New clock rule after 1st downs not popular.
- Thread starter PSUWrestlingFanSince2011
- Start date
Fans usually dislike any type of change when it comes to the rules…I will say that I’m a fan of this rule.$
I don’t like any rules that means less game time (fewer plays) in order to allow for more commercial time.
It counters the huge shift from rushing to passing offenses that has been increasing the number of plays.
Clock stops for first downs in the last 2 minutes. Balances that out.
In the first half of the JSU/UTEP game, another of the new time rules was enforced. UTEP called a timeout on offense, returned and could not get the play off in time. They called another timeout which was disallowed due to no consecutive TOs resulting in a delay of game penalty.
People can’t get mad at more commercials IF they are fans of the amount of money these schools are collecting with these huge TV deals. How do people think the networks make their money?
I’d be in favor of fewer commercials and balancing it out with advertisements on the fields, advertisements on the jerseys/helmets, permanent sponsor logos on the time/score box, etc. Soccer makes it work in that way.
I like to see the excitement late in games. Stopping the clock after 1st downs gives the trailing team a chance. Besides, the clock started running as soon as the ball was reset.
In soccer you don't even know how much time is left in the game.
I think a 2-minute warning should be added. It still makes the game interesting if a team had to burn a timeout early, giving them thst 3rd timeout to essentially stop a drive.
I read it's 180 plays compared to 155 plays.
The reason might be better defenses and more even competition in the NFL. I can't imagine 25 more plays in the time it takes to move the chains.
NCAA to adopt 3 football rule changes next season
The rules are aimed at shortening games and reducing the number of plays per contest.
theathletic.com
If the NFL can play finish in 3:15 or there abouts that should be reasonable for college football as well. Wasn't FBS over 3:30 last year?
So you are saying that we can beat OSU now with our 2 TD lead! Lol
But I get your point.
30 first downs * 10 seconds to move the chains = 5 minutes. It's not zero but IMO it's not 20 minutes.
My guess is that there are more blowouts where the stronger team gets 25+ first downs might be extending the game. Not just moving the chains but time out to get kickoff teams on and off after scores.
I think the clock is stopped longer than you think the clock is stopped on first downs. Most people don't really pay attention to it during games. Should it take longer than you're saying--no--but we'll see how much shorter games are.
As it should be. You want quicker games? There are 12 games +/year.
I am happy with quicker games. I want that to come from fewer TV timeouts and commercials not fewer plays in the games.
As an aside, I don’t watch a lot of the NFL but whenever I do I tend to feel that the games are “too short” in terms of too little action. It often feels like one play/one drive has overwhelming impact. That seems like a way to just have more parity and luck rather than have the higher skilled team win. That’s not something I want college football moving towards more.
Last edited:
Could it be college teams pass more? Or run out bounds more? Just ask in’.I read it's 180 plays compared to 155 plays.
The reason might be better defenses and more even competition in the NFL. I can't imagine 25 more plays in the time it takes to move the chains.
NCAA to adopt 3 football rule changes next season
The rules are aimed at shortening games and reducing the number of plays per contest.
Have ads during the game like soccer does. Soccer has 0 commercial breaks during action. Not that tricky. Giving us less plays is not a solution.
How did the ND/Navy game do as far as length? According to play charts, Navy held the ball for 16 minutes on 3 drives and had zero points to show for it. Rushing teams are going to grind clock and if they can convert first downs and eventually score, they will shorten the game for sure in a big way.
Maybe?
Does the better team always win? At least on a given day they do, right?
The less plays the more the more likely the underdog wins. Its basic math. Say there were only 30 plays in a game for some reason? Anyone could win.
Exactly. And that’s why IMHO it’s a bad thing. The fewer plays, the more it is likely that a fluke play or essentially coin flip wins a game versus one team being better. As a fan I have no reason to desire fewer plays in a game.
Now I’m not saying it always should be the favored (or ostensibly more talented) team winning. But I generally would want the team that plays better to win, which could certainly be the one with a better game plan or precise execution rather than one with more raw talent.
It's a possibility, sure. The underdog still has to get a lead and stop the favorite a few times. Does the favorite need 100 plays to assert dominance? 70 isn't enough?
I'm not saying I'm for or against the change in the rule. I've not sat down and watched enough yet to decide.
Something had to be done. College football games were entirely too long with an average of at least 20 minutes longer than nfl.
We can’t even begin to compare soccer and what it cost to gain their TV rights vs College Football TV rights. It’s not even close.
In what way is it not close? Rights fees for things like the World Cup are incredibly high…for a lower tier domestic league, it’s much lower.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Podcast Reaction to Stan Drayton Hiring + Is He An Upgrade over Ja'Juan Seider?
- Latest: bigbopper1985
-
