The Rest of College Football

[entropy]

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/sports/college/2015/01/05/new-website-turns-college-sports-fans-recruiters/21293719/

A new Greenville web company aims to capitalize on the passion of college sports fans. In exchange for their passion, fans can contribute to their favorite school's recruiting pitch.

UBooster is an online platform that allows fans to pledge donations to their favorite college programs. Those donations are contingent on the school signing a designated prospective athlete.

"This gives the average fan a chance to be engaged in the process," UBooster founder and CEO Rob Morgan said Monday morning during the website's launch event at Falls Park.

UBooster allows fans to set up a simple account at ubooster.org and search the top recruits nationwide in football, basketball and other sports. Fans can then select a prospective player that may be considering attending the fan's favorite school. To support the school's efforts in attracting the recruit, the fan pledges to donate funds if that player signs with the school.

Opposing fan bases compete to show the recruits which program can generate the most support, although fans are not obligated to donate the pledged funds if the player does not sign with the fan's favorite school.

If the player selects the fan's favorite school, the pledged funds are drafted by UBooster and initially are transmitted to the non-profit Community Foundation. The foundation pays fees to the credit card companies and UBooster and also assesses a two-percent fee for administrative costs.

Morgan estimated that no less than 85 percent of the original contribution finally is routed to the fan's designated athletic department or booster club.

[THE_WIZARD_]

tOSU 111 Ore-Gone 8

[entropy]

Interesting that Herbstreit has been on the radio recently, stating that rules changes are needed to level the playing field for defenses in CFB.

I say interesting because this sentiment is appearing only now that the SEC is getting a taste of spread football, and their rep for dominant defense is getting shot full of holes. So now its a rules issue, whereas before it was just that everybody else was bad at playing defense.

Your Worldwide Leader folks....

funny how once the SEC complains, ESPN listens..

[Wild Hoss]

I wonder exactly how you could implement rules like that. I mean, you can't seriously outlaw the hurry-up. I think the way they go about things is fine...substitutions basically kill the tempo, so the offense has to keep the same grouping out there. And fake injuries always work!

In any event, the only team that really smokes you with tempo is Oregon and that's mostly because Mariotta is ridiculously good. The proposed policy change is mostly an "anti-Oregon" rule, not a pro-SEC rule, IMO. I also think you'll see more and more SEC teams go tempo. And a couple stay in the "manball" mode. And that'll make for a real problem in trying to put together a defense. Trey DePriest is built to play against LSU, but Oregon -- a bloodbath.

Its not just snap-tempo...AUB for instance will often line up just a few seconds after the ball is set, but stay in place while the play is signaled in, shift their set, and go. That might be another 15 seconds later, but the defense is essentially held hostage; they cannot sub because they don't know when AUB is going to snap it, and no have to time to make alignment/coverage changes based on the offensive set.

Personally, I don't like the idea of adding rules; the officials are overworked and the sport is encumbered by enough rules as it is. NFL games are like watching courtroom dramas. Plus, I believe its the offense's purview to use the allotted time as they see fit.

I'd like to see the root cause addressed; the unspoken legalization of holding in pass pro. If we started to see officiating whereas defenses could pressure the QB with four again because rushers weren't being bear-hugged and tackled- or we saw 7-8 holding calls per game if they were- things will change damn quickly.

[froot loops]

I wouldn't make any rules unless you've seen years of these blur teams dominating college football. The more this stuff gets exposed, the more teams can figure out how to defend it.

The thing is if there is no substitution the offense is limiting itself to what plays they are doing.

[Hannibal]

I'd like to see the root cause addressed; the unspoken legalization of holding in pass pro. If we started to see officiating whereas defenses could pressure the QB with four again because rushers weren't being bear-hugged and tackled- or we saw 7-8 holding calls per game if they were- things will change damn quickly.

IMHO the real root cause is that the bad conventional wisdom about running ultra conservative offenses has bitten the dust. I figured out that running quarterbacks are more dangerous than pocket passing statues when I was in diapers. The run-and-shoot was putting up big numbers 25 years ago. The general principle of putting 3 and 4 wide receivers and forcing the defense to defend the entire field gradually spread to all of football as the silly excuses to not do this died out one-by-one. ("The run and shoot scores too fast" LOL).

[hack]

I'd like to see the root cause addressed; the unspoken legalization of holding in pass pro. If we started to see officiating whereas defenses could pressure the QB with four again because rushers weren't being bear-hugged and tackled- or we saw 7-8 holding calls per game if they were- things will change damn quickly.

AGREED.

[Wild Hoss]

IMHO the real root cause is that the bad conventional wisdom about running ultra conservative offenses has bitten the dust. I figured out that running quarterbacks are more dangerous than pocket passing statues when I was in diapers. The run-and-shoot was putting up big numbers 25 years ago. The general principle of putting 3 and 4 wide receivers and forcing the defense to defend the entire field gradually spread to all of football as the silly excuses to not do this died out one-by-one. ("The run and shoot scores too fast" LOL).

...but that premise exists based on protection. Its not like the 4 WR set wasn't dreamed up until 1989; spread sets have been around forever. The idea that you can drop back and throw out of them 50 times a game is far more recent however, and coincides with the disappearance of holding calls. That's not coincidence, its evolution. Its OCs expanding into new niches.

Try running Baylor's offense with 1970s pass-pro rules, when OTs couldn't extend their arms, and OGs couldn't put a 3t in a headlock when he got his shoulders turned. Or DBs could all but steal a WR's wallet all the way down the field.

Running QBs are about the farthest thing from new there is. Having a running QB who can complete 25 passes in a game? That's new.

[Mackenzie]

I guess I favor some sort of something that would give the defense a chance to substitue. Maybe each team could get x number of substitution timeouts per game stopping the clock only long enough to substitute personnel. Kinda like changing on the fly in the NFL but with the clock stopped. I think basketball, particularly, has instituted a number of rules, play clock or otherwise, over the years--some designed to increase the tempo and some designed to slow the pace down. Some of these changes seem designed to or often benefit the team that is behind. Anyway, I'm not in favor of arena style football. While many teams do not play as fast as Oregon now, there are a number of top teams that imitate the scheme successfully, at least to the extent it significantly impacts defensive substitutions. And, if Saban says he want to play faster that probably speaks to the likelihood of the trend increasing. I think it's either that or fall behind. I think, in the end, it will be all about $$. Putting points on the board (offense) is the name of the game in virtually all sports and what most fans seem to want.

[entropy]

hoss.. agree. Using the whole field is not new.. running QB's are not new (certainly not in the big8).. teams used to leverage play action to slow down the rush and get the ball deep. With holding allowed, there is no need to pretend.

So more holding, less DB contact and higher completion %'s in CF = more scoring and more offense. Power football still works, but you have to score and keep up to allow the OL to take over the game. You can be buried too quickly if you don't score early.

[entropy]

mack.. I understand your intent, but I think it just complicates things. Let DB have more than 5 yds to bump WR's and change what is holding today. That would impact this current pattern.

And frankly, I love seeing the diversity in CF. But let the rules promote multiple ways to win rather than everyone moving to the same types of offenses, which is what I feel is happening today.

[entropy]

The question I've had is unless you have NFL talent at WR, can you win in CF today without QB run plays?

[froot loops]

yes

[entropy]

who is doing it?


and to be clear, when I say winning, I don't mean making a bowl game.. I mean competing at a high level

[Jeff Buchanan]

In any sporting event, the rules will dictate how the competitors will engage or act in it.

There are some great examples of this simple fact, the America's Cup is one of them. The rules have changed four times since it was first run in 1851. The boats are radically different now than they were then with the most recent change producing the first catamaran competitors. These boats will push 30kts whereas the best mono hulls did maybe 15kts.

The point is that you start tinkering and you better know what consequences will be generated both intended and unintended. The NCAA is not a trustworthy entity and I don't trust the conferences or the coaches within them to fashion rule changes that won't advantage one group over another.

Another major problem in CFB is with interpretation by the refs. Leave well enough alone is my idea of all this. Teams adapt to a set of rules and how the various referees interpret them. It's much more difficult when the rules are a moving target. If the NCAA was to do anything worth while it would be to insure uniform interpretation of existing rules by regulating how referees, across all conferences, become qualified and maintain that qualification.