CLOCK RULES: ANTICIPATE F@#$IN' UP.

by Orson on Feb 13, 2007 10:00 AM EST

Who says Americans have balls? If the NCAA Rules Committee really had them, they'd emerge from the undisclosed location they meet in, face a few flashbulbs, and saunter up to the mike to read a statement that read in total like this:

Hi. We fucked up. Blame our lucrative television tie-ins. We're going back to the way it was. Apologies.

Fucking up should be defined, by the way, before we suggest using it in public. Fucking up is not merely making a small or even mid-sized mistake. No, fucking up involves specific criteria in its proper use.

Dr. Nick: very familiar with fuckin' up. Perhaps the NCAA needs a consultant?

One: the idea must have been bad from the start, and understood by the majority of those who heard about it to be a wretched concept. When your company decided to institute "Hammer Fight Tuesdays," you knew it was a bad idea. Your friends knew it was a bad idea. And yet, here comes "Hammer Fight Tuesday," where the poor HR department lost seven good people in the span of five minutes...even though everyone knew just how terrible an idea it was.

Two: the idea must be implemented badly, and with little concern for public opinion.

Three: the idea must work badly, and be universally loathed by everyone except the implementor, who will maintain an irrational and egotistical affinity for the project despite the best evidence of its complete failure.

If you've got all three, they you've got someone fucking up. In the case of 3-2-5e, you've got a clear instance of fucking up. The rule emerged despite strong ratings for football and increased attendance. It bombed in its implementation, enraging coaches and forcing some to respond with the only rational protest, absurdity.
Finally, it's likely not to die, but to live on in a mutated, lobotomized form thanks to the rules committee's irrational fondness for screwing fans who actually showed up to the game. Mark Richt's said it better than we can:

"I felt like they shortened the game and lengthened the commercials," Georgia coach Mark Richt said. "I think we're cheating the fans from what they want to see. Do you think they are saying, 'Well, we just drove six hours to the game. I wish we could see 12 fewer plays'?

It's television that's driving it, which is profit-driven, which no one wants to say because that would imply that college football is business to the point where sponsorship dictates the content. That would take balls, which no one has here. Thus the mysterian, occult decision making and complete unwillingness to address the simple question everyone's asked since day one: why?

One certainty is clear: aside from reversing the rules, the committee's solution will be to refuck the rules up, because they've shown little indication of learning the lesson fully. Then next year, they're likely to line up, unzip, and refuck them up some more. We're looking to be pleasantly surprised, but not hopeful. Until then, it's Hammer Fight Tuesdays at the NCAA.

Tweet Comment 29 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Mark Richt is right, but do the NCAA care about the fans? No matter what they do, the huge fan base is going to keep supporting their teams. They are not going to boycott the TV games because not all can tail-gate outside the stadiums.

by AUgrad on Feb 13, 2007 10:06 AM EST reply actions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3klmfriKFUk

by AUgrad on Feb 13, 2007 10:06 AM EST reply actions

No, if they had balls they would saunter up to the mike and say:

“The new rules worked exactly the way we planned – we may to squeeze more commercial time into the average broadcast. We’re not going to change the rule, instead, we’ll pretend like we’re making things better for appearances sake, but instead, we’ll just make them worse. We’re going to retire in about five years, so our primary concern is squeezing this puppy dry before we go – long term consequences be damned. You may want to avoid the middle man and just hand me some cash on the way out. Good day!”

by Herb on Feb 13, 2007 10:10 AM EST reply actions

“we may to squeeze” should have read “we squeezed”

by Herb on Feb 13, 2007 10:12 AM EST reply actions

Thanks AU,

I see that and I think Caddyshack. “$10 says he picks his nose. Agh! All right, $20 says he eats it. C’mon kid don’t do it. Go for it kid. Eeeewwww!”

Hammer Fight Tuesdays beats the hell out of Cock Fighting Friday! No avians allowed. Now that’s a fuck up.

by Cool Hand Mike on Feb 13, 2007 10:14 AM EST reply actions

Completely accurate analysis of the situation, and one which applies with equal force to instant replay!

by Ohiodawg on Feb 13, 2007 10:20 AM EST reply actions

Neil Young is fucking awesome.

by Simon Kenton on Feb 13, 2007 10:28 AM EST reply actions

If World Cup soccer can solve the commercial problem there is no excuse for college football. I’ll take a Snickers logo in the right corner if it gets that damn red-shirted ref off of the field a little faster. How long until an overweight tuba player can’t take the strain of these ever increasing time-outs and dies during a stirring rendition of “Hey Baby?”

by letsplaytummysticks on Feb 13, 2007 10:38 AM EST reply actions

Anyone in favor of this rule should be shot. You don’t want to watch the game, fine, go to Pier One and kill yourself on the way home. Otherwise, leave my football alone.

by italiangator on Feb 13, 2007 10:39 AM EST reply actions

can anybody rationally argue that even one simple aspect of the new’s rule is good for college football? if not, then why the hell don’t the NCAA coaches on the panel who reviewed the rule before last season take some of the heat (HELLO TOMMY TUBERVILLE)? remarkably, as far as i can remember, the coaches on the panel were still supporting the change mid-season. they basically ruined any argument or leverage that the coaches would have had in the matter because, “hey, you guys were on the panel that okay’d the rule.”
i guess it’s appropriate that, like most things college football this past season, i blame Auburn…

by rjsplow on Feb 13, 2007 10:44 AM EST reply actions

At first I thought this was a great rule.

“Hey, if you take 10 or so plays off the end of the game, with our running game, who knows how good Mason can make our teams. Maybe we would have beaten Michigan in 2003 if this rule would have been in place then.”

After that, I watched the season. And common sense kicked in

“If this rule was in place, Mason would have tried to switch to emphasise the pass game in 2003, and we would have still sucked.”

by Brew(ster) Crew on Feb 13, 2007 10:52 AM EST reply actions

rjsplow –
Great point- you would think it would be the coaches who would fight this thing more than anyone. Someone in a suit is changing the way they can call/coach a game, and the change isn’t made to improve the game itself. Outside of the fans, the coaches should be more pissed than anyone.

by Halleck T. on Feb 13, 2007 10:55 AM EST reply actions

Coming Soon:

“Refuck The Rules”
The new album from the Hammer Fight Tuesdays

by Mr. Wrong on Feb 13, 2007 10:55 AM EST reply actions

Why is no one complaining about the “instant-replay review” rule? It is elementary math that you can’t take an extra fifteen minutes every game to stop play and review calls without finding fifteen minutes elsewhere.

Are we slow children? This is an arithmetic problem.

Either hate BOTH rules or solve the math.

by Boclive on Feb 13, 2007 11:02 AM EST reply actions

Were you guys drawing an analogy to other events that might qualify for your 3 criteria, thus making them fuck-ups?

by Jim Caserta on Feb 13, 2007 11:07 AM EST reply actions

New Coke, actually.

by Orson Swindle on Feb 13, 2007 11:09 AM EST reply actions

It’s almost up to par with Human Sacrifice Thursdays.

by Brew(ster) Crew on Feb 13, 2007 11:12 AM EST reply actions

Wait, Boclive, why can’t I hate 3-2-5e and yet still be (at least theoretically, not necessarily in how it has been implemented) in favor of instant-replay? I don’t see the need to shorten the game, so can’t I just want to get rid of the one?

by italiangator on Feb 13, 2007 11:16 AM EST reply actions

CHM in #5: I think Gamecock Tony might disagree with you on that one. Regardless, at no time should both a Hammer and a Cock be allowed in the ring at the same time.

by Aerobab on Feb 13, 2007 11:23 AM EST reply actions

Boclive you don’t shorten the game you shorten the interuptions in the game which are notably commercials. The BCS games may still be going on and it wasn’t due to instant replay it was due to Geico.

by letsplaytummysticks on Feb 13, 2007 11:33 AM EST reply actions

I’m disappointed, all this talk about shortening the games and lengthening the commercials and you don’t have Neil Young playing “This Note’s for You.”

by Nick on Feb 13, 2007 11:41 AM EST reply actions

I’m not sure Hammer Fight Tuesdays can really be considered a fuckup, due to the benefit of the Law of Unintended Consequences. I mean, it’s not a completely bad thing when any HR department anywhere loses seven people in five minutes.

by Albino Tornado on Feb 13, 2007 4:09 PM EST reply actions

That red-shirted abortion of a referee needs to die.

Not by a nice, tidy sniper round to the head … nay, Hanover Fiste sums it up perfectly:

He’s nothing but a low-down, double-dealing, backstabbing, larcenous perverted worm!

Hanging’s too good for him. Burning’s too good for him!

He should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!

by DHC on Feb 13, 2007 5:31 PM EST reply actions

“How was I supposed to know that inflammable means flammable?”

by J.J. on Feb 13, 2007 6:17 PM EST reply actions

Were you guys drawing an analogy to other events that might qualify for your 3 criteria, thus making them fuck-ups?

Yeah. I was thinking I’ve heard about another situation that those three criteria may apply to: something that’s in the news a lot and really important to the world. Damn, I can’t think of it.

by J.J. on Feb 13, 2007 6:28 PM EST reply actions