Which Rule Changes to you Like/Hate??

[ngineer]

Hopefully most of you have received your I-AA.Org Magazines and read the article on pages 6-7 about the different rule changes in college football this year. What do you think? Which ones do you disagree with? Which do you think are an improvement?

I don't like the clock starting with the ball being kicked on a kickoff. This will have a big impact on close games at the end. PLus, I don't like the idea of the clock running off 4-5 seconds on a touchback.

I do like the banning of the tinted eyeshields. The eyes can say a lot...:nod:

[Mr. C]

Get rid of the silly new clock rule.

[cosmo here]

I don't like the clock starting with the ball being kicked on a kickoff. This will have a big impact on close games at the end. PLus, I don't like the idea of the clock running off 4-5 seconds on a touchback.

this rule change is so small in the big scheme of things compared to the clock starting on the whistle after every change of possession. this drastically alters clock management throughout the game, especially in the final two or three minutes. it allows the offense to run an extra 25 seconds before running their first down play if they hold a lead, or forces them to get on the field and run a play quickly if they're behind. also timeouts will be at a premium.

this really affects the integrity of the game . . all for the I-A games to finish in around three hours. :rolleyes:

[ngineer]

this rule change is so small in the big scheme of things compared to the clock starting on the whistle after every change of possession. this drastically alters clock management throughout the game, especially in the final two or three minutes. it allows the offense to run an extra 25 seconds before running their first down play if they hold a lead, or forces them to get on the field and run a play quickly if they're behind. also timeouts will be at a premium.

this really affects the integrity of the game . . all for the I-A games to finish in around three hours. :rolleyes:

No question the coaches are going to have to be on their toes in having their squads ready to go on change of possession, so an organized staff/sideline will be huge. It also gives the referee discretion on when he blows the whistle to start the clock, and the timekeeper will have to keep on top of things in looking for the ref as opposed to just waiting for the snap.

Yes, this was just a kowtow to television for the I-A games to keep the games within 3 hours--especially if they're going to start instituting replays.

[Tribe4SF]

I don't like any of the changes designed to speed up the game. Purely for TV games, and not in response to any real need.

[Uncle Buck]

Even though Hofstra looked like dog ***** last night no matter what, the new change of possession rule took away a scoring opportunity. After forcing a turnover with about 20 seconds left in regulation, the ball was spotted almost immediately and the whistle blew while HU was still making it's way onto the field. Bootom line, one hurried play, no score and a crappy rule. Anything to speed the game up stinks!

[catamount man]

The new clock rule does stink! WCU-Chowan kicked off at 7pm, and the same was over at 9:27pm. No real sense of enjoying the game. Whomever passed this one, well, you know. WCU is 1-0. GO CATAMOUNTS!!!:thumbsup:

[PantherRob82]

Our game still went really long. Even for TV. I didn't feel like it helped much. We also had quite a few touchbacks.

[89Hen]

this rule change is so small in the big scheme of things compared to the clock starting on the whistle after every change of possession.
:nod: The worst rule EVER introduced to football.

I do like the one challenge rule. Watched the SC-MissSt game last night and a TD was overturned on replay.

[Mr. C]

:nod: The worst rule EVER introduced to football.

I do like the one challenge rule. Watched the SC-MissSt game last night and a TD was overturned on replay.
So what happens if the officials screw up badly again later in the game? Does that one not get overturned? I don't like limiting them to one challenge.

[89Hen]

So what happens if the officials screw up badly again later in the game? Does that one not get overturned? I don't like limiting them to one challenge.
It's better than zero. How many would you have?

[Mr. C]

It's better than zero. How many would you have?
Agree, it's better than zero. Not sure how many, but if there is a legitimate BAD CALL, I want justice to be served one way, or another. Get the calls right, however you need to go about it.

[kardplayer]

It's better than zero. How many would you have?

I would make the rule that you can challenge until you have one unsuccessful one. That would make coaches think hard about whether or not they wanted to take the risk and use the challenge.

[Mr. C]

Not a bad idea. Maybe let them have one per half, or let them have one as long as they have a time out left. Maybe thst would put an end to stupid QBs running the clock down and having to waste time outs.

[GannonFan]

I agree with the earlier comment and I railed against this when it was first announced - starting the game clock (as opposed to just the play clock) as soon as the ball is started even after a change in possession, with no consideration to where the game is (i.e. in the last 2 minutes before the end of the half) is just a terrible, terrible rule. I can understand the attempt to shorten the game a little time-wise (I don't want it shortened but I understand their motives in doing so) but to do so and so drastically alter the game itself in terms of strategy is just way too big of a change. I'm sure this will come up in numerous games every weekend - I'm hoping that a bigtime IA game tilts on this rule and that the mass media goes against this rule change - they've retracted bad rules like this before, unfortunately you need a whole seasons-worth of examples to make something like that happen.

[Appdad]

I agree with the earlier comment and I railed against this when it was first announced - starting the game clock (as opposed to just the play clock) as soon as the ball is started even after a change in possession, with no consideration to where the game is (i.e. in the last 2 minutes before the end of the half) is just a terrible, terrible rule.

How do you think this rule affect coaching strategy?

[jstate83]

Get rid of the silly new clock rule.

Thank you.

I missed play's Saturday night in Memorial and on TV because of that silly rule. :nod:

Bet a bunch of teams go "no-huddle" late in games now when time is really a factor.

[windwalker]

I definitly don't like the clock starting when the ball is kicked on kickoffs.
The other ones I can live with.

[McNeese72]

I sort of like the one about not having a team go for a PAT after a TD that is scored on the last play of the game when it doesn't affect the outcome of the game.

After our subs allowed a S. Florida player to waltz to a 50+ yard TD on the last play of the game to make the score 41-10 instead of 35-10, I was disgusted and ready to get the hell out of there and not stand around waiting for them to kick the extra point. :)

Doc

[DTSpider]

One change that hasn't been mentioned is the lowering of the tee on kickoffs. I don't know how much that changes things but it appears that it results in shorter distance and therefore more returns. I like that this increases "the action".

I hate the new change of possession clock rules. why shorten the game?

For tv games is doesn't make a difference since you have the tv timeouts to prepare, but in non-televised games it really hurts the offense. After a big interception/fumble the offense has to rush out onto the field to avoid losing too much time. Maybe that also is due to the refs seemingly spotting the ball faster.

[FargoBison]

The Change of possession rule is absolutely terrible it does completely change the game. Teams now have 5 downs to run out the clock, the clock shouldn't start if a team doesn't even run a play on offense. The rule is beyond stupid and maybe only shaves a few minutes off of the game.

[GannonFan]

How do you think this rule affect coaching strategy?

Well, like the other post said, you could run out the clock much easier. Now a team would have to rush their team onto the field, and depending on where the ball is that could cost a lot of seconds. It's basically a 5th down to chew up the clock.

Luckily, there's already been a lot of griping about it in the media and in the coaching ranks of IA and let's face it, if it was just a IAA matter it wouldn't be changed. But you start getting the heavy breathers in IA upset about it and it can change. There's already been rumors and comments that this particular rule (game clock starting on change of possession) may be a one year thing and gone for next year. Good riddance in my estimation.

[MR. CHICKEN]

ON DUH K.C. KEELER....RADIO SHOW TA-NITE........HE & COREY MENTIONED........STARTIN' DUH CLOCK ON CHANGE O' POSSESSION....WILL CAUSE DUH LOSS O' APPX. 15 PLAYS..........BRAWK!

[cosmo here]

I definitly don't like the clock starting when the ball is kicked on kickoffs.
The other ones I can live with.

That's the one that hardly affects the game at all . . unless a team scores the go-ahead TD with 10 or 15 seconds, everything's pretty much the same.

[cosmo here]

ON DUH K.C. KEELER....RADIO SHOW TA-NITE........HE & COREY MENTIONED........STARTIN' DUH CLOCK ON CHANGE O' POSSESSION....WILL CAUSE DUH LOSS O' APPX. 15 PLAYS..........BRAWK!

an average of 14 fewer plays per game last year, according to this analysis of I-A games last weekend.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=maisel_ivan&id=2573344

"We don't want it to be 55 plays per team. That was not the intention," said Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville, a member of the NCAA Football Rules Committee, which made the change after last season. "The intention was to cut the length of the game down."

it seems that the the only way to cut the length of the game down without cutting the number of plays is to cut the length of TV timeouts and find other ways to generate revenue.

FSU-Miami and OU-UAB had 110 offensive plays this weekend. Lafayette-Sacred Heart had 106 . . probably one of the fewest in the nation, game was played in the middle of the field and only 16 combined incompletions.

I'm a little surprised that nobody thought this would happen . .

[89Hen]

Well, like the other post said, you could run out the clock much easier. Now a team would have to rush their team onto the field, and depending on where the ball is that could cost a lot of seconds. It's basically a 5th down to chew up the clock.
Miami had to use a timeout against FSU late in the game on change of possession after punting the ball to them. Rule SUX! :nonono2:

[MR. CHICKEN]

DIS RULE IS GONE NEXT...SEASON....AH..GAR-UN-TEE...WHO'LL BREAK DUH RECORDS...SET DUH NEW ONES......WHEN DERE ARE LESS PLAYS?......GONNA HAVE LOWER SCORES.......LESS ACTION......AH MAN.......SOMEBODAH...MESSED UP....UH GOOD GAME....IFIN' IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT!..............SEVERAL RULE CHANGES..HAVE BEEN REPEALED.......DUH INSIDERS...WHO MAKE DUH CHANGES....CAIN'T SEE DUH RAMIFICATIONS........DEY ARE RUNNIN' DUH NCAA...LIKE ENRON.....BRAWK!

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

My team hasn't played yet and I already don't like it. At least it won't be as bad since we aren't running the triple option anymore.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

Luckily, there's already been a lot of griping about it in the media and in the coaching ranks of IA and let's face it, if it was just a IAA matter it wouldn't be changed. But you start getting the heavy breathers in IA upset about it and it can change. There's already been rumors and comments that this particular rule (game clock starting on change of possession) may be a one year thing and gone for next year. Good riddance in my estimation.

Aint it the truth. Nobody likes the new playoff pairing system but the people that make the rules don't seem to care.

[MR. CHICKEN]

My team hasn't played yet and I already don't like it. At least it won't be as bad since we aren't running the triple option anymore.

BETTERAH INSTALL DUH NO HUDDLE.......KEELER MENTIONED TA-NITE.......O-CO...HAS TA HAVE UH PLAY CALLED....B/4....OPPONENT....PUNTS.........BASED ON DUH PROJECTED FIELD PO'....AWK!

[cosmo here]

DIS RULE IS GONE NEXT...SEASON....AH..GAR-UN-TEE...WHO'LL BREAK DUH RECORDS...SET DUH NEW ONES......WHEN DERE ARE LESS PLAYS?......GONNA HAVE LOWER SCORES.......LESS ACTION......AH MAN.......SOMEBODAH...MESSED UP....UH GOOD GAME....IFIN' IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT!..............SEVERAL RULE CHANGES..HAVE BEEN REPEALED.......DUH INSIDERS...WHO MAKE DUH CHANGES....CAIN'T SEE DUH RAMIFICATIONS........DEY ARE RUNNIN' DUH NCAA...LIKE ENRON.....BRAWK!

This is the most coherent explanation (unrelated to the game itself) that I've read on this subject. I've heard there's precedent for repealing rules in the middle of the season . . what are the chances? probably 2% . . but there's a chance.