Are College Football's Proposed Rule Changes Necessary?

Changing the rules of the game at times is necessary, and many times it is not. For example, when the NCAA changed the rules to allow time to run on a kickoff, the sole reason was to speed up games.

Penn State fans know that rule was unfair, as the kicking team could purposefully go offsides without more than a five-yard penalty while the time was taken off the clock. See the 2006 Wisconsin game. Seeing the absurdity of the rule change, the NCAA changed it again. The second time, the change was needed.

Now the NCAA is floating around the idea of creating a live ball foul from the original dead ball foul for a celebration. The foul would be for players taunting the opposing team before entering the end zone. As it stands, a penalty would be assessed after the touchdown is scored.

Under the proposed idea, the penalty would be assessed much like a holding penalty, negating the touchdown and adjusting the yardage from the spot of the foul.

While I generally applaud the idea that the NCAA rules committee wants college football to be more pure than the NFL, I think this is going a little too far. Watching college football, I do not feel that this sort of activity occurs often enough to warrant an emphasis to change the philosophy of the game.

It should be noted that this is not an official proposal for this year; rather, it is being discussed to form an opinion for two years down the road.

Bottom line is this: The last thing college football needs are Chad Johnson and Terrell Owens copycats, but it does not mean a touchdown should be taken away from the team. To penalize the hard work done by the quarterback, offensive line, and other blockers would be a shame.

The rule changes that are being proposed are an adjustment to the roughing the kicker penalty on a punt, and both teams being allowed to wear colored jerseys.

The roughing the kicker penalty change would state that if a punter is outside of the tackle box, then the defending team could not be assessed a roughing the kicker penalty. The change is proposed with the increase in popularity of the rugby-style kicking that blossomed last season.

I am not sure what to make of that, but I am inclined to think that it is unnecessary. It seems to me like it would hurt the evolution of the game.

As for the colored jerseys, that became a headliner last year when USC decided to wear their home jerseys in the Rose Bowl against UCLA. Honestly the whole thing got way more attention than it needed, but it is sort of a silly rule.

Under the change, both teams and the conference would have to agree to letting both teams wear colored jerseys in the same game. I am OK with this change as it has nothing to do with the outcome of a game.

What are your thoughts on any of the proposed rules changes or the possible celebration change down the road?