quote:
Why do people continue to call it a gimmick? I mean, football has changed from the very beginning.

The forward pass was considered a gimmick.
The wishbone was a gimmick.
The Veer was a gimmick.
Facemasks were gimmicks.
Hardshell helmets were gimmicks.
Gatorade was a gimmick.
The spread a gimmick.

Any time a new offense or innovation is introduced, it is called a gimmick. Shoot...at one time the internet was considered a gimmick. It won't last!

I call it that mainly because -- and I'm addressing Doreontheplains' observation here too -- I suspect most people are equating "up-tempo" with HUNH. They're not the same, and I consider the comparison with such things as the forward pass and the wishbone to be a false equivalence. Up-tempo is a perfectly legitimate style, though I seriously doubt that up-tempo teams are inherently in measurably better shape than, say, players on LSU or Bama. These kids are all in better shape than most of us will ever be, and the good coaches makes sure their players are capable of the rigors of the game. The main difference is that offense is easier and less strenuous to run than defense regardless of how good a shape you're in. It's easier to block, even when exhausted, than to push past the block and reach the ball-holder. But that's neither here nor there -- pacing is a coaching choice even if it is more suitable, in spirit, with the continuous style of play of basketball . But HUNH isn't some innovation in actual football application. It doesn't introduce a single thing to the actual play on the field. Its primary purpose is to prevent the defense from being in the position to execute regardless of how athletic or well-coached the defense is. Whether it should be nerfed to some degree, I couldn't say. The main debate is actually irresolvable because it's entirely about philosophy and how one views the game and, to a huge extent, how it affects one's favorite team. But it's still not so much an "innovation" as a "gimmick." You don't have to run the HUNH in order to have an up-tempo offense, after all. The HUNH isn't about tempo, it's about a very specific leveraging of the system to undercut the opponent's ability to react to your plays.

I look at it this way. Remember Paul Westhead's run-n-gun Loyola teams? They were famous for running up and down the court and taking every shot they could, trying to cut behind the other team at every opportunity. They looked "good" because they were ramping up the points and, ultimately, outpacing their opponents (and because, on a couple occasions, they actually had legitimate talent.) To the uninitiated, and to the kids who saw only flashy offensive numbers, they looked good. They were up-tempo, but their goal wasn't to outhustle and outplay their opponents, it was to simply keep scoring and hope to keep their opponent from establishing itself. But then they would run into teams that were either legitimately good at the up-tempo as a style rather than a gimmick to keep their opponent off-balance (Arkansas, UNLV) or could deal with the tempo because they were better-coached (UNC.) At that point, the gimmick was exposed for what it was, less a matter of up-tempo style of play (which was a legitimate choice) than a hope and a prayer that the opponent wouldn't be able to get established or, at the very least, wouldn't be able to make up ground lost after a streaky series of possessions (which was a gimmick.) So Arkansas and UNLV would be up-tempo teams, but legitimately well-coached up-tempo teams that relied on out-playing their opponents rather than simply slipping past them.