Consider the source

Mike Leach, Hugh Freeze, Rich Rodriguez – the media’s go-to guys on what’s wrong with the new substitution rule proposal the NCAA dropped on everyone yesterday.  No question they were all pretty eloquent expressing their dissent, but if you’re gonna check the temperature of no-huddle gurus who are feeling put upon with restrictions from above, why not go to the guy who’s actually got experience in that department?

Since coming to Georgia, Richt has all but ditched the fast break offense he made famous at Florida State because, he says, the league’s officials don’t allow him to go fast enough to make it worthwhile. SEC officials are required to pause for 12-14 seconds between each play, and that’s not going to change despite Richt’s arguments, Gaston said.

“He doesn’t agree with it, but he knows what we’re doing,” Gaston said.

The mandatory pause is to allow the officiating crew to get in position, Gaston said. Richt argued that the officials should put the ball in play as soon as they are set, regardless of how much time has elapsed, but Gaston said that would provide the offense an unfair advantage.

“Mark Richt would eat their lunch,” he said. “He would go straight to the ball and snap it. He’d get in 100 plays. We have about half the coaches who think we go too fast and about half who think we go too slow so we must be in about the right spot.”

At least Gaston was more honest about his motives than the NCAA Football Rules Committee is with that safety bullshit.

Funny, but at the time, I don’t remember anyone rushing to Richt’s side in that fight.  Or even willing to give him a public platform to express his point.  Maybe everyone else thought players were safer then.


UPDATE:  And I thought I was just kidding about this yesterday.



Filed under Strategery And Mechanics, The NCAA

23 responses to “Consider the source

  1. So Richt wanted to go even faster than today’s no huddle offenses?


    • Gravidy

      No, he wanted to go as fast as today’s no huddle offenses are allowed to go. The SEC refs wouldn’t allow him to go that fast when he came from FSU. Now it seems like the NCAA is going to adopt that 10+ year old SEC mindset.

      I actually don’t mind the new rule (if it will be enforced consistently) because I like to see some defense played. 56-49 games aren’t my cup of tea. However, I do wish they would have the stones to admit why they are changing the rule and stop hiding behind that safety bullshit.


      • Agreed. Nobody mentions how far ahead of the curve Richt was. Why did they stop him? Too innovative at the time? And why did they allow it the past few years? Questions I would like to see answered by the SEC.


        • I don’t mind the rule either…think the hurry up is a cheap way to gain advantage, however who knows how I would of felt had Richt been able to do it years ago before it became fashionable.


        • Mayor of Dawgtown

          Answer: Discrimination against the University of Georgia. Booby gaston, then head of SEC officials, was a tech man. He hated Georgia. CMR was doing something that would have given the Dawgs a huge advantage over other SEC programs. So, Gaston killed it with BS.


          • Ausdawg85

            You may have the wrong conspirators. Ever notice how it’s really been since we beat the Chosen Ones in 1980 that things don’t go our way? Far-fetched you say? Who did Bama beat in their last MNC? Let’s see how that works out for them now, shall we? Hmmmmmm…..


            • Mayor of Dawgtown

              Really? Saban is now getting the NCAA to change the HUNH so the D can substitute. The conspirators are really screwing Bama with that rule change. Aussie, that one is a little to much “grassy knoll” for even me to buy into–and I buy into all of ’em.


              • AusDawg85

                Damn. Thought you might bite on that one. 😉 If Bama goes 7-5 this season, I’m bringing it back up. Don’t mess with Touchdown Jesus is all I’m saying.


          • And think of it, that was BEFORE we pissed off that petty grudge holding Penn Wagers.


  2. Scorpio Jones, III

    What I remember is that Phil Fulmer whined about it endlessly.


    • Yes he did. I remember two things from his TV show after we Hobnailed them. He mentioned something about this on reviewing the game and said he was going to be taking this up with the SEC. The other thing was when it came time for Haynes TD as soon as he slipped past the line he let out a big exasperated sigh just like the one’s Al Gore caught so much grief over in a debate. Good times.


  3. It’s ironic that so many have forgotten how the League put the brakes on Richt’s offense, just took it off the table, when he was the only one doing it.

    And for the last several years, the same League won’t allow enough time for Richt’s defense to get set (of course, when they do allow enough time we still can’t get set, but that’s beside the point).

    And like you, I detest the lack of honesty. Since 2012, the rules committee, once the great stablizer of CF, has gone schizophrenic. Last year proved that.


  4. mdcgtp

    at a minimum, at least they made an attempt to right the wrong of the idiocy of the targeting rule and unwillingness to pick up the flag on a clean hit.

    I agree with the notion that the rationale is totally and completely intellectually dishonest. Its not about safety (despite the obvious point that all things being equal unless the rate of plays per injury drops in HUNH games, it does in fact increase the risk of injury by virtue of running more plays…its just a question of how big that risk is it simply linear to the number of plays or not?)

    In my opinion, I agree with the limits on pace from the perspective of what I enjoy and think the game should incorporate. There should be balance between innovation and exploitation of the rules. Ultimately, I firmly believe that rules should always be evaluated to the reality of the era. at one point, there were rules about two platoon football. One inescapable feature of the game is that the offense knows the play and the defense does not. Pace accentuates that advantage.

    Here is my question:

    would the HUNH crowd be willing to give up a down (i.e., 3 downs to make 10 yards) or be required to make say 13 yards instead of 10 in 4 downs, for the right to run hurry up (creating some type of exclusion for teams trying to come back).?


  5. Always Someone Else's Fault

    I really don’t like an unrestricted HUNH simply for aesthetic reasons. Scoring should be harder than, “Oh, we’ve caught them in the wrong personnel group, let’s just run the same 3 plays over and over again until we score a TD.” I understand that plenty of sophisticated football fans do like it. I also don’t like 3-2. I think we’re close to a good equilibrium on that front, and I really don’t have an issue with the proposed rule change.

    Did you have to be invited to the rules session, or could anyone have attended?


  6. 202dawg

    Filed under ‘shit Saban DOES have time for and moving on…


  7. Sanford222view

    I wonder why Richt/Bobo hasn’t used more of his Fast Break offense since the rules have started allowing it recently? I realize with Gurley and Co. UGA might not need to as much because of the strength of the running game but it seems we would see it more from the Dogs.


  8. El Dawgo in El Paso

    I’ve wondered about the logic of allowing the HUNH in the last 2 minutes of each half but not at the other times. So the refs can hurry and get in position for the last 2 minutes but not the rest of the half (maybe we need refs in better shape)? Or is player safety not nearly as important in the last 2 minutes?

    If the HUNH wasn’t allowed in the last 2 minutes, we would never see the atrocity that is the prevent defense.


  9. Ogeecheedawg

    “We have about half the coaches who think we go too fast and about half who think we go too slow so we must be in about the right spot.”

    Late to the party – ice storm, you know.
    You mean nobody is going to point out that the SEC refs are half-fast?