re: The "Saban (gets beat by fast teams) Rule" is essentially dead

quote:

---

Until next year, when it will pass

---

Not likely at all. He may get some sort of rule where he can sub after X number of downs but even that's a stretch. This rule as it is written is toast.

I also expect a rule to be proposed for player safety that if a player must be helped off the field they must sit X plays as well. Due to the fact they can't be properly evaluated within a single play and be back on the field the next play.

quote:

---

Why is this the Saban rule? He was simply asked to speak about it. Shouldnt it be the Bielema rule?

---

Saban is the target because no one is scared of Bielema. Except maybe being sat on by him.

quote:

---

More plays = More possible injuries

---

More power cleans= Stronger athletes who could injure someone

quote:

---

You lost to Oklahoma, Auburn, and last year to A&M. 100% of your losses over the past two seasons come from fast teams

---

if you were not retarded you would realize that those 3 losses were not about hunh. The a&m trouble was almost 100% due to manziel, not defensive scheme. We normally had the right play in, he would just make something out of nothing. The auburn loss this year had more to do with our own 3rd down trouble on offense, poor field goal kicking, and a bad offensive strategy than Auburns offense. The Oklahoma loss was petty much 100% due to offensive miscues, namely 5 turnovers. You don't turn the ball over like that and beat a top 10 team. We were weaker this year on d than past years but we still were one of the best in the country and were plenty good to repeat. We should have used the auburn offensive game plan at Oklahoma and the Oklahoma offensive game plan at auburn. Auburns pass d was hot garbage yet we kept trying to run right through the best part of their team, the dline. Oklahoma could not stop our rushing attach to save their lives so of course we throw it at then and turn it over a bunch.

25-0

quote:

---

The proposed rule was not to lower the total number of plays

---

quote:

---

except, you know, what everyone else has stated

---

I've heard plenty of discussion about the fact that a miniscule amount of plays are run before 10 second from the last play ended and that, therefore, the proposed rule would have almost no effect on the pace at which even HUNH teams play or the total plays of the game. So, I don't know what you are talking about with respect to your comment. The rule is basically about defensive substitution, not slowing down the pace because very few plays over the course of an entire season actually go at a faster pace than the rule allows.

Our three losses were to spread teams, true...

We outgained Auburn, and missed 3 FGs before the one that fell short. That had a lot more to do with it.

We outgained Texas A&M, but had three turnovers including one at the goal line that would've put us ahead, probably for the win.

We outgained Oklahoma, but had five turnovers and a missed FG - a game we lost by two scores.

Our offense and special teams, or to be fair, Texas A&M's and Oklahoma's defenses as well as Auburn forcing us to FG attempts, had more to do with it. Sure, we gave up points, but we held AU and Texas A&M's offenses to under 30 points each. That should have been enough to win both games if our offense had made its normal output.

quote:

---

Sportsnation ESPN Poll:

If a study emerged showing high-tempo offenses increased the risk of injury, would you be in favor of a rule to slow down college football?

12% Yes
37% Yes, but only if the risk was massively increased
51% No

---

Not surprised at all by that poll.

quote:

---

Our three losses were to spread teams, true... We outgained Auburn, and missed 3 FGs before the one that fell short. That had a lot more to do with it.

We outgained Texas A&M, but had three turnovers including one at the goal line that would've put us ahead, probably for the win.

We outgained Oklahoma, but had five turnovers and a missed FG - a game we lost by two scores.

Our offense and special teams, or to be fair, Texas A&M's and Oklahoma's defenses as well as Auburn forcing us to FG attempts, had more to do with it. Sure, we gave up points, but we held AU and Texas A&M's offenses to under 30 points each. That should have been enough to win both games if our offense had made its normal output.

---

that looks like a lot of moral victories, yall should just claim the W's

quote:

---

if you were not retarded you would realize that those 3 losses were not about hunh. The a&m trouble was almost 100% due to manziel, not defensive scheme. We normally had the right play in, he would just make something out of nothing. The auburn loss this year had more to do with our own 3rd down trouble on offense, poor field goal kicking, and a bad offensive strategy than Auburns offense. The Oklahoma loss was petty much 100% due to offensive miscues, namely 5 turnovers. You don't turn the ball over like that and beat a top 10 team. We were weaker this year on d than past years but we still were one of the best in the country and were plenty good to repeat. We should have used the auburn offensive game plan at Oklahoma and the Oklahoma offensive game plan at auburn. Auburns pass d was hot garbage yet we kept trying to run right through the best part of their team, the dline. Oklahoma could not stop our rushing attach to save their lives so of course we throw it at then and turn it over a bunch.

---