Lessons In Stupidity: The Newest Rule Change
If you're a hardcore college football fan, as I am, you've no doubt heard about the newest rule change that threatens to shorten games by an estimated 12-20 plays, depending on the analysis. I won't rehash what's already been covered eloquently elsewhere (e.g. here, here), but rather comment on the broader story that lurks beneath the rule change.
SMQ rightfully noted that the rule change caters to the desire to serve the casual fans' interests - not the truly dedicated. What's so terribly offensive and, more importantly, misguided, is that it 1) takes for granted the hardcore fans, while 2) falling flat on its face in its intended effect.
The desire to market the sport to a more casual audience is not in and of itself a flawed idea. Sadly, though, college football decision makers are falling into the same misguided strategy pattern that's consumed Bud Selig over at Major League Baseball.
Selig's latest jaw-dropper: he told reporters that, perhaps, pitchers appearing in the All Star Game shouldn't be allowed to pitch on the Sunday before the contest.
Huh? Really? The logic underlying this idea is absurdly backwards. Like with college football, the attempt to cater to casual fans is not in and of itself a flawed idea. But when that catering comes at the expense of the very thing that makes the sport desirable, it's mind-boggling dumb. What's wonderful about baseball is the race for the postseason; not some silly exhibition game in July. And yet Mr. Selig wants to affect the former, by enforcing a rule to enhance the appeal of the latter? Really?

It hurts to be this dumb.
Now college football, no doubt motivated by the exact same misguided greed, wants to cater to casual fans by shortening the games. Is it really a good idea to water down your sport's greatest strengths just to get a few more boobs in front of the tube? Of course not. What's worse is that the strategy doesn't trust the sport and its strengths to speak for/sell themselves.
It's all going to get worse before it gets better. Considering that we're unlikely to leave the sports we love, it may not ever get better, though our resentment for being taken for granted will undoubtedly grow. So while I shake my head at this latest round of stupidity, I just thank my lucky stars that this rule wasn't around last year...
God forbid the Rose Bowl be allowed to go three and a half full hours. The audience just can't sit through that much action. 38-26 USC would have suited us all much, much better.

Just in time. The greatest game that ever was... wouldn't have happened this year.
--PB--
0 recs |
14 comments
Comments
Don't longer games mean more ad money...
Simplistic, yes, but don't tell me the NCAA actually cares about the health of the student-athletes. They just care about money, which was indicated when they added the 12th game this year.
by the other Andrew on Aug 1, 2006 11:05 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
My thinking on this is
I will bet that games don't get any shorter, but the tv time outs may get to sneak one more add in.
by Wells on Aug 1, 2006 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Different Take..
While I don't truly agree with what the rule change does, here's another way to look at it.. They added a game to the schedule (which I didn't think was a great idea, because that leaves one less bye week for players to rest), maybe this will help the player's chance to stay healthy during the regular season..
Oh, and btw, Vince would have still been in the end zone winning the national championship.. I like to believe inVINCEable always finds a way to win :)
by UMichGA on Aug 1, 2006 11:44 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Except twice
by USCLink on Aug 1, 2006 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting idea
Thanks for signing up to comment - reader comments are the best part of this site.
by Peter Bean on Aug 1, 2006 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Peter
by the other Andrew on Aug 1, 2006 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mulah
Get more viewers, make more money. I think it's backwards, as they're taking away from the game's strengths in the effort to lure more casual fans into the fold. But that's the idea.
Rar...
by Peter Bean on Aug 1, 2006 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So then the networks are calling the shots?
I know all about Neilson ratings and how ad money is made, but a shorter game will ultimately result in less commercials. IMO, I dont think "less commercials, more eyeballs" automatically beats out "more commercials, less eyeballs."
You can point to the Super Bowl as an argument. By far the most ad money is made here and the Super Bowl lasts about, what, 12 hours? Totally illogical and total bullshit. We watch what we want to watch, not because of it's length.
Also, this totally demolishes the smaller D-1 (that dont get to be on tv) schools ability to make in-house money at concession stands.
I hate the NCAA
by the other Andrew on Aug 1, 2006 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Me too
Otherwise, they'd just shorten the TV timeouts.
In any case: yup, stupid NCAA.
by Peter Bean on Aug 1, 2006 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Less commercials
by billb on Aug 1, 2006 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
by Rigger on Aug 1, 2006 12:06 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
No Big Deal
The length of a game is pretty arbitrary. Sixty minutes was chosen once upon a time, and if it ends up that a few less minutes are "actually played" than before, who cares? I'm sure that once upon a time, when refs just watched their watches to time games, a lot less game time resulted then, too.
The only real issue I see on this is the idea of a game ending with no one on the field. I think changing the clock-start rule in the last 2 minutes or so of a quarter would be appropriate.
by Jeff on Aug 1, 2006 2:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Wrong Issue to Argue
Close games are still going to come down to the final drive regardless of the fact that it took 10-15 fewer plays to get there.
The strange thing is the how the NCAA decided to shorten games. It makes little sense to start the closk in that situation. I would prefer to see College adopt the NFl rules regarding out of bounds. Do we really need the clock stopped after the second play in the first quarter where the RB stepped out of bounds on a sweep?
by Jason Mayer on Aug 1, 2006 3:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs


























