Rule changes for the game clock

[StatTiger 3,188]

How much has the new rules regarding the game clock changed the college game? Check out these numbers…

Number of teams averaging at least 400 yards on offense:

2000: 38

2001: 43

2002: 30

2003: 39

2004: 33

2005: 40

2006: 22

Number of teams averaging 30 pts or more per game:

2000: 37

2001: 33

2002: 36

2003: 34

2004: 29

2005: 36

2006: 22

Number of teams allowing less than 300-yards per game on defense:

2000: 13

2001: 10

2002: 12

2003: 11

2004: 13

2005: 9

2006: 40

Number of teams allowing less than 14 pts per game on defense:

2000: 4

2001: 4

2002: 2

2003: 1

2004: 3

2005: 2

2006: 13

Number of teams averaging 200 yards rushing or more:

2000: 20

2001: 23

2002: 27

2003: 19

2004: 19

2005: 21

2006: 11

Number of individual rushers averaging 100 yards rushing per game or more:

2000: 26

2001: 30

2002: 35

2003: 28

2004: 23

2005: 34

2006: 17

[WAR EAGLE!!! 0]

Wow. As always, very very interesting. It seems everyone would gripe about the length of the games and the amount of snaps, but this puts the hard core consequences of the lack of snaps down on paper. I would have never guessed that the game would have been effected this much statistically.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I wonder why Tubs likes the new reule so much.

[rolltoomer 0]

I wonder why Tubs likes the new reule so much.

One thing that drove Tuberville--to use what he has said--is that having the 12th game, without lengthening the season, is a grind and an injury-producer. He saw this as a way to reduce wear and tear.

[abrnfanatc 6]

All this, and still I missed the end of the Florida game on my DVR.

Game time shortened, commercial time extended. Yet another win for the Presidents, AD's and ESPN's of the world.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I wonder why Tubs likes the new reule so much.

One thing that drove Tuberville--to use what he has said--is that having the 12th game, without lengthening the season, is a grind and an injury-producer. He saw this as a way to reduce wear and tear.

I saw that but then one has to ask the question "why then does he won't a playoff for the NC which would extend the season even more?"

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

The difference in the rules has decreased the overall game length by an average of 13 minutes from last year. The number of plays has decreased by an average of 10-11. Is this significant? Judging by the decline in stats, I would say yes. The overall playing minutes will be reduced but does it actually reduce "wear & tear" on the players? Maybe. Closer games might mean the starters stay in the game longer. If reducing wear & tear is the objective, then playing one less game in the regular season is the way to go. If the objective is to reduce the length of the games, then the same result can be achieved by reducing the length of the quarters.

[StatTiger 3,188]

The difference in the rules has decreased the overall game length by an average of 13 minutes from last year. The number of plays has decreased by an average of 10-11. Is this significant? Judging by the decline in stats, I would say yes. The overall playing minutes will be reduced but does it actually reduce "wear & tear" on the players? Maybe. Closer games might mean the starters stay in the game longer. If reducing wear & tear is the objective, then playing one less game in the regular season is the way to go. If the objective is to reduce the length of the games, then the same result can be achieved by reducing the length of the quarters.

I agree. Even if the game is reduced by 15 plays per game, it's still 12 opportunities for a player to be injured. Under the current rules regarding the time clock, a game between 2 passing teams will normally have about the same number of plays as before the rule change. It becomes more obvious when one or both teams focus on the run.