It’s not just that Gary Danielson has this mental block about college offenses running anything other than good ole pro sets. It’s that he’s becoming more and more incoherent about it.
“I think when Penn State plays Northwestern, and both teams run 98 offensive plays, and an NFL game has 65 to 70, the college powers-that-be need to look at their product.”
(For what it’s worth, Penn State ran 99 plays; Northwestern ran 61)
Danielson, a former NFL quarterback, said it’s “all fair” when the offense doesn’t allow the defense to substitute simply by running its plays quickly and exclusively with the personnel it has on the field. Where it becomes unfairly advantageous, Danielson said, is when the ball is placed close to the offense’s sidelines and it’s able to make substitutions so swiftly that the defense is forced to hold tight with the players it has on the field.
So which is it that offends – running too many plays or taking a substitution advantage? Because those are two very different issues.
By the way, as a general rule of thumb, when somebody suggests that the college game needs to look at the product because the NFL does something better, feel free to cry bullshit. The NFL is all about parity. That’s not college. If Hugh Freeze needs to scratch and claw to give his team a chance to stay on the field with Alabama, more power to him. Because if all he does is line up and try to go toe-to-toe, Ole Miss is going to get waxed.
Maybe a forty-point blowout is Danielson’s cup of tea, but I doubt that’s a sentiment shared by a lot of people besides Saban acolytes.