Dick Harmon: Dick Harmon: Proposed NCAA football rule to slow down offenses is ridiculous

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • C99 Birmingham, AL
    March 4, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    Yes, now Ole Miss stressed the Tide in 2012. Nice change. 218 yards offense and a 19 point loss to Alabama. That stressed the Tide.

  • Your Biggest Fan Atlanta, GA
    March 4, 2014 12:28 p.m.

    Alabama 25 Ole Miss 0

    Facts? What are those?

  • C99 Birmingham, AL
    March 4, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    I'm not sure how Alabama beating Ole Miss 33-14 in 2012 equates to Alabama losing to Ole Miss in 2012 as you write in your column. But whatever it takes for you to get your point across--go right ahead.

  • shamgar09 huntsville, AL
    March 4, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    Yeah, Alabama definitely beat Ole Miss in 2012. Ole Miss hasnt beaten Alabama in football in about 10 years if my memory is correct.

  • Ronald Uharriet SWun City, Ca.
    Feb. 17, 2014 9:35 p.m.

    I played football in the early 1950’s. Already I don’t recognize the game as being the same.
    I played both defensive and offensive. There have been far more rule changes than there have been rules that have remained the same.

    I played when we had a End, R Tackel, R Guard, Center, L Guard, L Tackel, Tight End, QB, two half backs and a full back. (Period). When playing Offensive, we could not touch the defense with our hands. Forearms were okay.

    Now with our wide outs, running backs, nickel plays ect., someone always has to explain the rules to me. Why can’t we just play football without changing the rules each season.

  • Frozen Chosen Savage, MN
    Feb. 17, 2014 7:16 p.m.

    You people who are saying it doesn't matter or may be good for BYU are missing the boat. This is a blatant attempt by Saban to eliminate offensive strategies that may keep him from winning a national championship, nothing more.

    Given the level of corruption in the NCAA - especially regarding D-I football - it would not surprise me in the least if this rule passes. The NCAA is committed to keeping the current power structure ($$) intact.

  • Pavalova Surfers Paradise, AU
    Feb. 17, 2014 10:12 a.m.

    Football already has too many dumb rules...let's add another one just for fun.

  • pby47 St George, UT
    Feb. 17, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    Football continues to be dominated by defense. All the old school coaches believe defense will always defeat offense. Football rules have favored the defense for decades...maybe forever. If the offense even flinches, it's a 5 yard penalty, but the defense can jump around and do all kinds of stuff. Level the field, let the offense move too--then Saban will really whine. Defensive players can grab, hold, do just about anything, but if the offense does that it's a 15 yd penalty. You want defenses to dominate? go play soccer, they play for 90 minutes and usually dont' score, the rules are ridiculous in favor of not scoring.

  • Magic Happens Kaysville, UT
    Feb. 17, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    I suspect that if BYU wasn't trying to implement GFGH this article would not have been written.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Feb. 17, 2014 8:40 a.m.

    How about a little cheese with your Whine Nick. I do agree that the Y slowing down might actually teach Taysom how to read a defense. Might help.

  • blue & white Boise, ID
    Feb. 17, 2014 7:55 a.m.

    nuts, nuts, nuts, Sabin can go to the NFL and suggest the rule change for the NFL. this rule if approved will bring controversy. if approved we should have automatic reviews and doesn't count against the coach challenge.
    how about this rule change all plays are reviewed, even after the next snap. if an uncalled penalty is seen in the review it can be called and enforced, ie face mask, horse collar, the first hit for unsportsmanship etc. that ought to slow down the game.
    I am not convinced the go fast go hard strategy is right for BYU, maybe a mix.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    Feb. 17, 2014 2:12 a.m.

    @Black and white;

    Just because it "might not matter a lot" is no reason to implement this rule. The authors point still stands: The rule would eliminate a certain strategy from the game.

    Of course the stuff about auburn is not really accurate but if we may as well start adding rules everywhere that "don't change a lot" but we say ok because someone suggested it, You would have so many rules...

  • Vladhagen Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 16, 2014 10:54 p.m.

    Cy1951 has a valid point. While there are indeed high level coaches on the rules committee, they are from teams that play football like they are from the 1950s.

  • cy1951 Arlington, VA
    Feb. 16, 2014 7:04 p.m.

    The rule is even more outrageous when it is revealed that the ADs and university rtepresentatives on the small rules committee are from, wait for it, Alabama and Arkansas and Air Force -- all teams that were in the bottom five of teams in offensive plays per game. These are the dinosaurs of college football, and they are controlling the rules committee at the NCAA. What a joke.

  • Black & White SLC, UT
    Feb. 16, 2014 10:07 a.m.

    I'm not a fan of Sabin, Alabama or the SEC, nor do I very often agree with "Two For Flinching" comments (lol).

    But truth be told, Auburn did not "spank" Alabama; Alabama lost because their Kick-Off Team failed to make one of many opportunities for a tackle on a full length Free Kick at the end of the game.

    If that game was the reason for Sabin's rule proposal change, then he would proposed the removal of the Free Kick altogether.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 16, 2014 2:06 a.m.

    "It was Auburn’s hurry-up that spanked Alabama last fall."

    .....No it wasn't.

  • Black & White SLC, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 11:02 p.m.

    Your article is a bit confusing. You argue against the new rule, and then you contradict yourself by stating, "Besides, rarely does a team hike the ball in less than 10 seconds, so it's unnecessary."

    So, if it rarely happens, what does it matter and why do you care?

    It sounds more like an anti-Sabin story than an argument against the rule proposal.

    By the way, you should also let the readers know that the "NCAA Committee" you are vilifying is made up primarily of College Football Coaches and Administartors from all over the United States, at all levels of the game, and not a bunch of nonsensical beauracratic rules makers or Monday-morning quarterbacks sitting in the confines of NCAA offices or Living Rooms. These folks live the game, coach the teams, prepare the players, and are much closer to it than 99% of those reading this article.

    As a BYU beat writer I'm surprised you don't support this rule change. I actually think it might help BYU's QB take a little more time to get a better read on the Defense and reduce the number of mistakes and "3 & Outs" experienced last year.

  • deseret pete robertson, Wy
    Feb. 15, 2014 10:00 p.m.

    Amen Dick -- Saban is trying to pull an Obama trick -- change the goal post for his benefit

  • idablu Idaho Falls, ID
    Feb. 15, 2014 9:39 p.m.

    I am disturbed that the NCAA is even considering this rule and listening to the master manipulator Nick Saban. What a piece of work. I, too, am a BYU fan who is not quite sold on the Hurry-up, but to make a rule to prevent it is beyond stupid. But never underestimate the NCAA's uncanny ability to make self-destructive decisions...

  • DEW Cougars Sandy, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 7:18 p.m.

    Yeah, sound stupid. But, I wonder if some fans didn't like "go hard, go fast" that those schools including BYU are using. Maybe T. Hill will have more time to stay in the pocket and look for his receivers this time around but it is up to our O-Lines to make it work. Okay Alabama, no more all running game and start playing more passes.