Sometimes change is not good

[huskernumerouno]

An oversight: Longer play clock won't slow offenses

 

By Matt Hayes - SportingNews

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe it's just me, but have you ever -- in the history of breathing -- heard anyone complain that a football game is too long?

 

Yet here we are, for the second time in three years, watching the NCAA football rules committee tinker with the pace of the game. Because apparently it's broken -- despite the fact that college football never has been more popular, never has produced more revenue.

 

Here's the kicker: the explosion of offense over the past three or four years -- a trend that many coaches don't like -- will get only worse with the proposed rules. One of the recommendations: a 40-second play clock that begins at the end of every play.

 

Guess whom that favors?

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

If the 40-second play clock is approved by the oversight panel in April, you'll see more teams move to the no-huddle offense from the ever-expanding/popular spread-option scheme. Imagine if you will, this scenario:

 

Noel Devine rips off a 25-yard run for West Virginia, the ball is spotted and the offense lines up with about 30 or so seconds on the play clock. That's an eternity to read a defense, find a flaw and expose it.

 

It's bad enough that no one -- no one -- has figured out a way to slow down the spread option. Now, we'll simply give teams who run the scheme more of an advantage.

 

But those in the rules committee think they've found a way to balance that out: the running clock. Under the new proposed rule -- which, like all the others, must be approved by the oversight council in April -- the official will start the game clock after a player runs out of bounds and the ball is spotted ready for play.

 

The proposed rule will not apply to the final two minutes of each half, but there still will be time lost from the change. How much? Likely not enough to impact a game -- and certainly not enough to slow down offenses.

 

Matt Hayes is a writer for Sporting News. E-mail him at mhayes@sportingnews.com.

[Huskerballz]

This is ridiculous! Why are all these committees so obsessed with changing the timeframe of the game? I love watching a 3 and a half hour football game. Never once have I complained. It's the best three and a half hourse of the damn week. I get to drink beer, eat amazingly unhealthy but delicious food and bullsh*t with friends. Why try to shorten that time??

 

Leave the game alone you nazis!!!

[Hunter94]

This is ridiculous! Why are all these committees so obsessed with changing the timeframe of the game? I love watching a 3 and a half hour football game. Never once have I complained. It's the best three and a half hourse of the damn week. I get to drink beer, eat amazingly unhealthy but delicious food and bullsh*t with friends. Why try to shorten that time??

 

Leave the game alone you nazis!!!

 

 

no sh#t, morons.

[papersun87]

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

[Touchdown Tommie]

I don't get it either.....they made the change a couple of years ago and that did not last. Just leave things alone and let the boys play ball and the coaches coach and the fans enjoy watching all of it happen.

[papersun87]

I don't get why the NCAA wants so badly to speed up the game . . . it's not like they're going to speed them up so much that ABC can squish another game in between the 2:30 and 7:00 games. I would think the networks would be wanting to stretch the games out as long as possible to have more time for ads.

[Bleeding Husker Red]

I don't get why the NCAA wants so badly to speed up the game . . . it's not like they're going to speed them up so much that ABC can squish another game in between the 2:30 and 7:00 games. I would think the networks would be wanting to stretch the games out as long as possible to have more time for ads.

 

They can sell ads whether football is on or some other show. They probably want shorter games so they can put on a movies or something afterwards.

[Drowning_in_the_Sea_of_Red]

Maybe it's just me, but have you ever -- in the history of breathing -- heard anyone complain that a football game is too long?

He must not have watched any games with Nebraska fans last year...

 

There were about 4 or 5 games that I wished would've ended at halftime...

 

Other than that, I agree that speeding up the game is stupid. Who wants less football?

[HuskerTrucker]

This is a joke...right?

[strigori]

I can not fathom why they think shaving something like 10 or 12 min off a game matters at all. If someone is already 3 hours invested, whats 10 min?

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[bnel6]

stop changing things

[Husker Drew]

 

Guess whom that favors?

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

 

Yeah, because if there is one thing they need more of it is money!

[papersun87]

The word "advertisement" is in there because he copied/pasted it from a news website that had an ad there . . . it's not part of the article.

[hastingshusker]

My two cents on this issue:

 

I think that there should be a 35 second clock that begins at the end of the next play. It isn't something that should be done to speed up the game but to add more consistencies to it. I personally was confused a few times last year when we would come out of what seemed like a timeout in the stadium and something the team would have 15 seconds on the clock where other times the team was standing waiting on the ref to start the clock that was set at 25 seconds. Yes this will give teams more time to read over a defense and check in and out of certain aspects of their offense but shouldnt the defense be able to disguise things?

 

If the offense is reading what the defense is doing and they are constantly changing then it becomes a chess game. This forces the defensive coaches to be able to step things up and if I am not mistaken didn't Bo say something about disguising everything and "coming from all corners" The defensive coaches should always be a step ahead of the offense they are facing. That is being proactive towards stoping a team rather then reactive....something we have grown acustom to seeing.

 

As with everything that happens in college football its cyclical. It will only be a matter of time before the spread offense is truly mastered from a defensive standpoint, when that happens the "norm" will switch to something new.

 

The play clock changes should be to make teams become more effective in play calling (lets be honest there were times the last few years when 1:00 play clock wouldn't have helped get plays going) I think this will be good for the game, and I don't believe it will speed it up that much, it will just teams to be more efficient in what they do. Heck, I personally love seeing plays signaled in to the teams, but if they have longer to do it that isn't really needed as much.

[popcorn]

Hell, why stop the clock at all! Let the forward pass be a live ball just like a backwards pass (lateral)!