GO LIVE, PART TWO: NEW RULES SUCK.
Why speed up college games? Saturdays exist in an idyllic, clock-free sphere for college fans: waking up late, having a drink at an hour usually reserved for people with the DTs, and watching one epic game bleed into another over lackadaisically arranged hours in front of the tv or at the tailgate. Time’s not particularly relevant on a day measured more by the number of beer bottles on the coffee table than by the inconveniences of the clock.
Yet rule gremlins—pressured by television networks and their tight schedules and conference financial interests—ran amok this offseason in the rulebook in an attempt to speed up game. To wit:
For the first time in college football history, the game clock will start at the referee’s ready-for-play signal — not at the snap — following a change of possession. Officials estimate that could reduce the number of plays in a game by a dozen or more.
The other change: The clock will start on the kickoff itself instead of when a player from the receiving team first touches the ball.
Reducing plays and possessions…nah, that won’t affect the game. At. All. Unless you’re playing the game, watching it, or officiating it. Everyone else will be fine, though, and don’t panic: you’ll see the Yella Wood ads you crave in triplicate hourly.
Spurrier’s suggesting underdogs just earned an edge in reducing the number of possessions. Pete Carroll hates it period. Mike Riley’s concerned about the odd sight of ending a game with an empty field. The rules have received universal notice across conference media days, and with an almost universal verdict: they’re total, utter crap.
Speeding up the game shouldn’t fall on the shoulders of officials or players. It should fall with advertisers, who should go live and uninterrupted for the whole course of a game with a single break at the quarters or the half. It works magic for soccer, and rather than being subjected to the torture of watching the same ATV ad fifteen times—WOOOOO!!!—we could see the Yamaha Logo for a languid fifteen to thirty minutes posted up in the upper right hand of the screen accompanied by periodic mentions by the announcers. Hell, put two logos on the screen if you like, so long as they don’t block out the play on the field.

10-20 plays a game=fifteen more viewings of this.
Better yet, sponsor individual players and coaches when you show their names. Since they’re effectively chattel of the NCAA, why not put them on the players names when you introduce them. Chris Leak, sponsored by Turtle Wax. Willie Williams, sponsored by Lil’ Wayne’s new joint, Shot Ya N Da Neck Biotch. Paul Pozlusny, brought to you by Pain: Hurting the Human Species for 500,000 years.
The answer to speeding up games comes in speeding up the ads, not the game itself. But it’ll take a couple of public, embarrassing pants-crapping anticlimaxes at the end of big games to illustrate just what the rule changes entail. Imagine if the OSU/Texas game ends with an empty field after a see-saw thriller? Or the complaints from major programs if the “November Surprise” games they usually pull out at the last second become crippling losses when they lose 10-15 snaps a game? The rules could do marginal wonders for parity, but parity has rarely seemed to be a priority of the CFB Brahmins pulling the strings on rules flubbing like this. The rules don’t innovate; if anything, they point to a failure of imagination on the part of advertisers and the rules committee. Given that this comes from the same people who find the exuberance of youthful celebration penalty-worthy, there’s little to get shockedified in that respect.












18
Let’s find a way to complain to the NCAA or whoever made this rule change. Then, lets get everybody (since everybody knows this is a stupid rule change) to continually call/email or whatever and give them hell about this crappy rule. We can see if we can have an affect and maybe they will change the rule back for next year.
Comment by me — September 4, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
17
[...] EDSBS suggests something like this today, in their own way of course. Their conclusion is exactly correct: "The rules don’t innovate; if anything, they point to a failure of imagination on the part of advertisers and the rules committee." You can tell us that television revenue is the fuel of this exploding cash cow and that the NCAA and the schools that benefit from TV money will do what it takes to keep the money coming in. (Ironic given the lip service paid to amateurism, but that’s another post.) EDSBS’s bottom line still stands - the NCAA through its lack of creativity has spoken clearly and chosen to gut its own product instead of reign in advertisers. [...]
Pingback by DawgsOnline » How long does it take to play a 60-minute football game? — July 31, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
16
All of these rule changes are bs.
Anything that tends to make CF look more like the NFL is bad. Definitionally.
Comment by ohiodawg — July 31, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
15
Steve,
I suspect the answer has something to do with the desire to run more ads in the same, or possibly shorter amount of time. ie lets say the current model has games that are 3.5 hours long with 30 minutes of commercial time. If you can squeeze that down to 3 hours with 45 minutes of commercials, people in advertising boardrooms will make bank.
Comment by Hokie Andrew — July 31, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
14
What the hell is the problem with long games anyway. If two big games coincidentaly overlap espn/abc usually does a good job of brodcasting kickoff for one game on espn or espn2 while the first game is in running long; this extinguishes the need for a more strict daytime game schedule.
As for primetime… Are they worried the games will cut into the local news (Carl Monday grilling helpless gas station attendants as to why it costs three bucks for a gallon of gas as if the minimum wage employee has anything to do with the pricing scheme of Exxon and, of course, posting up at public libraries…) I mean what else is going to be televised on Saturday that would worry the stations about game length?
I mean ads suck but we’re all used to them. If it means so much , just add more of them during longer TV timeouts. Don’t shorten the length of the actual game by altering the rules!
Comment by Steve — July 31, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
13
The sweaty dancing girl in the Old Spice commercial is okay to stay, however.
Correction, Tom: I believe she “glistens”…not sweats.
Comment by Aerobab — July 31, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
12
There’s more:
kicking tees down from two to one inch
halftime down to 20 minutes
instant replay
http://www1.ncaa.org/eprise/main/playingrules/football/2005/6-9-2006RulesChanges..pdf?ObjectID=39324&ViewMode=0&PreviewState=0
Comment by Boston Dan — July 31, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
11
Hey TV douschebag, how about we skip the 5 minutes of comercials after a punt or a kickoff?
Why not make each quarter 6 minutes long. Works for me in my NCAA2007, and I still managed to put 56 points in Tennessee….. using ARMY.
Here’s an idea, compliments of George Carlin. No player substitutions. Leave the injured on the battlefield. I wonder how well Tommy Frazier runs the option when he has to hurdle one of his running backs, and both offensive tackles while the opposing team is at full strength.
Comment by Rome — July 31, 2006 @ 11:57 am