#AllGroundingOffense probably doesn't work as well as #AllPIOffense, but…

I have a question for the football brain trust at Mgoblog.
Should the quarterback always intentionally ground ball to avoid a sack?
It seems like a good idea to me. What is the downside?

Phillip

Uh. I mean… he's not wrong? Since the penalty is "lol no this is still a sack" without anything extra tagged on, grounding is a penalty that's not really a penalty.

The main thing keeping quarterbacks from attempting any desperate chuck to avoid a sack is the potential for a turnover. I'm pretty sure Patterson's first fumble against Army happened because Patterson was trying to get the ball out after he saw the guy coming, and later in that game the MTSU QB's attempt to ground the ball should have been a pick six punt directly at Lavert Hill.

FWIW, I think grounding should be harsher. If you're in someone's grasp and you aren't making a genuine attempt to complete a pass that should be grounding. That includes booting the ball six yards OOB, throwing the ball to a running back in pass protection, and throwing the ball aimlessly in the middle of the field with no one within five yards.

[After THE JUMP: MSU twelve-man-on-the-field radio call]

Age of consolidation.

Brian,

I'd love to read your take on whether college football is broken (or damaged) in a way that is historically anomalous.   Thinking to the very chalky results of last year, how the playoff participants have been such a small number of teams over five seasons, and how 2019 (so far) feels like we're all biding time until some mild variation of prior playoff brackets.

Thanks,

Mark

In some ways, yes. In other ways, no. There have always been teams that go on extended dominant runs, whether it was the Bobby Bowden Seminoles, the mid-90s Cornhuskers, or Oklahoma back in the 50s. The long-term dominance of Alabama isn't even the first time Alabama has done this.

What is starting to break the model is the recruiting dominance of an increasingly small number of schools. Economist Andy Schwarz recently followed up on a Deadspin article he wrote in 2014 about the increasing consolidation of top recruits. CFB continues to see its blue chips go to a smaller and smaller number of schools:

Why? There are probably a number of reasons but probably the foremost one is the combination of amateurism with the proliferation of a polished, smart Saban system in which players get paid with the approval of but without the direct involvement of the head brass. We have wiretap proof of Clemson adopting a similar model:

Clemson football was also discussed via wiretap by Clemson basketball asst coach Steve Smith like this, in relation to Zion hoops recruitment: "That's why football is so successful, is if you do it and use resources at Clemson, like you can really keep everything tight."

— Matt Norlander (@MattNorlander) April 25, 2019

And Georgia started recruiting like Alabama as soon as they hired a Saban assistant who had access to gobs of money. Ohio State had one year of meaningful sanctions after the whole Tressel thing and then hired Urban Meyer—if anything that incident allowed them to skip some Tressel years a lot like the Dantonio fade MSU is experiencing now. So if you have a culture of DGAF, the resources to spend, and a pool of recruits who increasingly look on NCAA amateurism as a scam, you can overcome previous barriers like distance and the fact that Alabama already has six five stars at your position.

The difference here is the level of professionalization—for lack of a better word—that the under-the-table system has taken on. If you're dumb and stupid like Ole Miss it falls apart. Saban hasn't had a peep of trouble, and nor has Dabo, for whatever reason.

Liberalizing compensation regulations for athletes would help this a bit. Several schools who aren't going full-bore ignoring NCAA rules, whether that's because they have ethical objections or they are just too incompetent to make it work, would enter the playing field. Shoe money would also help even things out. 100k plus a good shot at starting might be a winning argument in a way that 0k plus that is not.

Even that would only open it up a bit. The sport is increasingly national, so little regional miracles like Nebraska are probably dead and gone forever. What might help more is a period of coaching churn we might be coming up on. Saban is 67; Ohio State just hired a guy with no head coaching experience. If we get lucky both those schools will recede from recent peaks. 

The hero we need.

pic.twitter.com/oGs4DV5YEJ

— Paul Murphy (@paulbmurphy) September 15, 2019

He also has some additional aftermath. If there is a frat that manages to get this audio played at the Spartan Stadium gates for next year's game I will move it into the Very Good Frat category.

But different.

NFL RPOs don't look like college ones because you only get a yard downfield in the league, so they have to be outside zone almost exclusively. This was an interesting example and thus got tweeted to me:

@mgoblog is this a better version of what we tried to run vs army?

— moonji moragetty (@mumurthigal) September 17, 2019

For reference, this is the stretch RPO Michigan ran against Army with a similar backside slant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZIAZc0lwDg

So it's not a "better" version of the play, it's pretty much the same thing. Army drops a LB into the slant so Michigan hands off; if Army had played the RPO like the Jets did the throw would have been on. Instead Army covered the slant and won a block at the LOS with a surprising dive inside.

Hypothetically a stretch that reaches the backside DT could break big because this backside LB is staying back, but Army slants so hard playside that a reach is not realistic. So you get this giant gap on the backside…

…and nothing to do with it.

If you're getting this a lot (and your QB doesn't have a rib injury) you could convert this into a QB keep where the slot receiver bashes the dropping LB. There's always a counterpunch. The worrying thing about the Army game was the ratio of plays like this where Army covers the slant and has a good plan for dealing with the 5v5 blocking surface to the frontside* and plays like the Bell flare screen that was a free nine yards.

*[that could be trouble for them but they have a thing that works against stretch and probably does even if the LT and LG don't get split.]

The very last Special K mention.

Since football isn't so fun to discuss, what are your thoughts on Special K so far?  Old Town Road was trotted out at opener to an underwhelming response and there was no repeat for Army. 

Honestly I don't even think about it anymore except as a source of generalized physic oppression. I remember when going to Penn State was a shocking assault on the senses, and now it's just another football game.

I'm doing my best to ignore it and only answered this question so that there's some explanation for the fact that I've completely stopped mentioning the in-game environment. I don't want to bother crabbing about it when nobody cares.