October 31, 2006
New rules make cut plays out of games
The Wizard of Odds has this week's update and year-over-year comparison of the impact that NCAA Rule 3-2-5-e has had on games. According to the numbers, the average game is 14 minutes shorter in overall length and there are 16 fewer plays run per game.
For those that aren't familiar with Rule 3-2-5-e, it essentially says that the clock will start on the "ready for play" whistle after a first down or change of possession. The NCAA, in its infinite wisdom, thought that this change would cut five minutes from the overall game time.
Here's the breakdown from Da Wiz:
Overall...G........Plays......Plays/G....Min.......Min/G......Time/G 2005......488.....82324.....168.70.....97698*....200.61.....3:20:37 2006......531.....80996.....152.53.....99069.....186.57.....3:06.34 * missing game duration of Toledo-Ball State 10/15/2005Year......G........Points.....Pts/G
2005......488.....25494.....52.24
2006......531.....25069.....47.21Year.......G.....1H Pts....1H Pts/G...2H Pts....2H Pts/G...OT
2005......488...12842.....26.32......12315.....25.23.......337
2006......531...12985.....24.45......11755.....22.14.......329
Think about that: The NCAA has basically cut out three offensive drives out of every game. Why? To improve games? No. To appease the TV overlords - plain and simple.
If this gets you hot under the sports collar, sign the resolution protesting 3-2-5-e at We Hate the New Clock Rules. Or, if you really want to light up the NCAA, get in touch with Mr. Ty Halpin.
Comments:
JZNole said:
posted on October 31, 2006 2:07 PM — 12.177.80.3 — link — abuse?
I think this rule definitely needs to change. If nothing else, don't use it in the last 5 minutes of each half.
As for Vegas, I'd be willing to bet that they took everything into account and have already adjusted for this. Although it would be interesting to see the winning% of O/U so far this year.
AgRyan04 said:
posted on October 31, 2006 8:13 PM — 72.181.60.135 — link — abuse?
The irony is that the reason for the rule change was to appease the TV suits so the games would fit in the timeslots better and there wouldn't be as many overlaps in coverage (end of the 11am game with the beginning of the 2:30pm game).
Of course the reason the games have gone long are because of the TV timeouts that we all wait on minute after minute after minute after each change of possession while we stand in the bleachers.
I don't know about all of you guys, but I wait all week long for kickoff and the last thing I want is for them to take football away from me.
WB said:
posted on October 31, 2006 11:07 PM — 71.14.120.150 — link — abuse?
I hate the new rule. I agree about TV timeouts....take a couple out. The end of the USC/Tenn game was somewhat [from a S.Carolina perspective :-)] affected by this rule. It makes it significantly harder to run a 2-minute drill. This has certainly affected many games in the same way.
Steve Tessem said:
posted on November 1, 2006 3:13 PM — 63.116.145.132 — link — abuse?
I calculated that there are roughly 10% fewer plays in a given game. I haven't noticed a corresponding drop in ticket prices.
Perhaps most athletic departments have adopted the Postal Service's business model - if consumers are unhappy with your product, and you stand to lose business revenue as a result, the solution is to decrease the amount of product on offer and raise its price.
S.C.U.M. said:
posted on November 2, 2006 3:41 PM — 209.168.248.130 — link — abuse?
I think the real danger is if football going the way of baseball. When games get long and there is too big a pause in between plays, people become disinterested.
I take back what I said before; the rule should be repealed and a new one instated limiting the number of times a television time-out can be called per game.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on November 2, 2006 7:41 PM — 64.32.153.19 — link — abuse?
Me thinks this way. I beleive the rule was put into play in order to create more parity in college football. The BCS has been taking alot of heat for too many zero to one loss teams left standing at the end. The extra 16 plays lost - definately favors the lesser team in every single game. Notice the tremendous amount of close games or upsets from teams that couldn't do that before. Do you think USC would have lost to Oregon State if there were 16 more plays in that game? How bout Georgia and Vanderbilt? Name any others you like. The more talented team always benefits by more plays. The "extra" 12th game also creates a scenario where it will be tougher to go unbeaten also. It all benefits the NCAA as they make more and more money. But, these rules have been adopted to create more chance for lousy teams to pull off upsets. It was the same thing when they changed to this silly overtime scenario where both teams get the ball at the 25. If it were the old way, the lesser team would rarely win in OT, as they would have to move all the way down the field to score. No, they're just trying to make all teams equal to pack the stands in each and every stadium. It will become tougher and tougher for the top programs to dominate each and every year.
Tommie T
JT said:
posted on November 12, 2006 12:10 AM — 71.213.226.54 — link — abuse?
They won't shorten TV timesout for the same reason there will not be a playoff system, at least in the near future: money. With a playoff system, the NCAA would get the revenue, rather than the bowls and teams associated with those games (unless, of course, you played in the Houston Bowl last year). Likewise, TV timesout will not shorten because that means less revenue, unless businesses would start bankrolling the broadcast of entire games instead of simply a commercial slot.
Ken said:
posted on November 21, 2006 1:16 PM — 204.98.2.45 — link — abuse?
I think that (tongue in cheek) that the NCAA should keep the clock running during free throws in college basketball games. Games (BC--Before commercals) would run 2 hours. Now 2 1/2 hours. The NCAA is trying to ruin college football, why not college basketball?
insurance life rates said:
posted on December 3, 2006 8:51 PM — 67.188.118.169 — link — abuse?
insurance life rates insurance life rates
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Raider Power said:
posted on October 31, 2006 11:17 AM — 199.43.32.27 — link — abuse?Does this mean one should bet on the unders on every game? I wonder the % of unders that have hit this year.
I would hypothosize that if a person were to bet on the unders for every game in college football this year, there would be a betting arbitrage & that person would make a lot of money. Five points a game is a huge difference; surely Vegas wasn't prepared for that much of a change.