In any competitive terrain, the successful innovative strategists are not victorious especially in the macro political game. The non-innovative political-driven strategist who cannot innovates, will occasionally change the rules and regulations for the purpose of securing an advantageous gain. ... I have seen this category of strategic maneuvering implemented in certain businesses. (That is a future post.)
View the above video for one approach to slowing the quick tempo spread offense approach by having a player "acted" that he is hurt.
The NCAA football rules committee is proposing changes for the 2014 season that would loosen the reins on defensive substitutions and lessen the penalties for targeting fouls called on the field.
The committee's proposal would allow defensive players to substitute within the first 10 seconds of the 40-second play clock, except for the final two minutes of each half.
The rules committee says they hope to enhance safety by guaranteeing a small window for both teams to substitute. UCF receiver Breshad Perriman is shown in November after a play for which Houston's Zach McMillian was called for targeting. ... Offenses that snap the ball before 29 seconds remain on the play clock would receive a 5-yard delay-of-game penalty.
Current rules state that defensive players aren't guaranteed the opportunity to substitute unless the offense first substitutes. Under the proposal, this policy would remain when the play clock starts at 25 seconds. ... The proposal would strike a major blow to up-tempo spread offenses that often run plays before the opposing defense is set. Coaches like Alabama's Nick Saban and Arkansas' Bret Bielema last summer said that up-tempo offenses are likelier to cause injuries for defensive players who can't get off of the field in time.
Source: ESPN SI.com and Yahoo Sports.com. .
Using the excuse of player's safety is quite deceptive. If the committee and the coaches were quite concerned about the safety of the players, why don't they "illegalize" the act of pass rushing (five to eight man blitzing) and any type of body tackle? Playing touch football by using Google glasses while playing "Madden Football" would be more safer. ... What do you think? ... Would you watched any more college football games with these rule changes?
Do you think that the majority of college fans wanted to see that? ... What were the NCAA's football committee thinking about? ...
The Projected Outcome
This current set of rules favored the offense. If this new set of changes are implemented, the offensive side loses the surprise element.
Teams who emphasize on recruiting ultra athletic, moderately intelligent players, usually are focused on the mastery of fundamentals. They often centered on a high baseline of strategic efficiency, rarely ever innovate. ... This is the gold standard of their process.
Mike Leach's Comment to the Possible Rules Change
" ... It's always been a game of creativity and strategy. So anytime someone doesn't want to go back to the drawing board or re-work their solutions to problems, then what they do is to beg for a rule. I think it's disgusting. ... My suggestion is rather than spending a bunch of time coming up with a bunch of really stupid rules, spend that time coaching harder, .... Worry about your own team and try to make your product better rather than trying to change the game so you don’t have to do anything. ..."
The Football Concept of Offense and Defense
While the grand tactical objective of any ideal offense model is about knowing the primary target, the optional targets and the starting timeline of the execution for each play, the grand tactical objective for the ideal defense model is about anticipating where the offense is targeting and then being there with the right number of players to crush the offensive play.
By removing the "surprise element" on both sides of the game (no hurry up tactics and no blitzing tactics), what type of game would one have? ... Would the college fans still watch it anymore?
Notes From The Compass Desk
Competitors who rarely innovate, regularly played the "maintaining status quo" game. They regularly stay efficient by centering their attention on recruiting the best talent that fits their system.
If those particular rules are changed, Saban could be able to continue with his process of recruiting his type of players and secure his legacy of winning college football championships.
As mentioned before, this type of "rule changing" game playing has been done in other competitive venues especially in politics and businesses. We will discuss that matter in a future post.
To compete effectively against the slow and non-creative dinosaurs in the information economy, the up-tempo offense is the new model. If one could move faster (with organizational order) and recover from the errors quicker than the competitor. One would be ahead of the curve. (It is being indirectly used in information technology's project management There is a minor flaw to that model. But that is another topic that we will talk about it later. ...) The "no huddle, hurry up model works as long there is the proper personnel who could master its concepts. scheme and plays.
Fwiw, it originated from Sam Wyche's "Sugar" offensive approach with the 1988 Cincinnati's Bengals Super Bowl run. .... Psychologically it requires a deep sense of aggressiveness and the understanding of the specifics on when to "take what the defense offers to you. ... " (That is also another topic.)
Think of what positive growth could be gained when running a no-huddle offense in a capitalist's endeavor.