Going back to old clock rules?

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

Here's the link regarding the possibility of going back to the old clock rules. From the sounds of it, it's going to happen which i fully support. However, some of the new rules to counteract going back to the old clock rules seem a bit bizarre. I don't agree with kicking off from the 30.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/ncaa/02/14/rules.changes.ap/index.html

[OL FU]

The only one that makes sense is the 15 second play clock after a time out but what's the point.

Kick off from the 30? Different sport but why not raise the basketball goal?
30 second time outs? Why not do what basket ball does and have 30 second and 60 second time outs?

Just do the easy thing and change the rules back to the way they were in 2005. :rolleyes:

[Russ B]

If they want shorter games, cut down on the length of media timeouts.

[walliver]

To make up for the time being added back into games, the rules committee proposed some changes aimed at speeding up the game that included using a 15-second play clock immediately after timeouts instead of a 25-second clock, reducing the time teams have for timeouts from 65 seconds to 30 seconds, kicking off from the 30-yard line instead of the 35 to cut down on touchbacks, and limiting the amount of time officials have to review a replay to two minutes. Clark said the average time used by officials last year was one minute, 49 seconds.

I don't think these guys have a clue. Their assumptionis that no-one actually talks during timeouts. Kicking off from the 30 may be reasonable at the NFL or BCS level, but there are a lot of kickers in college who can't reach the end zone as it is. Apparently they want to move the kick-off line to increase scoring (not save time).

The real problems are:
1) TV timeouts (not addressed by these changes).
2) Rules over the last two decades designed to encourage more passing. (also not addressed).
3) Instant replay (they half-way address this, but what happens if the referee takes longer than two minutes? Do he penalize himself?

[GeauxColonels]

If they want shorter games, cut down on the length of media timeouts.
DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We have a winner! :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray: :hurray:

But you and I BOTH know that will NEVER happen. :bang: :bang: :bang:

[Lionsrking]

I don't think these guys have a clue. Their assumptionis that no-one actually talks during timeouts. Kicking off from the 30 may be reasonable at the NFL or BCS level, but there are a lot of kickers in college who can't reach the end zone as it is. Apparently they want to move the kick-off line to increase scoring (not save time).

The real problems are:
1) TV timeouts (not addressed by these changes).
2) Rules over the last two decades designed to encourage more passing. (also not addressed).
3) Instant replay (they half-way address this, but what happens if the referee takes longer than two minutes? Do he penalize himself?

The point of moving the kickoff back to the 30 is to create more run backs. While it should promote better field position and create more scoring, it will also mean that more kickoffs will result in the clock running instead of standing still due to touchbacks. Kill two birds with that stone.

Nothing will ever be done about TV timeouts considering television is what drives the beast. If anything, we'll see longer TV timeouts instead of shorter. I guess the networks could get creative and figure out a way to do a split screen advertisement while the game is in progress. If a spot is running long, go to split screen to finish up so viewers don't miss a play. But I'm sure advertisers paying big money wouldn't like that idea.

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

The point of moving the kickoff back to the 30 is to create more run backs. While it should promote better field position and create more scoring, it will also mean that more kickoffs will result in the clock running instead of standing still due to touchbacks. Kill two birds with that stone.

Nothing will ever be done about TV timeouts considering television is what drives the beast. If anything, we'll see longer TV timeouts instead of shorter. I guess the networks could get creative and figure out a way to do a split screen advertisement while the game is in progress. If a spot is running long, go to split screen to finish up so viewers don't miss a play. But I'm sure advertisers paying big money wouldn't like that idea.

All i know is they better not do what the NFL does when it comes to commercials following kickoffs. They'll come back for the kickoff then imediately go back to commercial. That drives me nutts!! :bang:

[GGASU]

All i know is they better not do what the NFL does when it comes to commercials following kickoffs. They'll come back for the kickoff then imediately go back to commercial. That drives me nutts!! :bang:

That is the WORST!!

I used to have Panther season tickets but gave them up. Unless the game is a huge rivalary it is not that much fun live because of all the media timeouts.

I would much rather go to a college football game any day than a pro game!

[ngineer]

Glad to hear about the reversal on the clock rules. I also think the KO can stay at the 35--what was the rationale--I don't think there are all that many KO's that are touchbacks. Would be interested to know what the stats are on that...:confused:

[cosmo here]

The point of moving the kickoff back to the 30 is to create more run backs. While it should promote better field position and create more scoring, it will also mean that more kickoffs will result in the clock running instead of standing still due to touchbacks. Kill two birds with that stone.

The amount of time "gained" (really, lost off the game clock) with the proposed kickoff rule from the 30 will almost certainly be less than a minute, and that's assuming that there will be six kickoffs per game that would be touchbacks from the 35, but result in 10-second kick returns from the 30. Then figure that the gain in field position results in one extra score (field goal or touchdown) per game. The amount of dead time in the game to set up the kickoff following the score - which might also include an untimed extra point - will likely negate any time advantage gained by the rule in the first place.

Once again this is a rule aimed at I-A schools, which created the TV timeout problem which they're trying to rectify. In Lafayette's games last year there were less than five touchbacks for the entire season. Some I-A kickers are putting the ball through the end zone, moving them back five yards just puts the kickoff five yards deep in the end zone. In I-AA a kickoff fielded at the five will now be taken at the 10, the runback results in better field position, better field position results in more scoring, and more scoring results in longer games - therefore creating the very problem that the NCAA is trying to avoid.

[citdog]

Y'all remind me not to EVER ask Cosmo for directions!:nod: :D

[bjtheflamesfan]

Im not a big fan of kicking off from the 30...heck when LU and Coastal played this year Coastal kicked off from OUR 20 yard like at one point

[Lionsrking]

The amount of time "gained" (really, lost off the game clock) with the proposed kickoff rule from the 30 will almost certainly be less than a minute, and that's assuming that there will be six kickoffs per game that would be touchbacks from the 35, but result in 10-second kick returns from the 30. Then figure that the gain in field position results in one extra score (field goal or touchdown) per game. The amount of dead time in the game to set up the kickoff following the score - which might also include an untimed extra point - will likely negate any time advantage gained by the rule in the first place.

Once again this is a rule aimed at I-A schools, which created the TV timeout problem which they're trying to rectify. In Lafayette's games last year there were less than five touchbacks for the entire season. Some I-A kickers are putting the ball through the end zone, moving them back five yards just puts the kickoff five yards deep in the end zone. In I-AA a kickoff fielded at the five will now be taken at the 10, the runback results in better field position, better field position results in more scoring, and more scoring results in longer games - therefore creating the very problem that the NCAA is trying to avoid.

In theory it should result in increased scoring but I'm not sure it will play out the way everybody thinks. There are strategical ways to limit returns and I think you'll see more and more teams emphasize directional kickoffs and hangtime vs pure distance. Obviously scoring won't go down but I don't think it will skyrocket either. Some of the kickoffs that are now touchbacks will probably be returned from the goalline or just inside and a good many will get pinned inside the 20. Plus, the more returns you have, the more likely you are to have a penalty which could easily turn good field position into bad. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[bluehenbillk]

I'm fine with kicking off from the 30, it almost accomplishes the same thing, that at the end of the kickoff the clock will have run.

[Zim262]

The games could be shorter if the referees would stop having a committee meeting for every penalty. Make the call and move on already.

[cosmo here]

In theory it should result in increased scoring but I'm not sure it will play out the way everybody thinks. There are strategical ways to limit returns and I think you'll see more and more teams emphasize directional kickoffs and hangtime vs pure distance. Obviously scoring won't go down but I don't think it will skyrocket either. Some of the kickoffs that are now touchbacks will probably be returned from the goalline or just inside and a good many will get pinned inside the 20. Plus, the more returns you have, the more likely you are to have a penalty which could easily turn good field position into bad. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

At our level of football (and DII and DIII), this is attempting to correct a problem that doesn't exist, and that's the problem I have with the rule. Here's what Bellotti said . .

He also said he thinks moving kickoffs back 5 yards will be popular.

"We anticipate more returns and it's going to put a lot of pressure on defense because by more returns you are probably going to create better field position," he said.

and I think it follows that better field position results in better scoring opportunities.

At best this tradeoff of time for field position will result in a push as far as game length, and at worst it will actually add more time to the game, especailly at the I-AA, II and III levels.

I don't think there will be more returns pinned inside the 20, since the coverage team has to run five yards further. There will probably be a few more penalties but that's probably negligible. In Lafayette's games last year there were 114 kickoffs and six touchbacks, so this will affect a kickoff in every other game - by far offset by the field position gain, since the only remedy for the kicking team is to kick the ball shorter, therefore giving up good field position.

[cosmo here]

Y'all remind me not to EVER ask Cosmo for directions!:nod: :D

and remind me not to ask you for your thoughts on NCAA rule changes :) xlolx

[OL FU]

The point of moving the kickoff back to the 30 is to create more run backs

As a Furman Supporter I am opposed to any rule changes that might provide my opponents with a special team advantage. Want to save time. Then eliminate kickoffs, field goals, punts and extra point plays( in particular extra points), pretend the plays occurred, were successful, and take ten seconds off the clock.:nod:

[Lehigh Football Nation]

At our level of football (and DII and DIII), this is attempting to correct a problem that doesn't exist, and that's the problem I have with the rule. Here's what Bellotti said . .

He also said he thinks moving kickoffs back 5 yards will be popular.

"We anticipate more returns and it's going to put a lot of pressure on defense because by more returns you are probably going to create better field position," he said.

and I think it follows that better field position results in better scoring opportunities.

At best this tradeoff of time for field position will result in a push as far as game length, and at worst it will actually add more time to the game, especailly at the I-AA, II and III levels.

I don't think there will be more returns pinned inside the 20, since the coverage team has to run five yards further. There will probably be a few more penalties but that's probably negligible. In Lafayette's games last year there were 114 kickoffs and six touchbacks, so this will affect a kickoff in every other game - by far offset by the field position gain, since the only remedy for the kicking team is to kick the ball shorter, therefore giving up good field position.

To me, this is another case of trying to change a problem that doesn't exist (in FCS) and also a rule which shows callous disregard for the athletes themselves. To me, the most terrible injuries are caused by special teams coverage on runbacks. :twocents:

As for the clock rules, they had zero impact on the length of FBS games, but the rules absolutely had a detrimental effect on FCS, most of which were not on TV. Exhibit #1 of a poorly thought-out rule change, poorly executed. :twocents:

[rcny46]

That is the WORST!!

I used to have Panther season tickets but gave them up. Unless the game is a huge rivalary it is not that much fun live because of all the media timeouts.

I would much rather go to a college football game any day than a pro game!


Amen and Hallelujah!

[Peems]

this wont affect the griz since we will only kickoff once per game and that will be that:D