Not to Belabor the Point
I've said all I want to say about the proposed rule changes, and my opposition to them on two grounds: the new clock rules are an unnecessary concession to advertising, which is the real cause of the non-problem of long games, and they will reduce the total number of plays.
For reasons I've already articulated, the second point is not in dispute in my mind despite much disagreement in the comments here and elsewhere. One of the rules, mandating the game clock start when the ball is set after out-of-bounds plays (it has previously always been stopped) is guaranteed to cut the total number of plays by some amount. There seems to be agreement and some tepid hate toward that part of the proposal. The argument is over the other big change, from a 25-second play clock that begins when the ball is marked for play to a 40-second play clock that begins running immediately, a direct copy of NFL rules. If officials currently take 15 seconds to spot the ball before beginning the 25-second clock, in other words, the change is a wash in terms of the total number of snaps.
I don't think it is a wash, especially when it comes to running the clock out in the final two minutes. But at Mssr. Swindle's behest, I decided to take a closer look at exactly how long it's been taking officials to spot the ball and signal the play clock between plays. The best available video for this is a non-broadcast clip of the 2006 LSU-Florida game in Gainesville, narrated by the LSU radio crew, which never cuts away for fan shots, close-ups, promos, replays, graphics or any other distractions; the umpire and referee are clearly visible at all times spotting the ball and signaling the play clock to begin counting down.
This game was during the 3-2-5e season, but that rule affected the clock only on changes of possession, which are not part of what we're looking for. I charted scrimmage plays in the first half, counting the time between the end of each play and the ready-for-play signal on the next play, and also the seconds elapsed between the end of each play and the snap of the followin play (including the time elapsed to spot the ball). It is not representative and cannot be extrapolated to define a whole that includes hundreds of games. It's just to get an idea.
Won't you count with me?
Obsessive conclusions below the jump...

| Play (Florida) | Spot Time | Snap Time | Play (LSU) | Spot Time | Snap Time |
| Leak pass to Cornelius | 12 | 24 | Russell pass to Bowe | 10 | 19 |
| Leak pass to Harvin | 11 | 22 | Hester run | 15 | 23 |
| Leak pass to Ingram | 11 | 23 | Hester run | 7 | 19 |
| Moore run | 13 | Time Out | Davis run | 11 | 22 |
| Leak Incomplete | 11 | 27 | Russell pass to Davis | Penalty | - |
| Moore run | 11 | 27 | Doucet run | 7 | 22 |
| Leak pass to Baker | 14 | 24 | Broussard run | 11 | Offside |
| Fumble | - | - | Broussard run | 10 | 24 |
| James run | 9 | 21 | Russell pass to Hester | TD | - |
| Highsmith sack | 10 | 25 | Russell incomplete | Penalty | - |
| Leak pass to Baker | Injury | - | Hester run | 11 | 25 |
| Leak incomplete | 15 | 30 | Russell incomplete | 13 | 27 |
| Tebow run | 13 | 26 | Russell Incomplete | 18 | 29 |
| Caldwell run | 12 | Time Out | Punt Penalty | 10 | 19 |
| Leak run | 11 | 27 | Hester run | 11 | 24 |
| Leak pass to Cornelius | 12 | 23 | Russell incomplete | 12 | 28 |
| Leak pass INT | - | - | Russell pass to Hester | 15 | 28 |
| Moore run | 13 | 26 | Russell run | 14 | 24 |
| Leak incomplete | 11 | 21 | Doucet run | 11 | 27 |
| Leak pass to Caldwell | 12 | 19 | Russell incomplete | 17 | Offside |
| Leak incomplete | 13 | 24 | Broussard run | 11 | 24 |
| Leak incomplete | 10 | 23 | Broussard run | 11 | 24 |
| Leak pass to Caldwell | 12 | 22 | Russell pass to Doucet | 12 | 23 |
| Leak pass to Baker | 11 | 25 | Broussard run | 10 | 28 |
| Caldwell run | 17 | 24 | Russell pass to Bowe | 12 | 28 |
| Leak pass to Moore | 10 | Timeout | Hester run | 11 | 24 |
| Leak pass to Cornelius | 16 | 27 | Russell pass to Davis | Penalty | - |
| Leak incomplete | Penalty | - | Russell incomplete | 10 | 16 |
| Leak incomplete | Penalty | - | Russell run | 11 | 25 |
| Tebow run | 9 | Timeout | Hester run | 14 | Replay |
| Tebow pass to Casey | TD | - | Fumble | - | - |
| Russell pass INT | - | - |
Four observations:
- LSU dominated the game up to the holding penalty that brought back the touchdown by Craig Davis and the subsequent goalline fumble by Jacob Hester.
- LSU huddles really, really close to the ball.
- When not fumbling away the momentum that could have carried his team to a mythical championship shot, Jacob Hester is just a foot-baw playa.
- There is a big difference in when the ball is set for play and when the referee actually signals it ready for play. Penn Wagers here stands over the ball with his hand in the air, ready to signal the clock, for anywhere from two to four seconds. There are a couple plays the camera cuts away while Wagers still has his hand up, and when it comes down from that point is anyone's guess. I usually still expect him to be standing there when the shot pans back five seconds later. He wastes a solid minute of game clock doing this for no discernible reason.
- These results seem pretty representative, based on what we already know: 10-15 seconds to spot the ball, somewhere in the vicinity of 25 seconds to snap it.
The opportunity is there for a team that wants to exploit those extra seconds - a team with a lead, for example, or an outmanned team that wants to play keep-away with the opposing offense would have an incentive to milk it - but it probably won't cost as many plays as the new out-of-bounds rule unless certain offenses really make a point of slowing it down on a regular basis. This is possible but not likely; its effects are more likely to be situational, as in allowing slightly longer kneel-down periods. If you think actions tend to fill the time allotted (I think there's a good argument for this, but no good way to demonstrate it), the changes still represent an obvious problem. The greatest likelihood is that extent of the reduction in plays - again, the out-of-bounds rule virtually guarantees some reduction - will depend on the tempo of the offense.
Well, and the approval of the rules, of course, which is not guaranteed. Swindle cites OMG Insiderz! who think the NCAA Executive Committee will balk. Hopefully this is much ado about nothing.
0 recs |
8
comments
Comments
Actual Analysis
Do you think there would be a statistical difference in the second half of this game compared to the first?
by ColinMacLeod on Feb 19, 2008 9:31 PM EST 0 recs
Not too be picky
by texasorange11 on Feb 19, 2008 9:44 PM EST 0 recs
Still have to disagree
They had the opportunity last year too, if your chart is any indication, and declined to do so. I haven't run actual stats, just going by eyeballing the numbers, but it looks like the average was around 12 (maybe 11) seconds, meaning teams had the opportunity to go as far as 36-37 seconds on average (based on this game). Three seconds per play might make a small dent in the number of plays, but you also have to make the assumption that teams will use those seconds - and under most circumstances, they have no particular reason to do so. There were only a handful of plays where the play clock was run down into the single digits in the chart above (and none where it was taken under 7 seconds); if teams don't use the entire clock as it stands (this game may not be a representative sample, maybe some do), why would giving them a couple extra seconds change that?
by SpartanDan on Feb 20, 2008 1:22 AM EST 0 recs
That's what I said
by SMQ on
Feb 20, 2008 8:19 AM EST
up
0 recs
Which is fine with me...
by drothgery on
Feb 20, 2008 7:00 PM EST
up
0 recs
One thing nobody has talked about...
(I, for one, agree with SMQ that the major culprit in this whole kerfuffle is television. In my experience attending Michigan football games throughout my formative years, the (rare) games that were not televised were typically a full half-hour shorter than the televised ones. I actually do feel that the games are too long, especially for those who attend them, but it's the dead time during commercials that sucks, not the dead time between plays.)
by Blue at Cass on Feb 20, 2008 10:20 AM EST 0 recs
Some numbers
And yes, TV timeouts are the obvious problem. They may be a necessary evil, but you don't need five minutes of commercials at every change of possession.
by SpartanDan on
Feb 20, 2008 3:22 PM EST
up
0 recs
my thoughts
by Charlestowne on Feb 20, 2008 10:28 AM EST 0 recs







