NFL clock rules coming to CFB?

[willisneverrana43]

It's as if people don't know this a business. The sport is a business. The companies that advertise are businesses. The companies that carry the games are businesses. The companies that serve you food in the stadium are businesses. The companies that rent equipment to be used outside the stadium are businesses. The food trucks outside the stadium are businesses. The money that you spend on the tickets and the food and your tv service is from your own business or the business that you work for. Complain all you want, but demand and supply will generally supply the answer.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Putting quick 10 second ads on split screen after plays could probably work.
Nothing is happening anyway

But can easily see people complaining about it being "too cluttered and busy" on their TV and then a new round of complaining.

Didn't people complain about MLB putting ads on the bases?
Maybe put logos on the player jerseys?

As I said above - people want all the TV money to help the program but not actually deal with the consequences of where that TV money comes from.

Well.. TV pays X dollars now for college football as it is. Why change it now? College football should put its collective foot down. There is competition for its product. The TV contracts are nice. Why go for more and more money by changing the product? We'll just have to pay coaches more, bigger/newer facilities and do NIL deals or some other way to pay the players who will be asking for more is such changes result in more ad dollars. And the OPPOSITE could happen. Fewer ads being shown because the games are shorter. Less interest in the end of games because the clock dictates who will win more... less chance of comebacks and audience flipping channels.

It ain't broke. Don't "fix" it.

 

[willisneverrana43]

Well.. TV pays X dollars now for college football as it is. Why change it now? College football should put its collective foot down. There is competition for its product. The TV contracts are nice. Why go for more and more money by changing the product? We'll just have to pay coaches more, bigger/newer facilities and do NIL deals or some other way to pay the players who will be asking for more is such changes result in more ad dollars. And the OPPOSITE could happen. Fewer ads being shown because the games are shorter. Less interest in the end of games because the clock dictates who will win more... less chance of comebacks and audience flipping channels.

It ain't broke. Don't "fix" it.

There's a host of economic classes that address why this wouldn't work and doesn't happen. Suffice it to say that the business of college football is wildly popular the way it's being run, and part of the way its being run is the process that is now considering these changes, just as it considered other changes in the past. The same goes for the media entities that also rely on and profit from the business of college football, and given their money have a strong influence, just as paying customers do, on how college football operates. College football is like any other business. It wants to maximize profits and keep its customers happy, and while fans are important customers, so too is the media. And these changes are no doubt intended, at least in part, to increase revenue and keep the media happy and not upset fans in any meaningful way. And, despite the complaints of the moment on a message board, the changes will go down smoothly. While the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is often used, the history of successful sports businesses making changes and remaining successful is long.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

There's a host of economic classes that address why this wouldn't work and doesn't happen. Suffice it to say that the business of college football is wildly popular the way it's being run, and part of the way its being run is the process that is now considering these changes, just as it considered other changes in the past. The same goes for the media entities that also rely on and profit from the business of college football, and given their money have a strong influence, just as paying customers do, on how college football operates. College football is like any other business. It wants to maximize profits and keep its customers happy, and while fans are important customers, so too is the media. And these changes are no doubt intended, at least in part, to increase revenue and keep the media happy and not upset fans in any meaningful way. And, despite the complaints of the moment on a message board, the changes will go down smoothly. While the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is often used, the history of successful sports businesses making changes and remaining successful is long.

Consider MLB baseball parks. They went from a few signs here or there and no concessions to radio to a few concessions for TV and advertising everywhere. But player pay (and owner profits and "value" of the teams) went from players taking mass transit home from games to apartments and houses where regular working joes resided to being among the wealthy.

Is the game itself better? Is the product better? Is it still "America's Passtime"?

Each concession that college football makes is sliding down a slippery slope. They will lose audience the further and further they go. Maybe they will increase revenues.. but I doubt it will increase anymore than if they made no such concessions.

What is the cost of saying NO to the TV interests? Does anyone know? I doubt it. My guess is that the people who will make these decisions have been "captured" by the TV interests in one way or another. Same thing happens in many other areas that touch the public. People make decisions based on their own self-interests and justify it with all manner of rationalizations.

 

[NickRU714]

Consider MLB baseball parks. They went from a few signs here or there and no concessions to radio to a few concessions for TV and advertising everywhere. But player pay (and owner profits and "value" of the teams) went from players taking mass transit home from games to apartments and houses where regular working joes resided to being among the wealthy.

Is the game itself better? Is the product better? Is it still "America's Passtime"?

Each concession that college football makes is sliding down a slippery slope. They will lose audience the further and further they go. Maybe they will increase revenues.. but I doubt it will increase anymore than if they made no such concessions.

What is the cost of saying NO to the TV interests? Does anyone know? I doubt it. My guess is that the people who will make these decisions have been "captured" by the TV interests in one way or another. Same thing happens in many other areas that touch the public. People make decisions based on their own self-interests and justify it with all manner of rationalizations.

Let me guess - big fan of Jerry Maguire?
Less commercials - Less money (for Rutgers athletics).

Media partners are paying $1b a year to air Big Ten football games. They aren't doing that out of charity. They are doing that because they project they can make more than that from advertisers and subscribers.

If the media partners are making less money from airing Big Ten football then they have less money to pay the Big Ten (i.e. Rutgers).
See the current state of the PAC-12 and every other college football conference.

So if you want Rutgers to go back to spending like an Ivy League school then by all means complain about commercials and long for the good old days when Rutgers didn't have any money to spend.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Let me guess - big fan of Jerry Maguire?
Less commercials - Less money (for Rutgers athletics).

Media partners are paying $1b a year to air Big Ten football games. They aren't doing that out of charity.

...
Yeah.. that's right. They paid $1B for what it is now. So why change it? How much more revenue would these changes bring in or, if the changes are refused, how much will we lose? Also.. if the payouts do not go up, how much more with the TV networks make with these changes?

Lastly.. nice strawman you built there where I apparently have said that I want Rutgers to go back to spending like an Ivy League school. Making such ridiculous arguments just reveals that you have nothing relevant to argue with... so you just make up the other side's argument for them. False choice. (and I doubt I have seen Jerry McGuire.. just clips here and there that people use.. Show me the money.. you had me at whateveritwas

 

[NickRU714]

...
Yeah.. that's right. They paid $1B for what it is now. So why change it? How much more revenue would these changes bring in or, if the changes are refused, how much will we lose? Also.. if the payouts do not go up, how much more with the TV networks make with these changes?

Lastly.. nice strawman you built there where I apparently have said that I want Rutgers to go back to spending like an Ivy League school. Making such ridiculous arguments just reveals that you have nothing relevant to argue with... so you just make up the other side's argument for them. False choice. (and I doubt I have seen Jerry McGuire.. just clips here and there that people use.. Show me the money.. you had me at whateveritwas

Wrong. They are paying $1b for what they can make over the next amount of years going forward.

Sure Ivy League may have been a slight exaggeration.
But the point remains.
Should the media partners not try to increase revenue? Revenue that impacts how much money flows down to Rutgers?

Or should the Big Ten media partners just stay as is and let other conferences catch and pass them in money? Putting Rutgers further behind other schools.

 

[willisneverrana43]

Consider MLB baseball parks. They went from a few signs here or there and no concessions to radio to a few concessions for TV and advertising everywhere. But player pay (and owner profits and "value" of the teams) went from players taking mass transit home from games to apartments and houses where regular working joes resided to being among the wealthy.

Is the game itself better? Is the product better? Is it still "America's Passtime"?

Each concession that college football makes is sliding down a slippery slope. They will lose audience the further and further they go. Maybe they will increase revenues.. but I doubt it will increase anymore than if they made no such concessions.

What is the cost of saying NO to the TV interests? Does anyone know? I doubt it. My guess is that the people who will make these decisions have been "captured" by the TV interests in one way or another. Same thing happens in many other areas that touch the public. People make decisions based on their own self-interests and justify it with all manner of rationalizations.

The problem with this reasoning is that it’s based on an inaccurate conclusions. Sports are wildly popular and profitable these days. The negative results that you say are inevitable haven’t happened and aren’t happening.

 

[RUInsanityToo]

I hope that you realize that every football game that you watch has an average of about 15 minutes of actual plays occuring. You're arguing over nothing. And the games often take over 3.5 hours. In that sense, football, particularly college football, can be one of the most ponderous games there is, with under 10% of the time alotted for actual action. You're arguing around the edges.

Did some more reading on these proposed changes and the 2 most impactful will be elimination of clock stoppage after First Downs and Incompletions. It's estimated that this will reduce between and average of 25-27 plays per game out of an average of 160 plays in college football or ~16.5% of gameplay (reducing the gameplay from about 15 minutes potentially down to 12.5 minutes per game). Not sure at what point it becomes diminishing returns, but then again the coming generation of kids do not really watch sports, rather they watch sports highlights on social media - so reduction in game time might not even matter all that much in the long run.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

The problem with this reasoning is that it’s based on an inaccurate conclusions. Sports are wildly popular and profitable these days. The negative results that you say are inevitable haven’t happened and aren’t happening.

NFL viewership down 3% over last year

College football attendance down for 7th straight season.. lowest since 1981

Now it is your turn to tell me that these proposed changes are meant to fix this.

 

[RUScrew85]

So by saying they want to reduce the number of plays to reduce injuries are they not laying the groundwork for zero plays to achieve zero injuries? Is that not a laudable goal?

And what will future lawsuits make of that logic. "The NCAA knew and admitted the sport was dangerous..."

 

[RUScrew85]

As to running the clock on incompletions after the ball is spotted, is not the rule there from the dawn of time when there was likely only one ball and some unpaid kid chasing that ball into the next meadow after an incompletion required the stopping of the clock? With the modern game this isn't an issue. I can see the logic to that change. It will seem weird because INTs stopping the clock has taken a life of it's own now, but I can see the logic.

 

[rutgersguy1_rivals]