How long until the NCAA goes all the way to NFl clock rules

[hogsanity]

How long will it be until they no longer stop the clock to move the chains, that is the main difference in the clock rules. Also, will they ever start the clock on the ready for play after an incomplete pass in either the nfl or ncaa or both?

The length of college games just keeps getting more ridiculous, 4 hr games are almost the norm now. Wlll TV dictate something be done about that?

[razorbackfan86]

I'm all for shorter games.

[Missooie]

I've been griping for a few years, and especially this year, that games are way too long. Supposedly they were going to talk about how to shorten game time last year, but decided to wait until this coming offseason. Don't remember where I read that or if it is completely true, but I definitely remember reading it somewhere. They need to do something because some of these games are getting ridiculous.

[hogsanity]

I've been griping for a few years, and especially this year, that games are way too long. Supposedly they were going to talk about how to shorten game time last year, but decided to wait until this coming offseason. Don't remember where I read that or if it is completely true, but I definitely remember reading it somewhere. They need to do something because some of these games are getting ridiculous.

At some point, just like the nfl tv partners did a few years ago, the tv people are going to start griping about the length of games because of all the over runs they are having to deal with. Last week, they had a 3.5 hour window for he Ohio St/Ind game, and it still ran 30 minutes long, and this is 2 teams that do not throw the ball alot.

[LA Football fan]

TV has themselves to blame.  When you lose 30 minutes or more a game having to wait on commercials to run that fans at the game and at home have to endure, TV can't be complaining on overruns.

[hawgon]

How long will it be until they no longer stop the clock to move the chains, that is the main difference in the clock rules. Also, will they ever start the clock on the ready for play after an incomplete pass in either the nfl or ncaa or both?

The length of college games just keeps getting more ridiculous, 4 hr games are almost the norm now. Wlll TV dictate something be done about that?

Why would television want to do something about 4hr games?  College football is more popular than it has ever been.  It is a ratings bonanza.  Four hour games are not four hours long because teams are running between the tackles, they are four hours long because teams are passing up and down the field scoring touchdowns.  People love it apparently.

So, ask yourself this.  If you have a commodity, any commodity, that people can't seem to get enough of and is selling like hotcakes, do you want more of it or less of it to sell?  Longer games means more commercials.  More commercials during highly rated television programs, means more money.

Television will result in a change of the clock rules if, and only if, the length of the games starts to cause fewer viewers and worse ratings.  So far, that isn't the case.

[hogsanity]

TV has themselves to blame.  When you lose 30 minutes or more a game having to wait on commercials to run that fans at the game and at home have to endure, TV can't be complaining on overruns.

Sure they can. They only have X number of breaks per game. You think they would not want to sell the same # of commercials, but have the total game time go down by 20 or 30 minutes?  That is what the nfl tv partners complained about a few years ago, the games were going longer, but the tv people were selling the same # of breaks as before. The games are not longer because they added more breaks, they are longer because of all the incomplete passes, plays out of bounds ( I know the clock starts as soon as the ball is set unless it is late in each half ), and 1st downs.

[WorfHog]

Why would television want to do something about 4hr games?  College football is more popular than it has ever been.  It is a ratings bonanza.  Four hour games are not four hours long because teams are running between the tackles, they are four hours long because teams are passing up and down the field scoring touchdowns.  People love it apparently.

So, ask yourself this.  If you have a commodity, any commodity, that people can't seem to get enough of and is selling like hotcakes, do you want more of it or less of it to sell?  Longer games means more commercials.  More commercials during highly rated television programs, means more money.

Television will result in a change of the clock rules if, and only if, the length of the games starts to cause fewer viewers and worse ratings.  So far, that isn't the case.

This is right, the NFL changed because games ran into another valuable time slot, Sunday night network primetime. ESPN doesn't have a bunch of shows that compare to college football rating wise.

[hogsanity]

  Longer games means more commercials. 

Yea, except that is wrong. They sell the same # of breaks per game. If the teams are on the field longer, due to incompletions, plays out of bounds, and 1st downs, the tv does not cut away for commercials.

Have you noticed how once games get to the 4th quarter anymore it is not uncommon for tv to stay with the game on turnovers, change of possession and even after td's before the next kickoff? It is because they have already used all their breaks.

Also, when they have to move the coverage of the next game to a lesser viewed channel, like espnu, espn news or the sec alternate channel, that cuts into the ad rates for any commercials run during the time they are not on the channel the game was assigned to originally, so a 4 hr game can cost the network some revenue. 

[hogsanity]

This is right, the NFL changed because games ran into another valuable time slot, Sunday night network primetime. ESPN doesn't have a bunch of shows that compare to college football rating wise.

Because, when they have to move the coverage of the next game to a lesser viewed channel, like espnu, espn news or the sec alternate channel, that cuts into the ad rates for any commercials run during the time they are not on the channel the game was assigned to originally, so a 4 hr game can cost the network some revenue.  They do not get the same rate for a commercial that runs on espnu as they do for one that runs on ESPS or ESPN2.

[hawgon]

Yea, except that is wrong. They sell the same # of breaks per game. If the teams are on the field longer, due to incompletions, plays out of bounds, and 1st downs, the tv does not cut away for commercials.

Have you noticed how once games get to the 4th quarter anymore it is not uncommon for tv to stay with the game on turnovers, change of possession and even after td's before the next kickoff? It is because they have already used all their breaks.

Also, when they have to move the coverage of the next game to a lesser viewed channel, like espnu, espn news or the sec alternate channel, that cuts into the ad rates for any commercials run during the time they are not on the channel the game was assigned to originally, so a 4 hr game can cost the network some revenue.

That isn't true.  There are the same number of assigned breaks, but there are the breaks that occur with the changes of possession and all that.  There are more of those when there are longer games and more possessions.

[hogsanity]

That isn't true.  There are the same number of assigned breaks, but there are the breaks that occur with the changes of possession and all that.  There are more of those when there are longer games and more possessions.

Well, my wife on worked in commercial traffic scheduling for a decade at a ABC affil, and I oversaw programming for a cable co, including local breaks, for 15 years, so I do know what I am talking about.  They sell X # of breaks per game. Longer games do not automatically translate into more commercials. But longer games do certainly cause problems on the back end when they run long.

[Biggus Piggus]

Well, my wife on worked in commercial traffic scheduling for a decade at a ABC affil, and I oversaw programming for a cable co, including local breaks, for 15 years, so I do know what I am talking about.  They sell X # of breaks per game. Longer games do not automatically translate into more commercials. But longer games do certainly cause problems on the back end when they run long.

Yes you are correct.

[Hog_Swanson]

I'm all for shorter games.

If we could get rid of the 4th quarter, that would be great.

[Kevin]

I'm all for shorter games.

as long as we are winning

[hawginbigd1]

I am game for small tweaks to shorten the game, however I absolutely am not in favor of changing the first down clock stoppage rule. this one rule alone from a competition standpoint makes college>NFL IMO. I would like the NFL to follow the college rule. IMO the game is much more compelling to watch if a competitive team is down by multiple scores in the final quarter with the NCAA rule.

[hogsanity]

I am game for small tweaks to shorten the game, however I absolutely am not in favor of changing the first down clock stoppage rule. this one rule alone from a competition standpoint makes college>NFL IMO. I would like the NFL to follow the college rule. IMO the game is much more compelling to watch if a competitive team is down by multiple scores in the final quarter with the NCAA rule.

Why? You already get rewarded for making a 1st down by getting 4 more plays to make another one, why should the clock stop just so Bubba and Jerry Jeff can waddle down the line with the chains to set them?

OR, for a compromise, clock stops on a 1st down only in the last 5 minutes of the 4th Q. Do we really need to stop the clock when a team makes a 1st down on the 2nd play of the 1st Q?

[ArkanSWAG]

Sooooo, I know this is probably going to get me roasted, but most soccer games have one TV-driven stoppage: halftime. Maybe networks lose money, or maybe they have to find creative ways to advertise, (like side/bottom banners, more internet/social media-based advertisements, etc.) but if we remove/limit TV timeouts, (remove unprovoked ones, and shorten advertisement time to the actual length of the called or injury timeout) and advertisements, games shorten, teams aren't bailed out/rewarded by the occasional forced stoppage in play, and we likely get to keep some of the quirks of CFB and the NFL that make them unique from each other.

Think about it: shorter games, less advertisement-driven compulsion, less awkwardness over the kind-of-too-intimate Viagra commercials they play during our games, and we don't have scenarios where timeouts hinder actual gameplay. Have you ever seen a drive killed, momentum stifled, crowd noised lessened, players lose sync with the flow of the game, or other similar consequences resulting from TV timeouts? I think timeouts that can create a drive stall, rally or stymie a defense, or otherwise affect a game should only be called by coaches/players as a tactical or necessary resource, not as a way to add advertisement to a football game. I consider that mentality as one that should apply to times when the "TV referee" is still on the field long after a timeout is finished and teams are ready to play again. Football should not have to wait on advertisements, advertisements should have to wait on football.

[hogsanity]

Sooooo, I know this is probably going to get me roasted, but most soccer games have one TV-driven stoppage: halftime. Maybe networks lose money, or maybe they have to find creative ways to advertise, (like side/bottom banners, more internet/social media-based advertisements, etc.) but if we remove/limit TV timeouts, (remove unprovoked ones, and shorten advertisement time to the actual length of the called or injury timeout) and advertisements, games shorten, teams aren't bailed out/rewarded by the occasional forced stoppage in play, and we likely get to keep some of the quirks of CFB and the NFL that make them unique from each other.

Think about it: shorter games, less advertisement-driven compulsion, less awkwardness over the kind-of-too-intimate Viagra commercials they play during our games, and we don't have scenarios where timeouts hinder actual gameplay. Have you ever seen a drive killed, momentum stifled, crowd noised lessened, players lose sync with the flow of the game, or other similar consequences resulting from TV timeouts? I think timeouts that can create a drive stall, rally or stymie a defense, or otherwise affect a game should only be called by coaches/players as a tactical or necessary resource, not as a way to add advertisement to a football game. I consider that mentality as one that should apply to times when the "TV referee" is still on the field long after a timeout is finished and teams are ready to play again. Football should not have to wait on advertisements, advertisements should have to wait on football.

Well, they don't call tv timeouts DURING drives, except maybe for a injury, so not sure how it is a drive killer.

The problem is the $$$$. They pay pennies for soccer, compared to football, so they do not have to sell nearly as many ads, plus soccer has not breaks, except halftime, football is full of stoppages. 

Again, though, it is not the commercials that have stretched games form 3 to 4 hours, it is the increase in incomplete passes ( due to more passing, more swing passes with the runner ending up out of bounds, and more 1st downs resulting in more stoppages to set the chains. 

[ArkanSWAG]

Again, though, it is not the commercials that have stretched games form 3 to 4 hours, it is the increase in incomplete passes ( due to more passing, more swing passes with the runner ending up out of bounds, and more 1st downs resulting in more stoppages to set the chains.

Whoops. I guess I mis-spoke. I was more referring to those times that commercials just cycle and cycle and we end up having teams waiting for a while after they've finished all the necessary timeout discussions or moved the injured player. Those stale times in the game, when nothing is going on but would be but for timeouts continuing to keep rolling commercials are more what I was speaking to. Make the timeouts end when the on-field issues/timeouts end. That will shorten the game by a little bit on average.

But I agree with you about some of the reasons games are long. So, do we want coaches to stop developing offensive/defensive strategies that manipulate the game clock for their advantage? I'll say that rules like that are contributing (NOT primary) reasons as to why the spread offense, crazy late game comebacks (of higher point totals) with little time left, and other things that CFB is kind of beloved in its uniqueness exist. Coaches know they can use those rules, time stoppages and tweaks in policy to their advantage and build a game plan that uses multiple clock stoppages to its advantage.

Also, another question is: do we really want less football?

[hogsanity]

Whoops. I guess I mis-spoke. I was more referring to those times that commercials just cycle and cycle and we end up having teams waiting for a while after they've finished all the necessary timeout discussions or moved the injured player. Those stale times in the game, when nothing is going on but would be but for timeouts continuing to keep rolling commercials are more what I was speaking to. Make the timeouts end when the on-field issues/timeouts end. That will shorten the game by a little bit on average.

But I agree with you about some of the reasons games are long. So, do we want coaches to stop developing offensive/defensive strategies that manipulate the game clock for their advantage? I'll say that rules like that are contributing (NOT primary) reasons as to why the spread offense, crazy late game comebacks (of higher point totals) with little time left, and other things that CFB is kind of beloved in its uniqueness exist. Coaches know they can use those rules, time stoppages and tweaks in policy to their advantage and build a game plan that uses multiple clock stoppages to its advantage.

Also, another question is: do we really want less football?

For me it is not wanting less football, but wanting to quit missing the 1st Q of every game, or having to follow it from channel to channel, that I want to watch because the previous game between 2 teams I could not care less about goes 4+ hours.

If you went to NFL clock rules, 97% of college football fans would not notice or care. 

[woodhog14]

TV has themselves to blame.  When you lose 30 minutes or more a game having to wait on commercials to run that fans at the game and at home have to endure, TV can't be complaining on overruns.

This...against Texas Tech, there was 18 seconds left in the 1st quarter when there was a change of possession. Even though after the next play they would be going to commercial, ESPN went to commercial. Came back for the next 18 seconds for one play, and then went to commercial again.

Same thing against TN last week, except it was like 24 seconds. To me, this is all on TV.

[woodhog14]

Annnnnnd now that I've read all of the responses, my post ^^^^^^^ is wrong. 

[hogsanity]

This!! Against Texas Tech, there was 18 seconds left in the 1st quarter when there was a change of possession. Even though after the next play they would be going to commercial, ESPN went to commercial. Came back for the next 18 seconds for one play, and then went to commercial again.

Same thing against TN last week, except it was like 24 seconds. To me, this is all on TV.

They front load the breaks to take place early in the game when more people, in theory, are watching. Also, in the 4th Q of the Tn game, they stayed at the game through just about every change of possession, because they had used all their breaks.

It is not all on tv, go to HS games, with no media to's at all, and those are now taking 2.5 to 3+ hours, and this is with only 12 min quarters. Why? Because of all the proliferation of spread offenses there are more incompletions, plays going out of bounds, and stopping to move the chains. Ar Hs games used to start at 7:30, and were routinely over by 9:30. In the last few years they moved the starts up to 7pm and many games are still not over by 10. The Fay massacre of Southside last week was not over until 10:15, that's 3hr 15 mins, and the mercy rule was in effect the entire 2nd half.

[Hogarusa]

Never!

[EastexHawg]

How about shortening the play clock?  The average college team runs what, 75 plays per game?  That's 150 plays combined.  Shorten the play clock by 10 seconds, from 40 to 30, and you'll shorten the game by somewhere between 15 and 25 minutes without reducing the amount of action/number of plays per game.

Instant replay is also lengthening games.  Frankly, I think it has done very little to make the game better.  In the "old days" if a receiver "caught" a ball on the sideline and he wasn't clearly juggling it when he went out of bounds it was a catch.  Now, we have to examine frame by frame and in slow motion to see if the ball moved a fraction of an inch.  Make instant replay only for scoring plays, and only for whether the ball touched or crossed the goal line...not for whether it wiggled in the ball carrier's/receiver's hands on the way to the ground.  If the official on the field called it a catch, it's a catch.

Or...do away with replay altogether.

The "product" we all want to see is players making plays...not QBs looking to the sideline for plays and/or coaches trying to run the clock down to zero before every snap...or officials standing around while someone looks at a monitor in ultra slow motion trying to detect a tiny movement of the ball. 

[EastexHawg]

Of course shortening the play clock would only shorten games in dead ball/stopped clock situations...but it would still mean more plays/less standing around.

[hogsanity]

Of course shortening the play clock would only shorten games in dead ball/stopped clock situations...but it would still mean more plays/less standing around.

I like the NFL replay rule, scores & turnovers are automatically reviewed, and they handle reviews in the last 2 minutes, otherwise a coach has a set # of plays he can ask for a challenge on. This crap where the replay official buzzes down to the field in college, often times after 25+ seconds have run off the clock, to review a 2 yard completion is absurd.

I agree, used to be if a receiver caught the ball, took a couple steps, and then lost it, it was a fumble ( unless he was clearly juggling the ball the whole time ).

[Dr. Starcs]

This is what I find interesting:.

Lets say a college game has 150 total plays. Each play lasts about 7 seconds. You're getting 17.5 minutes of actual game action in a 3.5 hour time frame.

And it's a billion, maybe multi-billion dollar industry. Lol

[hogsanity]

This is what I find interesting:.

Lets say a college game has 150 total plays. Each play lasts about 7 seconds. You're getting 17.5 minutes of actual game action in a 3.5 hour time frame.

And it's a billion, maybe multi-billion dollar industry. Lol

Multi-billion EASY!

But people complain because baseball is boring. 

[Danny J]

as long as we are winning

Actually I think the shorter the games the better it is for us...as Arkansas fans. Seems to me they should just stop the games after the 3rd quarter. We might have a better record over the last few years. Just thought I would throw that out there.

[WizardofhOgZ]

I agree, used to be if a receiver caught the ball, took a couple steps, and then lost it, it was a fumble ( unless he was clearly juggling the ball the whole time ).

I have watched this "catch all the way to the ground" crap develop over the last 10-15 years and I have no understanding of where it comes from.  I never really had a problem saying whether a player did or did not catch a ball.  Everyone knew what possession was.  Sure - there was the occasional "bad call", but we still have those today and probably always will.  But the officials are usually pretty good on that. 

And I'll tell you something else - I've seen SEVERAL calls that either clearly missed the standard of "OBVIOUS evidence" that the original call was wrong, yet the call was reversed; and, other times when the visual evidence was OVERWHELMING that is should be overturned, but it was NOT (think the goal line at Auburn in 2010).  So, we have just as many controversies/arguments today . . . it just takes more time out of the game to produce them.

[Shrevepork]

I've been griping for a few years, and especially this year, that games are way too long. Supposedly they were going to talk about how to shorten game time last year, but decided to wait until this coming offseason. Don't remember where I read that or if it is completely true, but I definitely remember reading it somewhere. They need to do something because some of these games are getting ridiculous.

The number of commercials is ridiculous.

[RazorbackRon]

TV timeouts are the biggest reason for the longer games.  The weird thing is the timeouts seem longer when you are watching the game on TV, than when you are there.

I hate the TV timeout guy.

[Danny J]

TV timeouts are the biggest reason for the longer games.  The weird thing is the timeouts seem longer when you are watching the game on TV, than when you are there.

I hate the TV timeout guy.

That is because commercials are excruciating to sit through whereas at a game you can look at the cheerleaders. Commercials wouldn't seem as long if all of them were the Hardees commercials showing those hot babes eating hamburgers in bikinis.

[hawgon]

Well, my wife on worked in commercial traffic scheduling for a decade at a ABC affil, and I oversaw programming for a cable co, including local breaks, for 15 years, so I do know what I am talking about.  They sell X # of breaks per game. Longer games do not automatically translate into more commercials. But longer games do certainly cause problems on the back end when they run long.

Well, then they will eventually get smarter and start selling more commercials because the games are longer than they used to be.  They'll do that rather than give the public LESS of what is just about their most popular product.

[Bacons Rebellion]

I don't think it is logical for the clock to stop until the snap on incomplete passes. Sure the clock should stop, the refs have to run get the ball. But after it's re-set and ready for play, there's no reason for clock not to run, any more than any other play.

Same with out of bounds plays (which they have finally corrected). You have to stop the clock or the team running out the clock could run into the stands with the ball or some such nonsense, but once the ball is re-set, what's the difference?  There's is still no reason to stop the clock in for OOB in the last few minutes of the game except they want the suspense of more plays in the last minute -- a false suspense since the "two-minute offense" could just become the "Three minute offense."

It IS logical to stop the clock for first downs. You could lose a game because the chain gang is fat and out-of-shape and can't get down the field to set the chain while the clock runs out.

[GlassofSwine]

Well, then they will eventually get smarter and start selling more commercials because the games are longer than they used to be.  They'll do that rather than give the public LESS of what is just about their most popular product.

It won't take away anything but overruns. I hate trying to turn into a game I want to watch and see there is still 14 minutes left in the 4th quarter of the previous game. The college game will be sped up because unless it is a good game no one is going to sit through a 3.5 to 4 hour blowout. People tuning into watch the next game don't like having to wait for the previous game to finish.

[GlassofSwine]

I don't think it is logical for the clock to stop until the snap on incomplete passes. Sure the clock should stop, the refs have to run get the ball. But after it's re-set and ready for play, there's no reason for clock not to run, any more than any other play.

Same with out of bounds plays (which they have finally corrected). You have to stop the clock or the team running out the clock could run into the stands with the ball or some such nonsense, but once the ball is re-set, what's the difference?  There's is still no reason to stop the clock in for OOB in the last few minutes of the game except they want the suspense of more plays in the last minute -- a false suspense since the "two-minute offense" could just become the "Three minute offense."

It IS logical to stop the clock for first downs. You could lose a game because the chain gang is fat and out-of-shape and can't get down the field to set the chain while the clock runs out.

You could also win a game because the chain gang is slow and you are trying to run out the clock. If you want, have them stop it on 1st downs within 2 minutes of every quarter of half but otherwise why? On every other play that results in a gain the clock continues to run. On a 1st down you are rewarded with a new set of downs. I say make the coaches and players be better at clock management and work to get the games back to 3 hours.

[East Clintwood]

How long will it be until they no longer stop the clock to move the chains, that is the main difference in the clock rules. Also, will they ever start the clock on the ready for play after an incomplete pass in either the nfl or ncaa or both?

The length of college games just keeps getting more ridiculous, 4 hr games are almost the norm now. Wlll TV dictate something be done about that?

TV is the biggest reason the games are so long.

Get rid of some of the hour or more of commercials.

[hobhog]

TV is the biggest reason the games are so long.

Get rid of some of the hour or more of commercials.

This. TV timeouts are way too long, and there are too many. Money rules.

They already quit stopping the clock when players go out of bounds until final 2 minutes of halfs. That shortens actual playing time so they can get in more commercials in the alloted TV time slot.

[STLhawg]

TV has themselves to blame.  When you lose 30 minutes or more a game having to wait on commercials to run that fans at the game and at home have to endure, TV can't be complaining on overruns.

EXACTLY!!!  There may or maybe not be more commercial breaks, but I'm pretty certain they are considerably longer than they used to be a decade ago.

[clew]

The solution will always be to shorten the actual game time via rule changes; never will they shorten the TV commercial time.

[hogsanity]

You could also win a game because the chain gang is slow and you are trying to run out the clock. If you want, have them stop it on 1st downs within 2 minutes of every quarter of half but otherwise why? On every other play that results in a gain the clock continues to run. On a 1st down you are rewarded with a new set of downs. I say make the coaches and players be better at clock management and work to get the games back to 3 hours.

in the nfl as soon as the ref sets the ball ready for play, they go, they do not wait on the chains to be set.