Agree or Disagree, or Whatever . . . .

Buc, even if Bobo is just regurgitating what one of the anointed ST coaches said, it still amazes me that it would be deemed that an incoming freshman already has a "main job", and a pretty damn important one at that. Maybe he will be all that, but how can they even imply that before a player has even enrolled and practiced? Just leads me to believe nothing at all has changed, even with Pruitt coming aboard. The "king" still has his favorites, who are going to play, regardless of that whole competition thingy in practice.

sadlerdawg, leads me to wonder about some young players that were being recruited prior to McKenzie, same things were being said. With McKenzie, might be some of that behind closed doors talk. Every player wants to hit the field from freshman status on. Could also be that our newly appointed director of recruiting, McClendon, wiser than those that wear the big hats.

Another article that caught my eye sadlerdawg. Comes from Saturday Down South. What do you think? I am not big on the NCAA, but hope being able to substitute as recommended is a big step forward. Of course, I have let it be know that I like defensive football. Not knowing the play called, having to read formations, tough job. May be that we have a teacher(s) now that can relate.

Defensive Substitutions
The targeting penalty changes will get all the headlines, but the defensive substitution proposal would be a complete game changer.

The rules committee is proposing to let defenses substitute within the first 10 seconds of the 40-second play clock, with the exception of the final two minutes of the half…all in the name of player safety, via NCAA.org.

“This rules change is being made to enhance student-athlete safety by guaranteeing a small window for both teams to substitute,” said Calhoun. “As the average number of plays per game has increased, this issue has been discussed with greater frequency by the committee in recent years and we felt like it was time to act in the interests of protecting our student-athletes.”

The offense wouldn’t be allowed to snap the ball until the play clock reached 29 seconds or less, and if it happens, a 5-yard delay of game penalty will be enforced.

Under the current rules, defenses don’t have the opportunity to substitute players in and out if the offenses don’t. That’s why Auburn and Texas A&M, among others, have created favorable matchups and keep their foot on the gas pedal.

Related: Nick Saban & Bret Bielema lobbying for what would benefit their teams

Let’s call this the Bret Bielema and Nick Saban rule. Both coaches are proponents of defenses substituting, and both have been outspoken against up-tempo offenses. Bielema has been a critic of the style of offense in the name of player safety.

The release said the committee discussed the issue at length before ultimately coming to the conclusion that defensive teams should be allowed some period of time to substitute.

All rules proposals must be approved by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel held on March 6th.

I hope they go with that proposal, Buc. I think it is a safety issue to allow players to substitute. I, too, prefer defensive football. I also wish, regardless of this rule change, that they would allow defensive players that are obviously trying to get off the field, to do so without being flagged if the offense snaps the ball when they still have one foot on the field. It's ridiculous, so I hope they change it to the 10 second sub rule.

Absolute agreement with you sadlerdawg on not throwing a flag if a substitution is being made and the player leaving the field has a foot or body length or so on the field but the teams intentions are clear. Too much power with "some" officiating football that think "they" are the game. Think most of us are aware of one official in particular that seems to work that way against UGA.

Anyone ever watch a tirade of a coach going onto the field (urban meyer) many times and a flag not being thrown?

Parts of football over the years have in my opinion, taken the sport down, not up.

Funny how the term "common sense" applies to most situations in life. Know that you run up against the "common sense" thingy that is not followed.

I hope that change does go through, but make no mistake about the fact that Saban supports this because of player safety. He supports that rules change (as would I) just in order to slow down the game where the defenses have some shot to get their correct personnel on the
field. The "hurry up" now being employed by a lot of teams is an equalizer for the dominant D that
coaches like Saban use to dominate the game. A&M beat 'Bama with it, and UGA moved up and down the field and almost upset 'Bama in the SEC champ game because of it.

The rule change may have some safety implications, but I'm not buying that's why a Nick Saban supports it. He supports it because several of his opponents are utilizing it to catch his dominant D in the wrong package and then take advantage of that by not letting them substitute. Saban himself rarely uses it as he just prefers for his O to line up and physically man handle most D's, so it's not going to hamper his team very much if you can't do it any longer.... but it will certainly help his D out.

I'm in favor of the change as well, but I'll be perfectly honest and say I want it because
I think almost every rules change over the past 15+ years have been disadvantageous to defenses.
Enough is enough... D players are scared to hit because for fear of "targeting", if their hand brushes a QB hemet they will be flagged for 15, and DB's can't hardly touch receivers while receivers routinely get away with push offs and picks. At least let the D have time to get it's
personnel on the field.

Think A&M or Oregon supports it? Think they just have meanie coaches who don't care about "player safety". Yeah... I think the ayes and the nays are divided up here based on these hurry up O's being good or bad for their approach to the game.