February 14, 2014 · 7:44 AM

“Why are we manipulating the rules?”

Take ten minutes or so out of your day and listen to this interview with Leach yesterday about the proposed substitution rule.  It’s an absolute tour de force.

19 Comments

Filed under Mike Leach. Yar!

19 responses to ““Why are we manipulating the rules?””

  1. americusdawg
    February 14, 2014 at 8:03 AM

    Was up late watching the WWL last night and got a good laugh from this … and no, I’m not a Rich-Rod fan:

    A proposed change by the NCAA rules committee would prohibit offenses from snapping the ball until at least 10 seconds had run off the 40-second play clock, slowing down the up-tempo, no-huddle attacks that have been making defenses dizzy. And Arizona coach Rich Rodriguez, formerly of Michigan, hates the idea. “It’s ridiculous,” said Rodriguez, who has been at the forefront of the fast football trend. “For me, it goes back to the fundamental rules of football. The offense knows where they are going and when they are going to snap the ball. That’s their advantage. The defense is allowed to move all 11 guys before the ball is snapped. That’s their advantage. “What’s next? You can only have three downs? If you play that extra down you have more chance of injury.”

    Like

  2. Go Dawgs!
    February 14, 2014 at 8:17 AM

    Primarily, I hope this stupid rule doesn’t pass. And then, if it doesn’t, I hope that every single team that plays Saban or Bielema (or the Air Force guy, but he’s of much less concern to me) just absolutely blitzes them. I want them to make it a goal to set school records for plays run in a game every time they go out against them. 10 seconds? I want that ball snapped in 7 seconds. I want to go so fast it makes Chip Kelly’s head swim.

    Like

  4. eethomaswfnc
    February 14, 2014 at 8:27 AM

    RichRod, you know where you’re going and when you’re going to snap the ball. That and the following:
    1) the officials no longer call holding – the penalty that most balances the game between offense and defense
    2) defensive players can be ejected for hard hits that are part of football and get penalized whether they are ejected or not
    3) offensive players can run downfield and block as long as the ball is thrown behind the line
    4) the officials don’t consistently give the defense a chance to substitute when the offense substitutes in the HUNH
    5) officials only call offensive pass interference in the most blatant of situations and even then tend to call it on the defense
    6) as long as the QB is “outside the pocket,” he can throw the ball anywhere in the stadium if it’s beyond the LoS and not get called for grounding

    Forcing the offense to wait 3-5 extra seconds to snap the ball, yeah, that’s going to completely change the game from 56-49 track meets to 3-2 defensive struggles.

    Like

    • Scorpio Jones, III
      February 14, 2014 at 9:01 AM

      That’s pretty good, there ee, +1

      Like

    • Hackerdog
      February 14, 2014 at 10:09 AM

      Wouldn’t the obvious solution to offenses holding, or committing pass interference, be to start calling those penalties more often? It just seems asinine to suggest that the solution to the officials not correctly enforcing the rules that are on the books is to put MORE rules on the books for them to screw up enforcing.

      Like

      • eethomaswfnc
        February 14, 2014 at 10:27 AM

        All I’m trying to point out is the hypocrisy on both sides of this issue. I think the player safety argument for this rule is ridiculous, but I also think these coaches who are trying to say this changes the game don’t think about all of the rule changes or non-enforcement of the rules that make it easier for offenses. None of the coaches on this list complaining about the rule typically have defenses that are worth a darn.

        I would like to see the rules of the game enforced by the officials, but the NCAA rules committee has built in rules that tilt the playing field toward the offense.

        Like

        • Hackerdog
          February 14, 2014 at 10:54 AM

          I am sure that offensive coaches would welcome a rule change giving them an advantage. But that’s not the issue here.

          The one significant rule change putting defenses at a disadvantage in recent years is the targeting rule. And that rule was clearly about player safety. I agree that the rule was badly worded and badly enforced. But the intentions were pure.

          What Briles, Sumlin, and Malzahn have done is play a new way within the old rules. Saban doesn’t have time for that shit. He can just change the rules. And the NCAA, so far, is willing to give him his way.

          Like

    • IveyLeaguer
      February 14, 2014 at 11:10 AM

      Well said, ee. The rules have been implemented to favor the offense for decades now. But they finally went too far and crossed the line. Some of these track meets look more like basketball than football. And that’s not a good thing.

      The integrity of the game, in that respect, should be preserved. And we’ve reached the limit. This rule may not be as good as it could be. Like targeting, the idea is good, but it may need tweaking. And the selling of it as a safety issue is horsepuckey.

      This is a time when we need solid leadership from the rules committee, because some of the changes of the past decade need to be dialed back, in order to preserve the game.

      But instead, it looks as if the committee of the last two years was drafted from David Letterman’s staff.
      ~~~

      Like

      • Mayor of Dawgtown
        February 14, 2014 at 1:23 PM

        Yeah, I noticed that, too. Lisa and Linda and Shelley–have they had much experience playing football? And are they running much HUNH in D-III?

        Like

  5. Scorpio Jones, III
    February 14, 2014 at 10:24 AM

    Brotherhood and nobility….If I were trying to describe the coaching profession I am not sure I would pick either of those words.

    These guys are paid to win and only to win…which tends to preclude, in most situations, both brotherhood and nobility, although its nice to hear about it.

    Like

  6. Always Someone Else's Fault
    February 14, 2014 at 10:32 AM

    I’ve never understood blogger/media love for Leach. The man’s a Saban-level jerk – but I guess being an articulate jerk has its pluses.

    Like

    • AuditDawg
      February 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM

      I can see how he comes across that way. However, I read his book a couple years back and just came away with the sense that he’s a really interesting and engaging person. I mean, the guy literally pissed on a dog when he was a kid to get the dog to stop pissing on his sleeping bag. Also, It’s awfully hard not to side with the guy after the way Craig James/ESPN/Texas Tech falsely tore him down.

      Like

      • Mayor of Dawgtown
        February 14, 2014 at 1:28 PM

        I probably shouldn’t admit this but….My family had a cat that had the horrible habit of peeing on our beds. This was an intentional act to “punish” us when we didn’t do something the cat wanted (I know that sounds crazy but cats do that sometimes). I caught the cat in the act so I put the cat in the shower and peed on the cat.

        Like

    • Hackerdog
      February 14, 2014 at 1:44 PM

      I see Leach as a Spurrier-type figure. He might be a jerk, but he’s an authentic and entertaining jerk.

      Like

  7. hunkerdowndawg
    February 14, 2014 at 3:19 PM

    I like Mike. Iconoclast of the first order.

    Like

  8. Russ
    February 14, 2014 at 7:41 PM

    Arrrg! Ye pirate speaks the truth!

    Like