Rule#2 said:

---

SuperAg09 said:

---

The "length of games" argument is ridiculous. The length of games is so long because of advertising and tv timeouts. They are going to shorten the game and add MORE tv timeouts, the overall product will remain the same length of time. This is plain ridiculous

---

POTY

---

Except it isn't the POTY because it argues against a small, reasonable change and proposes something that won't happen because the colleges addicted themselves to media revenue. So either demonetize to do what that post recommends or do something simple and meanjngful that can be accomplished now.

Fantasy or reality. Pick.

Get rid of the Point After. TD gets you 7 points. There is a lot of time wasted for 1 play for 1 point.

pete_claw98 said:

---

Get rid of the Point After. TD gets you 7 points. There is a lot of time wasted for 1 play for 1 point.

---

I think that is workable though more non-traditional. The key is keep the game flowing.

greg.w.h said:

---

Let's be honest. It is broke if fans don't want to come on game day and game length is the cause. Or rather it will go broke if that trend continues. Small, simple adjustment.

---

I haven't been to an A&M game in 10 years because of the cost. I can stay home and not spend hundreds on tickets, two nights at a hotel, parking, and atrocious food costs.

The length of game has nothing to do with it.

strbrst777 said:

---

Let's say that team gets a first down on a 70 yard pass or run. If the clock does not stop, how can the team possibly get to the first down marker, huddle, get in position and snap the ball without high risk of a botched play or a delay of game play penalty? Seems to me that the official should by rule or judgment stop the clock at the end of the play that got the first down. Is there a rule covering such instances that do happen? And at what distance; 20 yards, 25 yards or more?

---

You're confusing the play clock with the game clock. The play clock isn't changing.

While the number and timing of commercials is dubious at times, to me they're not the primary reason games are longer. It's the evolution of the game.

In the run first era, there were way fewer plays and first downs by a team in a game as compared to now. It used to be a big deal if a team reached 200 yards per game passing. Because 2 out of 3 possible outcomes are bad. Now 300 is the norm and teams are slinging the rock all over the place.

Shootouts used to be 31-28, now it's 54-49 or more, even 74-72! (There were OT rule changes following that game. While primarily for player safety, they also shortened the OT game length potential.) With up-tempo offenses a team will run 80-100 plays vs. 50-60 maybe "in the olden days". More scoring means more play stoppage for PATs, kickoffs, and commercials. More plays generally mean more first downs with play stoppage. Multiply all this by 2 teams and voila', much longer games.

Perhaps keeping the clock running following out-of-bounds plays might be an option. Teams used to need the time for the officials to get a ball and get set. With tempo the officials are getting set quicker. There also is an additional official in the college crews now.

What about first downs when the play goes out of bounds?

bigfoot10s said:

---

What about first downs when the play goes out of bounds?

---

Clock resets on the ready.

Quote:

---

They have to find a way to get the games back to a reasonable duration. I would rather they cut back on the commercial breaks. We don't need commercials after TD, PAT and KO. I say limit all commercial breaks to between quarters and at halftime. I have not issue with this change. But they have to get control of the actual time spent away from the game to address the overall duration.

---

This would lead to more embedded ads. Stuff like the Allstate field goal nets. Any way to squeeze in a little ad that can produce some revenue. Branding replays, in-game occurrences, etc. Which I'm OK with, but it might start feeling pretty intrusive.

SuperAg09 said:

---

The "length of games" argument is ridiculous. The length of games is so long because of advertising and tv timeouts. They are going to shorten the game and add MORE tv timeouts, the overall product will remain the same length of time. This is plain ridiculous

---

^^^^This. Just look at the difference in how long it takes for a game vs, say, Prairie View that probably doesn't even make SEC Network compared to the ESPN or CBS game of the week. (To be fair, make sure that game of the week is a blowout. Close games always take longer.)

I dug a little, and the stats I found said average college football game is between 3 hrs, 22 min and 3 hrs, 24 min. Average I found for NFL is 3 hr, 12 min.

Quote:

---

Let's be honest. It is broke if fans don't want to come on game day and game length is the cause. Or rather it will go broke if that trend continues. Small, simple adjustment.

---

game length is absolutely a major issue, but all the other causes added up don't usually compare to TV timeouts. Rule changes to shorten the game by a few seconds here and there are distractions.

The Vols game at CS a few years ago may have been an exception with a lot of injuries, heat problems, reviews, and a couple of OTs all adding up to 5 hours in the sun, but generally, TV is the major culprit. Since no one is ever going to tell TV to limit their commercial time to natural game breaks like quarters, half, etc., the rest of these changes are mostly unnecessary and pointless.

javajaws said:

---

I don't have a problem with non-ambiguous rule changes since they apply equally. Those BS pass interference rules on the other hand...

---

interference should be limited to tackling or holding a rcvr. Touching, bumping, and contact going on while scrambling for a ball in the air should be allowed. If the receiver can't get cleanly open for a pass, too bad.

absolutely correct. fix the actual problem instead of all the window dressing rule changes.

I say TV needs the SEC badly. The SEC should be dictating commercial time AND game times.

arontc09 said:

---

Quote:

---

This would lead to more embedded ads. Stuff like the Allstate field goal nets. Any way to squeeze in a little ad that can produce some revenue. Branding replays, in-game occurrences, etc. Which I'm OK with, but it might start feeling pretty intrusive.

---

---

more intrusive than the red jacket guy stepping on the field and holding 100 thousand fans hostage every chance he gets? Doesn't do the tv audience any good either, but the fans at the game are sitting there in the weather, the little seats, paying huge ticket prices, etc, etc and some manhattan metrosexual decides when to stop the action and make you wait while he advertizes. Nope. There is where the problem is. fix that.

greg.w.h said:

---

pete_claw98 said:

---

Get rid of the Point After. TD gets you 7 points. There is a lot of time wasted for 1 play for 1 point.

---

I think that is workable though more non-traditional. The key is keep the game flowing.

---

That's easy, don't allow substitutions after a TD, the players on the field have to be part of the kicking team.

aggiedaddie said:

---

arontc09 said:

---

Quote:

---

This would lead to more embedded ads. Stuff like the Allstate field goal nets. Any way to squeeze in a little ad that can produce some revenue. Branding replays, in-game occurrences, etc. Which I'm OK with, but it might start feeling pretty intrusive.

---

---

more intrusive than the red jacket guy stepping on the field and holding 100 thousand fans hostage every chance he gets? Doesn't do the tv audience any good either, but the fans at the game are sitting there in the weather, the little seats, paying huge ticket prices, etc, etc and some manhattan metrosexual decides when to stop the action and make you wait while he advertizes. Nope. There is where the problem is. fix that.

---

Would be interesting to compare now and earlier on media timeouts to substantiate that is causing the time to get worse. Have any source for that?