Burnt Orange Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Doug Flutie's Hail Mary, And Why College Sports Matter

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  |  Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Don't longer games mean more ad money...
and concession sales?

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
you reduce the game time to allow for more adds and half time crap to fit into 3 1/2 hours.
I will bet that games don't get any shorter, but the tv time outs may get to sneak one more add in.
The Harbinger of Deleted Diaries

by Wells on Aug 1, 2006 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Different Take..
I've read your site for quite awhile and have enjoyed your view on many things..

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
He's almost invinceble...but he's still human
Fight On! Beat the Razorbacks!

by USCLink on Aug 1, 2006 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Interesting idea
By limiting the number of plays, I suppose you're limiting the number of opportunities for a player to get hurt. But as you note, they've added an extra game as well, negating whatever advantage that might bring. In the end, then, even if it's the same number of total plays, you're sacrificing the quality of the game for opportunities to make more money. It's the same backward strategy as baseball; in the long run, not doing what's best for the game itself backfires.

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
explain to me how the time/ play cut will mean more money.

by the other Andrew on Aug 1, 2006 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Mulah
They won't lose any ad revenue from this, Drew. They make their money based on how many people are watching the game, not just how many commercials they can squeeze into the game. The whole idea is to get more casual fans watching these games, as currently they're "too long" to hold some demographic's attention.

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?
The games are currently  "too long" because of TV, almost a whole hour sometimes.

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
I'm stumped. Everything is done for the $, so I'm just making my best guess here. The only rationale I can see is that they want to lure casual fans.

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
I do not think they will actually show fewer commercials. I think the goal is to get the games to fall into 3 1/2 hour blocks, so they are complete programs (this makes it easier to sell ad time as you have some idea of what part of the country will be watching). If they can shorten each game they can fit more games per day into thier programming. There is always another game after it and they are trying to keep them from overlapping. The networks will make sure they get thier ads in no matter what.

by billb on Aug 1, 2006 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well
Those two loses were the result of Scott Ware. He didnt want Young to have a better record than his own beloved Matty. So he disguised himself in opposing uniforms and made sure to dictate the outcome of those games.

by Rigger on Aug 1, 2006 12:06 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Wow
I'd forgotten all about that...man that Scott Ware is something special (and his dad would break me in half).
Fight On! Beat the Razorbacks!

by USCLink on Aug 1, 2006 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No Big Deal
I think too big a deal is being made of this whole 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
The issue here shouldn't be the fact that fewer plays will be run.  All that means is that we'll see fewer three-and-outs and other stalled drives that result in punts.

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

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Burnt Orange Nation, a blog dedicated to University of Texas athletics. Get BON updates via Twitter.
Start posting about the Longhorns »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Bevo_small
Aggie Week: Let's hear your favorite Aggie joke.
T1_1018_coltheisman_small
Texas vs UC Irvine Gameflow (+/- stats included)
Horns_small
Thanks to our Men & Women in the Armed Forces

Recent FanPosts

Small
Big 12 Championship Tickets [Open Thread]
Small
Longhorn Volleyball Fans..
Elephantlogoorange_small
Texas: Thanks.
Buddy_tower_48x48_small
Is aTm aware that Thanksgiving is two days away?
Images_small
Do not wish VY to be a Texan
Vandammeband_small
A Quick Look at Pitt
Chris_hookem_small
Thoughts After My Last Game at DKR (as a student)
Brandedbevo1024x768_small
Texas-Iowa Game Preview
Small
Colt McCoy Selected as 2009 O'Brien Finalist!
Clock_tower_small
Mystery Recruit?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Site Editors

Pb6_small Peter Bean

Dark_pumpkin_small awiggo

Menbooger_small GhostofBigRoy

Contributing Authors

Jersey_front_small 54b

Zombie_profilepic_small Horn Brain

Gse_multipart20834_small 40AS

Pigeons_small billyzane

Small whills

Brandedbevo1024x768_small dimecoverage

Rosebowl_small txtwstr7

Small TheElusiveShadow

Me_small burnt in ny

Official Partner of CBS Sports