College Football Clock Rule Change

[Ksyrup]

I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more press. If I understand these rules correctly, the end of games are going to be dramatically different. There will still be no 2-minute warning, yet 1st downs will only stop the clock until the ball is set.



The NCAA rules committee approved eight rules changes in May that will take effect for the 2006 college football season. And while the amendments range from the mundane (shortening halftime) to the marked (instant replay will be used throughout Division I-A for the first time), it's a rule change governing the game clock that has aroused some coaches' ire.

According to Rule 3-2-5, the game clock will start as soon as the ball is kicked in a kickoff situation. Previously, the clock would only start once the receiving team touched the ball. In addition, Rule 3-2-5-e states that, after a team gets a first down, the clock will begin running again on the ready-for-play signal. Previously, the clock did not resume until the team snapped the ball.

While the rationale behind the changes was to shorten the game, that explanation has done little to quell the outrage of some coaches.

"I am appalled at the rule changes," Oregon coach Mike Bellotti told USA Today. "They are major and very severe and will change the game as we know it."

Many coaches believe these changes will eliminate 10 to 15 plays per game.

"I think it will help the underdog teams," South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier told USA Today. "If you're the underdog, obviously you would like fewer plays in the game."

Penn State coach Joe Paterno brought out another perhaps unintended effect of the new rule.

"When you kick the ball, [the clock] starts. Kick it out of bounds with 8-10 seconds to go, the game's over," Paterno said to USA Today. "We've got to expose our kids to it in preseason practice."

Auburn head coach Tommy Tuberville, who sits on the NCAA rules committee, tried to answer some of the criticisms offered by his colleagues.

"We weren't looking to take plays away from the game," Tuberville told USA Today. "We were looking to … get away from some of these 3-hour, 45-minute games in hot weather or cold weather. This is obviously an experiment. Anything we do in the rules committee can be changed next year."

[rkmsuf]

It's a great rule change to me. There is no reason for the amount of clock stoppages. It's ridiculous. Wind the clock baby!

[Butter]

I could've sworn in college that the clock on first downs began running on the ready for play signal and not when the ball was snapped.

[dacman]

The smart thing to do would've been to run the clock on the ball-ready during normal run-of-play, but keep the current rule on stopping the clock on first downs until the snap during the last 2 minutes of each half. Best of both worlds.

[AgustusM]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I could've sworn in college that the clock on first downs began running on the ready for play signal and not when the ball was snapped.

yeah, I don't think that is right. I am 99% sure the clock started after 1st downs when the ref placed the ball and then gave the winding clock motion.

[moriarty]

If people start kicking the ball out of bounce to kill the last 8 seconds of the game it's going to be dumb.

[MizzouRah]

Well duh.. NCAA 2007 has this.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by AgustusM

yeah, I don't think that is right. I am 99% sure the clock started after 1st downs when the ref placed the ball and then gave the winding clock motion.

Count me as #3 who thought this.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by moriarty

If people start kicking the ball out of bounce to kill the last 8 seconds of the game it's going to be dumb.

In trying to think this through, I'm not entirely sure that would work. A game can't end on a defensive penalty, right? And an out of bounds kick-off is a penalty. Would a special teams penalty by the kicking team be considered "defensive?" If so, then the game couldn't end simply by kicking a kick-off out of bounds. You could kill the clock, but you'd likely have to give the offense one play from the 40. But maybe I'm not thinking it through correctly. Certainly, JoePa knows more about football than I do!

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by AgustusM

yeah, I don't think that is right. I am 99% sure the clock started after 1st downs when the ref placed the ball and then gave the winding clock motion.

You know, as much football as I watch, I'm embarrassed to say I can't remember!

I did some more searching and found the following:

This is from an OU site:

Rule 3-2-5-e, When Clock Starts
Change: When Team B is awarded a first down, the clock will be stopped and will start on the ready for play signal.
Rationale: By starting the clock, the committee estimates it will shorten the game by about five minutes, according to studies by several Division I-A conferences.


Still pretty generic, but the reference to "Team B" got me wondering. Then I found this, from April, describing proposed rule changes:

"The rules changes expected to pass include lowering the kicking tee for kickoffs from two inches down to one inch to decrease touchbacks, starting the clock when the ball is kicked rather than when a member of the receiving team takes possesion, and starting the clock after changes of possession as soon as the ball is spotted instead of when the ball is snapped."


And then I found this on a Southland Conference site:


The changes are: rule 3-2-5.a.1 - when the ball is free-kicked, the game clock will be started and subsequently stopped when the ball is dead by rule, and rule 3-2-5-3 - when team B is awarded a first down, the clock will stop and will start on the ready for play signal. "What this means," said Harvey, "is that the clock is going to start when the toe touches the ball on free kicks and the clock will start when the 25 second clock starts on a possession change.


So, I think you guys are right, and that this rule is limited to possession changes. The ESPN article doesn't explain it well.

[BrianD]

Can you really kill 8 seconds on a kick out of bounds? I would think 4 would be about it. Surely a kick wouldn't get as much hangtime as a punt. Either way, it still seems silly to start the clock with the kick. The NFL doesn't do it that way, and you aren't going to speed up the game with this change.

[Butter]

Yuck, if that possession change thing is true, that's horrible.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

"The rules changes expected to pass include lowering the kicking tee for kickoffs from two inches down to one inch to decrease touchbacks, starting the clock when the ball is kicked rather than when a member of the receiving team takes possesion, and starting the clock after changes of possession as soon as the ball is spotted instead of when the ball is snapped."

Not sure I care about the kicking tee, but the last one could be pretty big IMO too. If there's a later turnover in a tight game, the special teams/kicking team is going to have to be ready to go in a big hurry. Today they have 30-35 seconds (whatever it is) to get the kicking team on the field ... going forward if they start the clock as soon as the ball is placed it could be chaos.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Can you really kill 8 seconds on a kick out of bounds? I would think 4 would be about it. Surely a kick wouldn't get as much hangtime as a punt. Either way, it still seems silly to start the clock with the kick. The NFL doesn't do it that way, and you aren't going to speed up the game with this change.

4 / 8 seconds, either way I hate to see a game end by someone kicking the ball out of bounce. Not sure if it's a defensive penalty either since the kicking team has the ball ... but I agree it's just dumb considering it will only really save time in a 72 point game.

Notice they didn't put anything in the rules about eliminating/reducing the time of TV timeouts. If they really cared about game length they'd do something about that ... but alas the $$'s still rule the NCAA, just as long as the kids dont' see any of it.

[Ksyrup]

I'm thinking the change of possession clock rule change would eliminate at least some TV timeouts, right? No TD/ PAT, commercial, kick-off/end of quarter, commercial, interception/fumble, commercial anymore. At least I hope so.

[PackerFanatic]

In the NFL at least, it is a penalty to kick the ball out of bounds and I am quite sure that at least one second would be put back on the clock, not sure if that rule is the same in college.

[SuperGrover]

In addition, Rule 3-2-5-e states that, after a team gets a first down, the clock will begin running again on the ready-for-play signal. Previously, the clock did not resume until the team snapped the ball.

That's not right. It's always started when the ready for play signal was made. The article is incorrect.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by SuperGrover

In addition, Rule 3-2-5-e states that, after a team gets a first down, the clock will begin running again on the ready-for-play signal. Previously, the clock did not resume until the team snapped the ball.

That's not right. It's always started when the ready for play signal was made. The article is incorrect.

Read the rest of the thread. We believe it is referring to change of possession.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm thinking the change of possession clock rule change would eliminate at least some TV timeouts, right? No TD/ PAT, commercial, kick-off/end of quarter, commercial, interception/fumble, commercial anymore. At least I hope so.

Ahh, that's a good point and if so, then I think I do like this rule.

[Ksyrup]

I guess the question would be, when does the ball get "set for play?" Theoretically, a team could intercept a pass, there would be a TV timeout, and the clock would wind after the commercial when the ball is "set for play." So I don't know whether this would affect TV timeouts, but I hope it does.

If they estimate it will take 5 minutes off the time of the game, then maybe what this is intended to do is simply lessen the change of possession by 30-40 seconds after every punt and turnover. And that wouldn't necessarily affect commercials. Maybe the time saved will be in not allowing a huddle on the first play of a new series. That should make for an interesting first play, if the offense is going straight from the sideline to the line of scrimmage - no chance for the D to assess personnel. I wonder if this increases the chance for big plays on the first play of each series?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I guess the question would be, when does the ball get "set for play?" Theoretically, a team could intercept a pass, there would be a TV timeout, and the clock would wind after the commercial when the ball is "set for play." So I don't know whether this would affect TV timeouts, but I hope it does.

If they estimate it will take 5 minutes off the time of the game, then maybe what this is intended to do is simply lessen the change of possession by 30-40 seconds after every punt and turnover. And that wouldn't necessarily affect commercials. Maybe the time saved will be in not allowing a huddle on the first play of a new series. That should make for an interesting first play, if the offense is going straight from the sideline to the line of scrimmage - no chance for the D to assess personnel. I wonder if this increases the chance for big plays on the first play of each series?

I bet there's still the TV timeout. No way will they give only 25 seconds for teams to switch squads.

[SuperGrover]

Read the rest of the thread. We believe it is referring to change of possession.

I'm lazy. i'll take your word for it.

These rules changes are for the best IMHO. College games are waaaaaaaay too long as it is.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Not sure I care about the kicking tee, but the last one could be pretty big IMO too. If there's a later turnover in a tight game, the special teams/kicking team is going to have to be ready to go in a big hurry. Today they have 30-35 seconds (whatever it is) to get the kicking team on the field ... going forward if they start the clock as soon as the ball is placed it could be chaos.

That is what you use time outs for as well as spiking the ball or throwing an incomplete pass. It just adds more strategy to the mix.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Notice they didn't put anything in the rules about eliminating/reducing the time of TV timeouts. If they really cared about game length they'd do something about that ... but alas the $$'s still rule the NCAA, just as long as the kids dont' see any of it.

Well, you do want to see games on TV, right? If there is no financial incentive, then nobody is going to spend the time and effort to get a crew to televise the event.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

That is what you use time outs for as well as spiking the ball or throwing an incomplete pass. It just adds more strategy to the mix.

Spiking the ball - ok. Most teams use all their timeouts though on defense late in a game though (assuming they're behind). This rule could cause them to save one timeout but I seriously doubt it.

I think you're right though, they would probably be best served by rushing their offense out and spiking it to stop the clock vs. trying to run out a kicking team on in the dying seconds after a possession change.

[Grammaticus]

It will definately make it harder.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Well, you do want to see games on TV, right? If there is no financial incentive, then nobody is going to spend the time and effort to get a crew to televise the event.

edit - no dola.

Ahh, I remember a time in a distant past where they showed games on TV without the endlessly long TV timeouts and over blown halftime shows. Don't tell me they wouldn't show games on TV if they limited TV timeouts, that's just silly.

The NCAA would have to give up a lot of revenue though, so I'm sure they're not going to touch their golden goose.

[miami_fan]

I did not realize there was a problem with the games taking so long or at least I have not heard any complaints about it. I agree about the reducing the number of TV timeouts. What about those long overtime session. If there is such a concern about the safety of the players, shouldn't they be doing something about the lengthy overtimes.

The shortening of halftime is a good thing depending who is doing the halftime shows

[moriarty]

I think I actually heard something on the radio about half times are no longer a fixed length and coaches could agree to half time lenghs prior to the game.

Anyone else hear this?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by moriarty

I think I actually heard something on the radio about half times are no longer a fixed length and coaches could agree to half time lenghs prior to the game.

Anyone else hear this?

I haven't heard that, but I would imagine that this won't be true for every game. I can't see ABC be willing to give up any of their commercials during a marquee Big Ten game, for instance, when a large portion of the country is watching. Now, maybe if they were showing a snoozer like Wake Forest vs. Virginia or something, they probably wouldn't have enough advertisers to fill up the ad space anyway.

OK, I'm kidding about that last part.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by moriarty

I think I actually heard something on the radio about half times are no longer a fixed length and coaches could agree to half time lenghs prior to the game.

Anyone else hear this?

New rule:

Rule 3-2-1-b, Halftime
Change: The intermission between halves, which begins when the field is clear of all players and coaches, shall be 20 minutes. The home team administration may lengthen or shorten the 20 minutes by previous agreement of the visiting team administration.

Rationale: This is an attempt to shorten the length of time it takes to play the game.

[Ksyrup]

It's too long to post in its entirety here, but here's a link to all of the rule changes:

http://www.afca.com/lev2.cfm/283

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Can you really kill 8 seconds on a kick out of bounds? I would think 4 would be about it. Surely a kick wouldn't get as much hangtime as a punt. Either way, it still seems silly to start the clock with the kick. The NFL doesn't do it that way, and you aren't going to speed up the game with this change.

The NFL actually does do it that way except for inside two minutes. From the digest of rules on NFL.com:

Timing in final two minutes of each half
1. On kickoff, clock does not start until the ball has been legally touched by player of either team in the field of play. (In all other cases, clock starts with kickoff.).

[Ksyrup]

The clock starts on the opening kick-off of each half? Huh. I did not know that. I seem to recall no more than 5 or 6 seconds running off the clock at most before the first play of each half. Either the clock hasn't started until the receiver touched it, or time seems to move really slow when the game moves so fast.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

That ESPN article was dumb. Totally misinformative. I actually don't think the change is that big of a deal if it is only on change of possession. I'd imagine the "ready for play" signal will not be made until the offense takes the field (provided they're not delaying). Just have your play called in advance. Every change of possession is predictable anyway except for a turnover. It's only going to matter right at the very end of the game or halftime anyway.

[Ksyrup]

OK, I'm back to being confused about this rule. According to Bowden and Weatherford, the clock rules are a major concern. Surely this can't be the case if we're only talking about changes of possession, can it?



But Weatherford is concerned about how the quarterbacks are adapting to the new rule in which the 25-second play clock starts the moment the ball is in play. A clock was used in part of the scrimmage Wednesday night.

“I thought Weatherford ran the offense pretty dang good as far as the throwing aspect,” Bowden said. “Our tempo has got to pick up greatly. We would have had about four or five delay-of-game (penalties) at least. That's a big point that has to change. Twenty percent was the new rule, and 80 percent was either me or the quarterback in the huddle. ... It's a different mind-set.

[bronconick]

*chuckles*

Florida State normally has 4 or 5 delay of game penalties/early timeouts taken per half anyway.

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, I was going to mention that as a reason this scares me even more.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

If they estimate it will take 5 minutes off the time of the game, then maybe what this is intended to do is simply lessen the change of possession by 30-40 seconds after every punt and turnover. And that wouldn't necessarily affect commercials. Maybe the time saved will be in not allowing a huddle on the first play of a new series. That should make for an interesting first play, if the offense is going straight from the sideline to the line of scrimmage - no chance for the D to assess personnel. I wonder if this increases the chance for big plays on the first play of each series?

There are some people estimating even more loss of plays than previously estimated. It shouldn't effect commercials breaks at all, and commercial breaks will probably work somewhat similar to normal, since the coach can call the play from the sideline and the team can just run out and lineup without huddling and not lose too much time.

The big difference will come when there is no commercial break during a chance of possession. Teams will really have to hustle to get a play called, lined up and run. I too sense the possible increase in big plays, but I can see it both ways ... I can see the defense on a change of possession making a big play because the offensive is ragged and disorganized.

[JW]

I think this is just the start. More efforts will be made to shorten the game by taking away plays. That means less product for the same amount of money. Fewer plays. Less for your money. There will be more rules changes to this effect in coming years. The networks would probably like a series of neatly packaged and timed 3-hour games like they try to get from the NFL.

As for fewer commercials meaning less revenue, one would think that if there are fewer commercials, the networks will just charge more for the more exclusive commercial slots. But I bet they will find a way to have just as many commercial breaks. My guess is that we will have shorter games and the same amount of commercials. But I think we will have to wait to see how it plays out over the first few weeks to get a good handle on how much or little these changes affect things.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JW

I think this is just the start. More efforts will be made to shorten the game by taking away plays. That means less product for the same amount of money. Fewer plays. Less for your money. There will be more rules changes to this effect in coming years. The networks would probably like a series of neatly packaged and timed 3-hour games like they try to get from the NFL.

Could care less. College games are way too long, especially when you're sitting through one at a stadium.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Logan

Could care less. College games are way too long, especially when you're sitting through one at a stadium.

That depends on the stadium.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JW

As for fewer commercials meaning less revenue, one would think that if there are fewer commercials, the networks will just charge more for the more exclusive commercial slots. But I bet they will find a way to have just as many commercial breaks.

This is a complete misconception. There will be the same number of commerical breaks during a game as there are now. That won't change. What will change is the prevalence of four-hour college football games that drive most people crazy.

You'll certainly see more changes if this doesn't achieve the goal of getting college football games down closer to three hours. I think it will -- it might even do better than they like.

[JW]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

This is a complete misconception. There will be the same number of commerical breaks during a game as there are now. That won't change. What will change is the prevalence of four-hour college football games that drive most people crazy.

You'll certainly see more changes if this doesn't achieve the goal of getting college football games down closer to three hours. I think it will -- it might even do better than they like.

So we will be getting fewer plays for our money but the same amount of commercials? You're saying then that if you go to a game you will spend the same amount of time sitting and waiting for the commercial breaks to end, but less time watching actual football? What gets me is that some seem to think that is a good thing.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JW

So we will be getting fewer plays for our money but the same amount of commercials? You're saying then that if you go to a game you will spend the same amount of time sitting and waiting for the commercial breaks to end, but less time watching actual football? What gets me is that some seem to think that is a good thing.

Essentially this is an argument of quality versus quantity. You're essentially taking the position that the more elapsed time a football game takes, the better. The argument behind the rule change is that games that are played more briskly are better quality games.

Last year the Missouri Tigers didn't play a single game that took less than three thours. Surprisingly, the most briskly played Missouri game was an overtime game that went 3:12. Several games went longer than 3:20 and 3:30. The longest game of the year was against K-State clocking in at 3:53.

That's bad for many reasons. It's bad for people watching on TV, because one game going 3:53 often means you're missing 53 minutes of another game. It's bad for the networks because they actually end up losing advertising for games that go excessively long. And it's bad for people at the games because contrary to popular belief, there is a limit at how long people will sit in the stands and watch the average game.

I don't think the NCAA gives a rat's ass about what the networks want. They want money so they'll certainly make certain modifications to ensure more money. But I think this decision had more to do with stadiums emptying out halfway through the fourth quarter because a 41-17 game has been going on for three and a half hours and everybody is cold, tired and hungry and ready to get on with their life.

I think an indicator of the NCAA recognizing their bread and butter is that they didn't opt to keep the clock running on first downs like they do in the NFL. College two-minute drills are exciting because so much can happen as long as a team continues to move the chains.

[JW]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Essentially this is an argument of quality versus quantity. You're essentially taking the position that the more elapsed time a football game takes, the better. The argument behind the rule change is that games that are played more briskly are better quality games.

Last year the Missouri Tigers didn't play a single game that took less than three thours. Surprisingly, the most briskly played Missouri game was an overtime game that went 3:12. Several games went longer than 3:20 and 3:30. The longest game of the year was against K-State clocking in at 3:53.

That's bad for many reasons. It's bad for people watching on TV, because one game going 3:53 often means you're missing 53 minutes of another game. It's bad for the networks because they actually end up losing advertising for games that go excessively long. And it's bad for people at the games because contrary to popular belief, there is a limit at how long people will sit in the stands and watch the average game.

I don't think the NCAA gives a rat's ass about what the networks want. They want money so they'll certainly make certain modifications to ensure more money. But I think this decision had more to do with stadiums emptying out halfway through the fourth quarter because a 41-17 game has been going on for three and a half hours and everybody is cold, tired and hungry and ready to get on with their life.

I think an indicator of the NCAA recognizing their bread and butter is that they didn't opt to keep the clock running on first downs like they do in the NFL. College two-minute drills are exciting because so much can happen as long as a team continues to move the chains.

I don't really disagree with anything you said except the very first thing. I'm not arguing for quantity vs. quality. 120 plays instead of 140 (just to throw out some numbers) will not necessarily mean better quality. What I'm saying is that we will be receiving less football of the same quality for the same amount of money.

But having read several different articles and discussions of the rule changes, I think no one is really sure what effect it will have. So I can say what I want, as can anyone else, but we'll have to wait a few weeks to find out if it really makes much difference.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

To me, neatly packaged 3-hour games would be perfect. I like to watch the start and end of the game before I forget what I was watching.

[TazFTW]

I hate it.

But that could be because I'm a Hawaii fan and with the way Hawaii was playing in the 2nd half, those extra plays/time could have helped them tie the game.

[RPI-Fan]

Did anyone see the USC/Arkansas game? I was mainly watching the GT/Notre Dame game, but flipped between the two.

Anyways, it took almost the entire GT/ND half-time to get through the last 1 minute of the 1st half in the USC game!