Proposed Rule Changes

[sportdawg]

College football: Rule changes aimed at shortening games to be discussed by NCAA, per report (247sports.com)

Dodd reported that the NCAA will look into treating incomplete passes the same as runs out of bounds, and no longer stopping the clock after each first down.

“Beginning in 2008, the clock started after runs and fumbles out of bounds when the referee signaled ‘ready for play,’” Dodd wrote. “Previously, the clock started on the snap after such plays. The committee is considering treating incomplete passes the same way. The rule would be in effect until late in the half or game, perhaps the last 2-5 minutes, according to Shaw.”

Please don't start the clock after an incomplete pass, that's just ridiculous. I'm iffy on doing away with stopping clock after each first down.

[Dwayne From Minden]

I'm iffy on doing away with stopping clock after each first down.

I'm not - once the ball is set for play start it back up

I hate 4 hour games

[inudesu]

College has to do something about the length of games.

It's stuff like this or cut back on commercial breaks, and you can guess how that argument will break.

[sportdawg]

What to do about 4-hour college football games? After further review, here are a few creative ideas - pennlive.com

ESPN

Every regulation-time game includes 72 guaranteed ad units of 30 seconds each with "pads" of 10 seconds or so on each end where the play-by-play man transitions in and out of the breaks. They are broken into groups of the following clusters:


* Three breaks of four commercials each in the first and third quarters (stoppage time of between 2:25 and 2:40 for each break, equaling 7:40 total).


* Four breaks of four commercials each in the second and fourth quarters (stoppage time of between 2:20 and 2:40 for each break, equaling 10:00 total).


* A single break of six commercials each at the end of the first and third quarters (stoppage time of 3:25 for both breaks).


* Two "floating breaks" of 1:00 the network can place anywhere, one in each half.


A halftime break of 20:00 also contains many ads which are added at the net's discretion and does not count toward the 72 guaranteed units.

If I'm reading this, over 1 hour of game time is dead-time / Commercials & Halftime. That isn't going anywhere, because advertising pays the bills.

Here are some ideas:

• I think halftime should be cut to 15 minutes. You can have the same number of ads with 5 minutes less talk.

• Also, like the article says, maybe use onscreen ads during the game (similar to soccer).

• Have 2 media timeouts per quarter at under 10 & under 5 (stoppage time of 2:40 for each break, total 5:20/ quarter) . They would be placed at natural breaks in the game (change of possession, called timeout or injury timeout).

• Between each change of possession not at the media timeout, you could have 70 seconds built in for commercials. If each team average 13 possessions/game - 26 stoppages, less 8 media timeouts, leaves an average of 18 70 second blocks available.
• Keep the 3:25 breaks between quarters.
• That would still be over 40 minutes of commercial availability, but many of those slots would not be noticeable too fans in the stands.

In my estimate, it would save ~ 17 minutes of actual time per game.

[techman05]

They do split screen adds on many sports. Soccer, golf, racing, and maybe others.

[FriscoDawg]

Starting the clock after incomplete passes would be ridiculous.

The clock barely stops after first downs now. Most of the time the clock is running again within 5 seconds because they don't come close to waiting for the sticks to be completely set.

I totally agree about halftime. Make it 15 minutes.

The two full media timeouts at designated points of each quarter would be a good move. Since game possessions for some teams average more like 10 per game instead of 13, allow 12 100 second breaks (average of 3 per quarter) at the first natural stoppage or change of possession during each 5 minute block of each quarter around the two scheduled full media timeouts. And if less than three of the shorter timeouts get taken in the first and third quarters, you make those up in the second and fourth quarters.

These things should be done before fundamentally changing the game.

[HogDawg]

Just get a handle on stopping the fake injuries! This is the time to do that. The NCAA has got to stop the amount of time wasted just to get lazy-ass players off the field.

[techman05]

Just get a handle on stopping the fake injuries! This is the time to do that. The NCAA has got to stop the amount of time wasted just to get lazy-ass players off the field.

I would hope for severe penalties that they could walk back a little if needed.

[PawDawg]

Just get a handle on stopping the fake injuries! This is the time to do that. The NCAA has got to stop the amount of time wasted just to get lazy-ass players off the field.

Easy fix here, but the snowflakes are afraid up upsetting somebody. Also, the sales peeps love the extra time to bore the audience, yet they still get paid.

Just keep it consistent. If a guy gets hurt he must sit out a certain amount of time or plays. I like an entire possession as a preventative.

TV is the problem. We get basically NOTHING for 4 hour games, but pay same dues that an $EC team pays.

[FriscoDawg]

Just get a handle on stopping the fake injuries! This is the time to do that. The NCAA has got to stop the amount of time wasted just to get lazy-ass players off the field.

Looks like no consensus, so just a glorified version of what did nothing last year.

Try any concrete solution. It won't be perfect, but it can be tweaked later. But, no!

NCAA proposed football rule changes include reviews of second-half targeting calls, players faking injuries (espn.com)

Steve Shaw said the rules committee spent more time talking about players feigning injuries "than any other issue in our game." Currently, during an injury timeout, the player involved has to sit out for one play.

The group considered several in-game solutions, including lengthening the amount of time the injured player has to miss following the timeout, but couldn't come up with one that "fit perfectly." Instead, the proposed rule would give the school or the conference the ability to contact Shaw to facilitate a video review. Any penalties levied would be up to the conference office or school involved.

[inudesu]

Looks like no consensus, so just a glorified version of what did nothing last year.

Try any concrete solution. It won't be perfect, but it can be tweaked later. But, no!

NCAA proposed football rule changes include reviews of second-half targeting calls, players faking injuries (espn.com)

Steve Shaw said the rules committee spent more time talking about players feigning injuries "than any other issue in our game." Currently, during an injury timeout, the player involved has to sit out for one play.

The group considered several in-game solutions, including lengthening the amount of time the injured player has to miss following the timeout, but couldn't come up with one that "fit perfectly." Instead, the proposed rule would give the school or the conference the ability to contact Shaw to facilitate a video review. Any penalties levied would be up to the conference office or school involved.

I think the tension on this is between the coaches (who probably most want some tighter rules, at least the offensive ones) and fans on one side and the lawyers on the other. They are scared of the liability of incentivizing a kid to stay out there while he's hurt to avoid having the miss more time and then getting sued when he gets hurt worse (personally this rings hollow, they're probably doing that already). I think PD's solution would be fine - make it a possession. Having a review might cut down on it over time (but it'd be too late for the team getting screwed in that game). What everyone is sick of is the video replay showing the player look to the sidelines, getting a head nod, falling down with a "cramp" while his team rests and gets their sub package in and then just missing one play. I guess they might catch some of the worst of this on video review, but the one series rule would nip it a lot faster (and in real time) I think.

[HogDawg]

I think the tension on this is between the coaches (who probably most want some tighter rules, at least the offensive ones) and fans on one side and the lawyers on the other. They are scared of the liability of incentivizing a kid to stay out there while he's hurt to avoid having the miss more time and then getting sued when he gets hurt worse (personally this rings hollow, they're probably doing that already). I thing PD's solution would be fine - make it a possession. Having a review might cut down on it over time (but it'd be too late for the team getting screwed in that game). What everyone is sick of is the video replay showing the player look to the sidelines, getting a head nod, falling down with a "cramp" while his team rests and gets their sub package in and then just missing one play. I guess they might catch some of the worst of this on video review, but the one series rule would nip it a lot faster (and in real time) I think.

Why would there be any "liability" issues if you're making the player sit out LONGER? That makes more sense than trying to force a kid back onto the playing field after only one play off.

[inudesu]

Why would there be any "liability" issues if you're making the player sit out LONGER? That makes more sense than trying to force a kid back onto the playing field after only one play off.

My understanding (and this isn't me - I'm not a lawyer) is that players would be more likely to try to "play through" a real injury, because they wouldn't want to have to miss a whole series. Then, in doing so they make things worse.

Now, as I have said, this rings hollow to me, I don't buy it - but I've heard that this may be some of the resistance. It could be the kind of thing to say to prevent a stiffer incentive against fake injuries meant to slow down play, when what you really want is for your players to still have the ability to slow down a hurry-up offense (but you can't say that out loud). Or it could be an actual liability with case-law on the books that a lawyer would point to.

[DJDAWG]

Back when I played, EVERY player tried to "play through" any injury. Why? We loved to play. We wanted all the playing time we could get and didn't want someone else taking our spot.

[HogDawg]

Back when I played, EVERY player tried to "play through" any injury. Why? We loved to play. We wanted all the playing time we could get and didn't want someone else taking our spot.

Exactly. I played thru injuries, and it didn't kill me. I'm sure many of you did the same.

And by the way, this is exactly what we NEED some of these players to do. They NEED to play thru a few minor injuries, cramps, etc... I'm tired of seeing a school bring out the "medical brigade" and act like they are doing Open Heart surgery on the field, only to see that same damn player jogging back out onto the field the very next play or two.

Fact is, the single most important thing the NCAA can do to "speed up the game" is to simply get their arms around this single issue. It's not brain surgery. I'm confident that they can come up with a new process that addresses this issue without compromising a players health, and yet still speeds up the game.