menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Keeping the length of games down
Page: 1 of 2
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 12/27/2014 7:02 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Once again, the NCAA is looking into ways to shorten games. According to a Dispatch article, college football games now average 3 hours, 23 minutes -- 14 minutes longer than in 2008. It doesn't say if this is with or without TV commercial breaks. One issue is player safety; as players stay on the field for more plays they become more fatigued and are more injury prone. But the main issue is TV. Longer games screw up networks' schedules. I think one on-field thing that could be done is to restart the game clock after the ball is marked ready for play after incomplete passes, except maybe for the last two minutes of each half. I don't have stats to back this up, but it seems that more passes are being thrown with more incompletions. And I like the thought of not stopping the clock on every first down.

http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2014/12/2...
Victory
General User
V
Member Since: 3/11/2012
Post Count: 2,519
person
mail
Victory
mail
Posted: 12/27/2014 7:08 PM
settings_applications edit_note
When you change rules there are unintended consequences. If the intended consequence is to shorten the game then the best way to do that without affecting the rest of the game is to make 14 minute quarters. This should not be difficult.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 12/27/2014 7:53 PM
settings_applications edit_note
The last time they tried to shorten games, which was only a few years ago, the average plays per team dropped from about 80 a game to about 60 a game, so teams started doing more hurry up, and lo and beheld, they are back at about 80 plays a game, but I'd guess that there are more injuries now.

If they really want to speed up games, limit the number of advertiser timeouts.
C Money
General User
Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420
mail
C Money
mail
Posted: 12/27/2014 8:44 PM
settings_applications edit_note
You wanna get nuts? Let's get nuts.

Go to four 30 minute quarters with a running clock, the only stoppages being for injuries and three 60 second timeouts per team per half. Have a 5 minute break after the first and third quarters (so ESPN can still make money) and a 20 minute halftime. For overtime, each possession can last no more than 5 minutes on the running clock.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,801
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 12/28/2014 12:06 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Want to shorten games, cut back on the TV Timeouts! 7 in each half, with an average of 3:30 per commercial during a TV game, and 2:00 min per non TV (they say it's less, but slap a watch on it!). That's 35+ minute of TV extensions!
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,697
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 12/28/2014 12:16 AM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Want to shorten games, cut back on the TV Timeouts! 7 in each half, with an average of 3:30 per commercial during a TV game, and 2:00 min per non TV (they say it's less, but slap a watch on it!). That's 35+ minute of TV extensions!
+1
87OU Alum
General User
87OA
Member Since: 12/23/2007
Location: Newark, OH
Post Count: 124
person
mail
87OU Alum
mail
Posted: 12/28/2014 1:51 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Keep clock running after 1st downs and while resetting the chains.
Mike Johnson
General User
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: North Canton, OH
Post Count: 1,756
mail
Mike Johnson
mail
Posted: 12/28/2014 2:06 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Okay,I concede that TV would like to see games packaged neatly within 3-hr windows.

But how about us fans? Am I in a minority who doesn't carry the teeniest bit that a game runs 3:15 or 3:20 instead of 3:00? Heck, I love overtime games!
Deciduous Forest Cat
General User
DFC
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: OH
Post Count: 4,559
person
mail
Deciduous Forest Cat
mail
Posted: 12/28/2014 4:43 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Mike Johnson wrote:expand_more
Okay,I concede that TV would like to see games packaged neatly within 3-hr windows.

But how about us fans? Am I in a minority who doesn't carry the teeniest bit that a game runs 3:15 or 3:20 instead of 3:00? Heck, I love overtime games!
Well an overtime game means more football. regulation college games take longer but not because we're getting more football, but because the same football takes longer. It would be nice if they could keep it under 3 hours. and much as I love baseball, I think the same of MLB. There's no reason 9 innings should take more than 3 hrs. There's no reason 60 minutes of football should take 3+.

How about shortening halftime? 20 minutes? 20 freaking minutes? Make it 10.

Also, I agree about the first downs... keep the rule of stopping the clock only for the last 2 minutes of a half.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,801
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 12/28/2014 5:06 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
Okay,I concede that TV would like to see games packaged neatly within 3-hr windows.

But how about us fans? Am I in a minority who doesn't carry the teeniest bit that a game runs 3:15 or 3:20 instead of 3:00? Heck, I love overtime games!
Well an overtime game means more football. regulation college games take longer but not because we're getting more football, but because the same football takes longer. It would be nice if they could keep it under 3 hours. and much as I love baseball, I think the same of MLB. There's no reason 9 innings should take more than 3 hrs. There's no reason 60 minutes of football should take 3+.

How about shortening halftime? 20 minutes? 20 freaking minutes? Make it 10.

Also, I agree about the first downs... keep the rule of stopping the clock only for the last 2 minutes of a half.
. Same for baseball, slap a watch on every half inning intermission, ant there is essentially 18 commercial breakers in baseball, which adds an easy 40 minutes to a MLB game
UpSan Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,817
mail
UpSan Bobcat
mail
Posted: 12/28/2014 5:59 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Shortening the halftime length would raise injury concerns.

It's interesting that the main reason for wanting games shorter is to fit TV schedules, yet the main reason that games are long is because of TV.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 12/28/2014 6:09 PM
settings_applications edit_note
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
Shortening the halftime length would raise injury concerns.

Except at the Orange Bowl, where is it what, an hour long?

UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
It's interesting that the main reason for wanting games shorter is to fit TV schedules, yet the main reason that games are long is because of TV.

Myself I favor going back to the old way where the game was the important thing. They played the game as the game went, and it was up to the advertisers to fit commercials in where they could, and the game often continued or resumed during commercials. Let them stick the ads in during injuries, etc. The elapsed time will be shorter, and the games will seem much more action packed.
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 12/28/2014 7:17 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Being live at a game, the TV commercials--and it is ALL 100% about commercials--suck the emotion out of the game in a very significant way.
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 12/28/2014 7:24 PM
settings_applications edit_note
The reality is that the old ways are dead. Disney Corp will want at least as much, if not more, ad time in each game -- even if they run mostly promos. Disney Corp wants a return on the millions they shell out to the conferences each season.
Deciduous Forest Cat
General User
DFC
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: OH
Post Count: 4,559
person
mail
Deciduous Forest Cat
mail
Posted: 12/28/2014 7:35 PM
settings_applications edit_note
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
Shortening the halftime length would raise injury concerns.

It's interesting that the main reason for wanting games shorter is to fit TV schedules, yet the main reason that games are long is because of TV.
How so? I would think it's harder on the body to sit for longer then have to deal with an abbreviated warmup before trying to go full speed again.
UpSan Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,817
mail
UpSan Bobcat
mail
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:56 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
Shortening the halftime length would raise injury concerns.

It's interesting that the main reason for wanting games shorter is to fit TV schedules, yet the main reason that games are long is because of TV.
How so? I would think it's harder on the body to sit for longer then have to deal with an abbreviated warmup before trying to go full speed again.
I don't know if there is any sure science on it, but Ohio high school halftime's are 20 minutes plus three minutes of warm-ups with the reasoning being safety.

The NFL reduced halftime from 15 to 12 minutes around 1990. They also did a lot of other things in an effort to shorten games, many of which have been suggested. Safety was a concern then, though the of course, halftimes already were shorter. Here's an article from then:

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/24/sports/football-under-3...
OU_Country
General User
Member Since: 12/6/2005
Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County
Post Count: 8,401
mail
OU_Country
mail
Posted: 12/29/2014 10:50 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Mike Johnson wrote:expand_more
Okay,I concede that TV would like to see games packaged neatly within 3-hr windows.

But how about us fans? Am I in a minority who doesn't carry the teeniest bit that a game runs 3:15 or 3:20 instead of 3:00? Heck, I love overtime games!
I could also be in the minority, but in a different regard. I'm losing interest in the game, and one reason is that I don't want to invest 3 1/2 to 4 hours to watch one game. We had a couple games at Peden this year that lasted 3:45, with a couple first halves that approached two hours. For me, that's longer that I want to spend watching one game sitting on metal bleachers.

When I'm at home, I often watch NFL games by starting the DVR for a 1pm kick, and then I actually start watching at 1:30 or 1:45. By the beginning of the second half, or at worst, beginning of the 4th quarter, I'm "caught up" by watching no commercials or the halftime show. I get 30-60 minutes of my day back to do other things just by doing this.
Brian Smith (No, not that one)
General User
BSNNTO
Member Since: 2/4/2005
Post Count: 3,057
person
mail
Brian Smith (No, not that one)
mail
Posted: 12/30/2014 3:25 PM
settings_applications edit_note
87OU Alum wrote:expand_more
Keep clock running after 1st downs and while resetting the chains.
Yup. It's pretty simple. But it would tick off people who like the fact that you can drive the length of the field in 20 seconds near the end of the game.
Last Edited: 12/30/2014 3:27:55 PM by Brian Smith (No, not that one)
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:21 PM
settings_applications edit_note
87OU Alum wrote:expand_more
Keep clock running after 1st downs and while resetting the chains.

Rule changes like this are just a lie, pretending that the game is the same. Why not just be honest about it, and leave the clock rules the same, and cut the time to 8 minutes a quarter.
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:32 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I wonder if part of longer games involves the mindset of refs on questionable plays. It seems that refs are letting the play continue on a turnover, knowing that if they're wrong replay will take care of it. If the play is overturned, not only is the game delayed by the replay review but they have to reset the clock back to what it was when the ball should've been whistled dead. Could add several minutes over the course of a game.

Also, I think a big time-saver would be to have radio communications among the refs like the NFL has. Pro ball has fewer delays for conferences among the refs on penalties, etc.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,801
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 12/31/2014 12:26 AM
settings_applications edit_note
UpSan Bobcat wrote:expand_more
Shortening the halftime length would raise injury concerns.

It's interesting that the main reason for wanting games shorter is to fit TV schedules, yet the main reason that games are long is because of TV.
How so? I would think it's harder on the body to sit for longer then have to deal with an abbreviated warmup before trying to go full speed again.
I don't know if there is any sure science on it, but Ohio high school halftime's are 20 minutes plus three minutes of warm-ups with the reasoning being safety.

The NFL reduced halftime from 15 to 12 minutes around 1990. They also did a lot of other things in an effort to shorten games, many of which have been suggested. Safety was a concern then, though the of course, halftimes already were shorter.
"shorten games" while lengenthing TV timeouts. Go figure
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,801
person
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 12/31/2014 12:30 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Pataskala wrote:expand_more
I wonder if part of longer games involves the mindset of refs on questionable plays. It seems that refs are letting the play continue on a turnover, knowing that if they're wrong replay will take care of it. If the play is overturned, not only is the game delayed by the replay review but they have to reset the clock back to what it was when the ball should've been whistled dead. Could add several minutes over the course of a game.

Also, I think a big time-saver would be to have radio communications among the refs like the NFL has. Pro ball has fewer delays for conferences among the refs on penalties, etc.
Rules are clear, play is dead on certain things, automatically, nothing to do with replay.
Maryland Bobcat
General User
Member Since: 12/28/2004
Location: Annapolis, MD
Post Count: 169
mail
Maryland Bobcat
mail
Posted: 1/5/2015 2:48 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
Okay,I concede that TV would like to see games packaged neatly within 3-hr windows.

But how about us fans? Am I in a minority who doesn't carry the teeniest bit that a game runs 3:15 or 3:20 instead of 3:00? Heck, I love overtime games!
I could also be in the minority, but in a different regard. I'm losing interest in the game, and one reason is that I don't want to invest 3 1/2 to 4 hours to watch one game. We had a couple games at Peden this year that lasted 3:45, with a couple first halves that approached two hours. For me, that's longer that I want to spend watching one game sitting on metal bleachers.

When I'm at home, I often watch NFL games by starting the DVR for a 1pm kick, and then I actually start watching at 1:30 or 1:45. By the beginning of the second half, or at worst, beginning of the 4th quarter, I'm "caught up" by watching no commercials or the halftime show. I get 30-60 minutes of my day back to do other things just by doing this.
Bingo. I have season tix for Navy, and their games - all televised on the CBS Sports Net - are extremely long. I have a toddler, too, so that meas we can rarely make it past halftime. One instance this season the first half took two hours. Fans are sick of it, too - you hear a lot of folks yelling at the field to play football! I'm fine with TV timeouts, but why do they have to be so long?

The Navy AD sent out a nastygram to supporters stating we need to stay through the fourth quarter - that the players deserve it. There's no argument that they deserve it, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't want to make money from tv and continue to make it a poor in-game live experience for fans. What's worse is the games do not start now until 3:30, so it's pushing 7:30-8 when they are over. Families with small kids can't stay that late every week, especially if they have any drive at all.

New Years Day was a perfect example. The Oregon game came on the air at 5, and wasn't it after 9 when it ended? It forced a late start on the east coast for the OSU game, meaning many people could not stay up to watch it.
Last Edited: 1/5/2015 2:51:37 PM by Maryland Bobcat
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/12/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,375
person
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 1/5/2015 3:10 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Maryland Bobcat wrote:expand_more
Okay,I concede that TV would like to see games packaged neatly within 3-hr windows.

But how about us fans? Am I in a minority who doesn't carry the teeniest bit that a game runs 3:15 or 3:20 instead of 3:00? Heck, I love overtime games!
I could also be in the minority, but in a different regard. I'm losing interest in the game, and one reason is that I don't want to invest 3 1/2 to 4 hours to watch one game. We had a couple games at Peden this year that lasted 3:45, with a couple first halves that approached two hours. For me, that's longer that I want to spend watching one game sitting on metal bleachers.

When I'm at home, I often watch NFL games by starting the DVR for a 1pm kick, and then I actually start watching at 1:30 or 1:45. By the beginning of the second half, or at worst, beginning of the 4th quarter, I'm "caught up" by watching no commercials or the halftime show. I get 30-60 minutes of my day back to do other things just by doing this.
Bingo. I have season tix for Navy, and their games - all televised on the CBS Sports Net - are extremely long. I have a toddler, too, so that meas we can rarely make it past halftime. One instance this season the first half took two hours. Fans are sick of it, too - you hear a lot of folks yelling at the field to play football! I'm fine with TV timeouts, but why do they have to be so long?

The Navy AD sent out a nastygram to supporters stating we need to stay through the fourth quarter - that the players deserve it. There's no argument that they deserve it, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't want to make money from tv and continue to make it a poor in-game live experience for fans. What's worse is the games do not start now until 3:30, so it's pushing 7:30-8 when they are over. Families with small kids can't stay that late every week, especially if they have any drive at all.

New Years Day was a perfect example. The Oregon game came on the air at 5, and wasn't it after 9 when it ended? It forced a late start on the east coast for the OSU game, meaning many people could not stay up to watch it.
Not sure why anyone says "they deserve it." This is entertainment that people pay to see. If they want to leave, they can leave whenever they want.
Ohio69
General User
O69
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,124
person
mail
Ohio69
mail
Posted: 1/5/2015 3:37 PM
settings_applications edit_note
So the fix for speeding up games is less football via running clocks?

Good grief.

We fans are dumb.

Them: Here's less of what you want to watch (the game) and more of what you don't (commercials).

Us: Awesome!

Them: (Quietly cashing checks and snickering....)
Last Edited: 1/5/2015 3:39:29 PM by Ohio69
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 29
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)