The underwhelming impact of helmet communication

The NCAA introduced optional helmet communication technology for the 2024-2025 season. Seen in part as a response to last season’s poster-stealing scandal, the new rule allows a coach to communicate directly with a player on the field. Initial reactions to the rule were mixed. The Associated Press reported that Nebraska head coach Matt Rhule called the rule “seismic,” while Texas Tech head coach Joey McGuire called the rule “horrific.” While new helmet communications can affect game logistics and a coach’s confidence, early returns show little to no change in offensive production compared to last season.

Stealing signs

Before this season, coaches often communicated play calls to unfocused offenses using a complex system of signals and hand signals. These were quick and effective ways to call plays without relying on wrist cards. However, hand signals and signals are vulnerable to interception by opposing teams. Sign stealing has always been legal under NCAA bylaws, but with restrictions. One such restriction is a ban on in-person scouting of opponents in the same season. Last season, ESPN reported that famed Michigan analyst and “sign stealer” Conor Stalions resigned amid an NCAA investigation alleging he violated that rule. As a result, the Big Ten conference sanctioned Michigan by suspending then-head coach Jim Harbaugh for several games. The new helmet communication rule is widely seen as a response to this scandal involving last season’s National Champions.

Helmet communication rule

This season, the NCAA officially approved the optional use of helmet communication by coaches to players in Division I FBS football. While the technology has been used in the NFL for decades, this marks its first appearance at the college level. According to the NCAA, the rule states that teams “shall have the option of using coach-to-player communications via helmet to a player on the field.” Communication allows coaches to communicate with players from the time the game clock starts until the game clock reaches 15 seconds or the ball is snapped. The technology is optional, and it’s unclear how widespread adoption is in the first year.

Effects on offensive production

Although helmet communication is available on both sides of the ball, many coaches tout its benefits to the offense. Indiana head coach Curt Cignetti told ESPN that the technology “takes the unknown out” of misinterpreting hand signals and signals. However, despite positive anecdotal evidence from coaches about the benefits of communicating directly with their quarterbacks, the data tells a different story.

There is virtually no difference in offensive production per game from the first half of the 2024-2025 season compared to the same time period in the 2023-2024 season. Across the 133 FBS teams, yards per play are up a minuscule 1.3% from this point last season, going from 5.50 in 2023 to 5.57 in 2024. Points per play had a slightly higher rise, but still only up 1.4% from 0.386. in 2023 to .392 in 2024. These small increases suggest that the predicted impact of direct coach-player communication on offensive efficiency has been minimal.

A statistical analysis called a paired t-test, used to compare offensive production between this season and last, confirmed that the change is not statistically significant. In practical terms, this indicates that the helmet communication rule has not provided a substantial competitive advantage, at least in terms of offensive production.

This lack of significant improvement raises questions about the real benefit of helmet communication in the college game. Although coaches have championed the reduction of errors associated with hand signals and signals, the data suggest that these corrections have not translated into improved offensive performance on the field. Factors such as player execution, defensive strategies, or other game dynamics may play a bigger role in offensive outcomes than the ability to communicate more directly.

good news

While fans and coaches may be disappointed by the underwhelming results, there is a poignant realization: Maybe sign stealing never affected the game as much as we thought. Despite new technologies, college football remains largely unchanged, reminding us that at its core, the game is still defined by the players on the field, not innovations or scandals.