breaking the rules, but doing it so fast that no one notices.

Just watch a given play, and consider what unfolds. False start? Yeah, looking to the sideline. Holding? Yeah, illegal man down field, yeah... and this is brought about by making the refs stumble all over the place and no one actually getting set. The rules were not made with that idea in mind, it was a given that everyone got set, in fact I'd argue it was supposed to be the refs job, they just worry more about stumbling around. Players aren't even allowed to get hurt, the fans boo them now for going down.

Anyway, how am I supposed to say anything that slows that down is bad for the game? It's not. However, the key issue here is safety, and the logic is incontrovertible. A situation, designed for extended periods of time, to prevent defensive players from coming out of the game (and offensive players), even if they want to, even if their coaches want them to, HAS to be, has to be a safety concern. That's all there is so it. If they want out, or their coaches want them out, what kind of idiots demand they have to stay in there?

I don't see how anyone could argue offenses extending the typical number of snaps from 55-65 to 80-90 doesn't potentially create a higher injury risk. It's a sport built on tackling and pushing around guys....more snaps on average is a potential for more injuries.


Like I've posted earlier about the clock and no-huddle. The problem isn't no-huddle...Peyton Manning and Tom Brady have been doing it in NFL for over a decade. The problem is the sheer number of clock stoppages and the no-huddle in college. It really pushes the upper limits for the number of snaps a football game should have in my opinion.

The micro-level shouldn't be regulated to stop the no-huddle. If you want to limit substitution and force defenses to go smaller and simpler, that is fine. The issue is that because of clock stoppage, they can effectively balloon the number of snaps to a riskier level.

Just look at the difference:

NFL plays per game 2013

CFB plays per game 2013



74 college teams average more snaps per game than the Denver Broncos at 72.1 plays per game.

Lots of little programs are losing their minds about the rule suggestion because they felt like it was giving them a way to compete with a team like Alabama. They are correct in the short term but the advantage won't last. Alabama will retool, retrain and crush this crap.

If fewer plays = fewer injuries and that is really what this is about, then shouldn't we be proposing a 60 second clock and limiting snap until 20 seconds is off the clock? Sorry, I don't buy the injury excuse. HUNH is a gimmick offense, but it can be stopped and even have the quick strike used against it when offense goes 3 and out a couple of times. Saban just needs to tweak his personnel on defense and realize that last year's team really was not quite as good as previous title teams on defense. Having grown up a Bama fan I can't imagine Bear crying about something like this...usually it was opposing coaches wanting to change the rules to stop his offenses (tackle eligible play).

Instead of pushing for a rules change, Saban should be pushing for better enforcement of the rules already on the books. That alone would slow down HUNH enough to address any legit concerns.

My 2-cents anyway (worth every penny).

I think there is a problem when over half of FBS is average more plays than the fastest pace NFL team. They don't need to micro-manage the play clock but simply cause more "bleed" on the game clock by less clock stoppage (out of bounds running clock until 2 minute in first half/5 minute in second half, no clock stop on chain movement, etc). Plus, this effect is felt by all participants and not just teams trying to go high pace...BUT the effect does cause no-huddle teams to fear their 3-and-out misfire funks they have more because the game will be shorter.