PDA

View Full Version : new rules???



Bison"FANatic"
02-14-2008, 09:03 PM
They were talking about this over on anygivensaturday I thought I would just bring it up here.

Interesting that they are trying to speed up the game. I didn't mind the 40 second clock if they still stop the game clock on first downs. I don't think I am a fan of starting the game clock right away after the refs place the football after a out of bounds play. I like that it gives the team a little time to regroup if they need it. I think it will play into the fast paced spread offense more.




http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/stories/2008/02/13/ncaaburst_0213.html?imw=Y

Gully
02-14-2008, 11:32 PM
Usually when they do this stuff it screws up the game and they change it back after a year or two (clock starting on the kickoff, halo rule, etc.) If they want the game to speed up they should allow more contact from DBs and some of the old run blocking techniques that used to be in play. Really, it was their rule changes that led to so much passing and made the games last forever.

If they went back to cross body blocking and letting DBs actually cover receivers the game would have more running and wouldn't last so long.

CaBisonFan
02-15-2008, 12:50 AM
They were talking about this over on anygivensaturday I thought I would just bring it up here.

Interesting that they are trying to speed up the game. I didn't mind the 40 second clock if they still stop the game clock on first downs. I don't think I am a fan of starting the game clock right away after the refs place the football after a out of bounds play. I like that it gives the team a little time to regroup if they need it. I think it will play into the fast paced spread offense more.




http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/stories/2008/02/13/ncaaburst_0213.html?imw=Y

Agreed :banghead:

bisonmike2
02-15-2008, 05:37 PM
Usually when they do this stuff it screws up the game and they change it back after a year or two (clock starting on the kickoff, halo rule, etc.) If they want the game to speed up they should allow more contact from DBs and some of the old run blocking techniques that used to be in play. Really, it was their rule changes that led to so much passing and made the games last forever.

If they went back to cross body blocking and letting DBs actually cover receivers the game would have more running and wouldn't last so long.

Agreed. The clock rule of two years ago had to be the worst rule change in the past 30 years, if not longer. Not only did most fans not understand what was going on it really hurt the quality of football being played in the final minutes of the half and at the end of the game. I remeber seeing several games where the offenses just couldn't get into a rhythm and everything looked rushed. Play looked sloppy on both sides of the ball b/c everyone was rushing b/c the clock never stopped. All for what? A game that would take 3 hours and 15 min instead of 3 1/2 hours?

90BISON
02-15-2008, 06:09 PM
Agreed. The clock rule of two years ago had to be the worst rule change in the past 30 years, if not longer. Not only did most fans not understand what was going on it really hurt the quality of football being played in the final minutes of the half and at the end of the game. I remeber seeing several games where the offenses just couldn't get into a rhythm and everything looked rushed. Play looked sloppy on both sides of the ball b/c everyone was rushing b/c the clock never stopped. All for what? A game that would take 3 hours and 15 min instead of 3 1/2 hours?

Yea, but the 15 minute savings could be the difference of still having 19,000 in the FFD or 10,000 because they couldn't hold out until the end of the game.;)

bisonpride2k
02-15-2008, 06:37 PM
The length of games is directly conected with TV and has more to do with the larger schools on the major networks. Instead of changing the game change the tv commercial structure. Thats what is really making the games long. Did we not have a game last year that lasted only around 2:45 with no tv?

TransAmBison
02-15-2008, 06:42 PM
The length of games is directly conected with TV and has more to do with the larger schools on the major networks. Instead of changing the game change the tv commercial structure. Thats what is really making the games long. Did we not have a game last year that lasted only around 2:45 with no tv?
Quit trying to make sense. Logic and reasoning have nothing to do with business decisions!

roadwarrior
02-15-2008, 06:45 PM
Game times last fall:

SFA 3:10 TV
SHS 3:28 TV
CMU 3:10
WIU 3:03
UCD 3:01 TV
MVS 2:47
UM 3:08 TV
SUU 3:05
ISU 3:06 TV
CP 3:07
SDSU 2:51

56BISON73
02-15-2008, 07:43 PM
Its sad they they change the rules not for the good of the game but for the add dollars and at the behest of the networks. PL

Gully
02-15-2008, 08:16 PM
Its sad they they change the rules not for the good of the game but for the add dollars and at the behest of the networks. PL

I don't think it's sad...I think it's the American way. Also, if you look at the numbers above, it's not a really strong correlation. I don't have any data to back up my opinion but I would bet that the length of the game is strongly correlated to the number of passing attempts.

Jdubs21
02-15-2008, 08:39 PM
I think this is another case of the people that sit around lookin for somethin to bitch about

56BISON73
02-15-2008, 08:39 PM
I don't think it's sad...I think it's the American way. Also, if you look at the numbers above, it's not a really strong correlation. I don't have any data to back up my opinion but I would bet that the length of the game is strongly correlated to the number of passing attempts.

If thats the supposed American way it is then indeed sad. Look what happend the last time they changed the rules. The results were so bad that they changed them back. If the changes arent for the good of the game then they shouldnt be changed. PL

bisonmike2
02-15-2008, 08:41 PM
Game times last fall:

SFA 3:10 TV
SHS 3:28 TV
CMU 3:10
WIU 3:03
UCD 3:01 TV
MVS 2:47
UM 3:08 TV
SUU 3:05
ISU 3:06 TV
CP 3:07
SDSU 2:51

2:51? That's all? That SDSU game seemed to have lasted an eternity. Or maybe that was the pain associated with it.:mad:

Hammersmith
02-15-2008, 08:54 PM
On the other hand, making horse collars illegal is probably a good thing.

Gully
02-16-2008, 03:32 AM
If thats the supposed American way it is then indeed sad. Look what happend the last time they changed the rules. The results were so bad that they changed them back. If the changes arent for the good of the game then they shouldnt be changed. PL

I'm not saying they should change the rules (read my earlier post), I'm just saying that trying to market to TV and generate more dollars is not automatically bad. The revenue is there because the demand is there. Free markets again.

SDbison
02-16-2008, 03:50 AM
I'm not saying they should change the rules (read my earlier post), I'm just saying that trying to market to TV and generate more dollars is not automatically bad. The revenue is there because the demand is there. Free markets again.
Free markets have nothing to do with the pure game of football. Its thinking like that that screws up what is good. Why should the game of football, especially college football, be controled by a bunch of businessman.

90BISON
02-16-2008, 05:46 AM
Free markets have nothing to do with the pure game of football. Its thinking like that that screws up what is good. Why should the game of football, especially college football, be controled by a bunch of businessman.

That horse has been out of the barn since before my time, and that is getting to be a while. Can you say "Bowl Games", the reason there is no real playoff system in D1A, stadiums named after businesses, scoreboards "donated" at high school football stadiums by XYZ cola company, etc...............:hide: Agree with you that it shouldn't be controlled strictly by businessmen, but do you honestly think major college football would be nearly as big as it is if it were not?

Gully
02-16-2008, 12:40 PM
Free markets have nothing to do with the pure game of football. Its thinking like that that screws up what is good. Why should the game of football, especially college football, be controled by a bunch of businessman.


If that type of thinking screws up what is good why are NFL and NASCAR so popular and successful? They've been all about marketing to what people want.

sambini
02-16-2008, 05:27 PM
BCS is all about business and marketing. Thats a sad fact and what do you think runs the NCAA basketball tourney?