College Football Executives Considering Four Changes to Shorten Games

[GopherTheJugular]

Clock keeps running after an incomplete pass. If you send down four receivers, one or two deep. They are going to have to hustle back to get back to the line of scrimmage. Could possibly be the end of the game with 15 seconds or so left and incomplete.

Or just have the deep WR run off the field and a different player take his place for the ensuing play???

 

[GopherTheJugular]

Replay has kind of gone the opposite. Reviewing every scoring play and “expedited” review.

2023 nfl review looks closer to 2015 college review than 2015 nfl reviews

Ummm, back in the day every play in college was reviewed. They would look at the play while the refs and players were preparing for the next play. If they saw something, they'd buzz down to the officials to stop (if ball wasn't snapped yet).

The NFL never had such a thing.

I'm not talking 2015, I'm talking like 2001/2002.

 

[Plato]

The article does indeed claim that commercials don't make the games significantly longer.

It is interesting that the article claims that TV games run "only" two minutes longer than non-televised games, an increase the author deems insignificant, and at the same time points to a five-minute increase in game duration from 2018 to 2022 as though five minutes is indeed quite significant. I'd point out that without the commercials you would cut that 5-minute increase almost in half without changing the football part of the game at all.

I guess it all depends on a person's definition of "significant".

I refuse to believe that televised TV games are only two minutes longer than non-televised games and would love to know the source of his data.
At just about every change of possession when both teams are ready to take the field there is a stoppage for a two-minute commercial. And I am supposed to believe commercials only prolong the game by five minutes?
When the temperature is 20 degrees with wind, those two minutes seem like twenty minutes if you are in the stands, and that is the major reason I now see fewer games in person.

 

[MaxyJR1]

This will be wildly unpopular and I totally expect to get ripped on but the average college game was 3 hours 22 minutes in 2022 and the average NFL game was 3 hours 10 minutes.

Easy solution, shorten halftime. College halftimes go on forever!

Halftime should be 15 minutes, but with our Concessions that would lead to a lot of missed football.

I would support changes 1-3 for sure. I think 4 is even a good option as others have stated. For the most part college teams play fast and a running clock after incomplete passes would not have a huge impact on the way teams want to play. I would add a 2 minute warning for the sake of TV and the change of timing.

The more consistency in the NFL and NCAA, the more people understand the game and rules. High School has gone to more of the NCAA rules over the years. It also allows for better training and transition of rules, making the rules more similar between Friday and Saturday games.

 

[RememberMurray]

OK, so what parts of the article do you believe?

Well, I'm not much on believing anything and everything I'm told simply on faith.

I'd point out that:

— The quoted sources are all anonymous

— He cites no source at all for his assertion that TV commercials add "only" two minutes to games

— Some of the conclusions seem to be simply the authors' own opinion, especially his implying that, while a 5-minute increase in game time is significant, a two-minute difference between televised and non-televised games is insignificant.

I flat-out disagree with that. If 5 minutes is significant, surely two minutes has at least 40% as much significance.

And, in the long run, is a five-minute increase in game run time a huge problem? If so, according to whom, and why do they feel that way? If it is related to player safety, I'd appreciate a link to a study relating game run times to player injury. If they are simply attempting to run fewer plays, it seems like that would be easy to accomplish.

To me, the article is incomplete at best.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

Well, I'm not much on believing anything and everything I'm told simply on faith.

I'd point out that:

— The quoted sources are all anonymous

— He cites no source at all for his assertion that TV commercials add "only" two minutes to games

— Some of the conclusions seem to be simply the authors' own opinion, especially his implying that, while a 5-minute increase in game time is significant, a two-minute difference between televised and non-televised games is insignificant.

I flat-out disagree with that. If 5 minutes is significant, surely two minutes has at least 40% as much significance.

And, in the long run, is a five-minute increase in game run time a huge problem? If so, according to whom, and why do they feel that way? If it is related to player safety, I'd appreciate a link to a study relating game run times to player injury. If they are simply attempting to run fewer plays, it seems like that would be easy to accomplish.

To me, the article is incomplete.

Good analysis. And like I said, if you go down to the level of play where the games aren't televised, how can you reasonably compare that to P5 games? Seems like apples and oranges to me.

 

[fmlizard]

I don't think college football games take too long. To me this is a non-problem.

I echo what everyone else has been saying about cutting commercial and TV timeout time. Trying to shorten games without pulling those levers is like trying to eliminate the Federal debt without touching Defense, Social Security, or Medicare.

What they likely want to do is shorten the gameplay so they can cram in a couple more TV timeouts. Always, always, always have to show revenue growth so the execs can put their stock options in the money. That often means the game (or customer) experience has to suffer for it.

 

[forever a gopher]

How about they sprinkle in a 30-second scrolling ad at the bottom of the screen 4 times a game. That eliminates a 2-minute TV stoppage. Reduce halftime to 18 minutes. That's 4 minutes right there. Or just reduce halftime to 15 mins and you've gained 7 minutes total with no lost ad revenue.

Commercials are 100% the problem. Anybody that's been to a game and has cursed at the "red hat guy" standing on the field signaling they're on TV timeout knows how disruptive and long they are.

 

[Gophers_4life]

I don't think college football games take too long. To me this is a non-problem.

TV is the issue.

When games take too long and overrun their slot, they have to be put on some off-channel or even just streaming and fans have to miss potentially the first 30mins of a game.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Andy Staples in the Athletic:

But since the people running college football clearly are borrowing from the NFL, perhaps they could consider some of the next logical steps the NFL already took and perhaps skip one of the two major clock tweaks in favor of a little more action. Maybe eliminate the clock stoppage to move the chains after a first down but keep the clock stoppage following an incomplete pass.

One of the biggest time-wasters in college football is instant replay. Plays get reviewed even if neither team cares if the call gets reversed. Stop doing that. Review all scoring plays. Let the booth review plays in the final two minutes. Otherwise, give the coaches a challenge flag or two and be done with it. If there is anything we can take from this past weekend’s debut of the newest iteration of the XFL, it’s that replay doesn’t need to stop a game for five minutes to work.


Another way to allow for more action in a tighter window is to streamline the way coaches call plays from the sidelines. Put radios in the helmets of the quarterback and the defensive play-caller. One of the stupidest ways college football has evolved is the need for people holding bedsheets on the sidelines to block the view of the coaches signaling plays. Get rid of that. The most common reason given for not being able to do this is that altering the helmets could void their warranties, but college football teams are some of the biggest customers of helmet manufacturers. If they say they’ll take their business to companies that will issue waivers allowing them to put radios in the helmets, the manufacturers probably will issue those waivers. Plays could be relayed quickly and smoothly, and we wouldn’t have to see this ever again.

These two ideas — which we know work because we’ve seen them in action for years — would streamline games while still allowing coaches and players to run most of the plays they’re accustomed to running. They would make the reduced time far less perceptible than the terrible 2006 changes did.

We know the leaders of college football aren’t going to cut time by cutting commercials. But before they vote on cutting more game action, hopefully, they’ll bring all the potential solutions to the table.

 

[upnorthkid]

How about they sprinkle in a 30-second scrolling ad at the bottom of the screen 4 times a game. That eliminates a 2-minute TV stoppage. Reduce halftime to 18 minutes. That's 4 minutes right there. Or just reduce halftime to 15 mins and you've gained 7 minutes total with no lost ad revenue.

Commercials are 100% the problem. Anybody that's been to a game and has cursed at the "red hat guy" standing on the field signaling they're on TV timeout knows how disruptive and long they are.

My favorite is when you get TD, TV timeout, Kickoff, TV timeout and the entire stadium gets sapped of all energy. It's super fun.

 

[DarrenTheGreek]

If the argument to tweaking the rules is for player safety and running fewer plays, then just reduce the time in each quarter to 14 minutes. Why change the rules of the gameplay?

But we all know it's really about the commercials. The only change that is needed is:
1. Reduce halftime to 15 minutes. That still leaves plenty of time for the band.
2. Reduce the commercials by 30 seconds each quarter.

7 minutes right there.

I am against anything that reduces the amount of plays or actual in-game action.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Roughly an hour of each game is tv commercials. That is the beginning and end of the problem. The commercial breaks may even be getting longer but that could be my imagination. That article is wrong.

Obviously the leagues and networks have every incentive to increase, not decrease commercials. If they could make it a 4:1 commercial/game time ratio and still have people tune in that would happen.

This seems like a made up problem. There is a danger of turning people off beyond a certain saturation point but the “executives” in charge of this ought to get creative on integrating commercials into the 10-20 seconds between plays rather than subjecting us to Matt Millen discussing his favorite player.

 

[forever a gopher]

Andy Staples in the Athletic:

One of the biggest time-wasters in college football is instant replay. Plays get reviewed even if neither team cares if the call gets reversed. Stop doing that. Review all scoring plays. Let the booth review plays in the final two minutes. Otherwise, give the coaches a challenge flag or two and be done with it. If there is anything we can take from this past weekend’s debut of the newest iteration of the XFL, it’s that replay doesn’t need to stop a game for five minutes to work.

Another way to allow for more action in a tighter window is to streamline the way coaches call plays from the sidelines. Put radios in the helmets of the quarterback and the defensive play-caller. One of the stupidest ways college football has evolved is the need for people holding bedsheets on the sidelines to block the view of the coaches signaling plays. Get rid of that. The most common reason given for not being able to do this is that altering the helmets could void their warranties, but college football teams are some of the biggest customers of helmet manufacturers. If they say they’ll take their business to companies that will issue waivers allowing them to put radios in the helmets, the manufacturers probably will issue those waivers. Plays could be relayed quickly and smoothly, and we wouldn’t have to see this ever again.

Bolded items x1000. The reviewing of plays that have little to no consequence is maddening. They review a play that nets 2 yards. Seriously? Just go with what was called on the field and let it go. Review scoring plays and turnovers, and give each coach 2 or 3 reviews. But don't review ANY OTHER PLAY unless they can do the "expedited review" before the next play is run. However, I'm skeptical the NCAA could master that. Then, factor in an NCAA review seems to take 2-3 times longer than an NFL review, and seemingly every play is a targeting call that needs an extensive review, and you could have a game that has 5 minutes of review.

And why can't they do the radio helmet thing? Not sure it would speed up the game, but at this point it's just dumb not to have it.

 

[forever a gopher]

OK, here's the kicker (although this only applies to ESPN, not going to go digging on the other networks). ESPN's revenue is 77% from subscriber fees and 23% from ad revenue. So they could have zero commercial breaks and still be making a substantial amount of money.

Knowing the majority of their revenue is from subscriber fees and not ad revenue, how about the B1G has some creative negotiations to set themselves apart in the college football landscape. They could agree to terms with a provider (we'll use ESPN in this case just for simplicity), and say they'll take 5% less overall money in their contract, but the provider has to air 15% less commercials when the B1G has the TV rights (i.e. any conference game, or any non-conference game where the B1G is the home team). This means there is less downtime and more continuous action during a B1G game than the other conferences. This also means that they'll likely reach halftime 5 or more minutes prior to halftime than the other games at the same timeslot, which also means they get to the second half 5 or more minutes sooner. If you ever watch the 11am timeslot you know that even though there are 6 games on at once, they all are on halftime at the same time. So your game is on half and you're surfing around trying to find another game to watch to no avail, as the other games are on the half as well. Well, if almost all B1G games get to the second half first, you can steal all those viewers searching around when their SEC/ACC/Pac12/AAC/etc game is on half and maybe they get hooked and stay, thereby pushing up your viewership numbers and thereby giving you a better product to sell.

https://www.spglobal.com/marketinte...work-still-disney-s-no-1-sports-star-61709716

 

[stocker08]

hello-world must have deleted the post. As the article states, commercials/broadcasting of games is not the issue ..."Television commercials don’t impact game time significantly. From 2018-2020, games not televised finished only about two minutes sooner than those televised."

I would be fine with either clock running proposals, as long as the clock starts with placement of the ball. Heck, they could even add another 30 second T/O for each team and still shorten the game. As one poster already pointed out, shorten halftime from 20 to 15 or 12 minutes.

I'd have to see the article.....but I'm calling BS. Which untelevised games are they using for these stats? Because even untelevised games for lower levels often have streaming available. Some of the time there will be advertisements during those. Then you have to consider the promotional stuff that goes on the field during these timeouts.

It just doesn't track. Other than timeouts and halftime.....basically the other prolonged stoppages (ignoring injuries) are after scores, changes of possession, and end of quarters. If they wanted to speed up the game....we wouldn't have three minute breaks for each. The reason we do is because they are media timeouts. Remove those and the game is significantly shorter.

Don't mess with the college football clock. No need. Certainly don't shorten games by keeping the clock running on incompletions. That's horrible.

 

[Bobek]

Statistically D1 college football last 20 minutes longer than an NFL game, even with the contrived NFL 2 minute warning rule each half, which exists to sell more commercials. My guess is that the longer college game is primarily due to the clock stopping for a first down and not starting until the ball has been set by the referee. Colleges should follow the NFL rule to speed up the game, IMO.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Let's be real. they will never take commercial time out of the game. The best compromise I could see would be to have more of the "in-game" ads where the ad pops up in an on-screen box during some kind of lull in the action - bringing the chain gang on the field, etc. you could pop in a lot of :15 ads during games and all you would lose is some meaningless blather from the color man.

on the incomplete passes - the proposal is that the clock would start when the ball is ready for play. so - long pass downfield is incomplete - they have to get the ball back, position it and signal ready for play. that still gives teams time to run in a sub and call a play.

bottom line is that up-tempo teams would be affected much less than teams that try to milk the clock and slow down play - i.e. the Gophers. the onus would be on teams to make a quick play call, get to the line and snap the ball. If a team wants the QB to step back and look at the sideline twice, well, that's their choice and they would live with the consequences.

 

[GopherTheJugular]

Review scoring plays and turnovers, and give each coach 2 or 3 reviews. But don't review ANY OTHER PLAY unless they can do the "expedited review" before the next play is run. However, I'm skeptical the NCAA could master that.

Regarding bolded: They once did. Back 20 years ago every play was being reviewed in between plays and if something seemed like it would need a closer look, they'd buzz down and stop the game. It worked great. Not sure why they went away from that and towards the NFL style stuff....

 

[upnorthkid]

Statistically D1 college football last 20 minutes longer than an NFL game, even with the contrived NFL 2 minute warning rule each half, which exists to sell more commercials. My guess is that the longer college game is primarily due to the clock stopping for a first down and not starting until the ball has been set by the referee. Colleges should follow the NFL rule to speed up the game, IMO.

Why?

 

[Jack jones]

Getting sick and tired of cutting, cutting. They increase the prices but give me less playing time. I say B.S.. thanks but no thanks on Gopher season tickets.

 

[RememberMurray]

Why?

That's really the first thing to ascertain, isn't it?

Who here thinks a game running 5 minutes longer than it did in 2018 is a huge problem — and why is it a problem?

I know we shouldn't relate everything back to ourselves and our own experiences, but college football is the only reason I still own a big screen TV. My wife and I enjoy watching college football together on autumn Saturdays.
If the games are taking 5 minutes more than they did in 2018, I have been completely unaware of it and I really couldn't care less how long the game lasts.

Hell, the season already feels like it is over in the blink of an eye, and the offseason certainly lasts long enough for me.

To quote the great Walter Sobchak, "What, exactly, is the problem?"

 

[upnorthkid]

That's really the first thing to ascertain, isn't it?

Who here thinks a game running 5 minutes longer than it did in 2018 is a huge problem — and why is it a problem?

I know we shouldn't relate everything back to ourselves and our own experiences, but college football is the only reason I still own a big screen TV. My wife and I enjoy watching college football together on autumn Saturdays.
If the games are taking 5 minutes more than they did in 2018, I have been completely unaware of it and I really couldn't care less how long the game lasts.

Hell, the season already feels like it is over in the blink of an eye, and the offseason certainly lasts long enough for me.

To quote the great Walter Sobchak, "What, exactly, is the problem?"

agreed. the last thing i want is them to cut plays. the game action is already diluted enough with commercials, reviews, etc.

The lowest hanging fruit of the actual game product, given they will not eliminate commercials, is reviews, particularly reviews surrounding targeting. There is ZERO reason an official needs to go over to the monitor for that (as well as the vaaaaaaaaast majority of reviews). Streamline that process and you're knocking 5-10 minutes off most games instantly while making the actual gameplay on the field a higher percentage of total run time. I still have no idea why replay continues to have someone off the field reviewing things call over an on field person to a tiny ass screen like they should somehow have a greater ability to weigh in against the guy who has the high def screen and ability to zoom in while looking at all the angles simultaneously.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Getting sick and tired of cutting, cutting. They increase the prices but give me less playing time. I say B.S.. thanks but no thanks on Gopher season tickets.

agreed. the last thing i want is them to cut plays. the game action is already diluted enough with commercials, reviews, etc.

But all of everything that has happened in the last 15 years is for TV.

That's who's paying for the dance.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

I still have no idea why replay continues to have someone off the field reviewing things call over an on field person to a tiny ass screen like they should somehow have a greater ability to weigh in against the guy who has the high def screen and ability to zoom in while looking at all the angles simultaneously.

^
They “upgraded” last season to maybe what, a 12 or 14 inch screen from the ridiculous dinky iPhone size monitor before that. These guys are over 50 generally and with their presbyopia the squinting at the monitor for 3 minutes -while the entire country had already seen a dozen relevant replay angles on the network feed - was absolutely ridiculous.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

well, here's a thought - when games run long, it messes up the next time slot. happens all the time - a game is supposed to start at the 2:30pm time slot, but the earlier game is still going, and if you want to see the 2:30 game, they send you to some app or an alternate channel.

so, by cutting down the length of games, it helps keep games within their broadcast windows.

and again, if you want to run more plays in a game, snap the ball sooner. the Gophers have that option right now - but they choose not to use it because the coach would rather have the QB stepping back and looking to the sideline twice before every snap.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

and again, if you want to run more plays in a game, snap the ball sooner. the Gophers have that option right now - but they choose not to use it because the coach would rather have the QB stepping back and looking to the sideline twice before every snap.

If a reduced play clock were implemented causing an increased pace of operations I think the staff might have a short circuit.

 

[RememberMurray]

If a reduced play clock were implemented causing an increased pace of operations I think the staff might have a short circuit.

Are Gopher fans still confused, after Fleck has coached here six seasons, about the purpose of this?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the idea is:

— shorten the game
— control the ball, and the clock
— give the Gopher defense a chance to rest and adjust while on the sideline

Now, we can disagree with Fleck's approach and philosophy. We can call it annoying, or old-school, or "not modern". But surely we all understand the purpose at this point, yes? Even if we don't like it?

 

[RememberMurray]

But all of everything that has happened in the last 15 years is for TV.

That's who's paying for the dance.

No, the fans are paying for it. TV wouldn't bother with the games if they weren't making money off it, and they only make money if the fans watch the games — and the endless commercials.

 

[highwayman]

Are Gopher fans still confused, after Fleck has coached here six seasons, about the purpose of this?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the idea is:

— shorten the game
— control the ball, and the clock
— give the Gopher defense a chance to rest and adjust while on the sideline

Now, we can disagree with Fleck's approach and philosophy. We can call it annoying, or old-school, or "not modern". But surely we all understand the purpose at this point, yes? Even if we don't like it?

Remember, don’t argue with morons.

It’s like the looking to the sideline thing that seems to bother everyone. They’re not looking for signals 90% of the time. It’s about timing and running down the clock. Get over it, folks!