Rule Changes

[CEB]

I actually like the rules changes. The running clock after 1st downs should have a great impact on shortening game length. The ban on consecutive timeouts is long overdue. The untimed penalties I don't think buys much, but I have no issue with the new rule.

I agree mostly. Untimed down and consecutive TO rules are good, even if they don’t do much to reduce game length. I would just like to see them shorten games without reducing plays.
I think all booth review should be eliminated. Give each team two challenges per half, one is free the other costs you a time out. Targeting only gets reviewed if a penalty is called or play is stopped for injury to the “targeted” player.
We’ve come to a point where the officials are dictating the pace of play nearly as much as the teams are.

 

[MWBATL]

I agree mostly. Untimed down and consecutive TO rules are good, even if they don’t do much to reduce game length. I would just like to see them shorten games without reducing plays.
I think all booth review should be eliminated. Give each team two challenges per half, one is free the other costs you a time out. Targeting only gets reviewed if a penalty is called or play is stopped for injury to the “targeted” player.
We’ve come to a point where the officials are dictating the pace of play nearly as much as the teams are.

Strongly agree. Booth reviews are to me the single biggest factor is dragging out games, and in many cases the length of time taken looks quite unnecessary. Put a review clock in effect except for the last two minutes of each half, and don't cut the number of actual plays by going to a running clock....

 

[bobongo]

Strongly agree. Booth reviews are to me the single biggest factor is dragging out games, and in many cases the length of time taken looks quite unnecessary. Put a review clock in effect except for the last two minutes of each half, and don't cut the number of actual plays by going to a running clock....

I don't mind the reviews taking a little longer in the tough cases if they would just speed up reviews when it's obvious. And some reviews shouldn't take place at all. A review clock is one size fits all.

 

[bobongo]

Ok... that makes more sense.

Still stinks that all of these rules mean less actual football.....

I don't mind these rule changes. The one eliminating clock stoppage after first down just takes it back to the way it was before 1968.
But the one they need to establish is the one they never will, which is to limit the time allotted for commercial breaks.

 

[g0lftime]

No clock stoppage after a first down will make come backs a lot more difficult.

 

[bobongo]

No clock stoppage after a first down will make come backs a lot more difficult.

According to this, there's an exception for the last two minutes of each half (not just the first half, as the tweet posted in the OP stated):

NCAA rules committee announces major changes to speed up college football games

Three new rules have been passed by the NCAA's Rules Committee in order to speed up the length of college football games.

www.on3.com

“In a third proposal that is garnering wide support, the clock will continue to run after an offense gains a first down except inside of two minutes in a half."

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

According to this, there's an exception for the last two minutes of each half (not just the first half, as the tweet posted in the OP stated):

NCAA rules committee announces major changes to speed up college football games

Three new rules have been passed by the NCAA's Rules Committee in order to speed up the length of college football games.

www.on3.com

“In a third proposal that is garnering wide support, the clock will continue to run after an offense gains a first down except inside of two minutes in a half."

Ha. Good eye. I didn't even catch the typo in the original tweet.

 

[roadkill]

The top blurb of the article is wrong. If you read further down it says the clock would stop at the last 2 minutes of “a half,” which I believe means “both halves” and that makes some sense.

There’s a fourth change lurking out there, though. They are also talking about a running clock on incomplete passes too. Talk about limiting comebacks... that’s a biggie. That said, it might be interesting to see how teams manage that. If there is no benefit to stopping the clock with a pass, defenses can’t rush three and play prevent because running could be a more attractive option late in the game.... they say this rule is the most controversial but it could actually change the late game approach in a way that might actually be interesting.

The fourth change is controversial and may not get adopted. In any case, it has a nuance that isn't obvious unless you read the article carefully. The clock would actually still be stopped on an incomplete pass. The change is that the clock starts again when the ball is spotted ready for play, rather than upon the snap.

 

[danny daniel]

I agree that these rules are ok but the 3 minute+ timeouts for commercials are ridiculous. Just watch all the complacency during the last minute of that 3 minute commercial. Its killing the game. Commercial time outs should be limited to 2 minutes at most. Enen the guy on the field with the clock sign is bored stiff.

 

[bobongo]

I agree that these rules are ok but the 3 minute+ timeouts for commercials are ridiculous. Just watch all the complacency during the last minute of that 3 minute commercial. Its killing the game. Commercial time outs should be limited to 2 minutes at most. Enen the guy on the field with the clock sign is bored stiff.

The Law of Diminishing Returns kicks in after two minutes.

 

[Towaliga]

The fourth change is controversial and may not get adopted. In any case, it has a nuance that isn't obvious unless you read the article carefully. The clock would actually still be stopped on an incomplete pass. The change is that the clock starts again when the ball is spotted ready for play, rather than upon the snap.

That’s really going to impact the strategy of spiking the ball to stop the clock. Also, I can see controversy arising when an official takes too long spotting the ball or seems to hurry more than normal to spot it.

 

[billga99]

The top blurb of the article is wrong. If you read further down it says the clock would stop at the last 2 minutes of “a half,” which I believe means “both halves” and that makes some sense.

There’s a fourth change lurking out there, though. They are also talking about a running clock on incomplete passes too. Talk about limiting comebacks... that’s a biggie. That said, it might be interesting to see how teams manage that. If there is no benefit to stopping the clock with a pass, defenses can’t rush three and play prevent because running could be a more attractive option late in the game.... they say this rule is the most controversial but it could actually change the late game approach in a way that might actually be interesting.

This completely changes the game and is not consistent with Pro or High School Football. This would be a very bad decision. The 2 biggest issues by far are commercials and reviews. Sitting out a game (particularly ESPN) and watching the commercial timeout coming on with 3 minutes plus consistently is ridiculous. Pro game commercials are shorter. The reviews need to be limited. Maybe 2 or 3 challenges per coach per game. Commercials and reviews are killing the pace of the games

 

[RonJohn]

The top blurb of the article is wrong. If you read further down it says the clock would stop at the last 2 minutes of “a half,” which I believe means “both halves” and that makes some sense.

There’s a fourth change lurking out there, though. They are also talking about a running clock on incomplete passes too. Talk about limiting comebacks... that’s a biggie. That said, it might be interesting to see how teams manage that. If there is no benefit to stopping the clock with a pass, defenses can’t rush three and play prevent because running could be a more attractive option late in the game.... they say this rule is the most controversial but it could actually change the late game approach in a way that might actually be interesting.

If the goal actually is to keep the game times under 3:30 so as not to interfere with TV scheduling, then not stopping the clock on an incomplete pass until the snap is the only one that would make a real dent. Running clock on 1st down would shave off 3-5 seconds every first down, maybe a couple of minutes per game. The consecutive timeouts and untimed downs are not common, so won't make any difference at all in most games. (Not common as in don't happen in every game, or even every weekend, not that they never happen.) Running clock on incomplete passes would shave off something like 20 seconds on about half of all plays. If there are 120-140 plays in a game, that could be 20 minutes of game time reduction.

It appears to me that the actual changes are more apt to increase the time for commercials than to decrease the time length of the game appreciably. The article states that "But even getting those first three changes would drastically alter game length.". I disagree with that. On average I don't think all three of those would reduce the game length by more than 3 minutes on average. Running the clock on incomplete passes would probably take 20 or more minutes off of game length on average. It seems silly to me to concentrate on fine tuning, when incomplete pass game clock stoppage is an order of magnitude larger than all of the other proposals combined.

 

[RonJohn]

This completely changes the game and is not consistent with Pro or High School Football. This would be a very bad decision. The 2 biggest issues by far are commercials and reviews. Sitting out a game (particularly ESPN) and watching the commercial timeout coming on with 3 minutes plus consistently is ridiculous. Pro game commercials are shorter. The reviews need to be limited. Maybe 2 or 3 challenges per coach per game. Commercials and reviews are killing the pace of the games

I actually like the review system in college much better than in the NFL. The reviews themselves are taking longer and longer, and that should be fixed. However, teams should not lose games because of bad calls by officials. I think it is the responsibility of the officials and the conference to make sure the calls are correct, not on the coaches or the players.

 

[takethepoints]

Want a shorter game? The solution is easy: enforce holding rules by getting rid of the present push and dance "exceptions" and get rid of the cut blocking restrictions. That would mean that OLs would have to actually block to protect QBs. Result = the game would have to go back to run based Os since the QBs would have less time to set up (and we could also get rid of the don't-you-dare-hurt-the-poor-little-QBs penalties) and the overall length of games would decrease. I might also add that there would be fewer time outs - no need to stop a game you want over with.

Oth, the proposed rules changes won't make a bean worth of difference. But … I doubt the NCAA actually wants to make the games shorter so the whole point is moot.

 

[Root4GT]

If the goal actually is to keep the game times under 3:30 so as not to interfere with TV scheduling, then not stopping the clock on an incomplete pass until the snap is the only one that would make a real dent. Running clock on 1st down would shave off 3-5 seconds every first down, maybe a couple of minutes per game. The consecutive timeouts and untimed downs are not common, so won't make any difference at all in most games. (Not common as in don't happen in every game, or even every weekend, not that they never happen.) Running clock on incomplete passes would shave off something like 20 seconds on about half of all plays. If there are 120-140 plays in a game, that could be 20 minutes of game time reduction.

It appears to me that the actual changes are more apt to increase the time for commercials than to decrease the time length of the game appreciably. The article states that "But even getting those first three changes would drastically alter game length.". I disagree with that. On average I don't think all three of those would reduce the game length by more than 3 minutes on average. Running the clock on incomplete passes would probably take 20 or more minutes off of game length on average. It seems silly to me to concentrate on fine tuning, when incomplete pass game clock stoppage is an order of magnitude larger than all of the other proposals combined.

The not stopping the clock on incomplete passes would drastically alter the game. The not stopping it on first downs will shave a few minutes each half and have minimal impact on the game. The 2 TOs in a row and eliminating the untuned play have zero impact on game length as well as zero impact on the game itself.

Still I like the keep it running on 1st downs.

 

[RonJohn]

The not stopping the clock on incomplete passes would drastically alter the game. The not stopping it on first downs will shave a few minutes each half and have minimal impact on the game. The 2 TOs in a row and eliminating the untuned play have zero impact on game length as well as zero impact on the game itself.

Still I like the keep it running on 1st downs.

I think the reason that the incomplete pass change would alter the game more, is because it does more to reduce the game length, and thus reduces the number of plays more. I don't think there is anything magically different between that and not stopping the clock for the chains to be reset on a first down. The only difference is that the first down change would only save two to three minutes a game. At the end of the game when trying to come back, you would only get a few first downs, say maybe five or six. The change would reduce 25 to 30 seconds of game time, so would take away two or maybe three plays. The incomplete pass change could save 20 minutes or more per game. At the end of the game when trying to come back, it could take away several minutes, maybe 10 or 12 plays.

The point I am trying to make is that there is a direct correlation between how much the change would affect the game and how much the change would reduce the game length. If they really want to take 20 or more minutes off of the game length, then they are going to have to alter the way the game is played/schemed. Micro changes are not going to alter the game much, but are also not going to reduce the game time by much.

It also seems to me that first three changes will ensure more breaks and time for commercials. The overall effect could be a reduction in the amount of football played, but an increase in the overall game length because of commercials. I know that it isn't actually true, but being in the stands it feels as though we spend more time watching the guy in the red shirt holding the timer than we do actually watching football plays. (Or it might actually be the case that the overall time between snaps and whistles is less than the time of the red-shirt guy timer time.)

 

[CEB]

I think the reason that the incomplete pass change would alter the game more, is because it does more to reduce the game length, and thus reduces the number of plays more. I don't think there is anything magically different between that and not stopping the clock for the chains to be reset on a first down. The only difference is that the first down change would only save two to three minutes a game. At the end of the game when trying to come back, you would only get a few first downs, say maybe five or six. The change would reduce 25 to 30 seconds of game time, so would take away two or maybe three plays. The incomplete pass change could save 20 minutes or more per game. At the end of the game when trying to come back, it could take away several minutes, maybe 10 or 12 plays.

The point I am trying to make is that there is a direct correlation between how much the change would affect the game and how much the change would reduce the game length. If they really want to take 20 or more minutes off of the game length, then they are going to have to alter the way the game is played/schemed. Micro changes are not going to alter the game much, but are also not going to reduce the game time by much.

It also seems to me that first three changes will ensure more breaks and time for commercials. The overall effect could be a reduction in the amount of football played, but an increase in the overall game length because of commercials. I know that it isn't actually true, but being in the stands it feels as though we spend more time watching the guy in the red shirt holding the timer than we do actually watching football plays. (Or it might actually be the case that the overall time between snaps and whistles is less than the time of the red-shirt guy timer time.)

I mostly agree with all you’ve said. Proposed changes, good or bad, aren’t changing game length (program length) much. They’re reducing football plays though.
One of the reasons cited for these proposal was safety. Fewer plays = fewer injuries. If they’re being honest about the desire for safety, that could be the biggest reason the running clock on incompletions doesn’t get adopted. Late in games, it’s actually a good play for a QB to throw it away. Avoid the hit, avoid a mistake, stop the clock. If that goes away, you’ll see QBs trying to make a play, try get out of bounds or even take hits on run plays because there is little incentive to throw it away. Maybe they ultimately treat it like some other rules and only stop for incompletions in the final two minutes.


ETA- there is a lot of talk about “average length” of games. Televised games have ALWAYS been longer than non-televised. Is the length of games REALLY increasing or is the “average” length increasing because more games are televised? Someone here is surely inclined to pull the data...

 

[bobongo]

ETA- there is a lot of talk about “average length” of games. Televised games have ALWAYS been longer than non-televised. Is the length of games REALLY increasing or is the “average” length increasing because more games are televised? Someone here is surely inclined to pull the data...

I may be misremembering, but it seems to me that back in the old days commercials were aired only when there was a natural break in the action. Games were not delayed because of TV, and sometimes the ball got snapped before the commercials ended. There was no such thing as a TV time out.

I understand that they increase revenue, but they're just too many and long. There's a sweet spot there, but it's been exceeded IMO. Nut don't hold your breath for that to get fixed.

 

[CEB]

I may be misremembering, but it seems to me that back in the old days commercials were aired only when there was a natural break in the action. Games were not delayed because of TV, and sometimes the ball got snapped before the commercials ended. There was no such thing as a TV time out.

I understand that they increase revenue, but they're just too many and long. There's a sweet spot there, but it's been exceeded IMO. Nut don't hold your breath for that to get fixed.

You’re not misremembering... this time.
I also remember weird cuts (cutting commercials short or joining the game in progress). Ahh the good ol days!

I agree we’ll never put those worms back in the can...