The Rest of College Football

[entropy]

I think as this conversation goes forward, and I am enjoying it, Michigan fans and Nebraska fans will show their bias.. ours will certainly be the importance of a running QB

[Hannibal]

Trust me -- you don't have to sell me on the potency of the running QB.

But take 4 WRs plus running a QB, and you get Ohio State lighting up the scoreboard with a young offensive line and a third string QB.

[entropy]

which I think goes back to the rules.. young OL used to hurt teams. But if they can hold more, and WR touched less, puts a lot of stress on the back 7. I still think Hoss is right. Today's offense couldn't exist 20 yrs ago.

btw.. how good would guys like Turner Gill be in today's offenses?

[entropy]

so is the CF game just basketball on grass going forward? Or is it time to get rid of DE and traditional LB's..

[entropy]

and yes, I'm on a long call listening.. =)

[Wild Hoss]

No -- it exists on the premise that it is easier for a shitty receiver to get open than it is for a solid lineman or a tight end to make a block. The world's worst receiver takes a pass rusher out of the box simply by existing. We saw this at Michigan the past two years. When it became obvious that our tight ends couldn't block, the only way that our offense ever worked was when we didn't have any tight ends on the field. It's not just the passing game that is easier with four WRs, but the running game. This is why spread offenses constantly rank at the top in ypc, as opposed to power running offenses that are ironically less effective running the ball than finesse offenses. It's just really damn hard to stop the run with only six guys in the box. Calling more holding would reduce yards and points, no doubt. I doubt it would change the optimal configuration for most offenses, howver, now that mediocre quarterbacks can complete 60% of their passes.

Passing starts with protection; every coordinator and coach you ask will tell you that. The reason? You can’t complete passes if you’re on your ass. Simplistic, but true.

Whether calling holding would change base configurations depends on how often you call it...which has been a point of contention in football for years of course. If you are Texas Tech for instance, and throw 70 passes and never get flagged for holding once (This happened in a game against OU a few years ago) why would you ever stop passing? Now...what if you get flagged 5 times in 40 attempts? Or 8 times? Or 10 (Which could easily happen give how absurd pass pro is today) And that happens week after week? Damn right your offense is going to change...either by your choice, or the coach who replaces you.

Nor does simply spreading out a defense mean you can run the ball; you can run through those spaces...but so can guys coming the other way. (There’s a guy named Frank Solich who could go into detail on that issue)

PS: Looks like I missed a substantial edit. I had this copied, so I am rolling as is.

[Wild Hoss]

Have you seen the ratings for college football? Through the roof.

Have you seen attendance? Dropping. Its a sign.

[entropy]

hoss.. I assume you were talking about the OL at TT's traditionally wide splits.

While I agree with you it starts up front (and always had), you can't discount the freedom WR's have running around. Give a QB more seconds in the pocket, PLUS wr's getting open faster/cleaner... completion %'s go up. So why wouldn't you pass more???

also, I've often told you it seems to me more holding calls are made on run plays.. The NCAA is getting what they want. More casual fans watching.

[Hannibal]

I think that you guys might be overestimating how much college football's traditional fans like seeing the offense as much as the casuals. Do know any hardcore, long time college football fans who watched the Cotton Bowl and said "Bah, this shit's boring"?

[Wild Hoss]

which I think goes back to the rules.. young OL used to hurt teams. But if they can hold more, and WR touched less, puts a lot of stress on the back 7. I still think Hoss is right. Today's offense couldn't exist 20 yrs ago.

What it comes down to is that ?Spread? runs are dependent on the defense approaching the formation as a passing set. If the defense doesn?t, and doesn't respect that passing threat, the spread concept turns on you in a hurry...as I mentioned earlier with our experience under Frank Solich. If you go 10 personnel and try to run against Cover 3 or 4 with a ?run? mindset for instance, even with a running QB, you?ll get crushed if talent is anywhere near equal.

[hack]

Completely agree about a running threat from the QB. I want that.

[Wild Hoss]

I think that you guys might be overestimating how much college football's traditional fans like seeing the offense as much as the casuals. Do know any hardcore, long time college football fans who watched the Cotton Bowl and said "Bah, this shit's boring"?

IDK that the second-ever FBS playoff game is probably representative of viewership overall.

I fully admit that its a difficult premise to support...its just feelings after all. But tell me you haven't heard the same.

[entropy]

I think fans want results because of good plays and not because people are out of position, sloppy or making a lot of mistakes. I find just as much enjoyment in a great defensive battle and would tell you a game with two teams in the 20's/low 30's is my personal ideal.

I'd also say MSU's comeback made that game exciting..

[entropy]

What it comes down to is that ?Spread? runs are dependent on the defense approaching the formation as a passing set. If the defense doesn?t, and doesn't respect that passing threat, the spread concept turns on you in a hurry...as I mentioned earlier with our experience under Frank Solich. If you go 10 personnel and try to run against Cover 3 or 4 with a ?run? mindset for instance, even with a running QB, you?ll get crushed if talent is anywhere near equal.

yes.... that thought works for non spread teams too. If you don't have a credible threat to pass the ball, nobody will defend it... well, except Bo P.

But the rule changes are making the threat more attainable.

[Mackenzie]

I think that you guys might be overestimating how much college football's traditional fans like seeing the offense as much as the casuals. Do know any hardcore, long time college football fans who watched the Cotton Bowl and said "Bah, this shit's boring"?

I think I fit in there somewhere, Hanni. But, I know that if CFB turns into basketball on grass, arena football, or team with the ball last wins on any kind of regular basis that I would become disinterested with CFB as a whole. It's just my feeling that, while we are not there now, CFB seems to be morphing towards it.