Rebate? 18.3 Plays Per Game Lost to New Rule (Updated 9/8)

We had some great conversation centering on the new clock rules in college football in Tuesday Morning Football Bytes. Additionally, one of our readers link this article that provides some great commentary on the topic that should not be overlooked.

This is a BIG ISSUE in college football that fans should not just ignore and accept.

Before we get into more comments on the issue, allow us to direct your attention to WeHateTheNewClockRules.com for you to register your dissatisfaction.

Yesterday, The Wizard of Odds provided us with more statistical data to support what everyone already innately felt. (Link to blog entry) – A statistical analysis of ALL GAMES done by cfbstats.com indicates that games played thusfar in 2006 have had 18.3 less plays from scrimmage than games played in 2005.

As I said before – Who really cares about shortening games (other than the folks that are looking for better scheduling of their commercials on televison?

* Those of us who PAY MONEY to attend college football games WANT TO SEE FOOTBALL. We pay all of that money to actually got to the game and see it played…why would we want it to be shorter and not longer? Since LifeTimeRights and season ticket holders bought tickets under the impression that they were getting about 170 plays and three and half hours of football per game, are we now entitled to a rebate because we our purchase has now decreased by 10%?

* Does anyone who watches games on television really give a shit if it lasts 3 hours and 12 minutes or 3 hours and 34 minutes? If it is a good game – which most of them are – then we will watch. If it isn’t a good game, then we won’t.

The Blue-Gray Sky illustrates the rise in football ticket prices (at Notre Dame) in the graph below taken from this blog entry:

Ticket prices

College football has NEVER been more popular than it is right now. If the old rules facilitated such an enormous rise to popularity, why would anyone screw with the practices that brought the sport so much popularity? It is just asinine.

The new rules will undoubtedly generate significantly fewer comebacks and less exciting end-of-game scenarios. WHY do something that that blatantly destroys the excitement of the game? I just don’t get it.

Our friend Noah accurately surmised the following: “it’s better to take the delay-of-game penalty and save your timeouts for the end of the game rather than to burn a TO early in a half because you couldn’t get the play in.” He is exactly right. So, I’m just curious how adding the time to call and mark off at least 3 to 5 penalties a game serve to help speed up the game?

Speaking of Noah…this entry wouldn’t be complete without elevating his awesome comments on the topic:

Years ago, Mad Magazine did one of their little fold-ins at the back of the book on the national football contracts in football. Anyone remember those fold-ins? They were Al Jaffee pictures and it had two little marks at the top of the page and you folded the picture so the marks met and the one image merged into something new.

The original said, “There’s a new rule and a new official that will totally change everything about football this year.� (or something to that effect) The image was a football scrum with an official standing by ready to blow his whistle.

You fold the page in and it merged into a TV camera and a network guy looking at his watch and giving the signal to the ref on whether or not to start the game back up.

Amazing prescience by the artists of Mad. This was in about 1966 (I had a huge stack of ‘em that I bought at a yard sale that dated back to about 1962).

They want the noon game DONE by the time it’s 3:30, so the second game can start and people don’t miss the beginning/end of one contest as it plugs along. They want it like the NFL which has its games down to swiss-like precision. Doesn’t matter if the game goes to overtime or whether its a slugfest or an air-it-out shoot-out, the game lasts three hours. No more, no less. (so it seems)

DeadSpin had a nice link on the topic this morning; and yesterday EDSBS went an entry on the topic today and goes so far as suggesting that you reach out the NCAA with the following:

Your non-democratically elected and likely unresponsive contact for the rule is:

Ty Halpin, NCAA Football Rules Committee Liaison
NCAA
P.O Box 6222
Indianapolis,Indiana 46206-6222

FAX: (317) 917-6800
E-mail: [email protected]

Give ‘em hell.

September 8th Update
There continues to be a lot of focus on this topic throughout college football. We thought that we would share a couple of additional items.

(1) Chris Fowler’s Redemption

If you weren’t watching the Oregon State-Boise State game, you may have missed Chris Fowler totally ripping on the new rule change. His statement, paraphrased a little:

“[The rule] takes away about 14 plays per game. For what? So talking heads like us (referring to himself and Kirk Herbstreit) can talk more? That’s crazy. I want more football.”

He expressed my sentiments exactly. The new rule sucks. It takes away a significant portion of one of the great joys in my life, and for that, the rulemaker deserves a swift kick to the crotch. Not that it will do any good, but there is a petition starting up that you should sign.

(2) ESPN’s Bruce Feldman says the “New Rules Changes Stink”

Upon further review, everyone seems to hate the new rules to quicken the game.

I gotta say I thought the changes sounded awful when I heard about them during the offseason, and then after actually seeing the rules come into play, I think they stink even worse than I had anticipated.

To me this isn’t about people not wanting to adjust to a change, like some website overhauling its design and folks carping because they can’t find things any more; this is about watering down a great product.

The NCAA made the changes at the urging of school administrators, who claim it would help reduce the risk of injury to players. Nice thought. Trouble was, that sounds really hypocritical when you’re adding a 12th game and nuking an off week for those same players to rest their bodies.

The changes have already altered strategies. With almost three minutes left, UAB’s game against Oklahoma was essentially over. OU didn’t even need to get a first down since the clock was already ticking before a first down. In terms of the big picture (literally), has it really improved the show that is a college football telecast? Definitely not, especially if you consider this:

“For fans, the most noticeable difference will be the lower football-to-commercials ratio. Florida’s season opener against Southern Mississippi — televised on a pay-per-view basis — lasted seven minutes longer than the Gators’ 2005 opener against Wyoming. Florida and Southern Miss combined to run eight fewer plays Saturday than the Gators and Cowboys ran last year,” Andy Staples writes.

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

General NCS Football

14 Responses to Rebate? 18.3 Plays Per Game Lost to New Rule (Updated 9/8)

  1. Dan 09/07/2006 at 9:30 AM #

    The new clock rules are great. No more 4 hour games. I’m sorry, but the games were just too long before. Especially for the TV moguls.

    Not to mention the benefits to the Wolfpack where the team stands now.

    1) Yeah, 18.3 plays per game. Now, like in the pros, your second string wont be nearly as vitale as it was last year. The need for the type of depth of a Texas and a DL like Florida State becomes lessened. 18 less plays for the back ups is a lot of freaking plays.

    2) Can you imagine hwo frustrating it would be trying to run out the clock with Andre Brown only to stop the clock every time he does well?

    And as far as popularity is concerned. Pro football is more popular than college. And now its at least a little closer to how the pros do it.

  2. BoKnowsNCS71 09/07/2006 at 9:42 AM #

    Interesting insights.

    Question. Seems to me that teams playing on TV benefit more. They will get TV time outs while all the other teams have fewer time outs.

    I also wonder if the TV folks can affect the game by calling for TV timeouts at critical points in a game? Say ND needs to stop the clock but has no TOs? Could someone — even an alum working for the media — call for a TV TO?

    Makes me wonder if the NCAA has let the media (possibly) affect the outcome of a game?

  3. Wolfpack4ever 09/07/2006 at 10:00 AM #

    Matt Zemek has this to say:

    Finally, a word in defense of all offensive coordinators in week one of a football season. Without the benefit of a preseason game, and taking into account the youthfulness of the players involved, it makes more and more sense–with each passing year–why coordinators keep game plans so simple, and passing games so horizontal, in season openers. Young quarterbacks–even those returning for a second season–need simplicity in early-season games in order to thrive. The game has to slow down for a quarterback, and a conceptually simple game plan allows that to happen, at least to some extent. In the volatile world of early-season September football–which is a very different animal from October and November conference play–merely weeding out mistakes and turnovers usually proves to be the difference (whereas in October and November, you need to make more big plays instead of merely avoiding the bad stuff). As a result, coordinators need to put their QBs in situations where they can be effective and ball-secure at the same time. Look at USC. The Trojans and co-coordinator…

    Not only is this a comment on the clock but it is another view of the “desperate” need to go vertical with the passing game in the season opener so often expressed by the football experts weighing in with their doom and gloom assessment of Marcus Stone, Marc Tressman and Chuck Amato and how stupid and untalented and all the reasons why Stone couldn’t be trusted to throw the ball. etc., etc., etc.

    I can hardly wait for next weeks truths, as one so proudly claimed his assessment to be, about NCSU football.

    I am going to read some posters of the truth on this blog for laughs instead of getting all riled up like I foolishly did this week.

  4. redfred2 09/07/2006 at 10:03 AM #

    College football is and was fine before the rule changes. The running game you are speaking of has lot less ability to wear people down with 18 less plays.

    It will put an even higher premium on the elite recruit and lessen the need for depth. Especially when you multiply that lesser number of plays over the course of an entire season. Thats either good or bad, depending on your status in the recruiting world.

    I don’t really feel the need to be as “popular” or to model football on the collegiate level after the NFL. It is a separate entity, I love it, and it should keep it’s own identity.

  5. joe 09/07/2006 at 10:08 AM #

    There should be rules for when TV timeouts can and cannot be taken. For example the NHL does not allow a TV timeout during a power play.

    There should be no TV timeouts after a fumble or interception because that breaks up the excitement of the crowd.

  6. Wolfpack4ever 09/07/2006 at 10:09 AM #

    The above came at the end of Zemek’s piece on the clock. I didn’t realize that no reference to the clock was included in this, now obviously inappropriate comment under this blog heading. Oops. Sorry about that. But the comments are an interesting take on the game plan as applied to NCSU saturday. The link is at the top of this page.

    it’s the quality of the game that counts for me and the quality of the game is lessened by the new rules. In assessing how long a game lasts, I assert that only the game time should be counted, not the TV timeouts. The game is not too long, commercials and half-time are too long. Watching on TV how much “talking heads” can one man take waiting for the second half to start. Getting rid of the self-promotions of the networks would “shorten the game.” Like getting rid of the prostituting of the scoreboard at Carter-Finley would be an improvement on the overall experience of an afternoon at Carter-Finley.

  7. redfred2 09/07/2006 at 10:42 AM #

    ^I agree with the areas that should be trimmed, especially advertising but that’s not going to happen. Get up and walk out, turn off the tube, but I say a great college football can never last too long.

  8. BoKnowsNCS71 09/07/2006 at 11:06 AM #

    Hey — I like that CF scoreboard! The cool graphics. The music videos of the team making hard hits. The intros for the players. Being able to watch more of the game even when in a bad position in the stands.

    Someone’s got to pay for that monster. You can either see the ticket prices go higher or let the advertisers (some who are also WP Club members/donors) pay to support the Pack.

    So I’m pro on the “ho”

  9. Lock 09/07/2006 at 11:11 AM #

    Yes, giving them ‘hell’ will certainly persuade them to take us seriously.

    Let’s stick to giving them ‘highly informed but reasonable arguments.’ I’ve seen that most (MOST) here are capable of such.

    I don’t mind the ads on the scoreboard. As long as money is pouring into my school, so be it. As long as it’s helping to finish off these wonderful improvements to Carter-Finley, so be it.

    But yes, anything that shortens the game? No thanks. The line between college and pro should not get too blurry.

  10. packpigskinfan23 09/07/2006 at 4:04 PM #

    I would have to say that the advertising on the scoreboard during the App St. game wasnt as bad as some of the games I had attened in the past. Either that, or I just didnt notice…

  11. Wolfpack4ever 09/07/2006 at 5:01 PM #

    Monday Morning Quarterback

    By Matt Zemek
    CollegeFootballNews.com
    Posted Sep 5, 2006

    Last paragraph:

    Finally, a word in defense of all offensive coordinators in week one of a football season. Without the benefit of a preseason game, and taking into account the youthfulness of the players involved, it makes more and more sense–with each passing year–why coordinators keep game plans so simple, and passing games so horizontal, in season openers. Young quarterbacks–even those returning for a second season–need simplicity in early-season games in order to thrive. The game has to slow down for a quarterback, and a conceptually simple game plan allows that to happen, at least to some extent. In the volatile world of early-season September football–which is a very different animal from October and November conference play–merely weeding out mistakes and turnovers usually proves to be the difference (whereas in October and November, you need to make more big plays instead of merely avoiding the bad stuff). As a result, coordinators need to put their QBs in situations where they can be effective and ball-secure at the same time. Look at USC. The Trojans and co-coordinators Lane Kiffin and Steve Sarkisian gave John David Booty a very manageable game plan. Booty didn’t throw vertically, but he didn’t need to, either. This USC offense–with a new quarterback playing his very first game in a loud SEC stadium–was a lot like the offense that didn’t blow the doors off the joint, but which was very effective, in a 23-0 Trojan in at Auburn in 2003. That game proved to be a nice, solid, confidence-building springboard for a kid named Matt Leinart. Seems that Booty had very much the same kind of start. Simplicity has been golden for USC quarterbacks in career-opening games in SEC stadiums. Proof that a game-one game plan should not try to overthink or overextend.

  12. bTHEredterror 09/07/2006 at 8:27 PM #

    I agree with most of the comments here, file the clock rule changes under “Don’t fix what ain’t broke”. The TV angle is the only one that makes sense, as it doesn’t benefit either deep teams or underdogs in every situation, and will lead to more hurried plays and mistakes. The only change to the game plan is, get on the field quick after change of possession.
    The simplified game plan would apply more to new or young QB’s. Tyler Palko for instance was filling the air with footballs last week. The author hit the point, but I think the motivation is more a natural progression of a typical football team. Defenses are ahead early, and not only the QB but the entire offfense must get in sync, so why take unnecessary risks. But Booty is a bad example IMO. Judging from his brothers history, it was probably derived more from an inability to throw the long ball effectively than it was to build confidence.
    As for advertising, it is certainly a necessary evil. If it annoys you, as it does me, try ignoring it. It is a conscious effort at first, but eventually you will habituate. At the games, TV timeouts are a good time to discuss the game (or anything else, for that matter) with the other fans around you.

  13. redfred2 09/08/2006 at 1:35 PM #

    Like always, ONE or two sports reporter’s opinion is not the answer to every situation, unless some reader out there direly needs it to be to try to prove his point.

    Every team, every player, is different. There is no blanket policy that dictates first game or early season coaching strategies.

  14. BoKnowsNCS71 09/11/2006 at 2:42 PM #

    Now even Mack Brown hates the new clock rules. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2583128

Leave a Reply