(09-05-2023 10:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

I think you're going to be in the small minority for that opinion. I think if you don't want a team making a comeback develop some killer instinct and don't let the other team whoop you on both sides of the ball.

It's also better for TV ratings if fewer people turn off the TV because more people think there could be a comeback.

(09-05-2023 10:37 AM)Troy_Fan_15 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?

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.

I just don't see why they can't show commercials while live action is going on. Then when they get back from commercials, do a quick catch up and show the plays missed in replay. There is what, at least 40 seconds between plays. So for a 2.5 minute commercial break, you miss about 3 plays live. If there is one of those annoying delays after a play, you may only miss 1 play. This could cut 25- 30 minutes from game time. The fans at the stadium would love it.

None of us are discussing the changes of play-calling and defensive sets. Both of those change when the offense wants to get out of bounds to stop the clock.

Now we have this sudden shift in what we want our offenses and defenses to do at the two minute mark. Is that a reasonable thing to expect out of a college player and team? Truthfully, I think it takes away from learning the game as a whole. You now essentially have two different games being played dependent on the time on the clock. It's not good for players, and fans are going to go nuts over players that make out-of-bounds mistakes now.

I don't like it. I see nothing good about rules changing during the game. Put it one way or the other. Changing the rules in mid-play is unfair to the players. They're kids.

(09-05-2023 10:40 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  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).

That’s a very fair point.

Your last sentence is key: as long as conferences and schools are making realignment decisions based on TV and are looking to maximize TV revenue every way possible, then we all have to expect that the TV side is going to maximize their own revenue by selling the most amount of ads possible, too. We don’t have to personally like it, but we also can’t say that ESPN and Fox are deciding everything in college sports and then be surprised by ESPN and Fox doing what’s best for them in broadcasting games. That’s what the money is for!

Yeah, I mean everyone is right about all this and hitting the nail on the head. Money rules the roost, and we're probably going to get more ad time not less going forward especially as these contracts balloon.

That said, there is a point of diminishing returns for the school. At what point do empty stadiums start to become a concern? There is no doubt it's getting more difficult to sit in the stands for three and a half hours to get 11 or 12 minutes of actual game action. I don't think there is any coincidence that attendance numbers have trended reciprocally to the amount of ad time given to CFB. It will be interesting to see the impacts on attendance this year with these rule changes.

(09-05-2023 10:58 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 10:37 AM)Troy_Fan_15 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?

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.

I just don't see why they can't show commercials while live action is going on. Then when they get back from commercials, do a quick catch up and show the plays missed in replay. There is what, at least 40 seconds between plays. So for a 2.5 minute commercial break, you miss about 3 plays live. If there is one of those annoying delays after a play, you may only miss 1 play. This could cut 25- 30 minutes from game time. The fans at the stadium would love it.

Haven’t we already figured out that the fans at the stadium are secondary or tertiary considerations, if they’re even considered at all? This is about TV, TV, TV. It’s why this realignment board exists in the first place.

And call me crazy, but missing any live action and then going back to replay as a TV viewer is 1000% unacceptable (not a typo - even add more zeroes to that number if you want). That should be a complete and utter non-starter for every sports fan everywhere in every sport. Live game action is the ENTIRE point of watching sports. (Let’s also not forget about how gambling company money is so prevalent in sports programming, too, and missing a single play where tens of thousands of people have money on prop bets on every single play or how gambling lines change second-by-second make missing plays even more of a non-starter.)

The interests of millions of TV viewers simply prevail over tens of thousands of ticket holders in a stadium. There’s no use even debating it.

For my own amusement I attended the Augsburg-Martin Luther game tester day and timed it from the whistle to start play to the end of the game. It timed out to 2 hours and 21 minutes. It would've been shorter if it wasn't for an injured Auggie player needing to be helped off the field.

If you applied these new FBS rules to D-III, these games could go 2 and a quarter hours and less. Of course there was no radio coverage to gum things up.

I like the Buckeyes answer to increasing the number of possessions under the new rules ... a couple of one play touchdown drives is just what the doctor ordered.

There may be more upsets under the new rules. With fewer plays, the bigger, stronger, deeper teams are less likely to wear down the less talented teams. And with fewer plays, its like the schools doing the wishbone, it shortens the games.

Watching the Georgia-South Carolina and Texas-Wyoming game, there just weren't as many possessions to score. A few drives with failed execution and you can get in trouble and not have time to get out. Georgia finally did wear down South Carolina 24-14, but were behind 14-3 at halftime. Texas was tied with Wyoming 10-10 going into the 4th and had 2 big plays and a pick 6 to create their final 31-10 margin.

I like the new clock rules moving the clock stoppage to the final 2:00 minutes in the half.

(09-05-2023 10:44 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 10:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

I think you're going to be in the small minority for that opinion. I think if you don't want a team making a comeback develop some killer instinct and don't let the other team whoop you on both sides of the ball.

It's also better for TV ratings if fewer people turn off the TV because more people think there could be a comeback.

The opinion is definitely in the majority. As opposed to turning off the TV in the 4th, you run the risk of not turning on the game until the 4th knowing that the first 3Q are meaningless.

(09-17-2023 01:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  There may be more upsets under the new rules. With fewer plays, the bigger, stronger, deeper teams are less likely to wear down the less talented teams. And with fewer plays, its like the schools doing the wishbone, it shortens the games.

Watching the Georgia-South Carolina and Texas-Wyoming game, there just weren't as many possessions to score. A few drives with failed execution and you can get in trouble and not have time to get out. Georgia finally did wear down South Carolina 24-14, but were behind 14-3 at halftime. Texas was tied with Wyoming 10-10 going into the 4th and had 2 big plays and a pick 6 to create their final 31-10 margin.

Exactly, closer games mean better games and better ratings. It also doesn't allow stacked teams unlimited time to luckback.

(09-05-2023 12:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 10:58 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(09-05-2023 10:37 AM)Troy_Fan_15 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?

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.

I just don't see why they can't show commercials while live action is going on. Then when they get back from commercials, do a quick catch up and show the plays missed in replay. There is what, at least 40 seconds between plays. So for a 2.5 minute commercial break, you miss about 3 plays live. If there is one of those annoying delays after a play, you may only miss 1 play. This could cut 25- 30 minutes from game time. The fans at the stadium would love it.

Haven’t we already figured out that the fans at the stadium are secondary or tertiary considerations, if they’re even considered at all? This is about TV, TV, TV. It’s why this realignment board exists in the first place.

And call me crazy, but missing any live action and then going back to replay as a TV viewer is 1000% unacceptable (not a typo - even add more zeroes to that number if you want). That should be a complete and utter non-starter for every sports fan everywhere in every sport. Live game action is the ENTIRE point of watching sports. (Let’s also not forget about how gambling company money is so prevalent in sports programming, too, and missing a single play where tens of thousands of people have money on prop bets on every single play or how gambling lines change second-by-second make missing plays even more of a non-starter.)

The interests of millions of TV viewers simply prevail over tens of thousands of ticket holders in a stadium. There’s no use even debating it.

That's like the NBA showing the Finals on tape-delay.

(09-04-2023 09:11 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(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.

I recorded 100+ games last year, many approached the 5 hour mark. Noon-430pm.

(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.

There's no way the avg FOX/ESPN/ABC game took 3:30 last year. Every single game preempted the one after it. They must be adding non-TV games into the numbers.