Article on NCAA rules changes affecting the clock.

[JW]

First good discussion I've seen featuring comments by coaches.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060827/SPORTS0202/608270307/1001/SPORTS

College coaches irate over alterations to timing guidelines
August 27, 2006

By Glenn Guilbeau
[email protected]

BATON ROUGE -- New college football rule 3-2-5, designed to stop games from tickling the four-hour mark, could mean a 3-2-1 ticking away of the final seconds as a timeout-less team frantically tries to get off a last play. Then it's over. No miracle finish. No ESPN highlight, but you will promptly get to your local news.

And college football coaches everywhere are ticked off.


"I am appalled at the rule changes," Oregon coach Mike Bellotti said in published reports over the summer. "They are major and very severe and will change the game as we know it."

New rule 3-2-5, approved by the NCAA rules committee in May, says the game clock will start at the moment the kicker touches the ball on a kickoff as opposed to the old rule, which did not have the clock starting until it touched a member of the receiving team.

"Kick it out of bounds with 8-10 seconds to go, the game's over," Penn State coach Joe Paterno told USA Today.

New rule 3-2-5-e says that after a first down, the game clock will start once the referee gives the signal, which is usually while the offense is just huddling up. The old rule stopped the clock until the ball was snapped. This will greatly affect late rallies by two-minute offenses.

"There is more need for timeouts now than there has ever been," said LSU coach Les Miles, who had trouble with the old rules as he tried to call a timeout last season against Tennessee while already under a TV timeout. Timeouts remain three per half this season.

"You need a timeout to have the officials rule and use instant replay," Miles said. "You need a timeout at the end of the game if the opponent has the ball (and is ahead) to save you 22 seconds right at the start of the possession. There will be more reason to keep them rather than use them."

The days of a quarterback not liking what he sees out of a defense, or getting confused, or noticing one of his teammates is in the wrong position and calling a timeout may be gone, or the quarterback will be gone.

"If our quarterback does that, he's coming out," Miles said. "They're too precious now."


more

[Pumpy Tudors]

OK, I went to a college football game yesterday, but I'm not sure if it was under NAIA or NCAA rules. The home team is technically NCAA D-II this year, but it's still playing its NAIA schedule that was agreed upon last year. I'm not sure if the visitors are staying NAIA or not. Anyway, I tried to notice how the clock was being worked, but I didn't see anything that looked alarming.

Anyway, I think Les Miles is being overdramatic about the timeouts being so precious. It seems ridiculous to take out a quarterback because he called a timeout at the line of scrimmage. Then again, I'm not an SEC head football coach, so what do I know? It just seems nuts to me.

[Logan]

Is this article any different than the one that ran a month ago?

[sterlingice]

Hm... not sure how I like this. Correction, I really think the kicking one is stupid. But the other one is a bit more questionable- I like the frantic pace of the last 2 minutes in college football because, while there is no 2-minute warning, there is the "stops on a first down" which really lengthens the game. However, I'm not sure if that was such a great thing- it meant all you needed to score a last minute TD in college was about a minute of clock time. Then again, the article seems unclear- if you're running a no-huddle, won't you be able to still run that with little to no time off the clock?


SI

[Pumpy Tudors]

...if you're running a no-huddle, won't you be able to still run that with little to no time off the clock?
I'm going to say yes. Many times, you'll see a team in the no-huddle standing around at the line of scrimmage waiting for the referee to get out of the way and blow the whistle to restart play after making a first down.

I'm going to have to see these rules in action before I can be certain, but right now, it really seems like the coaches are overreacting about this one.

[JW]

Is this article any different than the one that ran a month ago?

Yes.

[RPI-Fan]

I think it's funny how the article pretty much blasts the LSU coach:


...who had trouble with the old rules...

[SteelerFan448]

Why not just make the time like the NFL, minus starting the time on kickoffs?

[Logan]

Yes.

Can you expand on that? I read through it, and didn't see any new info. I'm not trying to be a dick...I'm guessing I'm just missing something.

[kcchief19]

Can you expand on that? I read through it, and didn't see any new info. I'm not trying to be a dick...I'm guessing I'm just missing something.
You have to follow the link ... the segment of the article copy and pasted is essentially ksyrup's original article with Les Miles quotes. There's a bit more if you follow the link.

That said, not much new that hasn't been discussed. Frankly, I'm getting tired of seeing coaches whine and bitch about the rule -- I want to see a coach who is smart and says they are looking to see how they can exploit the rule to their benefit. At some point winners sack up and deal with it and stop acting like a bunch of fifth graders.

[JW]

You have to follow the link ... the segment of the article copy and pasted is essentially ksyrup's original article with Les Miles quotes. There's a bit more if you follow the link.

That said, not much new that hasn't been discussed. Frankly, I'm getting tired of seeing coaches whine and bitch about the rule -- I want to see a coach who is smart and says they are looking to see how they can exploit the rule to their benefit. At some point winners sack up and deal with it and stop acting like a bunch of fifth graders.

Agreed. Not a lot new, just a few additional comments and thoughts. There really isn't a lot new to say about it. I just figured a few folks might find the new story -- and it was a new story -- interesting.

I don't like the rule and think shortening the game by taking plays away is like taking an ounce of coke out of a Coca cola can and selling it for the same price, or making MLB baseball games eight innings. You can say it is just an ounce or an inning, but it means you are not getting as much for your money.

However, I agree with some others that we'll really have to wait until the first few weeks of the season and look at some statistical studies to see how much effect it has.

The unfortunate thing is that I think this is just the beginning, and the NCAA will find more ways to cut the time of games by taking plays away from the game. Hell, they could just play with a running clock if they really wanted to cut down the time.

[sterlingice]

The unfortunate thing is that I think this is just the beginning, and the NCAA will find more ways to cut the time of games by taking plays away from the game. Hell, they could just play with a running clock if they really wanted to cut down the time.

I hope that's a tad facetious as it's not like they're trying to turn college football into a 90 minute game or something, they just want to make it more "tv friendly" like some of the stupid stunts baseball has done from time to time.

Tho I am all for electrocuting any hitter who feels the need to spend more than 10 seconds preening outside the batter's box between pitches but that's another conversation for another time.

SI

[BrianD]

Shortening college football games is not a bad idea. They are way too long at this point and making them shorter should help with fan appeal. I'm not sure I like all the ways they are trying to shorten things, but it is a good idea.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I'm sorry. But if you have a moron for a QB who can't react quickly and call some plays quickly and snap the ball quickly without having his hand held by the coach, then you deserve to lose. The coaches should just quit their f$##cking whining. Try scoring more points in the first 58 minutes of the game you stupid dipsh#$t.

[JW]

Shortening college football games is not a bad idea. They are way too long at this point and making them shorter should help with fan appeal. I'm not sure I like all the ways they are trying to shorten things, but it is a good idea.

I don't see how college football is hurting in the fan appeal area. If you want to know why games are too long, try sitting through a 'radio timeout', i.e., a planned timeout called by the officials, at the 4-minute mark of a non-televised game at a Sunbelt Conference game in Monroe, LA, while everyone stands around doing nothing waiting on the officials to get the signal to put the ball back into play. College football is a great product. Now we are going to get less of that product for the same money.

As for the comments about how the coaches and QBs will have to adjust to the new rules, I totally agree. However, coaches have a perfect right to gripe about rules changes. They probably know better than anyone else how rules changes will affect the game.

As to joking about playing with a running clock, yes, that was a joke. But look for the NCAA to look for more ways to shorten the game.

I'm probably arguing this in the wrong place, anyway, since I believe the college game is more exciting than the pro game, at least when they're actually playing and not standing around waiting on a 'radio' timeout.

[Capital]

All college football had to do is what is done in the NFL. The speed up rules are in effect until the last 2 minutes of the 1st half and last 5 minutes of the second half.

The result, the games are sped up and the integrity of the final few minutes is still intact. This will drastically hurt the game if you just scored a TD and you are still behind with 3 timeouts. You will lose about 30 seconds because a team really needs 4 timeouts to force a punt without using much time like the old days.

I don't believe the NCAA looked at these rules from all angles.

[rexallllsc]

If they were so worried about fan appeal why not eliminate some of the ridiculous amount of TV timeouts?

[Capital]

They are not worried about the fans, if so, we would have a reasonable system to crown a national championship.

Try explaining this system to someone that is just trying to get into college football. You should like an idiot.

[Z²+]

New rule 3-2-5-e says that after a first down, the game clock will start once the referee gives the signal, which is usually while the offense is just huddling up. The old rule stopped the clock until the ball was snapped. [/B]

I am having a bit of trouble understanding this. Maybe I'm being dense and just totally wrong in my thought, but someone please explain this to me...

Under the old system, I thought the game clock was stopped after a first down was reached - allowing time for the chain crew to reset themselves and line up the new first down marker - and the referee would then start the game clock (and play clock) once this was completed. The article states that "the old rule stopped the clock until the ball was snapped" -- which I just don't think is true -- I swear I can remember that if the offense was taking their time, they could still run off 25 game clock seconds before they snapped the ball.

So, if the article is in fact wrong, what is the difference with the new rule? Is the referee just going to be a little bit faster in whistling the ball into play? If that's the case, is he just not going to wait as long for the chain crew to run down the field and line up, or what exactly is going to be different?

Thanks for humoring me, I just can't get this one to compute...