As college football debates rules, pace of play talk is halted

It's almost a shame, because Rich Rodriguez is itching to make another parody video — but there's no need for more "Speed."

As the NCAA's Football Rules Committee meets this week in Indianapolis, the agenda does not include anything resembling a year ago, when a rule to slow down the hurry-up offense was proposed — and then withdrawn a few weeks later after blowback from Rodriguez and others who like to play fast.

"Cooler heads prevailed," says Rodriguez, whose chief contribution to a sudden and white-hot debate was a parody of the old Keanu Reaves movie in which he charged: "I think there's some coaches that have a hidden agenda. … They're holding college football for ransom."

Even after the rules committee voted unanimously last March to pull back the proposal, the philosophical divide seemed to remain between practitioners of uptempo offenses and traditionalists who prefer huddles and a slower pace. Air Force coach Troy Calhoun, chair of the rules committee, said he remained concerned and hoped to see more study on the potential safety implications of playing fast. Auburn coach Gus Malzahn called for a year of "healthy debate" — with the idea being that the rule change, unlike his offense, shouldn't be a hasty decision.

But a year later, the debate has cooled to … nothing.

"The pace-of-play thing has kind of died out as a conversation piece," says Rogers Redding, the national coordinator of football officiating who also serves as secretary-rules editor for the football rules committee.

Instead, the agenda is relatively light. The rules committee is likely to propose a rule enabling conferences to add an eighth official (though not mandating it), something that began with the Big 12 and several other leagues have experimented with.

There will be discussion of expanding the teams' areas on sidelines by 10 yards, from between the 25-yard lines to between the 20-yard lines, in order to help reduce congestion. Another topic: the potential use of computers by coaches in press boxes and perhaps on the sidelines.

The committee might also consider eliminating clock stoppages after first downs and when the ball goes out of bounds until the final two minutes of each half, which would help shorten games.

"There's not a lot that's being proposed," Redding says. "There will be some tweaking around the edges of some things, but nothing major."

But he adds: "If something wild and crazy happens, I'll find myself trying to explain it."

Neither Redding nor anyone else expects anything like last year, when the proposal to force offenses to wait 10 seconds before snapping the ball took most coaches by surprise. Although it was couched as an attempt to protect players from injury — Arkansas' Bret Bielema and Alabama's Nick Saban, among others, suggested that more plays inevitably equals more risk — coaches of hurry-up offenses reacted loudly, with coordinated opposition.

Several suggested it was less about safety than an attempt to quench a growing movement that, perhaps not coincidentally, caused great difficulties for defenses. Texas A&M's Kevin Sumlin called the proposal "an attempt to limit the creativity of the game." Rodriguez called it "ridiculous," and took the time — just an hour, he noted — to act in the parody video.

"People want to see action," he said in the video. "They don't want to see huddles, people holding hands and singing kumbaya." He also asked: "Pop quiz: what do you do when a fundamental of football is threatened because of hidden agendas?"

Rodriguez says not allowing an offense to choose its pace would be akin to tinkering with field goals — "like saying a field goal inside the 25-yard line is only worth two points," he says, while an especially long attempt would be worth four. In withdrawing the proposal, he says, "They kept the fundamental rules the way they've always been."

The impact of the video, produced by the Arizona athletic department, is debatable. It became apparently relatively quickly that the 10-second proposal was stuck in park. During a feedback period, the NCAA received 324 official comments — 74% were opposed to the proposal; 16% were in favor; the rest were undecided. The proposal was withdrawn before going to the playing rules oversight panel.

And a year later, the debate seems nonexistent. No one is touting studies, either way. No one's talking much about pace of play at all. And anecdotal but compelling evidence suggests even some of its opponents are joining the wave.

Saban had asked publicly: "Was football intended to be a continuous game?" And a year ago, he spoke with the rules committee on the topic. But during the 2014 season, Alabama often went no-huddle. The Crimson Tide averaged almost 73 plays per game, nine more than in 2013 and only one fewer than Texas A&M.

Redding says some of the controversy was abated when officials were employed to use a standardized pace between plays. They were instructed last season to use a "crisp jog" to spot the ball.

"We don't want to deliberately slow (the pace) down or speed it up," he says. "We're going to manage a pace of play that's fair to both sides."

Redding says he won't forecast whether the topic might come up again. But a year after a contentious offseason debate, pace of play is not an issue. Which means Rodriguez, for one, might have to get more creative.

"We're always looking for a reason to do a video," Rodriguez says. "It's the offseason, so we get a little bit bored."

But he's glad of this much: "It won't be regarding any proposed rule changes."

PROJECTING NEXT SEASON'S TOP 25