Reducing Plays per Game

[vhcat70]

Per CBS, FBS has 180 plays/game vs. 155 in NFL: +16%. No wonder NFL gets by with 53 players. No wonder CFB games last so long.

CFB considering keeping clock running after 1D plays ex last 2 minutes of H. Reduces plays by 8/game. Keeping clock running after incompletes reduces by 18-20.

I'm good with either. Injury risk goes down too and I might not fall asleep so often.

 

[southindycat]

Per CBS, FBS has 180 plays/game vs. 155 in NFL: +16%. No wonder NFL gets by with 53 players. No wonder CFB games last so long.

CFB considering keeping clock running after 1D plays ex last 2 minutes of H. Reduces plays by 8/game. Keeping clock running after incompletes reduces by 18-20.

I'm good with either. Injury risk goes down too and I might not fall asleep so often.

I assume incompletes would still stop clock in final 2 minutes of half, just like first downs? Kind of a whole new game in 2 minute offense otherwise. Heupel is not happy. Probably kicked his dog tonight.

 

[gojvc]

Per CBS, FBS has 180 plays/game vs. 155 in NFL: +16%. No wonder NFL gets by with 53 players. No wonder CFB games last so long.

CFB considering keeping clock running after 1D plays ex last 2 minutes of H. Reduces plays by 8/game. Keeping clock running after incompletes reduces by 18-20.

I'm good with either. Injury risk goes down too and I might not fall asleep so often.

I’m surprised they didn’t adopt the NFL clock rules years ago. Not sure how they’re calculating but I think that would cut out more than 8 plays.

 

[seccats04]

It seems like we barely had 50 snaps a game last year. If we have 8 less plays a game we better be pretty efficient on offense from here on out. Instead of reducing plays, how about we just reduce the number of reviews/replays? There are way too many and it slows the game down unnecessarily.

 

[gamecockcat]

How about reducing the number of TV timeouts? Fans don't want less plays, they want shorter duration of the games. It's not the action that extends games, it's the dozens and dozens of TV timeouts and reviews. 3.5 hours to broadcast 60 minute games is ridiculous. I'd be OK not stopping the clock after FDs but not much else. The NFL runs fewer plays and it's still >3 hours to broadcast. It's all the other time sucks, not the actual action on the field.

 

[K_TIME]

- There isn't a good reason to stop the clock anymore for first downs. The chains can get set...it doesn't hamper the offense a bit to not have chains set for next play. Plus it gives teams a quasi timeout. I applaud if we stop the constant clock stoppages for no reason.
- I am bit less enthusiastic on keeping the clock running when a player goes out of bounds before the final 2 minutes of a half....and then stop the clock on out of bounds under 2 minutes. That feels like artificially playing with the game....if it is a rule inside of 2 minutes....then I'd see it that way the entire game.
- The last thing...I'd like to see reform to the challenges on the field. College seems very random in when a play is reviewed whereas NFL...teams have only so many challenges, scoring plays are reviewed, etc..

But college football games are way too long. NFL games are pretty much not longer than 3 hours....college is all over the place

 

[bigblueinsanity]

How about reducing the number of TV timeouts? Fans don't want less plays, they want shorter duration of the games. It's not the action that extends games, it's the dozens and dozens of TV timeouts and reviews. 3.5 hours to broadcast 60 minute games is ridiculous. I'd be OK not stopping the clock after FDs but not much else. The NFL runs fewer plays and it's still >3 hours to broadcast. It's all the other time sucks, not the actual action on the field.

If they really want to cut down game length this is the only answer. Of course it isn't even up for consideration because it will cost them money.

All the rest of the stuff is just bs to justify not touching the precious revenue from advertising.

 

[Lamar Card]

Heard it said on the radio the other day that the new XFL and the NFL have some agreements in place. The XFL will be a training ground for refs and a testing ground for new rules and procedures. One change being tested is that replays will be reviewed by a remote ref who will then notify the on field ref of the decision. The off site ref will review the play while the ball is being placed. The on field ref will go to the sideline video display and instead of reviewing the play will have the decision explained to him.

 

[know1]

I'm actually shocked that there are more plays in College. I guess it's because of the stoppages. But NFL teams look so much more efficient in running their offenses that I thought there would be more plays there. Then again, there are more "hurry up" offenses in college.

If they really want to shorten college games, though, they'd improve the quality and professionalism of the officiating.

 

[Soupbean]

How about reducing the number of TV timeouts? Fans don't want less plays, they want shorter duration of the games. It's not the action that extends games, it's the dozens and dozens of TV timeouts and reviews. 3.5 hours to broadcast 60 minute games is ridiculous. I'd be OK not stopping the clock after FDs but not much else. The NFL runs fewer plays and it's still >3 hours to broadcast. It's all the other time sucks, not the actual action on the field

Thats at the top of the list of reasons I dont go to live games anymore. Just not flow to games when they stop every 4 plays for a TV timeout and you have to wait there while the red hat guy holds things up. At home I can flip channels to another game and back.

 

[JHB4UK]

Reduce replay/review time, cut halftime to 15 min

 

[UKat51]

Per CBS, FBS has 180 plays/game vs. 155 in NFL: +16%. No wonder NFL gets by with 53 players. No wonder CFB games last so long.

CFB considering keeping clock running after 1D plays ex last 2 minutes of H. Reduces plays by 8/game. Keeping clock running after incompletes reduces by 18-20.

I'm good with either. Injury risk goes down too and I might not fall asleep so often.

I kinda like the games as they are. 3.5 hours per game is fine with me. I don’t want the college game identical to the pro game.

 

[Deeeefense]

A lot of the NFL teams I watch try to protect a 2 score lead into the 4th quarter and that results in burning a lot of clock whereas it seems more college teams are running a lot of tempo and just want to score, score, score, which you don't see that much in the NFL. Still 25 more plays a game is surprising to me, but like others have pointed out it's the rule differences that probably account for much of the time length difference. Agree with some of the clock rule changes but no way I would dump the college replay system. It may lengthen the game 10 or 15 more minutes but that's a cheap price for making sure every effort is made to get the call correctly. Numerous times I have seen the replay correct a call that could have otherwise changed the outcome in the wrong direction

 

[Ky grandpa]

Maybe the fans need to pay for the TV coverage if it's to long for you... I could watch UKFB play all day long... Take the idiot officials out of some of this by them wanting to see a replay every time a play is run... That would cut at least 15 minutes a game... To many replay's for crap and taking 5 min to see what the fans in the stands see is crazy...
Nothing the fans can do but stop watching if it's to long for you...


GBB

 

[Lost In FL]

How about reducing the number of TV timeouts? Fans don't want less plays, they want shorter duration of the games. It's not the action that extends games, it's the dozens and dozens of TV timeouts and reviews. 3.5 hours to broadcast 60 minute games is ridiculous. I'd be OK not stopping the clock after FDs but not much else. The NFL runs fewer plays and it's still >3 hours to broadcast. It's all the other time sucks, not the actual action on the field.

Let the clock run during commercials. Then teams would be lucky to 100 plays per game.

 

[Lost In FL]

I'm actually shocked that there are more plays in College. I guess it's because of the stoppages. But NFL teams look so much more efficient in running their offenses that I thought there would be more plays there. Then again, there are more "hurry up" offenses in college.

If they really want to shorten college games, though, they'd improve the quality and professionalism of the officiating.

Another poster mentioned NFL teams milking the clock in 4Q. That would lead to running up the score less often. As we all know, there is only one college HC that doesn't run up the score. )) Seriously, when college teams do run up the score (sometimes bc the teams are so imbalanced), that leads to longer and less exciting games.

 

[southindycat]

It seems like we barely had 50 snaps a game last year. If we have 8 less plays a game we better be pretty efficient on offense from here on out. Instead of reducing plays, how about we just reduce the number of reviews/replays? There are way too many and it slows the game down unnecessarily.

I could see these rule changes actually encouraging us to loosen a bit up on offense.

 

[southindycat]

What if they do away with the commercial break and make us watch like it's soccer... advertising panels always on screen, maybe scrolling at bottom or top? We all have Times Square tvs now. Why not?

 

[southindycat]

Reduce replay/review time, cut halftime to 15 min

Definitely a fan of shorter halftime break. Obviously a fan of speeding up reviews, perhaps reducing reviewable situations.

 

[Crystalglass]

This is misdirection from the powers that be. None of the clock stoppages actually add that much to the total time of the game. The first down stoppage is actually great for college football because it's advantageous for teams trying to make a comeback; you know, one of the most exciting things about the sport. 80 commercial breaks, games starting 15 minutes after their official start time to do pre-game interviews and analysis, and 30 minute halftimes are what really contribute to the bloated time of games.

This is just the latest advancement in the commodification of college football. The playoff, this, etc. are going to make the sport as bland and uniform as the NFL.

 

[CapnBlubs]

All I care about when watching a game is who wins it, not how long it's taking. And if I don't care about the former, I don't watch.

This same obsession with game shortening comes up with baseball all the time. And I really don't like the pitch clock changes for this season and beyond.

I realize I'm in the minority here. Nearly everyone else in the fan world seems to be bored with something they've chosen to watch in the first place. If it's time to relax and enjoy a game why are you so worked up to move on from it?

 

[SaltyCat22]

A running clock may be the only chance Stoops has of beating Tennessee. Dude probably has a boner seeing that talked about. But he’s still so bad at clock management situations I doubt it’d matter. Heupel needs to go.

 

[Deeeefense]

All I care about when watching a game is who wins it, not how long it's taking. And if I don't care about the former, I don't watch.

This same obsession with game shortening comes up with baseball all the time. And I really don't like the pitch clock changes for this season and beyond.

I realize I'm in the minority here. Nearly everyone else in the fan world seems to be bored with something they've chosen to watch in the first place. If it's time to relax and enjoy a game why are you so worked up to move on from it?

Nothing wrong with that, however the concern that I have is that on at least one maybe two occasions last season we missed the first several minutes of a Kentucky game because the previous game ran over. To make it worse ESPN put a banner up on the game that said the Kentucky games was available on an alternate channel, but in fact it was not.

 

[fabcat]

It seems like we barely had 50 snaps a game last year. If we have 8 less plays a game we better be pretty efficient on offense from here on out. Instead of reducing plays, how about we just reduce the number of reviews/replays? There are way too many and it slows the game down unnecessarily.

Main reason for that was how methodical we were getting in an out of the huddle. Believe Coen will be more up tempo than Scangarello was.

 

[gamecockcat]

All I care about when watching a game is who wins it, not how long it's taking. And if I don't care about the former, I don't watch.

This same obsession with game shortening comes up with baseball all the time. And I really don't like the pitch clock changes for this season and beyond.

I realize I'm in the minority here. Nearly everyone else in the fan world seems to be bored with something they've chosen to watch in the first place. If it's time to relax and enjoy a game why are you so worked up to move on from it?

I don't think anyone is bored with the game. It's the dozens of commercials that make actually watching the game interminable. 5 minutes of action followed by 5 minutes of commercials is not a good ratio. If every ten minutes of a movie were interrupted by a 4+ minute break for commercials, that would tend to lessen your enjoyment of the movie, right?

 

[fabcat]

I don't think anyone is bored with the game. It's the dozens of commercials that make actually watching the game interminable. 5 minutes of action followed by 5 minutes of commercials is not a good ratio. If every ten minutes of a movie were interrupted by a 4+ minute break for commercials, that would tend to lessen your enjoyment of the movie, right?

Yep. They could reduce commercial breaks. They will have a commercial after a score. Then again after the kickoff. They could take those away and save at least 15 mins. Also, after a change in possession from a turnover or punt. Why they have to go to commercial for that is ridiculous. I get it they have to make money but damn, it’s ridiculous

 

[UKnCincy]

Per CBS, FBS has 180 plays/game vs. 155 in NFL: +16%. No wonder NFL gets by with 53 players. No wonder CFB games last so long.

CFB considering keeping clock running after 1D plays ex last 2 minutes of H. Reduces plays by 8/game. Keeping clock running after incompletes reduces by 18-20.

I'm good with either. Injury risk goes down too and I might not fall asleep so often.

Reducing the number of plays by ~25 per game could be extremely important for UK when we move to a 9 game SEC schedule.

Assuming 180 plays per game, that means that an 8 game SEC schedule would have a total of 1,440 plays each season.

If you are able to reduce the number of plays to 155, then the total number of plays against SEC opponents would decrease despite the extra game. Total plays over 9 games would only be 1,395.

That could be huge in terms of protecting against the physical wear and tear of an extra SEC game.

 

[vhcat70]

Per CBS, FBS has 180 plays/game vs. 155 in NFL: +16%. No wonder NFL gets by with 53 players. No wonder CFB games last so long.

CFB considering keeping clock running after 1D plays ex last 2 minutes of H. Reduces plays by 8/game. Keeping clock running after incompletes reduces by 18-20.

I'm good with either. Injury risk goes down too and I might not fall asleep so often.

Well, at this late date something is not making sense. I looked up UK & opponents total plays for the season, divided by 13, and got 123 plays/game. Net, the original number seems way off now. Sorry.

 

[CapnBlubs]

I don't think anyone is bored with the game. It's the dozens of commercials that make actually watching the game interminable. 5 minutes of action followed by 5 minutes of commercials is not a good ratio. If every ten minutes of a movie were interrupted by a 4+ minute break for commercials, that would tend to lessen your enjoyment of the movie, right?

Of course, but that's a different issue. I'm talking about disagreeing with making actual rule changes to the flow of the game itself (like the pitch clock in baseball or running clock in football). Not changes to the timeout structure.

 

[Madcat62]

How about reducing the number of TV timeouts? Fans don't want less plays, they want shorter duration of the games. It's not the action that extends games, it's the dozens and dozens of TV timeouts and reviews. 3.5 hours to broadcast 60 minute games is ridiculous. I'd be OK not stopping the clock after FDs but not much else. The NFL runs fewer plays and it's still >3 hours to broadcast. It's all the other time sucks, not the actual action on the field.

I agree 100% but the money will win out here

 

[UKnCincy]

Well, at this late date something is not making sense. I looked up UK & opponents total plays for the season, divided by 13, and got 123 plays/game. Net, the original number seems way off now. Sorry.

Regardless of whether it’s 123 plays per game or your original number, I’d still be in favor of considering rule changes that result in a modest reduction in total plays per game.

Playing against an SEC opponent just takes more out of a team than playing most other schools. Even when you’re playing a poorly performing team like Florida, they still have elite level athletes all over the field engaging in elite level collisions play after play. So while you may come away with a win, the physical wear and tear when playing teams like Florida or South Carolina can still be very, very high.

If the rule changes reduced total plays by 13-14 plays per game (about an 11% reduction), then our total plays against SEC opponents in a 9 game schedule would be about the same as it currently is when playing 8 games.

From a fan perspective, I’m not sure that 13 fewer plays per game would be that noticeable, and if it helps us keep guys healthy throughout the season then I’d be all for that.

 

[ryanbruner]

Nfl players are also 1000x better than college players. If you’re going to reduce the number of plays….the quality of play on the field will start to fall drastically.

 

[UKnCincy]

Nfl players are also 1000x better than college players. If you’re going to reduce the number of plays….the quality of play on the field will start to fall drastically.

Maybe, but that seems unlikely to me. I think players and coaches will adjust.

What I do know is that, as things stand today, the quality of play already starts to deteriorate as we progress through the SEC schedule and guys get banged up. Going to 9 SEC games is just going to exacerbate that.

Personally, I think that reducing the number of plays by a moderate amount will help us more than it would hurt. But I certainly could be wrong about that.

 

[JHB4UK]

Nfl players are also 1000x better than college players. If you’re going to reduce the number of plays….the quality of play on the field will start to fall drastically.

That is a logical conclusion....however, fewer plays means more snaps by first stringers than backups. because the games are shorter, they will be closer, starters play higher % of snaps than 2nd/3rd stringers get now.

 

[UKnCincy]

That is a logical conclusion....however, fewer plays means more snaps by first stringers than backups. because the games are shorter, they will be closer, starters play higher % of snaps than 2nd/3rd stringers get now.

Yep, agree with your line of thinking here.

Personally, I think this seems like a rule change that is worth trying out for a couple of seasons. If it were to somehow seriously degrade the quality of play, then it’s easy enough to change the rules back.

 

[Littlefeller]

I don't think anyone is bored with the game. It's the dozens of commercials that make actually watching the game interminable. 5 minutes of action followed by 5 minutes of commercials is not a good ratio. If every ten minutes of a movie were interrupted by a 4+ minute break for commercials, that would tend to lessen your enjoyment of the movie, right?

Exactly and what do the powers that be do to shorten the game-they cut out some if what we actually tuned in to see-THE GAME!

Maybe they need to consider cutting back their “money cow” and save some viewers they r losing plus maybe gaining new viewers! DUH

 

[The-Hack]

Maybe we could reduce the number of plays inter-conference, and “bank” them for the U of L game.

If you like 50-10 scores, just imagine 100-20 scores.

 

[The-Hack]

Maybe they need to consider cutting back their “money cow”

Mmmmmm.

I’m willing to bet that don’t happen!

 

[K_TIME]

All I care about when watching a game is who wins it, not how long it's taking. And if I don't care about the former, I don't watch.

This same obsession with game shortening comes up with baseball all the time. And I really don't like the pitch clock changes for this season and beyond.

I realize I'm in the minority here. Nearly everyone else in the fan world seems to be bored with something they've chosen to watch in the first place. If it's time to relax and enjoy a game why are you so worked up to move on from it?

I get this point…and I’m not arguing per se the game is too long but

1- give me a rational reason the clock stops on a first down? Having the 60 year old dudes set the chains never made sense and wjth todays technology…it’s a moot point. Player never needed first down markers in place on sideline to begin with. If it’s a first down…in to the next play…if it’s close…measure it.

2. Now I completely disagree with NFL of keeping a clock running when a guy runs out of bounds and then inside two minutes you stop it. That is artificially messing with game duration

To me the game has a flow to it…not all these stoppages and I’d argue the point to allow comebacks is not a good one. Teams need to conserve timeouts and get to sideline. When teams can hit 20 yards pass and hurry up and spike it …and only ten second run off….I don’t think that is a natural flow to a game

 

[BigBlueManSouthCentralKY]

Smart is on the committee and he likes the rule of keeping the clock running after first downs. Like it is in the pro's. I think it said it would probably take about 8 plays a game out and would help teams injury wise in bowl games and playoffs.