NCAA Considering Rule Change
- Thread starter dane61
- Start date
The article didn't divulge the perceived need to shorten the game. Thought it might be corporate pressure (Sports Networks) minimizing games running over into another games time slot. Then found this article released by CBS Sports that appears to answer the question, to wit:
'A convergence of issues has compelled the game's stakeholders to consider more seriously limiting "exposures," the number of plays per game that athletes are on the field. The intent is not necessarily to shorten game lengths but rather protect players' health.'
(LINK)
High school athletes are not compelled to sign a letter of intent--they are eager to sign. Now they have more options than before to transfer. And athletes transfer to get more playing time than with the team they initially signed to play with. In other words they are (in effect) seeking more exposure to injury, not less.
Adopt the NFL rules and move on. Drop the facade--college football is the developmental league for the pros.
'A convergence of issues has compelled the game's stakeholders to consider more seriously limiting "exposures," the number of plays per game that athletes are on the field. The intent is not necessarily to shorten game lengths but rather protect players' health.'
(LINK)
High school athletes are not compelled to sign a letter of intent--they are eager to sign. Now they have more options than before to transfer. And athletes transfer to get more playing time than with the team they initially signed to play with. In other words they are (in effect) seeking more exposure to injury, not less.
Adopt the NFL rules and move on. Drop the facade--college football is the developmental league for the pros.
I'm expecting Brian's contract to be updated back to original terms now since they'll have less time to score.
#notreally
Fryowa
Administrator
Why would you care about the reasons for shortening games? Honest question.
I'm not talking about the way they shorten them, but the reasons for shortening.
Football and baseball games all go on for way too long, and if you can't see that viewership as a whole is overwhelmingly in favor of rules shortening games you must not be paying attention.
You're turning that into justification for your disdain of the current state of college football. Does not compute.
Fryowa
Administrator
Most major sports need to have shortened contests. The vast majority of time elapsed during baseball and football games is idle time, and basketball has the same problem at the end of games that are within a few scores.
If anything, NCAA and pro football need to do even more. The pitch clock in MLB is a great idea but there are other ways to speed things up, I love the proposed double hook rule that would mean if a starting pitcher doesn't go 5 innings that team loses its DH.
The proposed football rules with the clock are a good start but they need to get more aggressive. Shorten the play clock to 30 seconds or even 25. Multiply the saved time by 160 plays a game and that'd make a HUGE difference. Hard to whine about it if both teams have the same play clock.
Basketball needs to eliminate fouling at the end of games. It literally never works and can turn the last 3 minutes of a game into over a half hour total time. There may have been a couple instances over the past 40 years where it's worked in hundreds of thousands of games. Make the rule that if you're down by more than 4 points and the opposing team is in double bonus, if you foul them they get the FTs and the ball back. Problem solved.
If anything, NCAA and pro football need to do even more. The pitch clock in MLB is a great idea but there are other ways to speed things up, I love the proposed double hook rule that would mean if a starting pitcher doesn't go 5 innings that team loses its DH.
The proposed football rules with the clock are a good start but they need to get more aggressive. Shorten the play clock to 30 seconds or even 25. Multiply the saved time by 160 plays a game and that'd make a HUGE difference. Hard to whine about it if both teams have the same play clock.
Basketball needs to eliminate fouling at the end of games. It literally never works and can turn the last 3 minutes of a game into over a half hour total time. There may have been a couple instances over the past 40 years where it's worked in hundreds of thousands of games. Make the rule that if you're down by more than 4 points and the opposing team is in double bonus, if you foul them they get the FTs and the ball back. Problem solved.
NorthKCHawk
Well-Known Member
I think the NCAA needs a tweak, not an overhaul when it comes to time management. The NFL has done a pretty good job of managing the timing of things, and the NCAA needs to tweak some things, but I don't see the need to make drastic changes. Unlike baseball, the college football product is pretty good as is, just needs to speed up a bit.
I think the focus should be on repetitive play/action stoppages. To me, its not the overall length of the game that is the biggest problem, its the stoppages in the action.
I like no back to back timeouts.
I would limit replay reviews to coaches challenges only except for the last 5 minutes of each half or something like that. If they can somehow get more efficient in overturning bad calls (eye in the sky refs) then I am fine with more reviews, but running over to the monitor to review a spot in the 2nd quarter kills the action.
No TV breaks after kickoffs.
In general, less full commercial breaks. Do more like soccer games where you have the split screen advertisements or scroll advertisements but you keep the action on the field.
Grade and reward refs who keep the game moving. Yes, we want them to get it as right as they can, but too many flags and too many conferences ruin the action.
I would shorten the half to 15 minutes. Sorry, band.
I think the focus should be on repetitive play/action stoppages. To me, its not the overall length of the game that is the biggest problem, its the stoppages in the action.
I like no back to back timeouts.
I would limit replay reviews to coaches challenges only except for the last 5 minutes of each half or something like that. If they can somehow get more efficient in overturning bad calls (eye in the sky refs) then I am fine with more reviews, but running over to the monitor to review a spot in the 2nd quarter kills the action.
No TV breaks after kickoffs.
In general, less full commercial breaks. Do more like soccer games where you have the split screen advertisements or scroll advertisements but you keep the action on the field.
Grade and reward refs who keep the game moving. Yes, we want them to get it as right as they can, but too many flags and too many conferences ruin the action.
I would shorten the half to 15 minutes. Sorry, band.
Fryowa
Administrator
Nice idea but will never happen. Advertisers won’t pay as much money for that and college football for the networks is all about money. Nothing else.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
The commercial breaks are why I quit watching almost all football except for Iowa and Bama and why I got rid of cable. If I'm shelling out over $8 a month for ESPN they can use those carriage fees and logical breaks in the game to show ads. I don't need to see the same Allstate and Dr. Pepper commercials 48 times each over the course of a Saturday of watching football.
HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
Frankly, I don’t really care about how long it takes to complete a game. That said, the commercial breaks get really annoying. The replay thing has become a standing joke.
The concept of implementation of rules that have a serious impact on the game, allegedly as a method to shorten it, would be a bridge too far. Examples would be running clock after an incomplete pass, less time to put the ball in play in football, limits on time outs used by coaches strategically. Bad ideas.
Whether I sit in the stands or in front of the TV for 3 hours or three and a half is no big deal.
The concept of implementation of rules that have a serious impact on the game, allegedly as a method to shorten it, would be a bridge too far. Examples would be running clock after an incomplete pass, less time to put the ball in play in football, limits on time outs used by coaches strategically. Bad ideas.
Whether I sit in the stands or in front of the TV for 3 hours or three and a half is no big deal.
99topdawg
Well-Known Member
I agree and don't agree. Common sense says they do. My own selfish love of the game and hatred of yard work says they need to be longer.
I love this. Especially if the guy has given up 3 runs through 4 1/3 and gets yanked because he's thrown 70 pitches. Would you want to be the manager to go out to the mound and tell Bob Gibson his pitch count is up?
This is why I always record the game and start watching it about an hour after the game starts. The only problem with that is not getting to see the meltdowns and genius coaching moves in the game thread.
This has to be the most correct thing that's ever been typed on a keyboard.
The two proposals that would make a real difference are to start the clock after incompletions once you spot it not wait till the snap. And also keep the clock running on 1st downs.
The other proposals would be minimal gains circumstantially. They want to not have an untimed down after 1st & 3rd quarters when a defensive penalty has occurred. And also not allow consecutive TOs be called which everyone would be for. That's primarily an icing the kicker thing.
Obviously cutting down on going to commercials would be ideal and also do the trick but they wouldn't consider that even if they made the $ the same just because they are greedy and can.
It'll be interesting if any or all of it passes
The other proposals would be minimal gains circumstantially. They want to not have an untimed down after 1st & 3rd quarters when a defensive penalty has occurred. And also not allow consecutive TOs be called which everyone would be for. That's primarily an icing the kicker thing.
Obviously cutting down on going to commercials would be ideal and also do the trick but they wouldn't consider that even if they made the $ the same just because they are greedy and can.
It'll be interesting if any or all of it passes
I wonder if these are solutions to something that's not a problem. Who's complaining about the games being long? TV folks? Coaches and schools? I mean the folks at home can get up and walk away at anytime. Record it skip commercials etc what bitch do they have? The folks that go to the games maybe? I mean they plan on killing the whole day for game day experiences I would think. So my guess is it's the TV folks that have their other programing bled into that's bent about it. Just plan accordingly is my take on that.
I'm totally fine with how things are. I'd rather not have to get used to watching game with running clocks and have that sort of change implemented. That said I do think it'd have the desired effect. So long as they don't continue having reviews all the time. Those are a huge time killing deal they should be figuring out. If they can't look at a replay 3 times in less then 2 mins and decide then the call on the field should stand. Dragging it out 5 plus mins sometimes is ridiculous.
Out of a 3 in a half hour game how much of it is commercials? 30-40 mins? By far that'd be the easiest thing to cut into if they REALLY wanted to put a dent into it.
Last edited:
Fryowa
Administrator
That's because you're in your 90s. Perceived time goes faster and faster as you age, so for you a football game only takes about 7 minutes. Us other folks have shit to do during the day.
Fryowa
Administrator
For people who haven't or don't go to games live, they have no clue how bad games drag on in person. When you're watching a game on TV you can flip channels etc or go do something for 5 minutes during a media timeout, but in the stadium it's so much more pronounced. After every FG, TD, punt, point after, KO, time out, blah blah blah blah there's 3-5 minutes of total dead time where your only choice is to stare at the countdown timer or watch the University trot a graduate from 1963 out and recognize their life-long service to finding a cure for snow-blindness in cats. The military ones are cool, but that's about it and those are only once or twice a game.
What I really hate is when the ENTIRE STADIUM is ready to play...players, coaches, officials, fans...and all 70,000 people are waiting for the media guy in the red hat to give the thumbs up to the referee that the TV commercial is over and they can start.
Fryowa
Administrator
Nolan Ryan had no medical technology to help his arm health other than Marlboros and whiskey, and he averaged over 9 complete games a year for 27 seasons. Had over 20 complete games in 5 different seasons. Was still throwing mid 90s when he retired, and I saw him throw out a first pitch over 80 plus a few years ago.
He also beat the shit out of Robin Ventura in a game once at age 46 (he was 7 years older than his manager at the time), and kept pitching afterwards.
These pitchers getting pulled in 3-4 innings are snowflakes.
Yeah and all that is mostly on the commercials and how the networks handle that. That's not so much on the game play itself. The replays are a huge correctable issue as well that just put a dead stop to the action. But yes all of that absolutely makes going to games not so enjoyable to me and others I'm sure. Mix in the times when the weather is shit and it's a no thanks for me.
Just the opposite. If KF knows that the clock will continue to run after an incomplete pass, that means any pass play will be as effective at keeping the clock running as a run play.
The four proposals mentioned are tweaking around the edges, when the elephant in the room won't be touched. The primary cause of unnecessarily long college football games are the relentless # of commercial timeouts. Period.
"One proposal would prohibit consecutive timeouts." Fine, but minimal impact. Reducing the # of timeouts available to each team in each half would be far more effective -- and would be much appreciated by fans both in-person and on-line/TV. But this won't happen, because the timeouts exist primarily as a vehicle for commercials.
"Another would eliminate playing an untimed down after a penalty at the end of the first and third quarters." Silly. How often does this happen? Once very 20 games or so?
"Another would eliminate stopping the clock on first downs except in the final two minutes of the game." This would simply reduce the # of plays fans have paid to watch, so I would oppose this suggestion.
"With the fourth proposal the clock will continue to run after an incomplete pass once the ball is spotted for play.” This would also reduce the # of plays fans have paid to see, so I would oppose it.
The overall impact of the suggested changes would be to reduce the # of plays fans get to enjoy watching, while holding harmless the main cause of long games, which are the # of commercials.
Highly highly recommend the Netflix doc on Ryan. I'm so glad he agreed to do it. He was such an unassuming dude. Nothing physically ridiculous about him. He was a typical skinny dude coming out of HS. But for him to do what all he did for as long as he did just makes him one of the more mentally and physically toughest mofos there's been. What's funny is his wife I think had as much to do with him playing as long as he did as anything. It seemed like he woulda hung it up sooner but she knew he'd regret stopping if he could still go so she encouraged him. It's a great show check it out
99topdawg
Well-Known Member
He was an absolute freak. Loved watching him. If someone asked me who my favorite player in any sport was that didn't play for one of my favorite teams, I wouldn't even hesitate.
