Welcome Guest! Create an Account login email: password: remember me: BASKETBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting FOOTBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting MESSAGE BOARD Message Home - Ohio Basketball - Ohio Basketball Recruiting - The O Zone - Ohio Football - Ohio Football Recruiting - Ohio Volleyball - Ohio Baseball - Ohio Olympic Sports... - General OU Discussion... - Website Feedback... - Posting Policy Edit My Profile Private Messages Logout CHAT LINKS site searchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp Message Board BobcatAttack.com Message Board Ohio Football Topic:  Keeping the length of games down Topic:  Keeping the length of games down Author Message Pataskala General User Member Since: 7/8/2010 Location: At least six feet away from anybody else Post Count: 9,363 Status: Offline     Keeping the length of games down    Posted: 12/27/2014 7:02:29 PM  Once again, the NCAA is looking into ways to shorten games. According to a Dispatch article, college football games now average 3 hours, 23 minutes -- 14 minutes longer than in 2008. It doesn't say if this is with or without TV commercial breaks. One issue is player safety; as players stay on the field for more plays they become more fatigued and are more injury prone. But the main issue is TV. Longer games screw up networks' schedules. I think one on-field thing that could be done is to restart the game clock after the ball is marked ready for play after incomplete passes, except maybe for the last two minutes of each half. I don't have stats to back this up, but it seems that more passes are being thrown with more incompletions. And I like the thought of not stopping the clock on every first down. http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2014/12/2... We will get by. We will get by. We will get by. We will survive. Back to Top Victory General User Member Since: 3/10/2012 Post Count: 2,305 Status: Offline     RE: Keeping the length of games down    Posted: 12/27/2014 7:08:58 PM  When you change rules there are unintended consequences. If the intended consequence is to shorten the game then the best way to do that without affecting the rest of the game is to make 14 minute quarters. This should not be difficult. Back to Top L.C. General User Member Since: 8/31/2005 Location: United States Post Count: 10,491 Status: Offline     RE: Keeping the length of games down    Posted: 12/27/2014 7:53:29 PM  The last time they tried to shorten games, which was only a few years ago, the average plays per team dropped from about 80 a game to about 60 a game, so teams started doing more hurry up, and lo and beheld, they are back at about 80 plays a game, but I'd guess that there are more injuries now. If they really want to speed up games, limit the number of advertiser timeouts. “We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus Back to Top C Money General User Member Since: 8/28/2010 Post Count: 3,420 Status: Offline     RE: Keeping the length of games down    Posted: 12/27/2014 8:44:52 PM  You wanna get nuts? Let's get nuts. Go to four 30 minute quarters with a running clock, the only stoppages being for injuries and three 60 second timeouts per team per half. Have a 5 minute break after the first and third quarters (so ESPN can still make money) and a 20 minute halftime. For overtime, each possession can last no more than 5 minutes on the running clock. Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 10,387 Status: Offline     RE: Keeping the length of games down    Posted: 12/28/2014 12:06:11 AM  Want to shorten games, cut back on the TV Timeouts! 7 in each half, with an average of 3:30 per commercial during a TV game, and 2:00 min per non TV (they say it's less, but slap a watch on it!). That's 35+ minute of TV extensions! Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 14,738 Status: Offline     RE: Keeping the length of games down    Posted: 12/28/2014 12:16:44 AM  BillyTheCat wrote: Want to shorten games, cut back on the TV Timeouts! 7 in each half, with an average of 3:30 per commercial during a TV game, and 2:00 min per non TV (they say it's less, but slap a watch on it!). That's 35+ minute of TV extensions! +1 The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top 87OU Alum General User Member Since: 12/23/2007 Location: Macomb, MI Post Count: 123 Status: Offline     RE: Keeping the length of games down    Posted: 12/28/2014 1:51:11 PM  Keep clock running after 1st downs and while resetting the chains. Back to Top Mike Johnson General User Member Since: 11/11/2004 Location: North Canton, OH Post Count: 1,736 Status: Offline     Another take...    Posted: 12/28/2014 2:06:12 PM  Okay,I concede that TV would like to see games packaged neatly within 3-hr windows. But how about us fans? Am I in a minority who doesn't carry the teeniest bit that a game runs 3:15 or 3:20 instead of 3:00? Heck, I love overtime games! http://www.facebook.com/mikejohnson.author Back to Top Deciduous Forest Cat General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Ohio Post Count: 4,466 Status: Offline     RE: Another take...    Posted: 12/28/2014 4:43:50 PM  Mike Johnson wrote: Okay,I concede that TV would like to see games packaged neatly within 3-hr windows. But how about us fans? Am I in a minority who doesn't carry the teeniest bit that a game runs 3:15 or 3:20 instead of 3:00? Heck, I love overtime games! Well an overtime game means more football. regulation college games take longer but not because we're getting more football, but because the same football takes longer. It would be nice if they could keep it under 3 hours. and much as I love baseball, I think the same of MLB. There's no reason 9 innings should take more than 3 hrs. There's no reason 60 minutes of football should take 3+. How about shortening halftime? 20 minutes? 20 freaking minutes? Make it 10. Also, I agree about the first downs... keep the rule of stopping the clock only for the last 2 minutes of a half. Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 10,387 Status: Offline     RE: Another take...    Posted: 12/28/2014 5:06:15 PM  Deciduous Forest Cat wrote: Mike Johnson wrote: Okay,I concede that TV would like to see games packaged neatly within 3-hr windows. But how about us fans? Am I in a minority who doesn't carry the teeniest bit that a game runs 3:15 or 3:20 instead of 3:00? Heck, I love overtime games! Well an overtime game means more football. regulation college games take longer but not because we're getting more football, but because the same football takes longer. It would be nice if they could keep it under 3 hours. and much as I love baseball, I think the same of MLB. There's no reason 9 innings should take more than 3 hrs. There's no reason 60 minutes of football should take 3+. How about shortening halftime? 20 minutes? 20 freaking minutes? Make it 10. Also, I agree about the first downs... keep the rule of stopping the clock only for the last 2 minutes of a half. . Same for baseball, slap a watch on every half inning intermission, ant there is essentially 18 commercial breakers in baseball, which adds an easy 40 minutes to a MLB game Back to Top UpSan Bobcat General User Member Since: 8/30/2005 Location: Upper Sandusky, OH Post Count: 3,812 Status: Offline     RE: Another take...    Posted: 12/28/2014 5:59:28 PM  Shortening the halftime length would raise injury concerns. It's interesting that the main reason for wanting games shorter is to fit TV schedules, yet the main reason that games are long is because of TV. Back to Top L.C. General User Member Since: 8/31/2005 Location: United States Post Count: 10,491 Status: Offline     RE: Another take...    Posted: 12/28/2014 6:09:24 PM  UpSan Bobcat wrote: Shortening the halftime length would raise injury concerns. Except at the Orange Bowl, where is it what, an hour long? UpSan Bobcat wrote: It's interesting that the main reason for wanting games shorter is to fit TV schedules, yet the main reason that games are long is because of TV. Myself I favor going back to the old way where the game was the important thing. They played the game as the game went, and it was up to the advertisers to fit commercials in where they could, and the game often continued or resumed during commercials. Let them stick the ads in during injuries, etc. The elapsed time will be shorter, and the games will seem much more action packed. “We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus Back to Top Monroe Slavin General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Oxnard, CA Post Count: 9,121 Status: Offline     RE: Another take...    Posted: 12/28/2014 7:17:07 PM  Being live at a game, the TV commercials--and it is ALL 100% about commercials--suck the emotion out of the game in a very significant way. Where's the band?! WHERE"S THE BAND?! DesignspiritUSA.com The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping! Back to Top Pataskala General User Member Since: 7/8/2010 Location: At least six feet away from anybody else Post Count: 9,363 Status: Offline     RE: Another take...    Posted: 12/28/2014 7:24:25 PM  The reality is that the old ways are dead. Disney Corp will want at least as much, if not more, ad time in each game -- even if they run mostly promos. Disney Corp wants a return on the millions they shell out to the conferences each season. We will get by. We will get by. We will get by. We will survive. Back to Top Deciduous Forest Cat General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Ohio Post Count: 4,466 Status: Offline     RE: Another take...    Posted: 12/28/2014 7:35:03 PM  UpSan Bobcat wrote: Shortening the halftime length would raise injury concerns. It's interesting that the main reason for wanting games shorter is to fit TV schedules, yet the main reason that games are long is because of TV. How so? I would think it's harder on the body to sit for longer then have to deal with an abbreviated warmup before trying to go full speed again. Back to Top UpSan Bobcat General User Member Since: 8/30/2005 Location: Upper Sandusky, OH Post Count: 3,812 Status: Offline     RE: Another take...    Posted: 12/28/2014 8:56:01 PM  Deciduous Forest Cat wrote: UpSan Bobcat wrote: Shortening the halftime length would raise injury concerns. It's interesting that the main reason for wanting games shorter is to fit TV schedules, yet the main reason that games are long is because of TV. How so? I would think it's harder on the body to sit for longer then have to deal with an abbreviated warmup before trying to go full speed again. I don't know if there is any sure science on it, but Ohio high school halftime's are 20 minutes plus three minutes of warm-ups with the reasoning being safety. The NFL reduced halftime from 15 to 12 minutes around 1990. They also did a lot of other things in an effort to shorten games, many of which have been suggested. Safety was a concern then, though the of course, halftimes already were shorter. Here's an article from then: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/24/sports/football-under-3... Back to Top OU_Country General User Member Since: 12/6/2005 Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County Post Count: 8,370 Status: Offline     RE: Another take...    Posted: 12/29/2014 10:50:48 AM  Mike Johnson wrote: Okay,I concede that TV would like to see games packaged neatly within 3-hr windows. But how about us fans? Am I in a minority who doesn't carry the teeniest bit that a game runs 3:15 or 3:20 instead of 3:00? Heck, I love overtime games! I could also be in the minority, but in a different regard. I'm losing interest in the game, and one reason is that I don't want to invest 3 1/2 to 4 hours to watch one game. We had a couple games at Peden this year that lasted 3:45, with a couple first halves that approached two hours. For me, that's longer that I want to spend watching one game sitting on metal bleachers. When I'm at home, I often watch NFL games by starting the DVR for a 1pm kick, and then I actually start watching at 1:30 or 1:45. By the beginning of the second half, or at worst, beginning of the 4th quarter, I'm "caught up" by watching no commercials or the halftime show. I get 30-60 minutes of my day back to do other things just by doing this. Back to Top Brian Smith (No, not that one) General User Member Since: 2/3/2005 Post Count: 3,016 Status: Offline     RE: Keeping the length of games down    Posted: 12/30/2014 3:25:55 PM  87OU Alum wrote: Keep clock running after 1st downs and while resetting the chains. Yup. It's pretty simple. But it would tick off people who like the fact that you can drive the length of the field in 20 seconds near the end of the game. Last Edited: 12/30/2014 3:27:55 PM by Brian Smith (No, not that one) Back to Top L.C. General User Member Since: 8/31/2005 Location: United States Post Count: 10,491 Status: Offline     RE: Keeping the length of games down    Posted: 12/30/2014 10:21:08 PM  87OU Alum wrote: Keep clock running after 1st downs and while resetting the chains. Rule changes like this are just a lie, pretending that the game is the same. Why not just be honest about it, and leave the clock rules the same, and cut the time to 8 minutes a quarter. “We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus Back to Top Pataskala General User Member Since: 7/8/2010 Location: At least six feet away from anybody else Post Count: 9,363 Status: Offline     RE: Keeping the length of games down    Posted: 12/30/2014 10:32:47 PM  I wonder if part of longer games involves the mindset of refs on questionable plays. It seems that refs are letting the play continue on a turnover, knowing that if they're wrong replay will take care of it. If the play is overturned, not only is the game delayed by the replay review but they have to reset the clock back to what it was when the ball should've been whistled dead. Could add several minutes over the course of a game. Also, I think a big time-saver would be to have radio communications among the refs like the NFL has. Pro ball has fewer delays for conferences among the refs on penalties, etc. We will get by. We will get by. We will get by. We will survive. Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 10,387 Status: Offline     RE: Another take...    Posted: 12/31/2014 12:26:32 AM  UpSan Bobcat wrote: Deciduous Forest Cat wrote: UpSan Bobcat wrote: Shortening the halftime length would raise injury concerns. It's interesting that the main reason for wanting games shorter is to fit TV schedules, yet the main reason that games are long is because of TV. How so? I would think it's harder on the body to sit for longer then have to deal with an abbreviated warmup before trying to go full speed again. I don't know if there is any sure science on it, but Ohio high school halftime's are 20 minutes plus three minutes of warm-ups with the reasoning being safety. The NFL reduced halftime from 15 to 12 minutes around 1990. They also did a lot of other things in an effort to shorten games, many of which have been suggested. Safety was a concern then, though the of course, halftimes already were shorter. "shorten games" while lengenthing TV timeouts. Go figure Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 10,387 Status: Offline     RE: Keeping the length of games down    Posted: 12/31/2014 12:30:26 AM  Pataskala wrote: I wonder if part of longer games involves the mindset of refs on questionable plays. It seems that refs are letting the play continue on a turnover, knowing that if they're wrong replay will take care of it. If the play is overturned, not only is the game delayed by the replay review but they have to reset the clock back to what it was when the ball should've been whistled dead. Could add several minutes over the course of a game. Also, I think a big time-saver would be to have radio communications among the refs like the NFL has. Pro ball has fewer delays for conferences among the refs on penalties, etc. Rules are clear, play is dead on certain things, automatically, nothing to do with replay. Back to Top Maryland Bobcat General User Member Since: 12/28/2004 Location: Annapolis, MD Post Count: 167 Status: Offline     RE: Another take...    Posted: 1/5/2015 2:48:39 PM  OU_Country wrote: Mike Johnson wrote: Okay,I concede that TV would like to see games packaged neatly within 3-hr windows. But how about us fans? Am I in a minority who doesn't carry the teeniest bit that a game runs 3:15 or 3:20 instead of 3:00? Heck, I love overtime games! I could also be in the minority, but in a different regard. I'm losing interest in the game, and one reason is that I don't want to invest 3 1/2 to 4 hours to watch one game. We had a couple games at Peden this year that lasted 3:45, with a couple first halves that approached two hours. For me, that's longer that I want to spend watching one game sitting on metal bleachers. When I'm at home, I often watch NFL games by starting the DVR for a 1pm kick, and then I actually start watching at 1:30 or 1:45. By the beginning of the second half, or at worst, beginning of the 4th quarter, I'm "caught up" by watching no commercials or the halftime show. I get 30-60 minutes of my day back to do other things just by doing this. Bingo. I have season tix for Navy, and their games - all televised on the CBS Sports Net - are extremely long. I have a toddler, too, so that meas we can rarely make it past halftime. One instance this season the first half took two hours. Fans are sick of it, too - you hear a lot of folks yelling at the field to play football! I'm fine with TV timeouts, but why do they have to be so long? The Navy AD sent out a nastygram to supporters stating we need to stay through the fourth quarter - that the players deserve it. There's no argument that they deserve it, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't want to make money from tv and continue to make it a poor in-game live experience for fans. What's worse is the games do not start now until 3:30, so it's pushing 7:30-8 when they are over. Families with small kids can't stay that late every week, especially if they have any drive at all. New Years Day was a perfect example. The Oregon game came on the air at 5, and wasn't it after 9 when it ended? It forced a late start on the east coast for the OSU game, meaning many people could not stay up to watch it. Last Edited: 1/5/2015 2:51:37 PM by Maryland Bobcat Back to Top Alan Swank General User Member Since: 12/11/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 7,206 Status: Offline     RE: Another take...    Posted: 1/5/2015 3:10:19 PM  Maryland Bobcat wrote: OU_Country wrote: Mike Johnson wrote: Okay,I concede that TV would like to see games packaged neatly within 3-hr windows. But how about us fans? Am I in a minority who doesn't carry the teeniest bit that a game runs 3:15 or 3:20 instead of 3:00? Heck, I love overtime games! I could also be in the minority, but in a different regard. I'm losing interest in the game, and one reason is that I don't want to invest 3 1/2 to 4 hours to watch one game. We had a couple games at Peden this year that lasted 3:45, with a couple first halves that approached two hours. For me, that's longer that I want to spend watching one game sitting on metal bleachers. When I'm at home, I often watch NFL games by starting the DVR for a 1pm kick, and then I actually start watching at 1:30 or 1:45. By the beginning of the second half, or at worst, beginning of the 4th quarter, I'm "caught up" by watching no commercials or the halftime show. I get 30-60 minutes of my day back to do other things just by doing this. Bingo. I have season tix for Navy, and their games - all televised on the CBS Sports Net - are extremely long. I have a toddler, too, so that meas we can rarely make it past halftime. One instance this season the first half took two hours. Fans are sick of it, too - you hear a lot of folks yelling at the field to play football! I'm fine with TV timeouts, but why do they have to be so long? The Navy AD sent out a nastygram to supporters stating we need to stay through the fourth quarter - that the players deserve it. There's no argument that they deserve it, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't want to make money from tv and continue to make it a poor in-game live experience for fans. What's worse is the games do not start now until 3:30, so it's pushing 7:30-8 when they are over. Families with small kids can't stay that late every week, especially if they have any drive at all. New Years Day was a perfect example. The Oregon game came on the air at 5, and wasn't it after 9 when it ended? It forced a late start on the east coast for the OSU game, meaning many people could not stay up to watch it. Not sure why anyone says "they deserve it." This is entertainment that people pay to see. If they want to leave, they can leave whenever they want. Back to Top Ohio69 General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Post Count: 3,061 Status: Offline     RE: Another take...    Posted: 1/5/2015 3:37:55 PM  So the fix for speeding up games is less football via running clocks? Good grief. We fans are dumb. Them: Here's less of what you want to watch (the game) and more of what you don't (commercials). Us: Awesome! Them: (Quietly cashing checks and snickering....) Last Edited: 1/5/2015 3:39:29 PM by Ohio69 Can somebody hit a pull up jumper for me?..... Back to Top Showing Replies:   1 - 25  of 29 Posts Jump to Page:   1 | 2    Next > View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               WHO'S ONLINE There are 219 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com 219 Guests 0 Registered Users There are no other users looking at this page.

Copyright ©2025 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties