Clock rule change data after week zero and week one: games are being significantly shortened

I know a lot of people here are blaming the NCAA or the conferences, but many of the coaches were persuaded by the argument that (especially with high-tempo no-huddle offenses) the players (especially defensive players) were being exposed to too many snaps. And the NFL encourages college football to adopt more of its rules (I saw Ryan Day saying he wants to bring in the hashes), the better for them to evaluate players (and coaches). I say screw 'em. Most of the college rules are better than the NFL rules, IMO.

It would be helpful if conferences push back on the long commercial breaks: once a upon a time they were one minute long (look at games from the 70s on YT); then (in the 80s?) they extended to 1.5 to 2 minutes; now (especially on Fox) they are 2.5-3 minutes. And honestly advertisers, how effective do you think your spot is going to be sandwiched in between five or six others?

[Besides commercials, the other reason games are much longer these days is because of increased passing, and thereby incomplete passes. If you look at lower division games between running teams and without all the commercial breaks, and they finish in under three hours.If they really have to shorten the game a bit without punishing running teams or teams trying to come back, what they should have done instead of running the clock on first downs, was to instead temporarily stop the clock on incomplete passes, and restart it on the RFP signal (as they do now for runs out of bounds, or the old rules for first downs), until the last three (not two) minutes or so of a half.]

One NFL-like change I could live with is the 15 second in-game commercial after a possession change or some stoppage where there's a split screen showing live/Geico. If they do that a few times a game AND eliminate a couple longer commercial breaks, it'd be better for fans in the stadium and couch fans alike. I realize the qualifier of "end longer commercial breaks" makes this unlikely because the NCAA needs a foot more hundos in the pile to roll naked in every season...

Thanks to the NCAA we have less college football per game, more commercials per game, and more inflated salaries at the NCAA.  What a deal.  Hope they change to clock rules back eventually.

The length of the game on Saturday was 3:14. Last year it was averaging closer to 3:40. I don't have the actual stats but checking the box score from game last year should check out.

The TV networks are still getting their commercials in. The teams adapted well because there were few very delay of game penalties. The coaching staff can adapt better as the season goes on with the play calling.

When there is a football game happening on the field that embodies continuity and flow there doesn't need to be music blaring out of speakers constantly or scoreboards the size of Rhode Island.

That crap is just to distract fans in the stadium that they are paying more and getting less yet again.

Running the clock when football isn't being played is dumb. 117 plays at what, four seconds per play? So you sit there for four hours and watch *8 minutes* of football actually being played.

But I guess it follows the trend: A season of Gunsmoke was 40-some one-hour episodes. Now a "season" of a show is eight episodes. A 30-minute sitcom used to have 26 minutes of actual sitcom. Now it's a bit over 20.

Ugh.

Why would the NCAA think fans would be ok shortening the games and increasing commercial time? 

If Michigan fans refused to enter the stadium until after kickoff in protest of this ridiculous rule, I'll bet that would get some attention. 

I haven't watched a college football commercial in years. I either switch channels to another game or catch up on the MGo Board thread. It's funny when some people comment on the poor quality of commercials. I wonder, is there no other game you're interested in that you can switch to? 

As someone who works in TV and has access to game formats for various broadcast networks, I can answer the question of whether or not they are adding more commercials when I have some time to compare 2022 and 2023 formats and even years prior to that.

I will say on an initial review of the first weekend of the 2022 vs. 2023 seasons comparing Colorado State @ Michigan in 2022 (ABC noon game) vs. Virginia @ Tennessee in 2023 (ABC noon game), the format sheets/break durations are nearly identical except for one national break in 2022 being 10 seconds longer than one in 2023.

Same with the Notre Dame @ Ohio State game in 2022 (ABC prime time game) vs. North Carolina vs. South Carolina (2023 ABC prime time game).  They are the same.

There can sometimes be a short floating break, such as if a team calls time out they might go to a quick 30 second break, but nothing major.

Other times, they will float breaks if quarters burn by and they don't have to air them all.  For example, if Michigan goes on a 10 minute first quarter drive and there's no opportunity for TV to air all four national breaks scheduled that quarter (lets say they only air three), they will float that missed break to the next quarter, so now if there are enough stoppages in play they will air five national breaks in the second quarter instead of four.  So to the viewer/fan that will make that second quarter drag with breaks and complain they're airing more commercials, when really it's the same amount of commercial time for the game, it just got spread out unevenly.

As for why broadcasts are varying lengths, you'd have to go back and watch each game to really get an answer.  Could be delays from injuries, teams calling time outs, etc... If games are shorter this year, are they adding more filler, like teams walking out of the tunnel pre-game and warming up and yammering more?  Doesn't necessarily mean they're adding more commercials.

I went to my first NFL game last season. The commercial breaks made it so that I will never go to another NFL game. It was horrible. Now college wants to emulate that and then try to spin it as if it is better for fans. 

No one I know has ever said "Hey give me less product for more money!" 

It's kind of amazing they took a commercial break with 19 seconds left in a quarter. But hey, look at those piles of money the athletic department absolutely cannot under any circumstances share with the players because of amateurism. 

I've stopped watching a lot of Michigan football even on TV. I gotta sign up for Paramount and Peacock and put up with a sea of commercials to see Michigan beat up on an overmatched ECU team on Labor Day weekend? Fuck that.

It's sad. Saturdays used to BE college football. I'd watch the Michigan game then every other game until PAC-12 after dark. There is a zero percent chance I'm watching any other game than Michigan if I'm not tuning into every Michigan game anymore.

If you carry back that analysis another 10+ years you’ll see the reason why they made the change.  The number of plays per game is up significantly from the 3 yards and a cloud of dust era.  Meanwhile; the number of games per season for a typical team has grown as well - from the 11 game seasons of the past to 12 today and up to 16 games for a national champion or runner up.

Also; if you compare the number of plays per game to the pro game, you’ll see the rule change will draw us closer to the pro game as well.

The goal is to right size the number of player exposures to potential injury (especially CTE/Concussions.

So. . . to put this another way: ten percent less of the actual product. I am not watching in such a distracted way that to even say that I'm watching the games starts to be a stretch. Obviously, it's going to impact outcomes; just how remains TBD.

I'd say I'm pretty old too, but I'm not sure I can say I'm pretty anymore, just old.