Could it be cloaked financial reason? Does the "hurry up offense" hurt advertising revenues, by making the games shorter? Do they make games shorter?
I've always believed the opposite. Spread teams tend to work the sidelines more (particularly in the passing game) than pro style teams, which stops the clock more often and lengthens the game. That's not universally true, but that's the general idea behind the spread. You want to make the defense work the entire width of the field with outside routes in the passing game, which allows you more room to run inside. Making tempo teams stand there while the play clock runs but the game clock does not is silly. There's all the talk from the NCAA about trying to shorten games. This is totally counterproductive to that.
My other issue is this: where does being down 14 with 5 minutes to go fall? Do I still have to wait? Isn't that a 2 minute situation for me? What about being down 21 with 9 left?
Also, the top 16 scoring teams in FBS were spread teams that ran up-tempo at least some of the time: Baylor, FSU, Ohio St, Oregon, TAMU, Fresno St, Marshall, ECU, Clemson, AzSt, NIU, Auburn, Mizzou, OKSt, Ball St, Indiana. Bama is 17th. Now, the more touchdowns you score, the breaks there are, right? The more breaks there are, the more ads you can sell. I suppose that's true of any change of possession including punts, but, other than DCs, who wants to watch teams punt more? I don't think the NCAA wants more punts.
From an ad revenue perspective, the fewer 15 play drives that take 7+ minutes of game clock there are, the better, right? Does the NCAA really want to encourage teams to go away from the spread?