Change play clock to 35 seconds to offset no clock stoppage after most first downs

[uihawk82]

There are some naysayers as far as the new rule change letting the clock run after first downs that are not in the last 2 minutes of each half, iirc.

Some people want more plays, yes that would be great.

Look at it this way, a football game is 3,600 seconds long. If both teams run a total of 160 plays which is not out of line then the avg time between plays is 22.5 seconds. And the clock will still stop after incomplete passes.

So if you want some more plays how about changing the 40 second play clock to 35 seconds which is still about 10 seconds longer than the average between whistles and snaps. This might hurt Iowa a bit but so what, get the plays in and run them.

I think a faster play clock would be good for the fans especially, maybe make teams play a few more 2nd teamers, etc.

And I agree that putting an advertisement in one quarter of the screen for 10 to 15 seconds every once in awhile would also work. Most ads dont lead me to buy anything anyway.

 

[redghost1974]

No, CFB time is already too long. For non-marquee games I'd DVR them. Watch them later to speed through dead time and commercials.

 

[LarryMullenJr.]

I think we all agree; the worst part of the length of a CFB game is unquestionably the commercials. I think we all also agree that the reason we get to see most/all of the games we want on TV is those same commercials.
I am willing to sacrifice part of the screen at certain times to shorten the game times--golf already does it with their "playing through" feature. It's annoying, but if it can shave 20-30 minutes off the broadcast of a game, then fine.
I think we'd all prefer to keep the actual game the same with the same amount of plays, and figure out how to trim the peripheral crap.

 

[BigTenHawkeye]

No, CFB time is already too long. For non-marquee games I'd DVR them. Watch them later to speed through dead time and commercials.

Changing the length of the play clock wouldn't/shouldn't have any impact on the length of the game...the game clock will run the same regardless.

EDIT - in theory it would speed up the game...as the plays that do stop the clock (i.e. incompletions, turnovers, etc) the shorter play clock would get the game clock starting faster/sooner

 

[LetsGoHawks83]

It's been repeated over and over.... If they are serious about shortening the game, ELIMINATE the TV timeouts. My gosh there are so many clock stoppages, timeouts, injury timeouts. You don't need a TV timeout after an extra point and immediately after the following kickoff.... Which happens ALL THE TIME.

But sure go ahead and shorten the game by having less football and the same/more commercial breaks. GENIUS MOVE.

 

[redghost1974]

Changing the length of the play clock wouldn't/shouldn't have any impact on the length of the game...the game clock will run the same regardless.

EDIT - in theory it would speed up the game...as the plays that do stop the clock (i.e. incompletions, turnovers, etc) the shorter play clock would get the game clock starting faster/sooner

I meant to clarify, not sure how much that speeds up the game. How many times a game does the play clock wind down past 35 seconds? I just don't think it will be that meaningful to change the total time. It's a decent suggestion.

 

[TheTruthTheWholeTruth]

No, CFB time is already too long. For non-marquee games I'd DVR them. Watch them later to speed through dead time and commercials.

Time has never been the problem. It’s the back to back to back to back commercials. Followed by a kickoff. Then another round of the same crap. That’s why BTN’s Football in 60 works so well.

 

[uihawk82]

Changing the length of the play clock wouldn't/shouldn't have any impact on the length of the game...the game clock will run the same regardless.

EDIT - in theory it would speed up the game...as the plays that do stop the clock (i.e. incompletions, turnovers, etc) the shorter play clock would get the game clock starting faster/sooner

Thanks, you explained my point very well. Sixty minutes of playing time is just that 60 minutes, but quickening the pace of play with a 35 second play clock puts back in some plays that will be missed by not stopping the clock after timeouts, for those people bitching about that.

 

[Grumpy Old Hawk]

There are some naysayers as far as the new rule change letting the clock run after first downs that are not in the last 2 minutes of each half, iirc.

Some people want more plays, yes that would be great.

Look at it this way, a football game is 3,600 seconds long. If both teams run a total of 160 plays which is not out of line then the avg time between plays is 22.5 seconds. And the clock will still stop after incomplete passes.

So if you want some more plays how about changing the 40 second play clock to 35 seconds which is still about 10 seconds longer than the average between whistles and snaps. This might hurt Iowa a bit but so what, get the plays in and run them.

I think a faster play clock would be good for the fans especially, maybe make teams play a few more 2nd teamers, etc.

And I agree that putting an advertisement in one quarter of the screen for 10 to 15 seconds every once in awhile would also work. Most ads dont lead me to buy anything anyway.

Less plays = more upsets. Longer you play the superior team will always win. Not good for college football as the same teams already win every year.

 

[Hawk_4shur]

I think they are trying to reduce the number of plays (vs shorten the game time) for player safety.