What do you guys think about the changes to football this year?

[tigerfan1234 0]

I watched the FSU-Miami game on ESPN-HD and the picture was spectacular as usual. During the game I heard one of the commentators mention that ESPN-2 was trying all these new camera angles so I decided to switch over for a minute to check it out. I absolutely hated it. There were like 9 different screens running all at once. I just want to watch the game please. I don't care about the head coach picking his nose or what the quarterbacks butt looks like. Please ESPN, get rid of that goofy new concept. Also, I hate how the clock runs when teams are running out on the field to start a series. It's not fair to penalize a team 30-40 seconds just because they are trying to speed up the game. Why not try getting rid of some of those dopey commercials and show more of the game, which is why people watch in the first place. I can see this new clock rule really affecting many games later in the season. Just want to get opinions.

[Ranger12 46]

I love the rule changes. It is like the pros now. If you will notice, there are actually less commericals because they can't take TV timeouts as often as they use too. That is the main reason I love it. Plus, it does feel good to not have to sit for 4 hours to watch a football game on TV.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I think the rule changes suck. Ranger, just wait till AU plays a CBS game. Theyll get their commercials in. But now we've shortened the game...and killed any possible two minute comebacks...all for the sake of television.

[abrnfanatc 6]

I think the rule changes suck. Ranger, just wait till AU plays a CBS game. Theyll get their commercials in. But now we've shortened the game...and killed any possible two minute comebacks...all for the sake of television.

I was thinking the same thing watching the game on Thursday night. I like the clock starting on the kick, but I don't particularly like seeing a team have to run out to the field after a punt to keep from getting a delay penalty. I do like the new review rules though, but the officials in the Miami/FSU and the UAB/Oklahoma games showed that they have some adjustments to make as well.

It seems that the SEC's officials have been doing their homework based on what I saw in Auburn and on the UK/Louisville game, but the rest need some work.

[Ranger12 46]

I think the rule changes suck. Ranger, just wait till AU plays a CBS game. Theyll get their commercials in. But now we've shortened the game...and killed any possible two minute comebacks...all for the sake of television.

how can you say all for the sake of television? Does it not work to televisions advantage that the games go longer so they can sell more ad space. How is CBS going to get all their ads in if they game is going to be shorter? Only if they shorten the lengths of their ads is that going to happen. If the do that, I don't care, because it still means less commercial breaks. I hate lulls in the game. I despise them. I can't stand TV timeouts and now they can't do those with change of possesions. Now, they have to wait until regular timeouts or after scoring drives.

[Boonan 0]

I like what one of the articles on CFN had to say... shortening the game with clock movement in itself isn't so bad, but the way they did it was stupid. I agree that if you want to speed it up, you shouldn't stop the clock on first downs, not do the stupid thing with starting the clock on the ready to play after the change of possession. That way you are speeding up the game, and it still makes the 2 minute drill a bit harder, but you also don't have to use a timeout on 1st down to stop the clock ont he change of possession.

Well, really I wish they didn't mess with it, but since they aren't goign to go back, I wish they'd weak it somehow.

[Ranger12 46]

I like what one of the articles on CFN had to say... shortening the game with clock movement in itself isn't so bad, but the way they did it was stupid. I agree that if you want to speed it up, you shouldn't stop the clock on first downs, not do the stupid thing with starting the clock on the ready to play after the change of possession. That way you are speeding up the game, and it still makes the 2 minute drill a bit harder, but you also don't have to use a timeout on 1st down to stop the clock ont he change of possession.

Well, really I wish they didn't mess with it, but since they aren't goign to go back, I wish they'd weak it somehow.

I do have a little bit of a problem with the change of possesion. I don't think they need to go back the way it was, because that was where we had all those stupid TV timeouts. But, they could do something where there is a certain amount of time the official takes to reset the ball on a change of possesion so that the team is not running out to the field to avoid a delay of game. I say about a 30-45 second delay between change of possession before the ref starts the play clock. That should give teams enough time to get the play from the coach and walk out to line up for the snap.

[Boonan 0]

I do have a little bit of a problem with the change of possesion. I don't think they need to go back the way it was, because that was where we had all those stupid TV timeouts. But, they could do something where there is a certain amount of time the official takes to reset the ball on a change of possesion so that the team is not running out to the field to avoid a delay of game. I say about a 30-45 second delay between change of possession before the ref starts the play clock. That should give teams enough time to get the play from the coach and walk out to line up for the snap.

More than immediately starting the play clock, what I've seen lots of complaints about is starting the game clock on the change of possession. Like in the Michigan Vandy game at the end of the first half, Michigan lost 20 seconds on the game clock because they didn't have their act together and didn't get out there very fast and by the time they got their first play off they were well under a minute (when they had about 1:15 left at the change of possession)... not that it matters in that game but it makes for a good example.

[Ranger12 46]

I do have a little bit of a problem with the change of possesion. I don't think they need to go back the way it was, because that was where we had all those stupid TV timeouts. But, they could do something where there is a certain amount of time the official takes to reset the ball on a change of possesion so that the team is not running out to the field to avoid a delay of game. I say about a 30-45 second delay between change of possession before the ref starts the play clock. That should give teams enough time to get the play from the coach and walk out to line up for the snap.

More than immediately starting the play clock, what I've seen lots of complaints about is starting the game clock on the change of possession. Like in the Michigan Vandy game at the end of the first half, Michigan lost 20 seconds on the game clock because they didn't have their act together and didn't get out there very fast and by the time they got their first play off they were well under a minute (when they had about 1:15 left at the change of possession)... not that it matters in that game but it makes for a good example.

That is what I am talking about...the rule has the game clock starting at the same time the play clock is started except for kickoffs. So, if they wait just a little longer to start the play clock after the change of possesion, then the game clock will not start too quickly either.

[JB33 1]

I think the rule changes suck. Ranger, just wait till AU plays a CBS game. Theyll get their commercials in. But now we've shortened the game...and killed any possible two minute comebacks...all for the sake of television.

how can you say all for the sake of television? Does it not work to televisions advantage that the games go longer so they can sell more ad space. How is CBS going to get all their ads in if they game is going to be shorter? Only if they shorten the lengths of their ads is that going to happen. If the do that, I don't care, because it still means less commercial breaks. I hate lulls in the game. I despise them. I can't stand TV timeouts and now they can't do those with change of possesions. Now, they have to wait until regular timeouts or after scoring drives.

I think BG's got it right. CBS, ESPN, whoever, are going to get paid, one way or the other. By shortening the game by (roughly) 30 minutes, that's 30 extra minutes of potential ad space they can market in connection with Reese, Lou and Mark (aka, the Three Stooges: 2006) or CSI:Wetumpka. I simply don't buy that the networks would allow these changes if it would negatively impact their bottom line.

As to the effect on the game, it's nonsense. If I'm not mistaken, Miami had to call a timeout after a punt last night to save time after the change of possession. That stinks. For all Miami did wrong last night, they'd managed to save their timeouts (thanks largely to several passing plays by FSU in its prior possession, but I digress); they should've been able to punt, then use their (3) timeouts on FSU's 1st, 2nd and 3rd downs, then get the ball back with a chance (and time) to win.

I agree that TV timeouts can be insufferable (especially if you're at the game), but, if the cost to get rid of them is 20 +/- snaps per game, I can live with it.

[Ranger12 46]

I think BG's got it right. CBS, ESPN, whoever, are going to get paid, one way or the other. By shortening the game by (roughly) 30 minutes, that's 30 extra minutes of potential ad space they can market in connection with Reese, Lou and Mark (aka, the Three Stooges: 2006) or CSI:Wetumpka. I simply don't buy that the networks would allow these changes if it would negatively impact their bottom line.

As to the effect on the game, it's nonsense. If I'm not mistaken, Miami had to call a timeout after a punt last night to save time after the change of possession. That stinks. For all Miami did wrong last night, they'd managed to save their timeouts (thanks largely to several passing plays by FSU in its prior possession, but I digress); they should've been able to punt, then use their (3) timeouts on FSU's 1st, 2nd and 3rd downs, then get the ball back with a chance (and time) to win.

I agree that TV timeouts can be insufferable (especially if you're at the game), but, if the cost to get rid of them is 20 +/- snaps per game, I can live with it.

You just made my point for me. Like you said, there is less time for them during the games for ads, so they will promote their own stuff afterwards. That means I don't have to watch those same ads after the game that I would have to suffer through during the game. I don't really care if the networks still get paid the same or not, just as long as I do not have to suffer through 20 freakin' TV timeouts to watch a ballgame, especially if my team has the momentum and then a ref whistles a TV timeout after a change of possesion. Most other sports only have TV timeouts when a timeout is called or at the end of a period or half-inning. Before this year, if a game was on TV, there was a TV timeout after every change of possesion most of the time.

If you take our most recent game. There were a total of 9 punts and 12 kickoffs. Take away the opening and second half kickoff, that makes for 19 change of possessions, which means 19 TV timeouts, not counting when regular timeouts were called if this was last season. That is about 35-40 minutes of TV commercials I have would have had to sit through last year compared to this year. Commercials for kickoffs I can handle so if you take the 9 punts that were change of possesions, then that is still almost 20 minutes, maybe more, of commercials.

Like I said, they can tweak the change of possesion to allow just a few more seconds before the ref blows the whistle to start the play clock, which also starts the game clock now. It is stupid for teams to have to rush on to the field at a change of possesion. But I don't want it to go back to taking nearly 4 hours to play a game because of the TV timeouts during the change of possesions. If you have ever been to a game that was not televised, with the old rules still in effect, have you ever noticed how much quicker the game goes by because the TV stations are not taking up so much time in between the change of possesions. I know the TV stations have to pay their bills and without them we would not have televised games, but I like the idea of not having the game changed because of so many TV timeouts.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Interestingly, theyve taken 15 plays out of the game...but they are on air for the same amount of time.

[aubrandon 5]

I do not like them. They can be managed though. For instance, When the game clock gets under three minutes to go in the final period, I think that the older rules should apply. If you are trailing by three with a minute and some change left, When the ref whistles for the 25 second clock to begin, the game clock also moves. I do not like this rule at all. The way the clock moves now it puts a premium on saving time outs.

If they wanted to shorten the games THEN LIMIT THE FREAKIN COMMERICALS. How many times do we have to hear, "Do you feel fresh" "If you have an errection for more than four hours" "What's in your wallet" "Built Ford tough" "Chevy an American revolution". If they would limit these commericals to three each per game, we would gain, I know, ten minutes of game time. I do not like messing with the integrety of the sport so networks can show the same commericals over and over and over and over. Get the point.

Change the rules back, Quit showing so many commericals, It's the consumers who pay the bills, Leave the Game alone, and as MAD MAX would say, Quit ruining my life.

[auee90 0]

They should take some notes from soccer (at least some of the World Cup) by having the periods commercial free, but sponsored by so-and-so. So for football, each quarter could be sponsored by a different company or product, with that name clearly displayed with the time and score. I have no problem with that. Everybody wins. They could still have real commercials during true time-outs (including injuries), before each half, and after the game. The network that does this first will dramatically improve its viewership if advertised properly.

[Ranger12 46]

One thing to think about and how so many commercial breaks can have an affect on the game. If we would have had as many commercial breaks as last year under the new rules, that would have given the WSU defense a little more time to rest. It would not have kept us from winning, that is for sure, but it could have prevented one of the TD drives. Against a better opponent, that could mean winning or losing the game. Of course that same thing can work against our defense also.

[GalensGhost 0]

Also, I hate how the clock runs when teams are running out on the field to start a series. It's not fair to penalize a team 30-40 seconds just because they are trying to speed up the game. Why not try getting rid of some of those dopey commercials and show more of the game, which is why people watch in the first place. I can see this new clock rule really affecting many games later in the season. Just want to get opinions.

Agree 100%.

Eliminate 19 promos for Grey's Anatomy, two Applebee's commercials and 178 spots pimping Notre Dame's next game and you shorten the broadcast by about 45 minutes. Don't deduct actual game time.

[eagle76 1]

As far as teams having to rush on to the field after a change of possession (punt or kick), I think this will fade after a few weeks. Coaches will learn how to have the offense ready with a play called. It's not like they don't know they are going to be getting the ball - they just don't know where. Now the only time the offense is at a true disadvantage with time is when there is a turnover. The offense has to really rush to get organized, play called, and on to the field. Good teams and coaches will adjust over time though.

[Aufan59 75]

I have noticed fewer commercials, and its is really nice. Either that or I was too used to the NFL and the touch down, commercial, extrapoint, commercial, kick off, comercial pattern while watching the preseason games.