CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

……..limiting the amount of time the TV guys have to get their commercials in.

I think I would like to see an analysis of games over the course of the season to see just how much ‘game time’ is actually things other than plays being run…… like maybe ‘plays under further review’, commercials, official timeouts, etc. just to see an analysis of what actually is happening during those 3 plus hours. Especially when considering these ‘powers that be’ are ready and extremely willing to extend the season with conference championship games, bowls and College Football Playoffs…… and besides, Coaches will simply start running faster paced offenses if they do implement something to fit the games into their TV window.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... -athletes/


.

Mountainman wrote:……..limiting the amount of time the TV guys have to get their commercials in.

I think I would like to see an analysis of games over the course of the season to see just how much ‘game time’ is actually things other than plays being run…… like maybe ‘plays under further review’, commercials, official timeouts, etc. just to see an analysis of what actually is happening during those 3 plus hours. Especially when considering these ‘powers that be’ are ready and extremely willing to extend the season with conference championship games, bowls and College Football Playoffs…… and besides, Coaches will simply start running faster paced offenses if they do implement something to fit the games into their TV window.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... -athletes/.

It's about limiting the number of plays, and player safety; not necessarily about shortening game length.

Uh-huh.

An uncontroversial approach is to eliminate extending play for a defensive penalty at the end of a half.

So DC's can now simply say, "Just hold him boys. There's only 2 seconds left."

.
.
.

The NFL clock rules would shorten the games for sure. It would change the college game lots and put more emphasis bavk on defense.

This whole thing is just silly to me……. The fix is just too simple, limit the number of snaps a player can play during a game and practices.

The elephant in the room is money, not player exposure. The NCAA is trying to protect itself from either losing revenue on the front end from its revenue sources or from losing money on the back end from liability exposure. Once again their greed gets in the way……



.


.

Mountainman wrote:This whole thing is just silly to me……. The fix is just too simple, limit the number of snaps a player can play during a game and practices.

The elephant in the room is money, not player exposure. The NCAA is trying to protect itself from either losing revenue on the front end from its revenue sources or from losing money on the back end from liability exposure. Once again their greed gets in the way……



.


.

That is exactly right. They could limit snaps, but would probably have to increase scholarships. That would cause another set of issues. One of which would be a loss of scholarships to non revenue sports or loss of the sport in it's entirety.

Spence wrote:

Mountainman wrote:This whole thing is just silly to me……. The fix is just too simple, limit the number of snaps a player can play during a game and practices.

The elephant in the room is money, not player exposure. The NCAA is trying to protect itself from either losing revenue on the front end from its revenue sources or from losing money on the back end from liability exposure. Once again their greed gets in the way……



.


.

That is exactly right. They could limit snaps, but would probably have to increase scholarships. That would cause another set of issues. One of which would be a loss of scholarships to non revenue sports or loss of the sport in it's entirety.

The NCAA and College Football has become cannibalistic….. not to satisfy their hunger, but to satisfy their greed. They are devouring themselves in order to satisfy their greed for money.
Think about what has happened during our lifetime, what was once a 10 games season and a bowl appearance, followed by sportswriters, or whatever, declaring a ‘National Champion’, to where the game is now and the direction it’s heading………. also, keep an eye on the decision currently before the 9th Circuit Court where the Case is not whether or not players ARE EMPLOYEES, as was the claim of the case filed by Northwestern’s players, but rather whether or not players meet the criteria to where they CAN BE CONSIDERED EMPLOYEES. That’s a very different decision for the Court…….. and we’ll see where things go from there.


.

Mountainman wrote:

Spence wrote:

Mountainman wrote:This whole thing is just silly to me……. The fix is just too simple, limit the number of snaps a player can play during a game and practices.

The elephant in the room is money, not player exposure. The NCAA is trying to protect itself from either losing revenue on the front end from its revenue sources or from losing money on the back end from liability exposure. Once again their greed gets in the way……



.


.

That is exactly right. They could limit snaps, but would probably have to increase scholarships. That would cause another set of issues. One of which would be a loss of scholarships to non revenue sports or loss of the sport in it's entirety.

The NCAA and College Football has become cannibalistic….. not to satisfy their hunger, but to satisfy their greed. They are devouring themselves in order to satisfy their greed for money.
Think about what has happened during our lifetime, what was once a 10 games season and a bowl appearance, followed by sportswriters, or whatever, declaring a ‘National Champion’, to where the game is now and the direction it’s heading………. also, keep an eye on the decision currently before the 9th Circuit Court where the Case is not whether or not players ARE EMPLOYEES, as was the claim of the case filed by Northwestern’s players, but rather whether or not players meet the criteria to where they CAN BE CONSIDERED EMPLOYEES. That’s a very different decision for the Court…….. and we’ll see where things go from there.


.

The question on whether or not they are considered employees comes down to where the money is coming from. If it is coming from the school, it will be hard to prove that they are not employees. I believe if the school is making the deals, even with someone else's money, they are employees as well.

Spence wrote:

Mountainman wrote:

Spence wrote:

Mountainman wrote:This whole thing is just silly to me……. The fix is just too simple, limit the number of snaps a player can play during a game and practices.

The elephant in the room is money, not player exposure. The NCAA is trying to protect itself from either losing revenue on the front end from its revenue sources or from losing money on the back end from liability exposure. Once again their greed gets in the way……



.


.

That is exactly right. They could limit snaps, but would probably have to increase scholarships. That would cause another set of issues. One of which would be a loss of scholarships to non revenue sports or loss of the sport in it's entirety.

The NCAA and College Football has become cannibalistic….. not to satisfy their hunger, but to satisfy their greed. They are devouring themselves in order to satisfy their greed for money.
Think about what has happened during our lifetime, what was once a 10 games season and a bowl appearance, followed by sportswriters, or whatever, declaring a ‘National Champion’, to where the game is now and the direction it’s heading………. also, keep an eye on the decision currently before the 9th Circuit Court where the Case is not whether or not players ARE EMPLOYEES, as was the claim of the case filed by Northwestern’s players, but rather whether or not players meet the criteria to where they CAN BE CONSIDERED EMPLOYEES. That’s a very different decision for the Court…….. and we’ll see where things go from there.


.

The question on whether or not they are considered employees comes down to where the money is coming from. If it is coming from the school, it will be hard to prove that they are not employees. I believe if the school is making the deals, even with someone else's money, they are employees as well.

Good read…….. the question is “are the players revenue generating workers?”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigatio ... loyee-suit



.

Are the players generating revenue or is the brand generating revenue? The players completely turn over every 5 years. The brand, to me, is what generates revenue. If they decided to be all academic tomorrow, as a group, the money may not be as great but CFB would still be a big draw. The all the time social media and 24 hour tv forums dedicated to sports are the ones who have over hyped and over promoted Football and Basketball to the position we are in now. Not that the schools weren't willing participates.