Slowing to Stupidity

On March 6, the NCAA’s Playing Rules Oversight What-Have-You body will consider a proposed rule that would slow down up-tempo offenses.  Under the proposal, the ball would not be snapped anytime before 29 seconds are left on the play clock.  This will allow the defense to substitute players, which in turn allows the NCAA to tout the “student-athlete” safety improvements that will be put in place by this rule.

Safety continues to be the rallying cry for some truly idiotic ideas in sports.  Before the Super Bowl, Roger Goodell floated the idea that the NFL eliminate the extra point, because too many players were getting injured on what amounts to an automatic, decidedly uninteresting play.  Ask Tony Romo about the automatic part and see what happens.  The same philosophy undergirds this new batch of ridiculousness.

First, football runs on a clock.  When considering the clock, the team that has the ball is able to dictate the pace of play.  Whether an offense created a turnover or took the ball off a kickoff they have possession.  Which allows the offense to move the ball at whatever speed they want.  Players in soccer, basketball, or hockey do not wait for defenders to have their ideal lineup before moving the ball.  There’s no earthly reason why football should allow a defense to dictate that pace.  Sure, football is not a fluid sport that is constantly moving, so there might be some strategy involved, but it all still boils down to “keep the ball away from the other guy…oh, and take advantage of his weaknesses if we can.”  The proposed rule would allow the defense an unbelievable amount of sway over the game’s pace of play.

To be clear, the rules don’t allow full offensive right of way.  After all, there are play clocks in football and shot clocks in basketball.  Limitations exist, but the proposed rule change would be akin to telling a basketball team that they cannot take shots before the 20-second mark of the shot clock.  Is the intent different?  Yes, because basketball teams can’t sub on the fly.  But the effect is the same…stifling offenses when they might otherwise exploit a defense for some quick points. 

If such a rule were to come into effect, it changes the competitive landscape.  Do we think Oregon, which averages one play per 14 seconds or something like that, would be as successful if they had to wait for the right defense to be on the field?  I don’t care about intentions and neither should you.  The action is what counts, and in this instance, fast-paced offenses will be, in effect, amputated of a very serious advantage over other teams.

As for safety, there won’t be an appreciable improvement, or even much of a difference.  Maybe more winded players are taken off the field, but the flip side of this type of rule is that fast-paced offenses will emphasize conditioning on the part of defensive regimes.  They will work to make their guys as fit as possible.  In addition, it’s not as if fast-paced offenses only affect those guys on the defensive side.  Up-tempo offensive coaches know O-linemen get fatigued running up and down the field between plays just as much as the defensive end across from them.  And yet, Mike Gundy at Oklahoma State and Kliff Kingsbury at Texas Tech continue to push the up-tempo scheme, as does Kevin Sumlin at Texas A&M.  These coaches are aware of the strain the tempo puts on their players, and yet they continue to defend it.

In the end, the safety excuse is flimsy at best.  So, I am inclined to wonder what the motivation of the rule might be.  Is it safety, or is it muzzling no-huddle offenses?  Regardless of intent, the effect will be one that changes college football unnecessarily, and sports fans everywhere should refuse to support such stupidity.

Bit #1: Olympic Hockey

I picked Sweden to win it all, and right now that doesn’t look like a great decision.  Sure, they won all three first round games and tomorrow will play Slovenia, but the Swedes have generally disappointed.  A 1-0 win over the Swiss and a close 5-3 victory over Latvia are not especially heartening for their performance going forward.  With Henrik Zetterberg going down to injury, I’m not especially confident the Swedes will make the gold medal game.

On the bottom of the bracket, the U.S. has been by far the most impressive team.  Phil Kessel has four goals and Ryan McDonagh on defense has been by far the best D-man for the U.S. thus far.  In addition, Ryan Callahan amazed me during the game against Russia with his play, as he saved a goal singlehandedly on a juicy rebound.  Goaltending has been as good as advertised.

For everyone else, it’s tough not to salivate at the Finland-Russia matchup tomorrow.  Russia has obviously won, but they have yet to turn in a truly convincing victory.  The Finns, on the other hand, have been amazingly consistent.  Kari Lehtonen played well in his one start against Norway, and Tuukka Rask has only a .872 save percentage.  Still, the Finns played Canada close, so expect them to give Russia a hard time, with a good shot to win.

Bit #2: Clearly, there are bigger problems in the NFL

The media attention towards Michael Sam’s recent announcement regarding his sexuality has started a conversation about the NFL culture.  But, in truth, I don’t think that part of NFL culture is really something worth overdoing…in a recent survey, 86 percent of respondents said they’d be alright with a gay teammate.

Point being, the media hoopla will subside, but I don’t think homophobia is truly the problem in the NFL.  Much bigger are harassment and, dare I say it, perversion.  For the first, we’ve seen this week how the Dolphins players ganged up on Jonathan Martin.  Look, it’s easy to dismiss Martin as being hyper-sensitive, and there may even be some justification for that.  But, regardless, the Wells Report also details Martin being subjugated to sexual comments about his mother and sister.  If a guy responded angrily to that kind of ribbing, especially if it’s consistent, it’s tough to call him a cry baby.

Of bigger concern, however, is the recent news regarding Darren Sharper.  A guy known for being the hardest-hitting safety in the league when he played, Sharper had a great analyst job with the NFL Network.  Sharper was arrested in January in connection with two potential rapes, and was the subject of a third sexual assault investigation in New Orleans, where he used to play. But of particular odiousness is the alleged method by which Sharper raped women, using drugs and alcohol before raping them.

Sharper is obviously responsible for his own behavior, rather than his teams, but let’s be real here.  In the NFL locker room, I find it hard to believe there is a big emphasis on respect for women.  You’re right, I’ve never played, but if players are still throwing the N-word around willy-nilly, it seems a fair assumption the attitude towards women might be similarly inappropriate.  That the media wishes to focus on the potential first openly gay NFLer makes sense from a ratings standpoint, but in trying to identify problems in sports the real issue is in the culture.  That Michael Sam is gay will certainly make waves, by the NFL’s reaction to his announcement from a draft and playing time standpoint will be the true test of the league’s culture.  All that said, we have two examples where the NFL culture has clearly become a laughing stock, a bastion for some men of questionable ethics and character.  The media should focus on those examples, rather than speculate as to how Michael Sam will be received.  Survey says that question has been answered already.