NEW First Down Rule

#26
#26
GAVol said:
It's going to be interesting to see what this truly does to the total number of snaps. I get the general idea of shaving a few minutes off the game and over time effectively cutting out a game's worth of head impacts over the course of the season. But I wonder if it will be extreme enough to actually cut out possessions?
Click to expand...
If the aim is to reduce head impacts then cutting a few plays a game doesn't really help.
 
#27
#27
EasternVol said:
If the aim is to reduce head impacts then cutting a few plays a game doesn't really help.
Click to expand...
I'd say a lot of this is a CYA move. If they get called out on expanding the playoff and adding games, they can point to the 100 plays a year they eliminated with the new rule in the name of "player safety".
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsnRavens
#28
#28
GAVol said:
You won't notice after the 1st quarter of the first game.
Click to expand...
Except there will likely be more commercials and about 10 less plays per team.

The rule sucks. The stated goal is to shorten games. So instead of reducing the ridiculous amount of commercial time... they reduced the number of plays. The OP is not wrong and that's likely why Saban is saying he's going back to "bully" ball. This is a rule that on the field favors him and Stoops. You'll probably see them routinely burn through whole quarters with one possession.

I hate the reduction of plays. I hate the motive behind the rule. I hate that they've lied and said it had anything at all to do with player safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolDave53 and Big Al Orange
#29
#29
Rules committees, like all legislatures, come up with new rules because that's the function of their sessions. And a lot of what they pass is inconsequential or counterproductive. They should probably have scheduled sessions every 5 years with emergency sessions in the interim if justified.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GAVol
#30
#30
GAVol said:
I'd say a lot of this is a CYA move. If they get called out on expanding the playoff and adding games, they can point to the 100 plays a year they eliminated with the new rule in the name of "player safety".
Click to expand...
It's poor CYA move since it C's no A.
 
#33
#33
GAVol said:
One thing we can all agree on . . . It'll at least be nice to not have to go find a stream to see our kickoff while we wait for East Carolina vs. Syracuse to finish a 4 hour game.
Click to expand...
They could reduce commercial time either with fewer or shorter ads while charging more and accomplish the same thing.
 
#34
#34
GAVol said:
It's going to be interesting to see what this truly does to the total number of snaps. I get the general idea of shaving a few minutes off the game and over time effectively cutting out a game's worth of head impacts over the course of the season. But I wonder if it will be extreme enough to actually cut out possessions?
Click to expand...
Teams average over 20 1st downs per game. That means there are on average over 40 1st downs per game. In some instances you the click will be stopped anyway. I would guess you are going to lose somewhere around 5 minutes of playing time per game.
 
#36
#36
EverythingOrange said:
Well, I HATE it! Stopping the clock on first down has always been a unique part of college football.

To be honest, running the clock caters to “run” offenses & the old “Three yards & a cloud of dust”. - I know, I know: It’s the defense’s job to stop them. But, it makes it much easier for a rushing team to just milk away a game with the clock constantly running.

Plus, college ball is not the NFL - or soccer!
Click to expand...


I am going to have to see it before I pronounce judgement. I WONDER if this might help our offense with the clock running our coaches expediting setting the ball. It seems to me there was less expediency by the refs spotting the ball with the clock stopped. We shall see.
 
#37
#37
sjt18 said:
They could reduce commercial time either with fewer or shorter ads while charging more and accomplish the same thing.
Click to expand...

Oh but that would Truthfully do what they say they are trying to do. Can't have less commercials. Never have never will. Did you realize TV Stations can actually run ads 20 minutes of each hour?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjt18
#38
#38
GAVol said:
You won't notice after the 1st quarter of the first game.
Click to expand...

Nope, and college football games need to be shortened IMO.

Also IMO, games should be declared as ties if no winner after 2-3 OTs.

At some point, it would be nice if the physical well-being of the players was considered. Because playing 4-5 hour games is not in their best interest.
 
#40
#40
EZE said:
Nope, and college football games need to be shortened IMO.

Also IMO, games should be declared as ties if no winner after 2-3 OTs.

At some point, it would be nice if the physical well-being of the players was considered. Because playing 4-5 hour games is not in their best interest.
Click to expand...
You forgot the blue font.

Why do you want LESS football? We get 12 +/- games per year. If they indeed reduce the number of plays by around 20 per game as some have estimated, that is around 250 less plays per year. In what way is that good for the players or the fans? All it means for players is that starters will play an even higher % of snaps and others will have less opportunities.

This rule isn't about the physical well-being of the players. It is about more commercial time and the convenience of broadcasters. This will have NO positive impact on player well-being. Nada.
 
#41
#41
EverythingOrange said:
Well, I HATE it! Stopping the clock on first down has always been a unique part of college football.

To be honest, running the clock caters to “run” offenses & the old “Three yards & a cloud of dust”. - I know, I know: It’s the defense’s job to stop them. But, it makes it much easier for a rushing team to just milk away a game with the clock constantly running.

Plus, college ball is not the NFL - or soccer!
Click to expand...

If it ends 4 hour games, I'm ok with it. Length of games has gotten out of hand.
 
#42
#42
OrangeTsar said:
Claim is it will shorten the game. The truth is that it will keep the game length the same but allow for 10 to 15 more commercials 🤮
Click to expand...
Absolutely. IIRC, they already sell "contigencies". They sell potential commercials and the advertiser is only billed if the game allows. They will still do that but will be able to sell more of the higher priced guaranteed ads as well.
 
#43
#43
Allvols98 said:
Gotta be called the bama rule.
Click to expand...

Alabama has more talent and depth than 1-2 teams. As such, it is in Bama’s favor for games to be as long as possible and have as many plays as possible. Because the more plays that are run, the more the game will revert to the statistical norm. And the more that depth matters.
 
#44
#44
sjt18 said:
You forgot the blue font.

Why do you want LESS football? We get 12 +/- games per year. If they indeed reduce the number of plays by around 20 per game as some have estimated, that is around 250 less plays per year. In what way is that good for the players or the fans? All it means for players is that starters will play an even higher % of snaps and others will have less opportunities.

This rule isn't about the physical well-being of the players. It is about more commercial time and the convenience of broadcasters. This will have NO positive impact on player well-being. Nada.
Click to expand...

Well it is in the best interest of the players, so I have no problem with it.

Plus, how exactly does it result in more commercials?
 
#46
#46
Sea Ray said:
On the occasional 30 yard 1st down, yeah it'll be more than 5 secs but most are only about 5 secs. Personally I'm fine with 3 hr 45 min games. I love college football. Why would I want to cut it short? But the powers that be want it shorter. I don't want shortening methods to cost us plays. That just cheapens the game
Click to expand...
When the rule first came out, the estimate was that it would shorten the game by about 10 plays per team. I believe the average including special teams was about 180 plays per game.

Don't expect them to shorten TV time. The time saved will be sold as commercial time.

This is kind of like the trend with candy bars over the last 20 years or so. Costs started going up so companies did product market research and realized that most people are... dumb. They'll pay the same price even if you reduce the size by 20%. One company did it. The rest followed suit. Costs kept rising so they kept "optimizing" the size of the product and raising the price too. Now you go into a quick stop and buy a Little Debbie Oatmeal pie for about $1.75 vs the $.50 it was just a few years ago... and it is actually half the size. You are paying 7X more.

Same with this clock move. We'll get less "product" (plays) at a higher price (commercials)... and the consumer being as dumb as consumers often are... won't protest.
 
#47
#47
EZE said:
Well it is in the best interest of the players, so I have no problem with it.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. There is absolutely no value to the best interest of the players. In fact, exactly the opposite. There will be fewer opportunities due to fewer plays. That is true of the starters but more so of the 2's and 3's.

How will it be in the "best interest" of the players? Don't say injuries because teams are going to play their first line players the same number of plays.... because they can. They're just as likely to get hurt.

Plus, how exactly does it result in more commercials?
Click to expand...
A little difficult to explain but I will try. Live sporting events sell guaranteed ad spots and contingency spots. If you buy the higher priced guaranteed spot then your ad by contract must run during regular play. The contingency spots are run if there are opportunity to run them. The TV run time isn't going to change. It really can't unless they are planning on filling it with post-game shows... which still offer more ad time. The actual time of "play" will be reduced around 20% by not stopping the clock on 1st downs. Those 12 minutes convert to 24 additional 30 second commercials.
 
#49
#49
sjt18 said:
No it isn't. There is absolutely no value to the best interest of the players. In fact, exactly the opposite. There will be fewer opportunities due to fewer plays. That is true of the starters but more so of the 2's and 3's.

How will it be in the "best interest" of the players? Don't say injuries because teams are going to play their first line players the same number of plays.... because they can. They're just as likely to get hurt.


A little difficult to explain but I will try. Live sporting events sell guaranteed ad spots and contingency spots. If you buy the higher priced guaranteed spot then your ad by contract must run during regular play. The contingency spots are run if there are opportunity to run them. The TV run time isn't going to change. It really can't unless they are planning on filling it with post-game shows... which still offer more ad time. The actual time of "play" will be reduced around 20% by not stopping the clock on 1st downs. Those 12 minutes convert to 24 additional 30 second commercials.
Click to expand...

We will have to agree to disagree. I’m all for these types of rule changes.
 
#50
#50
feathersax said:
Yep, & that's the hallowed ground that won't be touched; THE reason that games take so long. :cool:
Click to expand...
Same reason conference expansion is happening. Follow the money. College football is the last truly enjoyable sporting experience so people tune in to watch it. So they will keep finding ways to milk it dry until they eventually kill the goose that lays the golden eggs
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRich, feathersax, EasternVol and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top