(08-27-2023 12:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 08:57 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  Teams playing today are mostly in the 62-68 plays per game range, which is from the 71-72 range last season (although it's a small sample size). It's a great rule change -- games are going faster, it's paced more like an NFL game.

I agree. I only wish they had fully adopted the NFL approach and keep the clock running on a first down inside the final two minutes of the halves as well. I don't see any reason to stop the clocks during those times, that IMO gives the offense an unfair advantage.

We get so little CFB - it's been 229 days since the last game - that I don't mind four-hour games like I did in baseball. But I've never liked the clock-stops-on-a-first-down rule in CFB, always thought the NFL approach was better, more justifiable conceptually.

And there's a lot to be said anyway for getting players used to NFL rules, yes.

(09-03-2023 07:33 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(08-28-2023 08:43 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  If I wanted NFL rules, I would watch the NFL.

And if they really want to cut time, reduce halftime by five to eight minutes and drop a commercial break or two. Do we really need three minutes between every possession? If there are 13 possessions for each team (though the first change of possession they don't cut to ads to introduce starting lineups) so we'll say 12 (24 total), that's a minimum of 72 minutes for commercials. Over a flippin hour. The average length of a college football game is 200 minutes, so about 36% of a college game is for commercials.

Have you guys ever seen the analysis of how much football is actually played in 3 or 4 hour game since most plays last like 4 to 6 seconds?

The answer isn't rule changes. It's reduce the damn red hat time on the field. Marketers can charge more for less ad time, so revenue isn't lost. Instead of fixing the core problem, they tinker with the game.

The rule was instituted in 1968, so it's not like it has been there for eternity. Football isn't supposed to take 5 hours. If you like it great, but it just isn't. Those rules were instituted to reward teams for first downs after 3 running plays. The Big 12 was throwing 70 passes per team per game, there's no reason for the clock to stop after first downs in this case as well.

I will admit I haven't watched much of the season since the beginning of the season is usually pointless. But I have heard that the clock rules haven't done much. I guess I was assuming it would be as beneficial as the MLB changes, which have totally improved pace of play. Hopefully something changes and the games fit nicely into a 200m window.

HTs are for college bands, etc. They can't nor shouldn't change the time there. You can ask for "tradition" - clock rules to go back and then cut out the more traditional aspect of CFB.

No game I have ever watched that didn’t go into multiple overtime’s lasted anywhere near 5 hours. Moreover, of all the games I watched this weekend none of them were less than 3:20 but there were definitely less possessions and less plays. But the run time was still at least the same as before. This is nonsense that they run this many commercials during a game. All they did is keep the time the same and fill it with even more play stoppage for commercials and several coaches have already complained. It destroys the flow of the game, momentum, and most importantly the enjoyment. If you’re sitting in a stadium you’re literally spending more time with the red hat on the field than you are actual football. This is not good for the game. And people wonder why attendance has been tending down.

You can tell the game has a faster pace. So, in-game, you’re not getting more tv breaks, or really longer ones. However, halftime? Seemed a little longer. Naturally, more breaks.

Not a fan. I have always liked the college feel and not a fan of doing more and more to feel like the NFL.

(09-04-2023 05:32 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Not a fan. I have always liked the college feel and not a fan of doing more and more to feel like the NFL.

I get it. But, the games were going so long. Not so much on the game itself, but the coverage, and all of these commercial breaks at 2-3 minutes each. It was too much. I know I tuned out. Especially on those nearly 4-hour games where your final was something where neither team scored over 30? Yeah, pass.

Of course, maybe the better fix is to just do less commercial breaks or shorter breaks, but, yeah right.

The future is 2 streaming services for the same game. One service you pay more for no adds and no commercial breaks. The other service you pay less but it shows adds while live action is going on. Once you return from the Comercial breaks, the service will catch up by showing replays of all the plays you missed.

One service is for die-hard fans that need to watch all the plays live. The other is for casual fans that are mainly watching to get the highlights anyway and don't mind that they don't see the play live as long as they see them all on replay shortly after.

I mean there is usually a lot of dead time between plays anyway. After all, how many times can they show the head coach pacing the sidelines? Just skip to the next play.

(08-26-2023 10:08 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  The TV timeouts aren’t decreasing or getting shorter. This just means less football. How is that a good thing?

how do you have less football? the games aren't 60 minutes anymore?

(09-04-2023 08:23 PM)goofus Wrote:  The future is 2 streaming services for the same game. One service you pay more for no adds and no commercial breaks. The other service you pay less but it shows adds while live action is going on. Once you return from the Comercial breaks, the service will catch up by showing replays of all the plays you missed.

One service is for die-hard fans that need to watch all the plays live. The other is for casual fans that are mainly watching to get the highlights anyway and don't mind that they don't see the play live as long as they see them all on replay shortly after.

I mean there is usually a lot of dead time between plays anyway. After all, how many times can they show the head coach pacing the sidelines? Just skip to the next play.

As has been mentioned numerous times on this board, live sports is one of the few things people still tune in to. No one is giving up that ad money. Why have one income stream when you can have two? (And, no, the ad-free subs wouldn't come close to making that up.)

(09-05-2023 08:16 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(09-04-2023 08:23 PM)goofus Wrote:  The future is 2 streaming services for the same game. One service you pay more for no adds and no commercial breaks. The other service you pay less but it shows adds while live action is going on. Once you return from the Comercial breaks, the service will catch up by showing replays of all the plays you missed.

One service is for die-hard fans that need to watch all the plays live. The other is for casual fans that are mainly watching to get the highlights anyway and don't mind that they don't see the play live as long as they see them all on replay shortly after.

I mean there is usually a lot of dead time between plays anyway. After all, how many times can they show the head coach pacing the sidelines? Just skip to the next play.

As has been mentioned numerous times on this board, live sports is one of the few things people still tune in to. No one is giving up that ad money. Why have one income stream when you can have two? (And, no, the ad-free subs wouldn't come close to making that up.)

The key to fans tuning in for live games is to actually show some live action when they tune in. There is just too much standing around with people doing nothing during football games. It is even worse if you attend in person. The customer is always right and the customer does not want to see dead action. If the customer wants to pay for a football game without commercial breaks they should have that option.

It took MLB 40 years too long to figure it out with the pitch clock. Now all sports need to figure it out with commercial breaks. Get rid of those f'ing commercial breaks or they are going to lose an entire generation of fans.

(08-27-2023 03:32 AM)Poster Wrote:  The games will still last the same length of time. It’s just that there will be less actual playing time and more commercials. Which of course is the real intention of this rule change. It’s like conference moves- everything in CFB is about money nowadays.

I swear that every CFB fan that likes this rule change posts on this website. Unless your team is an underdog in every game and you want a smaller sample size of plays, I can’t think of why you’d like this rule change. It means there will be less football to watch.

What’s the bright side of this? That we’ll be able to see the wonderful face of Flo from Progressive 150 times a game, rather than 120 times a game like we did before?

Commercials are the only way all these networks pay for the Billions of dollars ESPN, Fox, ABC,CBS and NBC are paying the Conferences, NFL, NBA,NHL, Golf ,NASCAR

(09-05-2023 08:12 AM)ZooMass84 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 10:08 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  The TV timeouts aren’t decreasing or getting shorter. This just means less football. How is that a good thing?

how do you have less football? the games aren't 60 minutes anymore?

Less possessions. Less plays. That's less football. Clemson only had five second half possessions last night when they threw an INT with just over 5:00 min to play.

Duration of game: 3:26 (longer than last years average)

Number of plays: 147 (33 less plays than average a year ago)

So, we got 33 less plays for a slightly longer run time. That's fairly consistent across with what occurred across the entire day Saturday. So, to answer your question that's less football and more red hat time.

I hate the new rules. It completely removes clock control from the second half of the game. It changes play calling for both the leading and trailing teams. As the original poster pointed out, coming back from behind is much, much more difficult now.

Maybe coaching will catch up with these impacts by the end of the season. There is no question that coaching philosophies must change. You can no longer win a game by simply being more physical in the fourth quarter. This is big swing in favor of high-talent teams with less depth. The upsets we saw this weekend confirm that.

(09-05-2023 08:26 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 08:16 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(09-04-2023 08:23 PM)goofus Wrote:  The future is 2 streaming services for the same game. One service you pay more for no adds and no commercial breaks. The other service you pay less but it shows adds while live action is going on. Once you return from the Comercial breaks, the service will catch up by showing replays of all the plays you missed.

One service is for die-hard fans that need to watch all the plays live. The other is for casual fans that are mainly watching to get the highlights anyway and don't mind that they don't see the play live as long as they see them all on replay shortly after.

I mean there is usually a lot of dead time between plays anyway. After all, how many times can they show the head coach pacing the sidelines? Just skip to the next play.

As has been mentioned numerous times on this board, live sports is one of the few things people still tune in to. No one is giving up that ad money. Why have one income stream when you can have two? (And, no, the ad-free subs wouldn't come close to making that up.)

The key to fans tuning in for live games is to actually show some live action when they tune in. There is just too much standing around with people doing nothing during football games. It is even worse if you attend in person. The customer is always right and the customer does not want to see dead action. If the customer wants to pay for a football game without commercial breaks they should have that option.

It took MLB 40 years too long to figure it out with the pitch clock. Now all sports need to figure it out with commercial breaks. Get rid of those f'ing commercial breaks or they are going to lose an entire generation of fans.

There needs to be strict rules for moving to ad time.

No more than four 30 second ads per TV timeout.

No TV timeouts after a turnover change of possession including turnover on downs (because that squelches momentum).

No TV timeouts after a kickoff

TV timeouts only after drives ending with a score or punt.

And they need to do something about gonig to a TV timeout on an injury after the guy has already gotten up and is walking off the field.

(09-05-2023 10:11 AM)Claw Wrote:  I hate the new rules. It completely removes clock control from the second half of the game. It changes play calling for both the leading and trailing teams. As the original poster pointed out, coming back from behind is much, much more difficult now.

Maybe coaching will catch up with these impacts by the end of the season. There is no question that coaching philosophies must change. You can no longer win a game by simply being more physical in the fourth quarter. This is big swing in favor of high-talent teams with less depth. The upsets we saw this weekend confirm that.

Putting aside whether the personal viewing experience is better or not, isn’t this actually better for the game overall if there is more variability in outcomes (as opposed to the certain handful of teams that have monster size in the trenches always inevitably winning)?

In virtually any sport, fewer possessions generally means greater chances for upsets. That’s not necessarily a terrible thing for college football overall, especially as we get ready for an expanded playoff system where the intent is to have as many teams feeling that they have a *chance* to make it as possible.

(09-05-2023 10:15 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  There needs to be strict rules for moving to ad time.

No more than four 30 second ads per TV timeout.

No TV timeouts after a turnover change of possession including turnover on downs (because that squelches momentum).

No TV timeouts after a kickoff

TV timeouts only after drives ending with a score or punt.

And they need to do something about gonig to a TV timeout on an injury after the guy has already gotten up and is walking off the field.

None of that has any chance of passing. The TV networks are paying a huge sum of money to the conferences and needs to sell as much advertising as possible to pay for those contracts.

(09-05-2023 10:11 AM)Claw Wrote:  I hate the new rules. It completely removes clock control from the second half of the game. It changes play calling for both the leading and trailing teams. As the original poster pointed out, coming back from behind is much, much more difficult now.

Maybe coaching will catch up with these impacts by the end of the season. There is no question that coaching philosophies must change. You can no longer win a game by simply being more physical in the fourth quarter. This is big swing in favor of high-talent teams with less depth. The upsets we saw this weekend confirm that.

About the bolded, that part doesn't bother me. IMO, the traditional rules made it too easy to come from behind, especially if you were way behind. I thought CFB had too many games with teams down 20 or so points who come back to win. That has been true in the last couple decades, when the passing game completely took over CFB. Wasn't a problem when teams ran the ball more.

Of the nine games in CFB history where a team actually trailed by 30 and still won, six of them have happened since 2006, and four have happened since 2016. That is not the way it should be, IMO.

IMO if you are down 20, it should be almost impossible to come back and win. The way to avoid that is - don't fall behind by 20.

Beyond that, you make an interesting point about high-talent/low-depth teams. But I wonder, do such teams really exist? They do in the NFL, where because of the Salary Cap a team can choose to pour a lot of money in to a few big superstars, but then have a thin roster behind them (e.g., my 2021 Rams) or invest in lesser talent among starters but have more money for depth. But is CFB like that? I would imagine that teams that have the most starting talent - the Alabamas, Ohio States, Georgias, LSUs, etc. - also have the most depth too. Or at least they did until every kid who doesn't start can jump in the transfer portal.

(09-05-2023 10:05 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 08:12 AM)ZooMass84 Wrote:  

(08-26-2023 10:08 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  The TV timeouts aren’t decreasing or getting shorter. This just means less football. How is that a good thing?

how do you have less football? the games aren't 60 minutes anymore?

Less possessions. Less plays. That's less football. Clemson only had five second half possessions last night when they threw an INT with just over 5:00 min to play.

Duration of game: 3:26 (longer than last years average)

Number of plays: 147 (33 less plays than average a year ago)

So, we got 33 less plays for a slightly longer run time. That's fairly consistent across with what occurred across the entire day Saturday. So, to answer your question that's less football and more red hat time.

I'm not a fan of the rules, but I don't see any way 33 plays are being lost from each game.

Just going by cfbstats, it looks like teams averaged 68.7 plays a game per team for 2022 and 67.0 so far for 2023.

(08-26-2023 10:08 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  The TV timeouts aren’t decreasing or getting shorter. This just means less football. How is that a good thing?

TV timeouts are what helps pay the B1G and SEC those fat paychecks they want so bad by making Fox/ESPN money. However same could be achieved with less commercials if high premiums for air-time was charged though. It sucks but it's the world they created.

The pacing of the games are fine. Everyone just hates that they need the same amount / if not more commercials to pay the P2 conferences their TV revenue share. Maybe if those conferences were willing to take a pay-cut then they could show less commercials (which we know will NEVER happen).

SI reported it was 180 plays per game. I thought it was closer to 160. Either way it's less.