Not Thrilled With This ...
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:35 am
.
Here is an article that fumes me a bit:
http://www.espn.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/ ... e-football
I get so annoyed with the NCAA giving in to espn's demands.
Every rules change made to date, has been purely to offer contingencies that benefit espn's programming. The argument has been, it is for all of the networks' showcasing collegiate sporting events, so that regular TV schedules may be kept.
And yet, the only network who complains about game length, is espn. All other networks schedule reruns of popular shows, to offset time overlaps. And, every network benefits from an game that goes into Overtime on their broadcast. The ratings for College Football are sky high, while channels not broadcasting NCAA football games, generally have movies, or themselves play reruns of their more popular tv shows, during competitive time block; because College Football rules the airtime.
If the argument re for West Coast viewing, then, I agree that game times could end sooner ... though, earlier start times could negate those problems.
Look at the stupid rules changes they have had to speed up the games already:
1. the play clock is now 40 seconds rather than 25 -- in hopes that the winning team could run the clock easier.
2. going out of bounds only stops the clock until the ball is placed at the line of scrimmage; unless the game clock is under two minutes of play in the half (second or third quarter).
3. a 10 seconds runoff of time against teams if a penalty is incurred inside of the final minute unless the penalized team has a timeout to prevent the affect -- a game can very well end because of a simple false start.
In four seasons, the average length of games has increased seven minutes, from 3:17 in 2013 to 3:24 this season. This has occurred even though the number of plays has remained virtually the same: 143 plays per game in 2013, 142.6 plays per game in 2016.
Prior to the changes to rules regarding game play, the national average for the length of an NCAA football game was 3 hours to 3 hours and 15 mins.
Even after having implemented rules to shorten game times, the lengths of these contests continue to increase.
Why is that..?
Two reasons, really:
1.) networks who have lobbied for shorter game time, have taken advantage of the rules changes, by adding length to the time and frequency of advertisement breaks.
2.) Instant Replay --- the implementation of the replay stoppage, has significantly increased the length of game times.
If they are serious about trimming the time frame in which to get a full game into, then the NCAA needs to do the right thing, and pull the reins back against the networks, telling them how they are going to conduct their own product, and; either get on board, or give broadcasting contracts to those networks competitors.
Then, they need to go in and reform the replay issue. One would be to give the replay booth an allotted amount of time where, if the booth cannot decide within the confines of a certain limit, the ruling remains a the field judge called it.
Here are the most common ideas that are being discussed to shorten game lengths:
a.) a running clock on first downs (until the final two or five minutes of each half)
b.) shortening halftime > this has been voted in as an official rule
c.) limiting the number of replays
d.) reducing the number of timeouts
e.) a shorter play clock
f.) changing in-game substitution rules
g.) limiting the number of commercial breaks
My thoughts, stand firm on suggestion (g.) and then, go back to the previous time rules. Even if that means doing away with replay altogether.
.
.
.
Here is an article that fumes me a bit:
http://www.espn.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/ ... e-football
I get so annoyed with the NCAA giving in to espn's demands.
Every rules change made to date, has been purely to offer contingencies that benefit espn's programming. The argument has been, it is for all of the networks' showcasing collegiate sporting events, so that regular TV schedules may be kept.
And yet, the only network who complains about game length, is espn. All other networks schedule reruns of popular shows, to offset time overlaps. And, every network benefits from an game that goes into Overtime on their broadcast. The ratings for College Football are sky high, while channels not broadcasting NCAA football games, generally have movies, or themselves play reruns of their more popular tv shows, during competitive time block; because College Football rules the airtime.
If the argument re for West Coast viewing, then, I agree that game times could end sooner ... though, earlier start times could negate those problems.
Look at the stupid rules changes they have had to speed up the games already:
1. the play clock is now 40 seconds rather than 25 -- in hopes that the winning team could run the clock easier.
2. going out of bounds only stops the clock until the ball is placed at the line of scrimmage; unless the game clock is under two minutes of play in the half (second or third quarter).
3. a 10 seconds runoff of time against teams if a penalty is incurred inside of the final minute unless the penalized team has a timeout to prevent the affect -- a game can very well end because of a simple false start.
In four seasons, the average length of games has increased seven minutes, from 3:17 in 2013 to 3:24 this season. This has occurred even though the number of plays has remained virtually the same: 143 plays per game in 2013, 142.6 plays per game in 2016.
Prior to the changes to rules regarding game play, the national average for the length of an NCAA football game was 3 hours to 3 hours and 15 mins.
Even after having implemented rules to shorten game times, the lengths of these contests continue to increase.
Why is that..?
Two reasons, really:
1.) networks who have lobbied for shorter game time, have taken advantage of the rules changes, by adding length to the time and frequency of advertisement breaks.
2.) Instant Replay --- the implementation of the replay stoppage, has significantly increased the length of game times.
If they are serious about trimming the time frame in which to get a full game into, then the NCAA needs to do the right thing, and pull the reins back against the networks, telling them how they are going to conduct their own product, and; either get on board, or give broadcasting contracts to those networks competitors.
Then, they need to go in and reform the replay issue. One would be to give the replay booth an allotted amount of time where, if the booth cannot decide within the confines of a certain limit, the ruling remains a the field judge called it.
Here are the most common ideas that are being discussed to shorten game lengths:
a.) a running clock on first downs (until the final two or five minutes of each half)
b.) shortening halftime > this has been voted in as an official rule
c.) limiting the number of replays
d.) reducing the number of timeouts
e.) a shorter play clock
f.) changing in-game substitution rules
g.) limiting the number of commercial breaks
My thoughts, stand firm on suggestion (g.) and then, go back to the previous time rules. Even if that means doing away with replay altogether.
.
.
.