The new rules . . .

[KingDavid]

Pro's:
1) Networks keep their schedules in tact.

Con's:
1) Fans cheated.
2) Less records will be broken.
3) Less time for back-up players to develop.
4) Less time for exciting finishes at the end of the game.
5) Unecessary controversy about non-game issues.
6) I know I'm missing more here . . .

Only 60 minutes in a football game. If the games going over 3 hours is a problem, clearly the most OBVIOUS place to start cutting back is with the other 120 minutes - not the game time.

I would love to know the genesis of this rule-change. I'll bet whoever had this bright idea has been spending a lot of time:

1) shredding all documents that will lead researchers to discover his identity, and
2) making swift plans to leave the country.

[All_Day_28]

Pro's:
1) Networks keep their schedules in tact.

Con's:
1) Fans cheated.
2) Less records will be broken.
3) Less time for back-up players to develop.
4) Less time for exciting finishes at the end of the game.
5) Unecessary controversy about non-game issues.
6) I know I'm missing more here . . .

Only 60 minutes in a football game. If the games going over 3 hours is a problem, clearly the most OBVIOUS place to start cutting back is with the other 120 minutes - not the game time.

I would love to know the genesis of this rule-change. I'll bet whoever had this bright idea has been spending a lot of time:

1) shredding all documents that will lead researchers to discover his identity, and
2) making swift plans to leave the country.
agreed. these new rules are HORRIBLE!!! we as fans are undeniably being cheated out of our money's worth... the NCAA is in it for the money.. it's also bad for the players. specifically the backups that lose important reps that help them become better prepared if they ever need to step in.

[lukin254]

a weird thing about it, if the rules stay in effect, is the amount of parity that could come from this change... that is, with shorter games, there's less of a premium placed on depth, and if players want to get on the field more, they'll be less likely to go to a USC or OU or Texass or wherever to play 2nd team for 3 years to start 1... Leading the smaller schools to be able to nab them... Plus, smaller schools will have a better chance at an upset...

But the rules suck

[KingDavid]

a weird thing about it, if the rules stay in effect, is the amount of parity that could come from this change... that is, with shorter games, there's less of a premium placed on depth, and if players want to get on the field more, they'll be less likely to go to a USC or OU or Texass or wherever to play 2nd team for 3 years to start 1... Leading the smaller schools to be able to nab them... Plus, smaller schools will have a better chance at an upset...

But the rules suck

A shorter game also favors weaker teams that now have a better chance to keep the games close by controlling the clock.

But even if I'm from a weaker conference or weaker team, I still don't see that as a "pro" when I'm getting less game for my $$.

[All_Day_28]

it's probably some Saxet guy that's responsible.. tired of seeing scores like 63-14 or 65-13.. guess he figures the SOONER it's over, the better.

[SoonerDood]

well Mack and Texas hate it, so look for the Big 12 to abolish these new clock rules (if it's possible).