Skip to content

Saban: “I had nothing to do with idea of the 10-second rule”

Nick Saban AP

While his name has been prominently mentioned as one of what appears to be a small group of coaches in favor of the controversial rule proposal that would somewhat throttle high-octane offenses, Nick Saban has yet to speak publicly on the imbroglio.  Until now.

Prior to speaking at a Georgia Minority Coaches Association event Friday night, the Alabama head coach met with reporters and made it perfectly clear that he “had nothing to do with the idea of the 10-second rule.”  Saban, who was reportedly permitted to speak in front of the NCAA’s Football Rules Committee that forwarded the proposal to the NCAA Rules Oversight Panel for further consideration, added that he doesn’t even “necessarily have an opinion on the 10-second rule” before going on to give his opinion on why the proposal needs further research.

Essentially there are three reasons behind Saban’s call for further research, which some would call nothing more than thinly-veiled support.

The first and most-stressed reason, as the company line goes for those in favor of a proposal that would penalize an offense if it snaps the ball before 10 seconds have run off the play clock, is player safety.  The higher the tempo an offense runs, the theory goes, the more opportunity there is for players — specifically those on the defensive side of the ball — to wear down, thus making them more susceptible to injury.

“When you look at plays that are run, and a team averages 88 plays, and we average 65 at Alabama, that’s 20-something plays more a game over a 12-game season, that adds up to four more games a year that guys have to play,” Saban said in quotes transcribed by al.com‘s Joel Erickson. “I think it’s wear and tear and tougher to prepare players when you have to play against a hurry-up offense because of the way you have to practice.”

Three teams at the FBS level in 2013 — Texas Tech (90.3), BYU (89.9) and Cal (88.7) — averaged more than 88 plays per game per TeamRankings.com.  A total of 20 teams averaged more than 80 per game, while 33 averaged 70 or less.  The Tide’s 65.9 plays per game were 116th (out of 125 teams), with Arkansas and Bret Bielema, a vocal foot-in-the-mouth proponent of the proposal, at 121st with their 64.7 plays per game.

Saban said the 10-second proposal was born out of the committee studying “12 games of three fastball teams: Oregon, Auburn, Texas A&M and I forget the fourth one, it might have been Baylor, I’m not sure.”  That study found the new rule would’ve impacted those teams an average of four times per game, meaning that narrow focus group snapped the ball prior to 10 seconds running off the game clock around four times per game.  Saban used that limited data to once again shift the focus to the player-safety issue.

“I don’t think anybody was trying to change what they do or how they do it,” Saban said of the Fast Four, “but the fact that they can get on the line and snap it quick, you can’t substitute. All right. So, that becomes an eventual player safety issue and I think if you ask the guys philosophically, a lot of them that run the offense, they say we want to wear the defense down and get the defense tired. Well, you get the defensive players tired they are going to be more susceptible to getting injured.”

That study by the committee and the rule’s supposed limited impact on uptempo offenses is rather skewed, however, as Baylor, which was fifth in plays per game, was the only one of the four that finished in the Top 30 in the country in that category.  Noted “fastball” teams Oregon, Texas A&M and Auburn were 39th (76.6), 61st (73.8) and 62nd (73.8), respectively.

Most of the opponents of the new rule proposal, including all four of those teams used by the committee, have cited no hard scientific data to support that this is a player-safety issue.  Saban, though, had an answer for that as well.

“Even though  there is no scientific data to prove this, there was a study at Virgina Tech in 2003,” Saban said. “All right, they did sub-concussive head traumas on eight players for 10 games. Those players played 61 plays a game and had 18 sub-concussive hits in a game, so they played 61 plays a game for 10 games.

“So, I’m saying if you’re playing nose guard, three-technique, defensive end, offensive tackle, offensive guard, if you played 88 plays in a game, there’s no scientific evidence but there is some logic that says the guy would have more hits. So, that’s a player safety issue that I think people need to sorta look at.”

In addition to the player-safety issue, Saban also cited officials being allowed to dictate the tempo of the game — he lauded the NFL for allowing its officials to control the pace of the game, not coaches — and “any competitive imbalance created by the pace of play,” the latter of which most people feel is the crux of Saban’s support for the proposal call for additional research.

The NCAA Rules Oversight Panel is expected to vote yea or nay on the proposal this coming week, with most predicting the proposal will be shot down.  At the very least, the proposal will be tabled for further discussion in 2015 as it’s not an issue of player safety and thus not up for immediate implementation.

I think this is more of a style of play issue than a player safety (issue),” Georgia head coach Mark Richt said at the same event. “I think if you could teach offensive players to play six plays in a row, you can teach defensive players to play six plays in a row.”

Permalink 56 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Alabama Crimson Tide, Rumor Mill, Southeastern Conference, Top Posts
56 Responses to “Saban: “I had nothing to do with idea of the 10-second rule””
  1. irishfbfan1 says: Mar 1, 2014 10:34 AM

    Many people, looking at all this, are trying to give Coach a bad rap because of his philosophy about how it is unfair to the defense with all this uptempo play by the offense. Saban has and always will be a defensive minded football coach, and a damp
    Good one at that, and he feels that the offense
    Has enough going for them anyway and now with this…I respect him for standing up in what he believes in. Coach is not trying to change the game, and he invites new ideas, but he feels the new trends need to be safe and fair for both sides of the ball. You can’t blame him for standing up for what he believes in.

    GO IRISH

  2. jtinnon2009 says: Mar 1, 2014 10:35 AM

    Coach Saban sounds quite upfront with his comments. Obviously, he’d like to see the rule pass but more importantly, he had nothing to do with the idea being proposed, as he is commonly blamed. This coach gets more static for being successful than any coach I have ever seen. I think the amount of envy and jealousy projected toward him is unwarranted and absurd. Those who really know him have tremendous respect and admiration for his honesty and integrity. Those that don’t know him make critical comments (talking heads) and unfounded insinuations based on some skewed perception..

  3. amosalanzostagg says: Mar 1, 2014 11:18 AM

    Coach Saban,

    Luv ya, glad you’ve made Alabama your home, but the first rule in crisis management is to stop digging in the hole, it only gets deeper.

    You’re successful, recruits buy into your program.
    Now learn to adapt and defeat the hurry up offense because our last three losses, Texas A&M, Auburn and Oklahoma, utilized the hurry up with a superior
    mobile QB, Either we successfully adapt or end up like Texas, resting on our past.

    RTR

  4. thraiderskin says: Mar 1, 2014 11:18 AM

    His best argument is the number of plays and how they equate to the number of football games. I think that is a fair argument, but the rule just sounds so stupid.

  5. bender4700 says: Mar 1, 2014 11:32 AM

    Has no one found a way to counter the “Nobody Running a Fast Paced Offense Has Won the Title” argument?

    The CFT article about teams that ran the most plays lists out teams that haven’t won the title.

    It’s a stupid rule, but it’s not going to stop teams from winning the title, might improve their chances.

  6. 4512dawg4512 says: Mar 1, 2014 11:37 AM

    “I guess I have to say it. I’m not going to be the Alabama coach.”

    And now he wants us to believe that he had nothing to do with this rule that would prevent teams from making his almighty defense look slow and gassed?

    Sure Nick, we believe you

  7. drewsylvania says: Mar 1, 2014 11:38 AM

    As if Saban’s word isn’t anything but ****.

  8. goodfieldnohit says: Mar 1, 2014 11:49 AM

    “I had nothing to do with idea of the 10-second rule”

    http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

  9. kdbroom says: Mar 1, 2014 12:11 PM

    Saban has openly lied before (“I won’t be the next coach of Alabama”). Why should we believe he isn’t lying now?

  10. barkleyblows says: Mar 1, 2014 12:21 PM

    Yep I believe you cheater

  11. kdbroom says: Mar 1, 2014 12:30 PM

    “I had nothing to do with the idea of the 10-second rule”

    actually means….

    “Someone else came up with the 10-second idea, and I asked them to float it to the NCAA.”

    Plus, his comments regarding only ~4 plays actually occurring during the first 10 seconds (and therefore, this rule isn’t really that big of a deal) is misleading. Under the current rules, if a team lines up on the ball within the first 10 seconds, they CAN snap the ball. The fact that they rarely do (only ~4 times a game) is immaterial. The key point is that their lining up forces you to get your defense into position, rather than substituting. The 10-second rule means that if they quickly line up, the defense can just ignore them (which they CAN’T do now), and freely substitute.

    I’m calling BS on Saban’s comments. He knows exactly what he’s doing, and he’s using politician-speak to dance around the issue. He’s behind this movement, and everyone knows it.

  12. christophershearin says: Mar 1, 2014 12:36 PM

    just give them all skirts, that’s where this is going. if you are really worried about safety then the ncaa will ban football outright, there is a risk of injury inherent in the game, and no amount of idiotic rule changes will affect that, either accept that football is a physical sport and injuries will happen, or outlaw football

  13. goodfieldnohit says: Mar 1, 2014 1:03 PM

    “I had nothing to do with idea of the 10-second rule”

    And Russia isn’t invading Ukraine.

  14. mattypbillsmafia says: Mar 1, 2014 1:23 PM

    Wouldn’t the offensive players be on the field for about 4 extra games a year as well? If the offense is running all these plays, and not substituting, aren’t those players exposed to more injuries as well? I’m calling bs on this whole thing…

  15. huskerzfan says: Mar 1, 2014 1:35 PM

    This whole proposed 10 second rule change is getting blown way out of proportion.

    As was stated, it might affect 3 to 4 plays a game even for the fastest of teams.

    With all the pro-offensive rules changes that have occurred over the past few decades of college and pro football, it would actually be nice to see something in favor of the defense for a change.

  16. caudlecatherine says: Mar 1, 2014 1:42 PM

    Saban does have something to do with this rule. On 10042012 he made this statement to the press:

    Saban blasts hurry-up offenses

    Views9269Comments231

    08:17 AM ET 10.04 | Not far removed from facing Ole Miss, Alabama coach Nick Saban took aim at a trend sweeping across college football. “I think that the way people are going no-huddle right now, that at some point in time, we should look at how fast we allow the game to go in terms of player safety,” Saban said on [Wednesday's] SEC teleconference. … “It’s obviously created a tremendous advantage for the offense when teams are scoring 70 points and we’re averaging 49.5 points a game. With people that do those kinds of things. More and more people are going to do it. I just think there’s got to be some sense of fairness in terms of asking is this what we want football to be?”

    al.com

    Is it really about the players safety Saban?

  17. huskerzfan says: Mar 1, 2014 1:55 PM

    @ kdbroom says:
    Mar 1, 2014 12:30 PM

    “I had nothing to do with the idea of the 10-second rule”

    actually means….

    “Someone else came up with the 10-second idea, and I asked them to float it to the NCAA.”

    Plus, his comments regarding only ~4 plays actually occurring during the first 10 seconds (and therefore, this rule isn’t really that big of a deal) is misleading. Under the current rules, if a team lines up on the ball within the first 10 seconds, they CAN snap the ball. The fact that they rarely do (only ~4 times a game) is immaterial. The key point is that their lining up forces you to get your defense into position, rather than substituting. The 10-second rule means that if they quickly line up, the defense can just ignore them (which they CAN’T do now), and freely substitute.

    I’m calling BS on Saban’s comments. He knows exactly what he’s doing, and he’s using politician-speak to dance around the issue. He’s behind this movement, and everyone knows it.

    __________________________________

    Well, this is kind of the whole point.

    HUHN offenses are creating such a distinctive advantage. They can “appear” to be lined up to run a play so that defenses can’t substitute, while receiving signals and plays from the sideline. This happens all while their offensive coaches are able to sort through the next play call, and given an advantage to substitute to the call they want only giving the defense seconds to respond.

    The advantage this gives to offenses is extreme. The no huddle isn’t the problem, it is the posturing and coaching that is allowed from the sideline while teams are supposedly lined up to snap the ball.

    The offense gets a long and free look at the defense before (while holding them captive in their “look”) actually having to call a play.

    Couple that with just about every rule change that has occurred in recent times being in favor of offenses, and we are now seeing the 50s-40s scores in a number of games.

    Do we really want Arena Football scores each and every weekend in which football is more or less 7-on-7 2 hand touch below the waist?

  18. auburntigers34 says: Mar 1, 2014 2:22 PM

    bender4700 says: Mar 1, 2014 11:32 AM Has no one found a way to counter the “Nobody Running a Fast Paced Offense Has Won the Title” argument?

    I don’t know why you keep posting this. Auburn won the NC in 2010 with a HUNH offense. Find a new question.

  19. huskerzfan says: Mar 1, 2014 2:23 PM

    @ christophershearin says:
    Mar 1, 2014 12:36 PM

    just give them all skirts, that’s where this is going. if you are really worried about safety then the ncaa will ban football outright, there is a risk of injury inherent in the game, and no amount of idiotic rule changes will affect that, either accept that football is a physical sport and injuries will happen, or outlaw football
    __________________________________

    Well, actually, HUNH offenses are making football a much lesser contact sport. These offenses are designed to take advantage of defenses by getting players in space, which limits contact, while giving their offenses as many free yards as possible with as little contact as possible.

    HUHN offenses, for a large part, take away OL and DL play, and put an emphasis on speed and specialty players. You know, kind of like flag football and arena league football.

    Is that really where we want our physical game of football to go?

  20. kdbroom says: Mar 1, 2014 2:28 PM

    @huskerzfan,

    The defenses need to disguise what they’re doing, and that will take away the offensive advantage of play calling from the sidelines. This strategy is nothing new. Steve Spurrier was letting his offense line up, and then signaling in plays (based off the defensive alignment), way back in the early 90s. More teams are just doing it now from different types of offenses. Until defenses can learn to adapt, the offenses will have an upper hand. And, don’t think that defenses aren’t signaling in plays before the snap. It’s just not as obvious as when the defense does it. Watch the defensive coaches during any game.

    Reference your comment “just about every rule change that has occurred in recent times being in favor of offenses”….that’s an assumption, stated as fact. Can you back up that assertion?

  21. huskerzfan says: Mar 1, 2014 2:42 PM

    kdbroom says:
    Mar 1, 2014 2:28 PM

    @huskerzfan,

    Reference your comment “just about every rule change that has occurred in recent times being in favor of offenses”….that’s an assumption, stated as fact. Can you back up that assertion?
    __________________________________

    The list is nearly endless, but I’ll give you 10 for starters:

    1. Late hits close or near the sidelines. Ramped up to protect offensive players. Even if a player is in bounds, but slowing up, defensive players are supposed to recognize this and pull up.
    2. DBs unable to touch WRs/TEs more than 5 yards downfield
    3. Face-guarding WRs/TEs
    4. OL not having to be in a 3 point stance
    5. OL allowed to “hold” as long as they are grabbing the jersey of the DL inside the shoulders and their arms aren’t extended
    6. Horse collar
    7. Most controversial as of late, hits above the shoulder pads on offensive football players are flagged for 15 yards and a possible ejection
    8. Defenseless player rule on hits from defensive players
    9. Ability of players to block down field if the ball is throw behind the line of scrimmage
    10. Basically, you can’t hit a QB. Ever.

    Your turn.

    Name a single rule in the last 2 decades that has been in favor of defense.

  22. bcsh8er says: Mar 1, 2014 3:18 PM

    And you are not the coach of Alabama either, huh Nick?

  23. adambruce88 says: Mar 1, 2014 3:31 PM

    be careful what you wish for. imagine, Bama running a gimmick offense with the talent he represents.

  24. wolfman55h says: Mar 1, 2014 4:01 PM

    If his lips were moving he was lieing.

  25. tigersdawgs says: Mar 1, 2014 4:03 PM

    I’d be embarrassed to play for a cry baby and OBVIOUS liar like Saban! LOL!! Then who did come up with the idea because you cant beat uptempo offenses! Get real!

  26. kdbroom says: Mar 1, 2014 4:11 PM

    @huskerzfan,

    I’d argue that most of those rules had nothing to do with favoring the offense. They were designed to limit injuries (late hits, targeting of the head, horse collar tackles, hitting defenseless players, etc.). Those rule changes have nothing to do with giving the offense any advantage over the defense.

    In the debatable rules changes that you’ve identified, they were meant to reduce unfavorable advantages for the defenses (face guarding, obstructing receivers, etc.), and not to create an offensive advantage.

    Rule changes to help offenses:
    1. Ability to spike the ball into the ground, rather than throwing it out of bounds (saves valuable seconds).
    2. Placing the ball at the 35 after kickoffs go out of bounds (gives the offense better field position, which disadvantages the defense)
    3. Offensive players in the tackle box at the snap, who are not in motion, are allowed to block below the waist legally without restriction (reduces limitations on blocking).
    4. Adjustments to intentional grounding rules (reduces subjectivity of referees’ decision-making).
    5. Putting touchbacks on the 25-yard line (better field position).
    6. Allowing teammates to push or charge into a ballcarrier (makes the “Bush Push” legal).

    The NCAA isn’t like the NFL, so don’t conflate them. The NCAA doesn’t change the rules to create more scoring like the NFL does (in order to put more fans in the seats and in front of TV screens). The rule changes do indeed have some balance at the NCAA level.

  27. kdbroom says: Mar 1, 2014 4:26 PM

    And now for the rule changes to help defenses:
    1. Eliminating extra points after 2nd OT (reduces chance of scoring).
    2. Moving kickoffs back to the 35 yard line.
    3. Restrictions on blocking below the waste outside of the tackle box.
    4. Implementing the 40/25 rules on play clocks (which initially helped standardize the pace of the game…until offenses adjusted to using the no-huddle).
    5. Shrinking the goal posts (reduced probability of successful field goals).
    6. Elimination of tear-away jerseys (this is an old one).
    7. Uncatchable pass rule.
    8. Starting the clock when the ball is set, rather than when the ball is snapped (shortens the game).
    9. Elimination of kicking tees on field goals (reduces probability of successful FG).
    10. Allowing defenses to advance fumbles.

    See, rule changes help both sides.

  28. huskerzfan says: Mar 1, 2014 4:31 PM

    kdbroom says:
    Mar 1, 2014 4:11 PM

    @huskerzfan,

    I’d argue that most of those rules had nothing to do with favoring the offense. They were designed to limit injuries (late hits, targeting of the head, horse collar tackles, hitting defenseless players, etc.). Those rule changes have nothing to do with giving the offense any advantage over the defense.

    In the debatable rules changes that you’ve identified, they were meant to reduce unfavorable advantages for the defenses (face guarding, obstructing receivers, etc.), and not to create an offensive advantage.

    Rule changes to help offenses:
    1. Ability to spike the ball into the ground, rather than throwing it out of bounds (saves valuable seconds).
    2. Placing the ball at the 35 after kickoffs go out of bounds (gives the offense better field position, which disadvantages the defense)
    3. Offensive players in the tackle box at the snap, who are not in motion, are allowed to block below the waist legally without restriction (reduces limitations on blocking).
    4. Adjustments to intentional grounding rules (reduces subjectivity of referees’ decision-making).
    5. Putting touchbacks on the 25-yard line (better field position).
    6. Allowing teammates to push or charge into a ballcarrier (makes the “Bush Push” legal).

    The NCAA isn’t like the NFL, so don’t conflate them. The NCAA doesn’t change the rules to create more scoring like the NFL does (in order to put more fans in the seats and in front of TV screens). The rule changes do indeed have some balance at the NCAA level.

    I appreciate you adding more rules changes to help offenses.

    The question was, however, what do you have for rules changes that has helped defenses over the last 20 years?

    All I saw that you added was more changes to assist offensive football.

  29. huskerzfan says: Mar 1, 2014 4:49 PM

    kdbroom says:
    Mar 1, 2014 4:26 PM

    And now for the rule changes to help defenses:
    1. Eliminating extra points after 2nd OT (reduces chance of scoring).
    2. Moving kickoffs back to the 35 yard line.
    3. Restrictions on blocking below the waste outside of the tackle box.
    4. Implementing the 40/25 rules on play clocks (which initially helped standardize the pace of the game…until offenses adjusted to using the no-huddle).
    5. Shrinking the goal posts (reduced probability of successful field goals).
    6. Elimination of tear-away jerseys (this is an old one).
    7. Uncatchable pass rule.
    8. Starting the clock when the ball is set, rather than when the ball is snapped (shortens the game).
    9. Elimination of kicking tees on field goals (reduces probability of successful FG).
    10. Allowing defenses to advance fumbles.

    See, rule changes help both sides.
    __________________________________

    1. OT rules? Really?
    2. That is actually a rule change to promote offense.
    3. If you could spell waist correctly, I might give you this one.
    4. This gets into the whole HUNH offense anyway and is actually a negative against defenses
    5. Are you really bringing Kickers into this conversation?
    6. Loved tear-away jerseys, but that rule happened more than 20 years ago.
    7. Isn’t that good for the offense?
    8. Again, more favorable to HUNH offenses.
    9. Are you really reduced to talking about Kickeres…again?
    10. Awesome rule change. You mean that before this rule was changed only offensive players could advance a fumble? Good call on an equal playing field.

    Got anything else?

  30. suprmous says: Mar 1, 2014 5:28 PM

    Excuses excuses excuses excuses …………… All I can say is that hole keeps gettin deeper and somebody isn’t willin to own up all he wants to do’s feed his ego and make it out that he’s the only Top Dawg in the Game.

  31. dmvtransplant says: Mar 1, 2014 5:42 PM

    Bet if he had won the Sugar Bowl, he wouldn’t care about fast offenses.

  32. kdbroom says: Mar 1, 2014 6:17 PM

    @huskerzfan,

    Yawn.

  33. huskerzfan says: Mar 1, 2014 6:31 PM

    @ kdbroom says:
    Mar 1, 2014 6:17 PM

    @huskerzfan,

    Yawn.
    __________________________________

    Yep.

    Go play some more video games while the adults discuss the real world.

    Sucks not having a gif or a video that you can plug in to make your smart ass remark doesn’t it?

    You actually have to fend for yourself with actual words and logic.

  34. kdbroom says: Mar 1, 2014 6:42 PM

    @huskerzfan,

    Self-proclaiming victory is a sure sign of low self-esteem. Rather than garnering praise from others (which hasn’t happened), you give it to yourself. So sad.

  35. Romulus says: Mar 1, 2014 7:14 PM

    Let’s call a spade, a spade. Satan hates hurry up spread offenses because they give his defense fits and gets him out of his comfort zone. He wants to change the rules, or would in favor of. Either way, he’s ridiculous and so is the rule.

  36. addict2sport says: Mar 1, 2014 7:54 PM

    Out of concern for their players’ safety, Alabama has Southern Miss, Florida Atlantic and Western Carolina on their schedule.

  37. auburntigers34 says: Mar 1, 2014 8:42 PM

    Saban doesn’t care about player safety.

    http://www.thephinsider.com/2011/12/9/2623356/former-miami-dolphins-coach-nick-saban-steps-over-jeno-james

    The only thing that he cares about is the ability to sub his players and making the most out of his own competitive advantage(the deepest roster in college football).

  38. huskerzfan says: Mar 1, 2014 9:19 PM

    kdbroom says:
    Mar 1, 2014 6:42 PM

    @huskerzfan,

    Self-proclaiming victory is a sure sign of low self-esteem. Rather than garnering praise from others (which hasn’t happened), you give it to yourself. So sad
    __________________________________

    Where did I self proclaim victory?

    What is more than obvious is your lack of reading comprehension and your complete inability to defend your own opinion with facts and logic.

    You asked for facts. I gave you 10. I then asked you for a single instance to defend your opinion, and you can’t even bring forth a single one in your favor while also offering up more than a few examples that go against your own opinion.

  39. kdbroom says: Mar 1, 2014 10:22 PM

    @huskerzfan,

    “Go play some more video games while the adults discuss the real world.” = self-proclaimation that you’ve won the argument.

    You offered up 10 items in your original post, most of which didn’t support your main assertion (that “just about every rule change that has occurred in recent times being in favor of offenses”).

    I then offered up numerous points showing that rules changes have helped both offenses (which you didn’t adequately do in your original post) and defenses.

    Feel free to continue to argue with yourself. I’ve more than supported my main assertion, which is that rule changes have helped both offenses and defenses.

  40. matt24bucs says: Mar 2, 2014 12:19 AM

    In the immortal words of the great Joey Buttafuco– “I didn’t do nottin”!

  41. normtide says: Mar 2, 2014 4:23 PM

    A few quick facts, but most will hate Saban anyway. For the same reason they hated Pete and many others, because they win. They win a lot.

    Saban has a strong winning record vs hunh. He has shut out offenses run by hunh innovators Hugh Freeze and Gus Malhzone.

    Hunh style have really win anything of importance. Auburn did win a title, but I think it had more to do with Newton.

    For the last 7 years the narrative has been that a strong d line can stop the hunh. Stanford vs Oregon is a great example. Go back and read the posts after those stories. For some reason that narrative changed this year. A year that saw FSU’s pro style defeat Auburn’s tempo. The two Bama loses probably brought that change. But the iron bowl loss was in a last second field goal. The Oklahoma loss was more of a strong team getting tired of hearing how Bama was going to beat them by the media. They rose up, like any strong, tradition rich program would do. Tempo played little in that lose. Bama expected the triple option, and OK had Joe Montana show up.

    No team has had the success over the last 7 years that Bama had. With a pro style offense. Meyer’s gator titles are probably the closest thing to major prolonged success by a non- pro style offense in recent memory. And that wasn’t hunh.

    The air raid, fun and gun, and run & shoot offense were all viewed the same way the hunh is now.

    The only issue I see that needs to be addressed at this point is the officials being set and ready at this pace. Watch tape, see how often wr’s are but set for 2 seconds before the snap. It doesn’t need a rule change, just training for the refs.

    The same type of defenses that stopped the hunh the last 7 years will continue to do so. The real challenge is assembling the talent and training them.

    So, basically, move on. Nothing to see here. The hunh will continue to help less talented teams compete. The traditional offenses, with excellent talent (see 2013 FSU), will continue to win titles.

  42. psl1196 says: Mar 2, 2014 8:01 PM

    @jtinnon2009:

    “Those who really know him have tremendous respect and admiration for his honesty ”

    I guess you mean except for those that know him in Miami, Louissiana, and Michigan…

  43. packerbadger says: Mar 6, 2014 2:02 PM

    Being that its the “University” of Alabumpkin, the players aren’t smart enough to keep up. He has a bunch of 486’s trying to operate in a Pentium V world.

  44. normtide says: Mar 6, 2014 2:29 PM

    Yea, the Alabama football program has seen no success. Wisconsin on the other hand…

  45. amosalanzostagg says: Mar 6, 2014 9:30 PM

    Packer, I agree,

    Congratulations on beating South Carolina in your
    bowl game on January 1, 2014.

    I love that you beat Stanford last year in your bowl game in 2013.

    The way you manhandled Oregon in your bowl game in 2012 was awe inspiring.

    The way you smashed the dreams and aspirations of a mere mid major in TCU was pure textbook execution. One that will be studied for the ages.

    Oh wait, you LOST!

    Never Mind……..

    RTR

  46. normtide says: Mar 6, 2014 11:15 PM

    Great post! I’ve asked him to compare success in all sports between Bama and Wisconsin. Instead he prefers the preteen approach to debate. Calling others funny names and repeating baseless claims. Maybe he thumbs his nose and wiggle his fingers. The best part, the ultimate punch line, even he can’t stand to live in Wisconsin. He prefers to reside in……. the south. His last ditch attempt to save face is education, but his post contradicts that argument. He comes to a sports blog to talk math. That is the apex of the domination he feels.

  47. mustangsfly says: Mar 7, 2014 1:50 AM

    For someone who wasnt pushing this thru nicky sure seemed ro know how this whole thing came about didnt he? Hes an absolute liar and anyone who doesnt see that is drowning in their own stupidity. I especially like his lame statements about the hurry-up teams goal being to wear down the defense which will cause more injuries. Well, mr. hypocrite saban, is that not what you intend to do by the style of offense you run? Is that nit what every offense tries to do in some fashion…wear down the defense. Its part of football you tool and always has been. Nick saban is just a high paid coach with no ethics, integrity…he will do whatever it takes. I dont care how msny games he wins. At the end of the day, hes still a piece of trash.

  48. packerbadger says: Mar 7, 2014 10:36 AM

    LOL! Alabumpkin’ the one hit wonder….like Billy Ray Cyrus. If Alabumpkin’s players actually had to take a REAL college level course, they wouldn’t have a team. Only way for them is to $ECheat! Sabans an ass and exactly what mustangsfly says. Oh, Wisconsins football team did just as well as Alabumpkin’s in their bowl game. Hows Alabumpkin’s basketball team doing? Wisconsin is currently ranked 12th. Wisconsin had 18 Olympians this winter and brought home a bunch of medals. Wisconsin’s hockey team is currently ranked 5th!

    Btw, I’m outta here at the end of next week. Transaction complete and transition done next Friday! Going back to civilization! I’d rather deal with cold than stupid….at least I can put a coat on up there…..but ya just can’t fix stupid!! Oh, and norm, you dominate NOTHING!! LOL!!

  49. packerbadger says: Mar 7, 2014 10:57 AM

    Btw, Saban couldn’t cut it in the Big 10! His best yr at MSU was 1999 and his team had its azz handed to him by Wisconsin. He was about a .500 coach at MSU. I guess its much easier to coach in the $ECheat when you don’t have that going to class thing getting in the way.

  50. amosalanzostagg says: Mar 7, 2014 2:41 PM

    packer,

    So sorry that you’re leaving the South. Your leaving means that the IQ level of the South rises dramatically and the IQ level of Wisconsin drops tremendously. I was equally glad to hear that the “transaction”, er jail time was completed and your pending “transition” er, parole from from jail will be done next Friday. Make sure you check in with your probation officer weekly, wear you ankle bracelet as required, and stay at least 1,000 ft away from elementary schools and junior highs.

    Oh, Bret”Curly” Bielema led mighty Wisconsin to a 2-4 bowl record and dominated
    the B1G. How did parlay such a huge acumen of football prowess and knowledge?
    Dead last in the SEC West and “whining” that a dead kid was the cause of the hurry up. What does that mean? Nothing, because that is what Wisconsin football means in the real world.

    Please remember to stay away from the elementary schools, we really don’t want you having to come back South and fulfill the rest of your “transition”.

    RTR.

  51. normtide says: Mar 7, 2014 6:00 PM

    Packer, in all seriousness, good luck with the move. I moved three counties over once, and it was a adventure getting everything there in one piece. Across country has to be a nightmare.

    Besides that. Wisconsin sucks. Give me your address and I’ll send you a sign Saban poster.

  52. dhardy8207 says: Mar 8, 2014 11:10 AM

    @ normtide & Amos:

    You guys just remember Packer claims to be a physician. I feel bad for the patients he’s took on to care for with his obvious disdain for the people in the south. IF he isn’t telling a ball face lie, which I suspect is the real case because the King of the northern ass wipes can barely spell himself. His grammar is horrid and a hint of one with not only a low IQ but also one that has been deprived on the modern world for some years.

    He couldn’t have possibly made it through medical school with that sort of intellect unless he had a rich pappy that bought his way through or he went to some podunk university in cheese country or he’s lying. Again I suspect the latter.

  53. amosalanzostagg says: Mar 8, 2014 2:25 PM

    DHardy,

    Really? A physician? A physician’s assistant maybe, but not a physician. I know we have a physician in actuality that posts from time to time on CFT about SEC football, I cannot recall the poster’s moniker.

    I believe he or she still practices in Appalachia with clinics and actual house visits. I know who ever reads this will probably know who I am posting about.

    The reason I opined about an actual physician is that you are correct about the way a learned individual conveys lucid thoughts and conversations. Packer doesn’t. Should Packer be a “physician”, to convey the practice of medicine as a “transition” and actual patient care as a “transaction”, shows an innate image of willful misconduct at best and gross incompetence at the worst.

    I believe the truth is that Packer is lying.

  54. packerbadger says: Mar 9, 2014 1:04 PM

    LOL at you southern inbreds. Wisconsin is either #1 or #2 in SAT/ACT scores. Alabumpkin’ is at or very near the bottom….fact check it. Alabumpkin’ really offers nothing to the country. A teabag state that bitches about paying taxes even though the take in more federal dollars than they pay out. Kind of like a parasite. Obviously you got your edjamacations in the south. A business TRANSACTION is the completing of a sale. The TRANSITION is getting the new person acclimated to their new venture. I’m guessing you guys are sitting in your cubical farms wasting your business resources trying to show how wonderful the south or Alabumpkin is on a blog. Life for me is good….but is going to be even better after next week. Going back to civilization. People actually speak in coherent sentences instead of grunts, clicks and whistles like they do down here. We should have let the south secede…..its a craphole down there compared to the rest of the country. The stereotypes down there didn’t arise out of nothing…most of them are true…..you know, the uneducated thing, bigoted, racist, etc. You guys can have it!! Last I checked Alabumpkin’ finished 0-2!! LOL!!

  55. normtide says: Mar 9, 2014 2:56 PM

    Alabama has nasa space flight center, does the army’s rocket testing, develops advanced weapons, disposes of old weapons, runs the space and missile defense for the nation, and build submarines. Meanwhile Wisconsin makes cheese. That’s why your tax money comes here. Not enough smart people in Wisconsin to run these programs. Not enough smart people are willing to move to Wisconsin. Don’t hate the facts. Nothing interesting happening in your state bud, that’s the simple truth. Plus, we are better in sports.

  56. normtide says: Mar 10, 2014 7:36 PM

    Is it just me, or does anyone else think Packer is actually that representative from Minnesota?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!