Fryowa
Administrator
There’s still the money aspect. Advertisers aren’t going to pay the same amount of money for a split screen ad and the cash is all the networks care about.
NCAA Considering Rule Change
- Thread starter dane61
- Start date
NorthKCHawk
Well-Known Member
While I agree that advertising rules the roost, the NFL got their halftime down to 13 minutes and they somehow continue to eek out a small profit here and there. I think college could get it down to 15 minutes.
How about we shrink the halftime, but increase the two other quarter breaks by a minute or so to make up for it?
I don't mind the built in breaks like quarters or 2 minute warning in the NFL. It lets me get up for a beer or piss or check other games. Its all the other unplanned breaks that are too long and annoying.
How about we shrink the halftime, but increase the two other quarter breaks by a minute or so to make up for it?
I don't mind the built in breaks like quarters or 2 minute warning in the NFL. It lets me get up for a beer or piss or check other games. Its all the other unplanned breaks that are too long and annoying.
Fryowa
Administrator
Or how bout 15 seconds off the play clock and nothing else has to change?
We'd have delay of game penalties every other snap for the first 2 yrs of that being implemented. We struggle getting snaps off as it is ugh...
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I figured as much. Seems longer than 10 minutes, though, or perhaps it's just a perception thing. I'll have to time it next time.
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
I got three proposals that work for baseball. Though one is radical.
1) shorten breaks between half innings by 30 seconds. This would not only cut nine minutes off the length of a nine inning game, it would make existing advertising time more valuable because of economic supply/demand. Most radio and TV networks can't sell that fifth 30 second block of a 2 minute 45 second break anyway, resorting to promos and PSA's. So why even have that length of break?
Eliminate a batter's stupid walk up music to his first at bat only, then it's done. We're watching baseball here folks, not selling record albums. By some player's fourth and fifth at bats they've spent two minutes of idle game time striding from the on deck circle to the batter's box like they're being led to the electric chair. First at bat only, then it's done, done done!
Here's the radical one. Batter hits a foul ball with two strikes, he gets one mulligan. After that, he's out. He's wasted enough of everyone's time trying to time up the pitcher and he's getting nowhere (and worse, broadcasters seem to enjoy these "battles".) This will save time and pitchers' arms, and reward the pitcher for preventing the hitter from squaring him up. He can't stand up and bunt ten pitches foul with two strikes, why should he be able to swing and foul them off?
Do all three of these steps and I'd bet you would shave 30-45 minutes off the length of a game. And get millennials interested again.
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
I've seen NFL games where there is commercials after a TD/FG, then after the kickoff, then the end of the first or third quarter, then for injury first play of the new quarter. Now you're approaching 15 minutes of commercial time vs three plays.
With today's technology you should be able to run half screen commercials BETWEEN plays, and I know forms of that are in the embryo stages. But somethings got to give here. If you're flipping back and forth between games, you probably have a 35-40 percent chance of hitting a commercial.
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
Play callers would get rigor mortis and not be able to get anything called in time.
Fryowa
Administrator
As a baseball guy and coach, probably wouldn’t be in favor of this one. There’s a lot of intangibles when you’re fighting pitches off
One of the biggest is getting (or trying to get) the pitch you want. You’re also racking up pitches on the guy’s arm which is a good thing for hitters. We teach kids from day one to fight off bad pitches and stay alive. In Iowa, high schoolers are limited to 110 pitches and most get pulled at 90 or before, so if you have a guy who takes an at bat to say, 9 pitches, even if he strikes out he just used up 10% of that pitcher’s availability.
That’s definitely a quality at bat
kicker22
Well-Known Member
Just my two cents, but eliminate media timeouts all together. You can still advertise it like a professional soccer match with advertisements on the screen without going to a commercial after immediately returning from a suspenseful touchback coming off another media time out after a TD. I think you could do it without messing with play clocks or changing the rules of the game. Could even add in 5 second "commercials" in between plays if it's truly about speeding up the games rather than turning a TD and kickoff into a 5 minute snoozefest. Soccer matches are 90 minutes long and time slots are 2 hours. IMO it makes sense the way they do it. What doesn't is how 4 15 minute quarters of an NCAA game or NFL game can't seem to squeeze into a 3 hour time slot.
Fryowa
Administrator
Nice idea, but do you think a company is going to pay the same amount of money for a split screen advertisement instead of a full blown commercial? Obviously not.
The networks drive everything and there’s no way they’re going to leave money on the table when big corporations are lining up around the block to pay millions for commercials.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
Logical response and truly makes sense. I'd be curious to see an ad price comparison between what NCAA/NFL sponsors pay and what an Premier League or Champions League sponsor pays for a split screen. TBH I'd honestly think from an ad perspective they'd get more "real" views going the split screen route as I'd bet most watching from home either pay no attention to commercials or simply use that time to go to the bathroom or raid the fridge.
That makes sense but there is a reason NFL and College FB are the most valuable properties on linear TV these days. I'd have to think soccer would pale in comparison, there just isn't the viewership, at least yet. These companies wouldn't be paying all that money if no one was watching the commercials. And their marketing departments can figure out what is working and what isn't.
But I'm with you on watching the commercials - good time to relieve myself or check in on other games.
guffus
Well-Known Member
I feel like you just proved Northside Hawk's point. 9 pitches for 1 at-bat may be good offensive strategy but is awful for your average spectator to sit through. Get on with the game. There needs to be a limit to the number of balls you can foul off before they just say you are out.
Fryowa
Administrator
We won’t agree on foul balls, but there were 163,466 at bats last year and the average pitches per at bat was 4.35. You’re talking about a completely non-existent problem from a statistical stand point. Long at-bats are not causing games to be extended. You just think they are.
What’s causing baseball games to take longer is pitchers taking forever between pitches and having 4 or 5 pitching changes. They’re fixing the first one and addressing the second one with a proposed rule coming up.
Last edited:
Great points. Plus, if I'm reading the stats right, last year was the lowest league-wide batting average since 1968. https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/bat.shtml
Of course, I'm biased...the most enjoyable thing in baseball for me was always watching Tony Gwynn wear out pitchers by fouling off pitch after pitch until they gave him something to hit.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
It's already done quietly. Pitches out of the strikeout called strikes. Happened to me in hs playoffs against the states lowest era pitcher after 12 fouls..no kidding. Next time up a high chopper down 1st base line. Pitcher and I collided and I was called out though I was in the lane. Somehow my shoulder caught him in the headand he was down for several minutes. That sure delayed the game.
Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
Early spring training returns seem to indicate the pitch clock is having an immediate impact. No game the first week ran over three hours; I think the average was 2:42.
Average games under three hours are good for the game in so many ways. Good for the spectators, and less taxing on players and umpires in long stretches of hot humid weather. Combine it with defensive shift rules and larger bases and you may have more balls put in play, more opportunities for hitters and fielders to display their athleticism, more contests between catchers and other fielders and base runners, just a better flowing game.
For the record I had no trouble with defensive shifts. Why shouldn't fielders position themselves where the ball is most likely to be hit? If batters don't like hitting into shifts, hit it where the infielder is supposed to be a couple times. Defenses will stop shifting in a hurry.
Fryowa
Administrator
I’m big time against the shift. I’m happy they outlawed it.
Hitting it where the infielder isn’t—is orders of magnitude harder than moving an infielder over to the other side. Like it’s ridiculously harder. Anyone who’s tried to really learn to be an opposite field hitter can tell you. Because of that, the defense has a huge advantage. It’s also against the original, fundamental spirit of the game. The original pioneers of the game didn’t intend for there to be 4 or 5 outfielders or having every infielder on one side of 2B.
Even if you can’t get on board with the shift being 1) an enormously lopsided defensive advantage, or 2) being against the spirit of the game, it made baseball even more of a trudge to watch than it was already becoming with slow play.
If you want the shift to stay, you’re going to have to accept boring pitchers duals where guys are striking out trying to hit homers because they know if they don’t they’re hitting right at 5 fielders 95% of the time. None of those are good for baseball.
