My reasons for running uptempo:
1) all 5 of the top 5 teams today run it: Clemson, OU, OSU, Bama and LSU.
2) The top four scoring offenses this year use it: OU, OSU, Bama and LSU
3) All offenses are a train wreck when they don’t work. Which brings me to our next point...
4) Losses count the same, whether its 61-58 or 17-14. Why not score a bunch of points in the process and at least have one element of your team look good if you’re gonna lose? At least in the 61-58 scenario you can tell your offensive recruits that your offense scores basically at will and they’ll get a chance to do that again. In the 17-14 scenario, I imagine that “we run a slow offense to keep the other team off the field” is a terrible recruiting pitch with top athletes in TX.
5) Recruits these days are almost exclusively running high tempo offenses in HS, yet, we now bring them in here and slow them down and force them to learn a whole new way of doing things. Sounds like a square-peg-round-hole situation and it seems like a great way to have shallow depth (because players aren’t ready to go from day 1) and increase the risk of players who won’t pan out (players who never learn).
6) You have to recruit at an ELITE level and not miss on evaluations in order to run a slow, pro-style/ball-control offense. You can’t win national titles without the blue-chips and we all know tcu might never sign a lot of those. Heck, the big 4 listed above CAN recruit at that level and still
run a more forgiving system.
7) When we had our best offenses, the playmakers weren’t the biggest, fastest, sure-bet future NFL blue-chip superstars available. The same went for Baylor and Briles (using them only because they scored a lot of points too). Why did baylor get so good, so fast? Was it because they suddenly began signing top-5 classes, or did they run an offensive system that works with less gifted athletes who are a dime a dozen and easy to recruit?
7) I think it was Leach or Briles who once said that the longer a drive is, the more chances your players will have to screw it up. Makes sense to me.
8) IMHO it’s easier to play defense with an offense who can score quickly. Would you rather play defense for a team that averages 28ppg on offense or 48? Which lets a defense play looser and with less stress?
9) Can our offense now come back when it’s down only 14? Not very likely. Could our 2014/2015 teams? Absolutely.
10) Running a slower offense doesn’t mean that going 3-and-out is less likely. It just means you burned 90 seconds of game time instead of 45. Thus giving you less time to make up for it and score on a future drive. I hear your protests now, “but at least the other team doesn’t have the ball! If they don’t have the ball, they can’t score.” While true in theory, the elite offenses like OU don’t need 9 minutes to score. They can often do it in 2 mins or less. And really, if you’re gonna go 3-and-out vs OU for an entire first quarter, what’s the difference between trailing 28-0 with the slow offense and 35-0 and the fast one? Both suck and in both cases you’re likely to lose the game anyway.
11) In theory, with ball control, you give up fewer yards. Statistics back this up as you might expect but how many fewer yards? When TCU offense ran at its best (2014-2015 seasons) the defense averaged 365 yards allowed. In the last two seasons, the defense is allowing an average of 311 yards. Is the 54 yards worth it?
Just my opinions of course, some stronger than others. I believe the strongest evidence for my position lies In what the major blueblood programs are doing and succeeding with. They can recruit at a level necessary to run an exemplary ball control offense, but they choose to use their blue chips differentlin what the major blue blood programs are doing in succeeding with. They can recruit at a level necessary to run an exemplary ball control offense, but they choose to run a different style.