The new timing rule sucks

[whoisjgalt]

You can run off 25 seconds before you even have to take a snap on a change of possession. I can't imagine a less well thought out rule. It's fine if they want the games to run quicker - just do like the pros and start the clock after setting the ball on an out of bounds play. And they could even do the same after an incomplete pass. But don't just give the team with the lead an extra 25 seconds to run off the clock or screw a team out of a timeout.

[fricker66]

Honestly, if they wanted to do this, they should have just shortened the quarters. I don't think this rule will last.

[whoisjgalt]

I don't think this rule will last.

But it'll seriously fuck up this season. I assume that they can't change it 'til next offseason, right? It's not like it's an experimental rule that a couple conferences adopted and they can toss out as soon as they feel like it.

[bigmarc27]

But it'll seriously fuck up this season. I assume that they can't change it 'til next offseason, right? It's not like it's an experimental rule that a couple conferences adopted and they can toss out as soon as they feel like it.


The Coaches ultimately decide what rules are enacted, so I guess they're on board with it. I know Tommy has said he likes it.

It's pretty shitty for the fans, though.

[kraziness]

If you want the game to go faster, stop reviewing every. FREAKING. PLAY!!!@#@! :screams:

Geez, most of the times last night they had it right, and on the play that they didn't (the fumble) they didn't (couldn't?) reverse it anyways. Geez, it totally ruins the rhythm of the game.

Oh, also! If you want the game to go faster... stop interrupting it for commercials so much! I went to Fla/FSU last year, and honestly, I think I would have enjoyed it more at home on TV where the commercials wouldn't interfear that much.

[bigmarc27]

http://www.wehatethenewclockrules.com/

[Steebo]

ESPN LINK (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?id=2731820)

Editor's note: ESPN.com asked five of its analysts to discuss one change they would like to see in college football. Here is the first installment of the five-part series.

Prior to the start of the 2006 season, two rules changes were adopted in an effort to shorten the length of games. Rule 3-2-5 dictated that the clock start when the ball is free kicked and the more controversial Rule 3-2-5-e ordered that after a possession change, the clock start on the officials' ready-for-play signal.


Running the clock after changes of possession and upon contact with the ball on kickoffs caused teams to lose an average of seven offensive plays per game compared to last season (almost 14 per game between both teams).

The changes did not sit well with coaches. After Texas lost to Ohio State 24-7 on Sept. 9, Longhorns coach Mack Brown was vocal in his dislike of the change. "They scored with six minutes left and the game was over before we had a chance to do anything," Brown said after the game. "I really hope whoever made these changes will go back and look them over."

Brown wasn't alone. I spoke with five coaches of top-20 teams off the record about this issue, and all were against the change. Besides giving inferior teams a better chance to stay in games against tougher opponents, speeding up the clock -- and reducing the number of plays per game -- also diminishes a player's opportunities to contend for individual and team records.

In the 2006 season, the number of players averaging more than 100 rushing yards per game was barely half of what it was the previous season (down from 34 to 18), and the number of players with more than 100 receiving yards per game was only one quarter of what it was a season earlier (down from 12 to three).

A Change Of Plans
The 2006 season is in the books. It was a nearly flawless ending for national champ Florida. Boise State can celebrate a perfect season. But not everything in college football is ideal. What could use a change? Here's what five ESPN.com writers and/or analysts would like to see changed in the game:

When you deprive a team of seven offensive plays per game, you not only decrease the number of opportunities to score, you decrease the amount of time an opponent must spend on defense as well. This can make for closer games, often with surprising results. The rules changes also significantly affected the ability of teams to utilize end-of-game clock management and minimized their chances to stage a comeback. And while shortened games provided fewer offensive opportunities, hastening the time between plays proved to be a disadvantage for defenses, which had less time to react to the opposing offense's personnel packages.

The clock changes also affected the building of a team's depth. Seven fewer plays each game might not sound like a lot, but over the course of the season, teams lost an average of 84 plays. That's 84 plays a second-teamer didn't get to experience. By affecting a team's ability to develop its future stars and starters, the rules changes not only impacted records for this season, but future seasons as well.

Many in the college football community believe that Rule 3-2-5-e will be overturned or modified in some form before the start of the 2007 season. But the goal of shortening games remains. A number of ideas are under consideration, including adopting a pro-style 40-second clock between plays. That system works well in the NFL because playcallers are able to communicate with the quarterbacks though headsets in their helmets; employing that system in college would be effective, but costly. Currently in college football, 45 to 50 seconds typically elapse between the end of one play and the beginning of a new one.

Other ideas include not stopping the clock when a player goes out of bounds, except at the end of the half and at the end of games, and not stopping the clock on first downs. Last season, colleges were also allowed to shorten halftimes if both sides agreed to the change; however, the pomp and pageantry of college football is what separates it from other sports. Shortening halftime would cut down on band performances and other time-honored traditions.

It's clear the rules committee has a number of big decisions to wrestle with this offseason. Hopefully, reversing Rule 3-2-5-e will be among the changes for 2007.

Jim Donnan was the head coach at Georgia and Marshall and is an ESPN college football analyst.

[Steebo]

maybe these will suck less (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2765817)



SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- An NCAA committee has proposed rolling back some football rules that were enacted last season to shorten games after coaches complained the changes were unfair.

The NCAA football rules committee, meeting Wednesday in Albuquerque, N.M., recommended going back to starting the clock on the snap after a change of possession instead of when the referee signals the ball ready for play.

It also suggested starting the clock on kickoffs after the ball is touched by the receiving team rather than when it is kicked.

"We feel the changes in 2007 are going to restore plays and are going to provide action for the players and fans, but at the same time we're going to diminish the dead time involved in the management of games," said Michael Clark, chair of the committee and head coach at Bridgewater College in Virginia.

Last season, the average Division I-A game lasted 3 hours, 7 minutes -- 14 minutes shorter than in 2005. In 2006, games averaged 127.5 plays, 14 fewer than a year earlier.

Coaches complained about the rule changes last season, particularly the rule starting the clock when the referee signaled.

"Most of the coaches were against the rules, felt it was unfair," said Oregon coach Mike Bellotti, a committee member. "All levels of football, when coaches were surveyed, were against that rule."

To make up for the time being added back, the committee proposed the following changes:

• Using a 15-second play clock immediately after timeouts instead of a 25-second clock;

• Reducing timeouts from 65 seconds to 30 seconds;

• Kicking off from the 30-yard line instead of the 35 to cut down on touchbacks;

• Limiting the time officials have to review a replay to two minutes.

Bellotti said he doesn't think most coaches will be bothered by the shorter timeouts.

"The majority of timeouts are taken because of the wrong formation, wrong personnel and you want to stop the clock," he said.

He also said he thinks moving kickoffs back 5 yards will be popular.

"We anticipate more returns and it's going to put a lot of pressure on defense because by more returns you are probably going to create better field position," he said.

The rule changes need to be approved by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel on March 12.

Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press