NCAA Considering Rule Change

Take out 2 more commercial breaks. Oh.................can't do that!

On a side note, Iowa restructured Brian's contract that the offense now has to score 20 Pt's a game.
Watching the Super Bowl made think of this situation. The bowl game is our 13th game of the year, which means we need 325 points to get to 25 ppg. We have 323 for the year and are up by a couple with 1:30 left. Our RB runs through a huge hole for 5 yards and a 1st down but takes a knee at the 1 so we can run the clock out like KC did. Would KF call a sneak?
 
Watching the Super Bowl made think of this situation. The bowl game is our 13th game of the year, which means we need 325 points to get to 25 ppg. We have 323 for the year and are up by a couple with 1:30 left. Our RB runs through a huge hole for 5 yards and a 1st down but takes a knee at the 1 so we can run the clock out like KC did. Would KF call a sneak?
When you say "325 points" that sounds SOOOO much more impossible for Iowa football than 25 ppg. I know they're the exact same thing, but that sounds like 5 years worth of points for Brian.
 
Without looking at all the data, my sense is the real reason for length of games is the excessive number of commercials. As Fryiowa said in an earlier post, the dead time while you're at a game is practically unbearable. I especially hate a timeout after a TD/FG, followed by another timeout after the ensuing kickoff. Ridiculous!

But that isn't going to change. I would not be in favor of running the clock on incomplete passes. I like no repeat timeouts, although that is fairly rare too. When it's all said and done, I think they might shave a few minutes off of the average game but the impact will be minimal.

The rules are not a lot different than the NFL game but MOST NFL games finish in around 3 hours.
 
I would not be in favor of running the clock on incomplete passes.
I actually love that idea.

I understand the reason for originally stopping the clock on incomplete passes. It was because it took an amount of time to reset the ball. I get it.

But teams have gamed the system for years now to use incomplete passes as timeouts when they need to. It's against the spirit of the game and it adds a ton of time to games, especially now and moving forward as the NFL goes more and more to passing and is eliminating the run game for all intents and purposes. You get a set number of official timeouts for a reason, anything that prevents you from taking more of them (all you have to do is spend a down) is great, IMO.

What's the harm if both teams have to play by the rule? If you want to take a big shot downfield you have to gamble and weight the pros and cons. It forces risk, and speeds up the game.
 
What's the endpoint here?

How much time saved is enough?

What do games have to average to be "correct"

Color me astounded if there's even a whiff of concensus
 
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.
I was curious why shortening games was deemed necessary. Honest answer. Haven't seen the data reflecting that viewership as a whole is overwhelming in favor of shortening games. My home is in Texas and the only game I would be interested in attending would be the Hawkeyes but the distance is too great. So, I DVR all televised games. Then fast forward through commercials, on-field play reviews, and halftime,. Not because the game is too long but rather to maintain continuity of play. BTW, wonder if anyone has asked the players? My sense is they might well keep,or tweak, the game procedures and do away with commercial breaks, and extended referee reviews. This to maintain intensity. If the game must be shortened further, then reduce the half to 15 minutes. If that is still not enough then reduce the length of quarters. But then what do I know? I am not 90 so 3 hours is not 7 minutes. I am, however 80, time still crawls, and let's say I have a different perspective.
 
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.
Saw him pitch once in Houston at the Astrodome when I was 5. I don't remember much about the trip at all other then just the Astrodome itself and the amusement park across the way from it. My grandparents were living in Tyler TX back then and so on a visit we took, down there we went. My Gpa was a huge baseball fan and loved everything about Ryan so by proxy the older I got so did I. Not sure if you saw my previous post mentioning the Netflix doc out on him but I highly recommend it. One of his kids helped produce it. For years he resisted doing anything of the sort but his family finally twisted his arm hard enough to do it.
 
What's the endpoint here?

How much time saved is enough?

What do games have to average to be "correct"

Color me astounded if there's even a whiff of concensus
In my opinion it should be under 3 hours, 2 1/2 would be awesome. If you just took 15 seconds off the play clock you'd be a huge chunk of the way there.
 
I was curious why shortening games was deemed necessary. Honest answer. Haven't seen the data reflecting that viewership as a whole is overwhelming in favor of shortening games. My home is in Texas and the only game I would be interested in attending would be the Hawkeyes but the distance is too great. So, I DVR all televised games. Then fast forward through commercials, on-field play reviews, and halftime,. Not because the game is too long but rather to maintain continuity of play. BTW, wonder if anyone has asked the players? My sense is they might well keep,or tweak, the game procedures and do away with commercial breaks, and extended referee reviews. This to maintain intensity. If the game must be shortened further, then reduce the half to 15 minutes. If that is still not enough then reduce the length of quarters. But then what do I know? I am not 90 so 3 hours is not 7 minutes. I am, however 80, time still crawls, and let's say I have a different perspective.
The best and most sensible way to shorten games would be to reduce media time-outs, but that will never happen.

Hence, you're left with trying to speed the game itself up.

Once games started getting into the 3:15 range it's just ridiculous. At 80 years old you probably aren't in much of a hurry, but I know myself there's usually plenty of other things to do if I'm home, and even if not...why waste time seeing QBs stand behind center for 25 seconds letting the play clock run down every play, etc? And even though games aren't going to speed up by half an hour like baseball will with the pitch clock, it just makes it less enjoyable to watch.

For a 60 minute game that takes 3 and a half hours to play with 11 minutes of action on average, anything making it less boring is needed.
 
What's the endpoint here?

How much time saved is enough?

What do games have to average to be "correct"

Color me astounded if there's even a whiff of concensus

Games are slotted for 3.5 hours on TV. This is a mere suggestion at this point as Iowa and Wisconsin are the only teams capable of staying under 3.5. A bunch push 4 hours now. There's something like 11 minutes of actual gameplay. They have to cut more commercials out and speed up reviews. Crap like running the clock on incomplete passes just cuts plays out of the game but does nothing about the insane number of prolonged stoppages.
 
Games are slotted for 3.5 hours on TV. This is a mere suggestion at this point as Iowa and Wisconsin are the only teams capable of staying under 3.5. A bunch push 4 hours now. There's something like 11 minutes of actual gameplay. They have to cut more commercials out and speed up reviews. Crap like running the clock on incomplete passes just cuts plays out of the game but does nothing about the insane number of prolonged stoppages.
I think a play clock adjustment would be huge. How many times does it get under 5 seconds for seemingly no good reason? Make the play clock 25 seconds or even 30 would help.
 
Without looking at all the data, my sense is the real reason for length of games is the excessive number of commercials. As Fryiowa said in an earlier post, the dead time while you're at a game is practically unbearable. I especially hate a timeout after a TD/FG, followed by another timeout after the ensuing kickoff. Ridiculous!

But that isn't going to change. I would not be in favor of running the clock on incomplete passes. I like no repeat timeouts, although that is fairly rare too. When it's all said and done, I think they might shave a few minutes off of the average game but the impact will be minimal.

The rules are not a lot different than the NFL game but MOST NFL games finish in around 3 hours.

Boy, isn't the bold above true. But, I think we see that in the NFL more than college, right? I could be wrong but that is infuriating. I guess I never thought the game was too long for college.

But, as far as the timing, not much has changed to increase the game time, other than more commercials. Again, that is the cause.

So, you are gunna have fans buy tickets and watch less of the product so they can keep all the commercials instead of game time. So, the fans again at the expense.

That is what is so weird about watching soccer. There are literally no commercials which is funny. I noticed that right away.
 
That is what is so weird about watching soccer. There are literally no commercials which is funny. I noticed that right away.
Soccer isn't popular enough to warrant commercials. That's the whole premise...as the popularity of a sport increases, so does advertising demand.
 
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.

I don't know, I think this could totally work for kickoffs. TB% is over 50%, and it is trending upward.

Out of 6,960 kickoffs in CFB last year, 3,638 were touchbacks (52.3%), and 17 were TDs (0.2%). I would be willing to risk that 2 in a 1,000 chance I have to watch an exciting play on split-screen for moving the game along.
 
First, I can't even imagine what Nolan Ryan must think of today's athletes. He was an old-school tough SOB that took no prisoners. I had/have tremendous respect for him.

Second, as far as shortening games, I'd like to see how things would play out if we eliminated halftime. Force coaches to make adjustments on the fly. Other than giving coaches and players a chance to hit the bathroom, there really is no need for that amount of pause other than to give networks the opportunity to cram in a gazillion advertisements.

And, I would add, the intermission in wrestling has never made much sense.
 
Most rules tend toward giving coaches more control over game situations. This is because coaches (and people advocating for coaches) are primarily in charge of creating the rules.

But from a fan and athlete standpoint, it is usually more fun if the coaches have LESS CONTROL. Football is one sport that leaves me a bit conflicted...the chess battle between coaches is a huge part of the entertainment. But for sports like basketball, we just want to watch the players decide the game, and the players just want to play it out. A million timeouts in the last minute only benefits the control-freak coach who has not prepared his/her players well enough to deal with challenges independently.
 
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.
I am in really good shape for a 90 year old.
 
And, I would add, the intermission in wrestling has never made much sense.
That’s a TV thing and it’s not as long as halftime (it’s not in the rules like football and b-ball. I was at the dual Sunday and it was over in two hours, I’m ok with a 10 minute break to stretch and hit the latrine if you need to. Wrestling meets fly by because there’s no dead time in the action like football and baseball.

You don’t ever see intermissions once you get away from televised duals or go down to D-2 etc.
 

Latest posts

Top