I'm listening to a local Saturday morning radio show on college football, and the hosts are discussing the length of games. These two hosts are rabid fans, but are critical of how excessive commercials and reviews have contributed to making the games intolerably long for them. They claimed it is negatively impacting general viewership and attendance. Both are single with not much going on, but they said they lose their patience watching many games. They contrasted their situation to fans with families, who have less time to devote to games that last four hours or more. They also believe rising young adults will change their viewing habits given their new and expanding communications options. My biggest complaint about attending games in Beaver Stadium is not the blaring PA system but the numerous down times caused by play interruptions. I hate the on-field guy in the red jacket holding up play! They contrasted football to soccer, which has constant action for an entire half. Commercials are reserved for pre- and post-game and halftime. Basketball has lost my attention for many of the same reasons.
Are college football games too long?
- Thread starter Class of 67
- Start date
ESPN has an article on it as well, and many coaches and commissioners agree. The culprit is the pass happy teams, as the Big12 has the longest games. I hate to see them alter the game structure (like not stopping the clock on 1st downs ala the NFL). The one suggestion is limiting commercials, although we all know that will not happen. I am in favor of getting rid of that guy in the red jacket.
The Rose Bowl was about four minutes too long. 
(I still love this team.)
(I still love this team.
)
"Games" are much SHORTER than they were 15 years ago
Are fans that STOOPID?
(Rhetorical question)
The length of time of a "broadcast" is a different story
How hard is that to figure out?
(Again, rhetorical question)
Yes and its getting worse. Some of those games we sat in Beaver Stadium and watched took waaayyy too long, MSU being a prime example.
The Rose Bowl was a beast unto itself, but I guess thats to be expected with as many passes and injury TO's and Reviews.
I agree they need to worry about the college game but they better actually DO SOMETHING about PRO games because they are 10x worse and one of the main reasons I've lost interest in the NFL.
absolutely too long, any televised football game, college or pro should be 3 hrs - it's 2017, casual fans (and any fans with young kids) do not have 4 hours to sit on their butts to watch a game - the NFL needs to deal with this as well, so does MLB - I guess college football halftimes are 5 mins longer than the NFL, they should reduce that - folks who think 4 hours is just dandy probably still sit down and read the Sunday paper as well (and are over 50)
I literally quit watching the NFL due to the TV timeouts. I pray that college football doesn't go this route. I noticed they started adding TV timeouts for some bowl games (most noticeably FOX). I agree with bjf1991 that the broadcast is the issue not the games. I get enjoyment from watching the game why would I want to shorten that part of it? And please don't quit stopping the clock after a first down. The less the college game resembles the NFL the happier I am.
Same here. Seems like such an easy fix. I'd even modify it to still stop it in the last 2 minutes of each half even (or the last 5 minutes of the game even), but no reason at all to stop the clock after a first down 2 minutes into the game (heck, refs even mail it in at this point, and start the clock up after 5-6 seconds, not actually waiting for the chains to get set to restart it).
Other easy fix to me seems to be the soccer model of adding advertising permanently to the time/score bar on the screen. Seems like they could make some serious $ that way, and eliminate a few commercial breaks each game to offset it (though I'm sure the answer will just be to pocket the $ and keep the commercial breaks).
Huh? You think that college is just starting to add TV timeouts???
Pet peeve:
Team 1 scores a touchdown. TV timeout.
Team 1 kicks off to Team 2 resulting in either a return or touchback. TV timeout.
That's a source of OUTRAGE. for me.
Team 1 scores a touchdown. TV timeout.
Team 1 kicks off to Team 2 resulting in either a return or touchback. TV timeout.
That's a source of OUTRAGE.
for me.Honest question:
Do you have any idea of the "clock management" changes that the NFL and College Football have instituted over the last 15 years?
Any idea of their impact on the game?
Impact on "broadcast" times?
Impact on % of "broadcast times" devote to commercials vs game play?
I am sure everyone has a different view of the length of the broadcast, but for me I would like to see a little shorter. In the 1970's the kickoffs were at 1pm and games were over around 4pm. Now we KO at noon and games end 4-430. Each team gets 3 TOs/half, so that has not changed. The rules have not really changed around time, and the halftime is 20 min, so the extra time would seem to be in the following:
- Number of plays - I think the data shows there is an increase in plays due to more passing, and clock is stopping for incomplete passes.
- Number of first downs - my bet is there are more first downs, and therefore more clock stoppages. That has always been the rule, but may be happening more.
- Official review - did not exist in the past, so that is happening several times in every game.
- Commercials - no matter what we watch in life now, there are more commercials. Commercial free anything hardly exists.
Yes, I do. And as teams continue to throw the ball more and more and we see higher scoring games that are making games longer (along with an increase in the time allocated to commercials), I feel like more changes are needed. Really, what is the reasoning for stopping the clock after a first down with 13:28 left in the first quarter? The change to restart the clock after the ball went out of bounds was a very positive change, and this seems like another one to me.
Well........
Since a couple of your "four points" listed above are wrong (just the opposite, in fact).....I won't tell you which ones
but it's not like the data isn't readily available I don't think it takes a "rocket surgeon".......but, apparently, the level of deep thinking involved is well beyond the abilities of most of the fan-boy demographic
LOL
I guess I should have made the questions "rhetorical"......since, obviously, either you DO NOT know those answers - - - or just don't want to address those questions
That's up to you......nothing I can do about it
Alas.......not much point to trying to teach a school of fish to climb trees
Too many commercials. Too many idiotic reviews. Too many long reviews for legit review.
Well........
Since a couple of your "four points" listed above are wrong (just the opposite, in fact).....I won't tell you which ones
I don't think it takes a "rocket surgeon".......but, apparently, the level of deep thinking involved is well beyond the abilities of most of the fan-boy demographic
only one point i speculated on = whether there was more FDs. that was a conjecture - not data. it would not be hard to have a growth in FDs if there were more plays.
the other three are pretty factual. ESPN actually showed in the BIG 12 they had over a 20% increase in the # plays since the 1980s (when they were SWC and Big 8 schools). i recall they showed in a graph that the %passing plays increased the number of total plays in the game on average.
are you suggesting we have less commercial time or less review time say since 1970's?
I agree. The games are bordering on too long usually but the issue IMO is the excessive commercials- not the game itself. The NCAA football folks won't touch that- instead they will tinker with game rules to shorten the game. The tv guy in red who stands on the field holding up play is painful. The NFL has the same issue.
As for replays- I'm not sure how much they really contribute to extending games. It is frustrating when you've seen the play reviewed with the obvious answer on tv 3 times already....then the replay official buzzes down....then he starts reviewing for way too much time and we head off to commercials. There's no excuse when the viewer at home saw the replay and figured the correct call answer in 15 seconds but it takes 5 minutes for the replay official to figure it out.
Let me just make this as clear as I possibly can:
Over the last 10-15 years (I don't feel like going back through the "Interwebs" to identify the exact years) the rules of the game were changed (several times) to result in fewer plays (and fewer first downs, as if that were not obvious)......resulting - at the NFL level - in essentially eliminating 1/4 of the game (it hasn't gotten that bad at the college level, but the direction is the same)
All this was done - as the PR wonks spun it - to "speed up the game".
Obviously, to anyone with an IQ above room temperature (so, about 10% of the fan-boys
) that is pure BS.....it didn't "speed up the game" one iota - - - - it only "reduced" the actual amount of game played.All the while, the folks using the "game" to make money, reallocated all of that "time" to run more, and more, and more, and more............ commercials (the stuff that produces the $$$$$ LOL)
Now - - - thanks to the idiocy of fan-boys who apparently can't do add/subtract/multiply/divide math - - - - here we go again.
"Lets start a "the games last too long" campaign - - - - again - - - - - so that we can replace even MORE of the game (which don't make us any money), and replace it with commercials (which make us money) and spin it to the fan-boys that we are doing it in the interest of "speeding up the game".....Hell, we can convince those dopes that we are doing it in the interest of providing a better "product" and a better "viewing experience" for THEM. LOL LOL LOL LOL What a bunch of dopes!!!!"
Seriously?
The rules are fine. It's TV's fault. As the outraged one above noted, the timeout after the touchdown followed by another timeout after the ensuing kickoff is incredibly excessive. I believe TV timeouts are 2:30-3:00 in length, depending on network and portion of the game. Those need to be shaved down to 90 seconds. The other thing that might make life a little bit easier is to institute specific times in the game when a timeout is coming. Basketball does it at 16, 12, 8, and 4 minutes. Hockey does it at 14, 10, and 6 minutes. You have a built-in one at the quarter breaks so set two specific times (11 & 7 minutes?) for the timeout windows. It could then cut down on the number of times networks need to send people to a different channel (or online) for a subsequent game because the first game runs long.
Of course, in this greedy, money-grubbing world we live in, cutting commercials is the last thing that will ever happen.
Of course, in this greedy, money-grubbing world we live in, cutting commercials is the last thing that will ever happen.
You forgot the timeout between the touchdown and the PAT!Pet peeve:
Team 1 scores a touchdown. TV timeout.
Team 1 kicks off to Team 2 resulting in either a return or touchback. TV timeout.
That's a source of OUTRAGE.
Genius, answer this...Are there about 10% more plays run in every game today than there were a decade ago? If we found some ways to shorted the game to go back to around the same number in the mid-2000s by doing something like keeping the clock running after first downs, is there a negative impact to the game? Or is it a net positive both in terms of shorter games and helping player safety by cutting out 100 plays per season per team? When you watched a game in 2006, were you thinking "gee, we really need to find a way to make these games longer"?
Cut out the revenue that networks can make, and the $ that they're willing to pay for television rights drops. Drop that, and the $ that's coming into the athletic departments drops. It's nice to blame the TV networks and all, but it's the NCAA and their members that are agreeing to these television rules.
Limit commercials and limit reviews. They review way too many plays including ones that are obvious. We've gotten to the point where the refs decision on anything isn't trusted. If they're that bad then get new refs. Hell, the refs don't even try to get calls right because they know it will be reviewed.
Uh ......2 things appear to be clear:
1 - I think it's clear that you are the absolute ideal for the TV Folks, when they dream about the target market they want to see in "sports"
2 - If it were my intent, my ability to catalyze logical thought among "fan-boys" is certainly woefully deficient
I suck
I like the idea of keeping TO's on each first down and maintain current out-of-bounds TO rules.
The one poster has an idea that would be interesting to look at - time outs at set times during the quarters similar to basketball.
The number and length of commercial breaks is a killer IMO.
And, posts referenced reviews of plays. Think of how many reviews were very very obvious from the first view TV showed us, but the official review booth took what seemed like 3 minutes. We saw it within 15 seconds. Think Gesiki catches CCG and RB.
OL
The one poster has an idea that would be interesting to look at - time outs at set times during the quarters similar to basketball.
The number and length of commercial breaks is a killer IMO.
And, posts referenced reviews of plays. Think of how many reviews were very very obvious from the first view TV showed us, but the official review booth took what seemed like 3 minutes. We saw it within 15 seconds. Think Gesiki catches CCG and RB.
OL
And about as meaningful to "length of game" as is the color of the yard markers
Agree the games are too long. The biggest culprit for these lengthy games are referees and their seemingly review of every play. Even when a review is done and the correct call is obvious they take forever and a day to rule.
That and they tend to not actually want to make a call, the need for the officiating crew to huddle and talk over every single call among themselves for 30-45 seconds.
national feed games are insufferably long. It doesn't matter if it's college football, NFL, MLB whatever. there are just too many commercial breaks that drag games on and on.
The thing that really drives me nuts is watching the official go "under the hood" to watch a replay. Everyone in the stadium usually knows within a couple seconds about a replay. The decision could be reviewed in the booth and communicated down to the official within a few seconds without having to stop for 30-60 seconds (a commercial break).
The thing that really drives me nuts is watching the official go "under the hood" to watch a replay. Everyone in the stadium usually knows within a couple seconds about a replay. The decision could be reviewed in the booth and communicated down to the official within a few seconds without having to stop for 30-60 seconds (a commercial break).
Similar threads
