New Clock Rule Passed

Donate To GopherHole
Unregistered User said:
Doesn't affect the way that PJ likes to shorten the game. It hampers teams that want to preserve time.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. Opponents that want to preserve time, the change hampers them which in turn aids the Gophers/Fleck.

Obviously when facing other teams that want to shorten the game, then it is a neutral rule change impact. However even coaches that employ a similar strategy, most do not execute it to the same extent as Minnesota I would argue (except for the Military Academies).
 

Word said:
Soccer does have ads on the jerseys and ads around the perimeter of the field as a way to make up for lack of commercials. Would college football fans be ok with that?
Click to expand...
No, because the commercials would inevitably come back but the jersey ads would remain. ; ) Kinda like commercials on cable. At first, the whole point of paying the cable stations was that they didn't need to air all these commercials since you were "paying" for the content. Then commercials crept in but paying for cable didn't cease.
 


I wish cfb would be more experimental with its advertising. In-game ads, similar to how golf does it etc. It’s the massive TV timeouts ruining the game, not the clock rules for gods sake.

People are referencing soccer; can you imagine European soccer leagues allowing television networks to actually change the rules of their game? They’d burn their houses to the ground for even asking.
 
Last edited:

GopherTheJugular said:
In and of itself, of course not. But add up all these little changes over the past 20 years or so and eventually one will be the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

For example, I loved college replay 20 years ago. Every play was immediately reviewed by the booth to see if it needed further examination, and 99% of the time it didn't, so play just kept going. If it did, THEY would stop the game and just do the review. Then they switched over to NFL replay....

Slowly but surely us diehards are being driven off.
Click to expand...
College football rights fees and even the ratings themselves in many cases are higher than 20-30 years ago.
 


Shorten the percentage of time of a football game that is actual gameplay vs commercials. Awesome work NCAA. Crushed it again
 

highwayman said:
"In February, AD Gary Barta trimmed Ferentz’s salary by $50,000, halted the coordinator’s two-year contract rollover and demanded the offense score at least 25 points a game."
Click to expand...
Well, there is that ...
 

well, this is from the committee that voted for the change in the rule:

Allowing the clock to run is expected to reduce the number of plays by an average of 7 per game, according to Steve Shaw, secretary-editor of the rules committee.

so, what does that mean?

last season, Texas Tech led FBS teams with an average of 89.2 plays/game.

67 teams averaged at least 70 plays a game.

the Gophers were 107th on the list with an average of 66.5 plays/game. (tied with......Wisconsin....)

of course, there are two teams in a game, so if the Gophers played Wisconsin, they would combine for an average of 133 plays in a game. losing 7 plays would mean 5.3% fewer plays.

but for two higher-tempo teams - let's say Indiana (77.5) and Purdue (77.1) - they would have an average of 155 plays in a game. So losing 7 plays would mean 4.5% fewer plays.
 

howeda7 said:
College football rights fees and even the ratings themselves in many cases are higher than 20-30 years ago.
Click to expand...
Yet attendance is down compared to 20-30 years ago. The product is no longer catered to the in-person attendee and that is what people like me don't like. It is what it is though. I can always not renew.
 



DarrenTheGreek said:
Yet attendance is down compared to 20-30 years ago. The product is no longer catered to the in-person attendee and that is what people like me don't like. It is what it is though. I can always not renew.
Click to expand...
Does shortening the game make you less likely to attend?
 

As everything, this is tv
And an attempt to get games done in a 3 hour windw
 

GopherTheJugular said:
No, because the commercials would inevitably come back but the jersey ads would remain. ; ) Kinda like commercials on cable. At first, the whole point of paying the cable stations was that they didn't need to air all these commercials since you were "paying" for the content. Then commercials crept in but paying for cable didn't cease.
Click to expand...
According to this website, ESPN is only making 20% of its revenue from ads, while 75% is coming from subscriber fees. The cable companies are much less reliant on ad revenue than OTA stations. There is no reason the games on cable couldn’t reduce TV timeouts by a few a game to shorten them and separate themselves from their OTA counterparts. But of course, these channels are all owned by the same few companies, and they wouldn’t dare make viewing a game on ESPN more enticing than ABC, for example. So they are formatted to work on OTA and the added ad revenue on the cable channels is just gravy.

https://thebrandhopper.com/2022/12/17/marketing-strategies-business-model-of-espn-sports/
 

GophersInIowa said:
I can't think of too many people that like college football because the clock stops after a 1st down at the 8:00 mark of the 3rd quarter.

I don't think it's that big of a deal, especially in games teams like the Gophers play.
Click to expand...
And I don't think many care that it stopped 10-12 seconds while the chains get moved.
 



Dakota2 said:
And I don't think many care that it stopped 10-12 seconds while the chains get moved.
Click to expand...
The networks care, because the 11am game sometimes bleeds into the 2:30 game…so since the networks care…here we are
 

So we are going to have about 7 less plays per game. Does that mean that the ticket price will be reduced? Fewer plays, less money makes sense to me.
 

Word said:
The shorter MLB games are certainly more appealing this year. Wish they could get rid of some of the stoppages and/or length of stoppages in college football.
Click to expand...
I am very surprised how the MLB pitch clock has shortened the average game by nearly 30 minutes. I was thinking more like 10 minutes.
 

Dakota2 said:
And I don't think many care that it stopped 10-12 seconds while the chains get moved.
Click to expand...
You realize that they haven't waited for the chains for years. They've basically been doing this rule for a number of years and they literally start the clock as soon as the umpire has the ball (6-8 seconds). So why event stop it? They slowed down in the last 2 minutes hence they are keeping that part of the rule. No one will notice a difference and it likely won't shorted games much.
 

I suppose if they wanted to shorten the games without having fewer plays, they could reduce the play clock. the normal play clock is 40 seconds. if you took 5 seconds off that - well, five seconds times 150 plays in a game would be a reduction of about 12 minutes a game. and that is all "down time" with no action taking place.

but then some teams wouldn't be able to come up to the line and look at the sideline twice before snapping the ball.......................................
 

howeda7 said:
Does shortening the game make you less likely to attend?
Click to expand...
Not in and of itself. But if shortening the total event comes at the expense of actual football being played then I have a problem with it. Just throwing a hypothetical number....supposed with last year's rules the average game lasted 150 plays and took 210 minute (3.5 hours). That's 0.71 plays per minute that I'm sitting in the stands.

If this rule reduces the game by an average of 7 plays a game and 5 minutes that's 0.69 plays per minute. So less action and I'm still paying the same price.
 

DarrenTheGreek said:
Not in and of itself. But if shortening the total event comes at the expense of actual football being played then I have a problem with it. Just throwing a hypothetical number....supposed with last year's rules the average game lasted 150 plays and took 210 minute (3.5 hours). That's 0.71 plays per minute that I'm sitting in the stands.

If this rule reduces the game by an average of 7 plays a game and 5 minutes that's 0.69 plays per minute. So less action and I'm still paying the same price.
Click to expand...
So you think MLB teams should lower ticket prices or are you fine because the same about of baseball is being played? What if you go to a couple concerts and the main act at 1 is shorter than the other, but the ticket prices were the same? I've never heard a football fan say there weren't enough plays in that game. Do the teams owe you money if they get a penalty and cost you 40 more seconds of play clock, costing you a couple extra plays?

They are also eliminating back-to-back timeouts by one team. Better ask for a rebate on the football game. There will also be no untimed down if a penalty at the end of the 1st and 3rd quarters. Just screwed you out of two plays potentially.

Giving you crap, but I really don't think anyone will know a difference.
 


MaxyJR1 said:
So you think MLB teams should lower ticket prices or are you fine because the same about of baseball is being played? What if you go to a couple concerts and the main act at 1 is shorter than the other, but the ticket prices were the same? I've never heard a football fan say there weren't enough plays in that game. Do the teams owe you money if they get a penalty and cost you 40 more seconds of play clock, costing you a couple extra plays?

They are also eliminating back-to-back timeouts by one team. Better ask for a rebate on the football game. There will also be no untimed down if a penalty at the end of the 1st and 3rd quarters. Just screwed you out of two plays potentially.

Giving you crap, but I really don't think anyone will know a difference.
Click to expand...

That's very meta for a Friday afternoon.
 

IMO, they are changing this rule to make sure games are not four hours long. I'm sorry football games should not last longer than three hours. Kids today would rather play video games then sit through all the commercials.
 



theTurning said:
I wish cfb would be more experimental with its advertising. In-game ads, similar to how golf does it etc. It’s the massive TV timeouts ruining the game, not the clock rules for gods sake.

People are referencing soccer; can you imagine European soccer leagues allowing television networks to actually change the rules of their game? They’d burn their houses to the ground for even asking.
Click to expand...
Or even thinking about it. Pretty brutal over there.
 

matt said:
They need to put in a 2 minute warning or something similar. As it is now, a first down on a play that ends at 2:01 results in a running clock and the next play getting snapped ~1:50. A first down on a play that ends at 2:00 results in a stopped clock. A 2 minute warning or even just an automatic clock stoppage solves that.
Click to expand...
The NFL added the two minute warning to sell advertising. It has nothing to do with the game itself. The coach and players can look at the clock to see how much time is left.
 

Bobek said:
The NFL added the two minute warning to sell advertising. It has nothing to do with the game itself.
Click to expand...
That is not why the NFL added the 2 minute warning. It was 100% added for game reasons, not media reasons.
 


Wow, think of all the big leads the Gophers may not have quite been able to blow if the 1968 rule change hadn't happened!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom