"NCAA Football Rules Committee proposes starting this season, game clock won’t be stopped after a 1st down except for final 2 minutes of each half.* Teams also won’t be able to call consecutive time outs. NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel will vote April 20 to make these official" - Brett Murphy

*Not sure I like this.


Thoughts?

I don't think it's necessary. Average gametime seems reasonable to me.

all I see is longer commercial time…

Who cares if the games are long. If someone drives 3-5 hours to make a game, invests in a hotel etc, a nice long game and game day festivities are a good thing. This seems designed for TV, not for fans.

(03-03-2023 12:21 PM)monarx Wrote:  Who cares if the games are long. If someone drives 3-5 hours to make a game, invests in a hotel etc, a nice long game and game day festivities are a good thing. This seems designed for TV, not for fans.

there’s no question they make it up selling more ad time … it’s a gimme putt…

(03-03-2023 12:02 PM)CatMom Wrote:  "NCAA Football Rules Committee proposes starting this season, game clock won’t be stopped after a 1st down except for final 2 minutes of each half.* Teams also won’t be able to call consecutive time outs. NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel will vote April 20 to make these official" - Brett Murphy

*Not sure I like this.


Thoughts?

I seriously doubt that will save enough time to be truly make a difference with total game time. They want to shorten the game, stop all the obnoxious TV timeouts.

(03-03-2023 12:46 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 12:02 PM)CatMom Wrote:  "NCAA Football Rules Committee proposes starting this season, game clock won’t be stopped after a 1st down except for final 2 minutes of each half.* Teams also won’t be able to call consecutive time outs. NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel will vote April 20 to make these official" - Brett Murphy

*Not sure I like this.


Thoughts?

I seriously doubt that will save enough time to be truly make a difference with total game time. They want to shorten the game, stop all the obnoxious TV timeouts.

But the TV timeouts are the reason we are getting the money. Yes, they are obnoxious but they pay the bills.

Ehh it doesn't seem necessary but also just doesn't seem like a big deal one way or the other honestly.

(03-03-2023 12:46 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 12:02 PM)CatMom Wrote:  "NCAA Football Rules Committee proposes starting this season, game clock won’t be stopped after a 1st down except for final 2 minutes of each half.* Teams also won’t be able to call consecutive time outs. NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel will vote April 20 to make these official" - Brett Murphy

*Not sure I like this.


Thoughts?

I seriously doubt that will save enough time to be truly make a difference with total game time. They want to shorten the game, stop all the obnoxious TV timeouts.

uhhhh … less playing time on the field + same broadcast time = > ad $$$

@minutesRmillions

(03-03-2023 01:25 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 12:46 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 12:02 PM)CatMom Wrote:  "NCAA Football Rules Committee proposes starting this season, game clock won’t be stopped after a 1st down except for final 2 minutes of each half.* Teams also won’t be able to call consecutive time outs. NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel will vote April 20 to make these official" - Brett Murphy

*Not sure I like this.


Thoughts?

I seriously doubt that will save enough time to be truly make a difference with total game time. They want to shorten the game, stop all the obnoxious TV timeouts.

uhhhh … less playing time on the field + same broadcast time = > ad $$$

@minutesRmillions

Longer broadcast time = more commercials = more $$$

(03-03-2023 12:13 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I don't think it's necessary. Average gametime seems reasonable to me.

The argument made is not time but the number of plays which reduces the number of contacts players are subjected to during a game/season. With the increase in the number of games that teams advancing in the playoffs is apparently some of the motivation for these changes. There are significantly more plays in a college game than an NFL game.

It sounds like the 10 FBS conferences are in favor.

I'd say if it ain't broke don't fix it. Is a 10 percent (for example) reduction in the number of plays going to decrease long-term injury risk?

I guess you could say any reduction reduces risk...so why not just cancel football. What's acceptable risk?

Isn't this going to mess with the record books and stats if the game is actually shorter, based on number of plays?

Anything but eliminating/minimizing commercial breaks . . .

(03-03-2023 02:42 PM)Dukes94 Wrote:  I'd say if it ain't broke don't fix it. Is a 10 percent (for example) reduction in the number of plays going to decrease long-term injury risk?

I guess you could say any reduction reduces risk...so why not just cancel football. What's acceptable risk?

Isn't this going to mess with the record books and stats if the game is actually shorter, based on number of plays?

It's estimated that it will save about 8-10 plays a game. Over the course of a season, that would equal at least one game's worth of plays.

(03-03-2023 12:46 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 12:02 PM)CatMom Wrote:  "NCAA Football Rules Committee proposes starting this season, game clock won’t be stopped after a 1st down except for final 2 minutes of each half.* Teams also won’t be able to call consecutive time outs. NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel will vote April 20 to make these official" - Brett Murphy

*Not sure I like this.


Thoughts?

I seriously doubt that will save enough time to be truly make a difference with total game time. They want to shorten the game, stop all the obnoxious TV timeouts.

Or go soccer style.. and run the little mini-ads in the corner of the TV out of the way of the game play...

The only problem with soccer style timekeeping (which I like) is that there’s no way in hell we’d ever let the refs determine stoppage time or let them blow a whistle when they decide the game’s over!

But, a running clock isn’t a bad thing. I don’t see a need for it, though. Again, if it’s not broken…

(03-03-2023 12:13 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I don't think it's necessary. Average gametime seems reasonable to me.

There was an article about it, but the idea is to match College Football more to the NFL. NFL games are getting finished in just slightly over 3 hours, while College games are often approaching 3.5 hours. Part of it is the commercials are longer on the college side, (Pro TV breaks are set in advance) but this should save about 10 minutes or so.

Its a lot better than the crazy original plan to run clock on incomplete passes...

I guess I'm the only one who likes the idea. I do things during commercial breaks, coding, reading, exercising. A few minutes is long enough for it. But, the clock stopping after a first down is long enough to be annoying, but too short to really do anything with the break time.

(03-03-2023 12:46 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(03-03-2023 12:02 PM)CatMom Wrote:  "NCAA Football Rules Committee proposes starting this season, game clock won’t be stopped after a 1st down except for final 2 minutes of each half.* Teams also won’t be able to call consecutive time outs. NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel will vote April 20 to make these official" - Brett Murphy

*Not sure I like this.


Thoughts?

I seriously doubt that will save enough time to be truly make a difference with total game time. They want to shorten the game, stop all the obnoxious TV timeouts.

But that would mean all the obnoxious dollars would stop flowing to the P5's.

NFL games are quicker largely because they have fewer incomplete passes.

Though I'm glad they didn't adopt the rule of letting the clock run when the ball is set after incomplete passes.