Potential college football rule changes aim to limit plays and exposures while shortening the game

[highwayman]

Per CBS Sports:

“Buried in the 11th paragraph of a 16-year-old NCAA press release is evidence of the most significant upheaval that's come to college football in its modern era.…”

Potential college football rule changes aim to limit plays and exposures while shortening the game

Limiting exposures to improve player safety has become a top priority

www.cbssports.com

Interesting take on potential rule changes.

 

[#2Gopher]

Not implemented yet. Keeping the clock running after you've made a first down would really bring the clock down for those teams who have a good running game. Not exactly sure how much time that would be on a 65-75yard drive.

 

[BleedGopher]

Per CBS Sports:

“Buried in the 11th paragraph of a 16-year-old NCAA press release is evidence of the most significant upheaval that's come to college football in its modern era.…”

Potential college football rule changes aim to limit plays and exposures while shortening the game

Limiting exposures to improve player safety has become a top priority

www.cbssports.com

Interesting take on potential rule changes.

This week, the rules committee is undertaking an unprecedented project that could similarly reduce the number of plays we see on Saturdays. This time, unlike in 2006, it's being considered in the name of player safety.

The rules committee, at its annual meeting in Indianapolis this week, is considering its own version of playing less football. Membership is gathering statistics from the last 15 seasons to examine total snaps in a game, not just plays from scrimmage. Included in that total is extra points, two-point attempts and kickoffs along with plays from scrimmage. The committee may even find a way to incorporate the number of declined penalties (holding, pass interference, offsides) that involved a snap and at least some contact.

Steve Shaw, secretary-rules editor of the rules committee, calls the research singular in the group's history. In essence, it is attempting to account for every incidence of collision in a game defined by violence since 2007.


The result could impact everything from College Football Playoff expansion to existing court battles over head trauma.

"What we've really tried to do up to today is find every component of the game that we can find to keep the game moving," Shaw said. "We feel like we've squeezed that turnip to the end. We got all the juice out. The discussion is going to morph away from how much time elapses on your wristwatch to exposures of the student-athlete."

Go Gophers!!

 

[Word]

Not implemented yet. Keeping the clock running after you've made a first down would really bring the clock down for those teams who have a good running game. Not exactly sure how much time that would be on a 65-75yard drive.

PJ would like this rule change.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Not implemented yet. Keeping the clock running after you've made a first down would really bring the clock down for those teams who have a good running game. Not exactly sure how much time that would be on a 65-75yard drive.

Yeah, I wonder if it would amount to much time savings...doesn't seem to have in the pro game.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Would probably change the way teams substitute players, do you think?

 

[hungan1]

Would probably change the way teams substitute players, do you think?

Will there be no milking the clock in the rushing offense? Player subbing will be interesting.

 

[upnorthkid]

If you want to reduce “exposures”, eliminate kickoffs entirely. Gets rid of any contact, especially on a play that many times ends in a touchback and the collisions happen at higher speed

 

[Gophers_4life]

If you want to reduce “exposures”, eliminate kickoffs entirely. Gets rid of any contact, especially on a play that many times ends in a touchback and the collisions happen at higher speed

Agree.

All new drives after a score should just start at the 25.

Onside kick can be replaced with the option to go for it on a 4th and 15 play or something to that effect with the same likelihood of success.

 

[Pete smith]

If they reduce the number of plays, then reduce the ticket price. Otherwise, watch from home.

 

[UpAndUnder43]

Not implemented yet. Keeping the clock running after you've made a first down would really bring the clock down for those teams who have a good running game. Not exactly sure how much time that would be on a 65-75yard drive.

Huh? The clock stops until the ball is set…so no additional time would be used unless I’m missing something.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Huh? The clock stops until the ball is set…so no additional time would be used unless I’m missing something.

I think #2gopher is saying don't stop it on 1st downs, at all.

 

[forever a gopher]

I think #2gopher is saying don't stop it on 1st downs, at all.

It doesn’t matter if a team is trying to milk clock. They get the same play clock. So if time stops to set the ball, I can slowly come up to the LOS and take the same time off the clock whether it stopped at a first down or not. Where it will reduce plays is the teams that try and save that time by running up to the LOS (Chip Kellys of the world) and setting up their play while the officials are setting the ball. So in some games it may be quicker, but probably not by much.

As others have mentioned, it would affect subbing. PJ subs on D frequently. If the clock doesn’t stop, less forced stops by the offense, and probably less subbing by the D, which means players end up more tired by the end of a drive. I’d be willing to bet a tired player is more likely to get injured than a fresh one, but I have zero evidence to back that up.

 

[UpAndUnder43]

I think #2gopher is saying don't stop it on 1st downs, at all.

I don't think that would really change anything.

 

[BigGopher69]

if you want less plays and time just lower the amount of time at the start of each quarter

 

[Some guy]

if you want less plays and time just lower the amount of time at the start of each quarter

Yeah. It’s an odd middle ground. Do you change the rules to be more like nfl? Or do you just make 12 minute quarters like high school

 

[PMWinSTP]

Yeah. It’s an odd middle ground. Do you change the rules to be more like nfl? Or do you just make 12 minute quarters like high school

Two 45-minute running time periods with scheduled timeouts at around 30 and 15 minutes in each period. Clock stoppage inside of two minute for out of bounds plays. Four timeouts per team per period. 20 minute halftime.

 

[FredCoxRocks]

The "exposure" angle is BS. They're doing this because college football fans (and many, many people now days in general) have short attention spans along with some weird form of media ADD and get all crotchety when things go longer than two hours.
I don't know about you guys but I don't think college football games are too long. I thought the whole "let's hurry up and get there so we can leave" thing just Minnesotan. I guess not.

 

[Word]

Aren't most college games at least 15 minutes longer than an NFL game?

 

[tjgopher]

Huh? The clock stops until the ball is set…so no additional time would be used unless I’m missing something.

The game clock would continue to run, and not stop on first downs, so yes, more time would run off the game clock before the ball is snapped. Over the course of a game, it could reduce the number of plays and shorten the actual length of game by a few minutes.

 

[GFBfan]

Eliminate the untimed down and run the clock on all extra points. Start the clock on the kick and not when the other team starts the return.
A rule I'd like them to adjust is the grounding/throw it away rule. Whether in the pocket or out of the pocket I don't like that a QB who is getting pressured can just sail a pass out of bounds to avoid taking a sack. I think the ball should have to land in the field of play in those instance plus be past the LOS or it has to go over a receivers head and be reasonably catchable. If not it should be intentional grounding with the ball placed at the spot of the throw and loss of down.

 

[fmlizard]

PJ would like this rule change.

So would Glen Mason and Jerry Kill. Milking clock, possessing the ball, and generally shortening games has been a strategy of every reasonably successful Gopher coach of my lifetime.

 

[fmlizard]

The odd thing is that the NFL and NCAA are trying to find ways to limit player exposures by changing rules and shortening games...and at the same time increasingly inflating the number of games played.

Eventually, we're going to have every football team playing 5 minute games with a running clock 6 days a week, 10 months a year...just to fill (sell) all those TV channels and streaming services with low attention span games. Maybe all the games could just start in NCAA overtime rules.

It's not about player safety, or NFL/NCAA wouldn't be constantly talking of more games. It's about TV contracts and watering down the drinks they are selling to the networks, ticket buyers, and public.

 

[MNVCGUY]

The "exposure" angle is BS. They're doing this because college football fans (and many, many people now days in general) have short attention spans along with some weird form of media ADD and get all crotchety when things go longer than two hours.
I don't know about you guys but I don't think college football games are too long. I thought the whole "let's hurry up and get there so we can leave" thing just Minnesotan. I guess not.

The games might be a little long but it has nothing to do with the actual game clock. TV timeouts are the real killer in terms of game length, they have gotten ridiculously long.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Aren't most college games at least 15 minutes longer than an NFL game?

I believe the halftime is around 8 minutes longer in college.

 

[Gophers_4life]

TV doesn't want shorter games. Or, said another way, their minimum requirement will be to get the same amount of advertising minutes per game.

So, believe it or don't, but I do believe that the idea is to decrease the total number of plays for the sake of reducing the total number of chances for a player to receive a bad/lifelong injury.

 

[MNVCGUY]

TV doesn't want shorter games. Or, said another way, their minimum requirement will be to get the same amount of advertising minutes per game.

So, believe it or don't, but I do believe that the idea is to decrease the total number of plays for the sake of reducing the total number of chances for a player to receive a bad/lifelong injury.

The cynic in me says this is a way to shorten the overall time of the game without sacrificing commercials.

Chopping a few plays off a game won't do much on the player safety end but at least they don't hurt their bottom line by losing any valuable commercial time. Plus if they can get the actual game part shorter it might put them in a position to justify lengthening the commercial breaks even more to make up for some of that time.

the fact that we now have TV timeouts that are longer than 2 minutes is a joke. It kills the live experience when you see that red hat official go out there and know you may as well take a nap until the next play.

 

[Word]

I believe the halftime is around 8 minutes longer in college.

Yes, 5 to 8 minutes. Average NFL game is 12 minutes shorter than a college game.
The NFL does have a 2 minute warning which adds at least 4 minutes to the game. So if you correct for that, a college game is about 16+ minutes longer than an NFL game, of which 5-8 minutes is due to halftime. So the college game is about 8-12 minutes longer. I am curious if that's mostly due to stopping the clock on 1st downs or if it has to do with the number of or length of TV timeouts? I don't know how the TV timeouts compare in college vs NFL games.

 

[UpAndUnder43]

The game clock would continue to run, and not stop on first downs, so yes, more time would run off the game clock before the ball is snapped. Over the course of a game, it could reduce the number of plays and shorten the actual length of game by a few minutes.

The game clock stops for a few seconds on first downs where the ball stays inbounds. But once its placed it starts again. Lets say there are 30 first downs in a game. 15 of which the ball stays in bounds. Thats maybe 1 minute of game clock ,assuming teams operate at the same speed. If they run the play clock down it won't change anything.

 

[Gophers_4life]

The cynic in me says this is a way to shorten the overall time of the game without sacrificing commercials.

Chopping a few plays off a game won't do much on the player safety end but at least they don't hurt their bottom line by losing any valuable commercial time. Plus if they can get the actual game part shorter it might put them in a position to justify lengthening the commercial breaks even more to make up for some of that time.

the fact that we now have TV timeouts that are longer than 2 minutes is a joke. It kills the live experience when you see that red hat official go out there and know you may as well take a nap until the next play.

Everything you say here could end up being practically correct.

On the other hand, if we can prevent one really bad spinal injury every 5-10 years, at the "cost" of a few less plays per game, but roughly still the same overall enjoyment, I'll take it.