| FTBL Possible NCAA rule changes on the horizon

Buried in the 11th paragraph of a 16-year-old NCAA press release is evidence of the most significant upheaval that's come to college football in its modern era. Addressing game length, the NCAA Football Rules Committee in February 2006 recommended what then seemed like two minor changes.

Beginning that season, the clock would start when toe met leather on kickoffs, instead of when the opposing team touched it. Also, the clock would start with the "ready for play" signal from the referee, not when the ball is snapped after a change of possession.

"I don't remember how that came to the committee," former rules chairman and Pittsburg State coach Chuck Broyles recalled. "It wasn't very well received."

What followed was less football -- much less. Coaches, especially offensive coordinators, howled. The drop in the number of plays per game was so profound that those thought-to-be minor changes ended up being so radical they lasted only one season. That season, total plays declined by more than 13 per game on average. The drop in average yards per team (33) was the most since 1954. The scoring average per team (24.1 points) remains the lowest in the last 31 years.

This week, the rules committee is undertaking an unprecedented project that could similarly reduce the number of plays we see on Saturdays. This time, unlike in 2006, it's being considered in the name of player safety.

The rules committee, at its annual meeting in Indianapolis this week, is considering its own version of playing less football. Membership is gathering statistics from the last 15 seasons to examine total snaps in a game, not just plays from scrimmage. Included in that total is extra points, two-point attempts and kickoffs along with plays from scrimmage. The committee may even find a way to incorporate the number of declined penalties (holding, pass interference, offsides) that involved a snap and at least some contact.

Steve Shaw, secretary-rules editor of the rules committee, calls the research singular in the group's history. In essence, it is attempting to account for every incidence of collision in a game defined by violence since 2007.

The result could impact everything from College Football Playoff expansion to existing court battles over head trauma.

"What we've really tried to do up to today is find every component of the game that we can find to keep the game moving," Shaw said. "We feel like we've squeezed that turnip to the end. We got all the juice out. The discussion is going to morph away from how much time elapses on your wristwatch to exposures of the student-athlete."

That word -- "exposure" -- has taken the place of "snaps" or "plays" among key stakeholders in the discussion. The change in semantics indicates the concern itself: Players are potentially "exposed" to harm when they play football. Playing less of it, then, is the goal.

Among what's being considered:

Treating incomplete passes the same as runs out of bounds. Beginning in 2008, the clock started after runs and fumbles out of bounds when the referee signaled "ready for play". Previously, the clock started on the snap after such plays. The committee is considering treating incomplete passes the same way. The rule would be in effect until late in the half or game, perhaps the last 2-5 minutes, according to Shaw.

No longer stopping the clock after first downs. This is a foundational piece of college football that differentiates it from the NFL. This change has long been considered, but the game's overseers have been hesitant, in part, because it would make the college game more like the NFL.

At stake, of course, is the delicate balance of the game that got out of whack for a year in 2006.

"We want to map those rules changes that, over time, would impact the clock," said Shaw, who is also the NCAA's national coordinator of officials. "I don't have a conclusion yet."

Rules changes are allowed every other year. This is one of those years. Executive producers from all major rightsholders -- CBS, ESPN, Fox, NBC -- have been invited to lend their input this week.

(Other unrelated broadcast considerations are being discussed in the rightsholder meetings. One example: Extra points -- an afterthought in college -- being shown side-by-side during TV commercials. That practice is already being used during some football timeouts and in golf telecasts.)

Anything ideas the committee generates this week are subject to approval later this year by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel. One encouraging sign: That panel didn't exist to review proposed rules changes in 2006.

"Some [rules changes] sound good, and then it takes two or three weeks into the season, or maybe even a year. You might say, 'Eh, it wasn't such a good idea,'" said Broyles, now 75 and retired in Pittsburg, Kansas.

Complicating matters: One size doesn't fit all in college football. If the idea is to run fewer plays, how does that impact the likes of Wake Forest -- 86 plays per game over the last three seasons -- compared to option-oriented Navy (59)?

"I feel that we want the creativity we have in offenses," SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said. "We want different approaches. That's what is unique about the college game, still."

There are some who believe those 2006 changes gave rise to tempo offenses. Offensive coaches adapted by running plays faster with less time to get them onto the field. The numbers certainly support that assertion. The average of 64 plays per team in 2006 remain the fewest per game since 1964. A year later, in 2007, teams were snapping it an average of 72 times per game. The jump in yards per game (45 per team) was the largest since 1955.

Since 2007, plays per game haven't dipped below 68.4. The numbers emerging don't have much meaning yet. Early research over that 15-year period shows a spike in 2014, 176 total plays per game. In 2021, the average was down to 168.

Player safety is one of the reasons the ACC voted against an expanded playoff beginning in 2024. The conference is in the middle of a year-long "holistic review" of college football.

The concept of fewer plays per game has the support of commissioner Jim Phillips and his conference. Sankey said his conference's research shows that can reducing plays could mean the equivalent of athletes playing an average of 1.2 games fewer per season.

Legal liability has to be an overarching concern in any of these rule changes. Faking injuries has become a major issue. Shaw is already on record saying there will be no retreat on the enforcement of targeting despite criticism.

"This is a fight for our game," Shaw told CBS Sports last year.

It is imperative that a safer, more streamlined game can be delivered by the college football's stakeholders in 30 months when the CFP enters an exclusive 30-day negotiating window with ESPN for playoff rights that would start in 2026.

If not, the existence of the game itself will be at risk. There are still dozens of head trauma lawsuits against schools and the NCAA rolling through various courts.

"I think that's one of the things we will look at, the number of exposures, the number of plays in a game," Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said. "What we do during preseason camp, what we do in practice, what we do in offseason conditioning. See if there are ways we can reduce wear and tear, ways we can reduce live contact."

The proposed changes bubbled up in the last year. Sankey told CBS Sports the SEC Football Leadership Council -- consisting of active players -- recommend fewer plays last summer. When the 12-team playoff was introduced last June, "Literally, it was the exposures that were identified by our group," Sankey said.

The discussion was furthered in December 2021 when College Football Officiating (CFO) met with the FBS commissioners at the annual National Football Foundation dinner in Las Vegas. (CFO was established in 2008 as a merger of the NCAA and the Collegiate Commissioners Association to ensure proper application of rules and establishing a central officiating leader. Shaw is that current leader.)

"Rather than say, 'It took 3 hours, 38 minutes to play the game,' [the discussion has become] 'How many plays did it take? How many exposures?'" Shaw said.

Yes, the game's stakeholders are less concerned these days with the actual length of games than what occurs within that time period to the players who entertain us.

"Increased exposure does alter game [length]," Sankey said. "I don't get a lot of complaints about game lengths. It's a different game than the NFL. It should be. But those exposures over a year's time have to be [a concern]."
 
In other words, expect less actual plays but longer overall games. The commercials have spoken.

And the refs. As Shaw said, there will be no retreat in the enforcement of targeting. But we can stay on the sideline with our head up our ass looking at replay 16 times, while the folks in B'ham have looked at 3 times while the on-field ref goes to the sideline to get the headphones on and look at the side field monitor. (Not to mention the refs in the booth that have seen it)

I know we have beat this to death, but call it targeting and let the guys stay in the game. I would like to see the statistical average of targeting calls total, enforced, and retracted. We all know the game has changed since they started with the targeting penalty. I have no problem with the call and what it is. My gripe is this. Kids now playing in college have spent all of their career from 6th grade until now playing with the "heads up" targeting rules. I bet we have seen a decline in targeting from year 1 to know and I bet the past several years it has leveled off to an "average" that will not deviate much moving forward. Bang bang plays where a player crouches as he is being hit, etc. Just throw the flag, dock them 15 yards, review it let the defender stay in the game and keep going.
 
Let's not get started on penalties. I hate the change from two types of facemask to just the one. And stuff like ripping off a helmet and taking a swing at someone is immediate ejection on the first one, but ejection only after your second foul like targeting. Maybe we need an incidental vs blatant targeting.
 
One big change to game length would be not allowing networks to extend stoppages or create new ones. If a team takes a timeout that is supposed to be 90 seconds then they should only be able to go out for 90 seconds. Change of possession time should also be limited to 90 seconds each change.
 
This is what catches my attention. It'll change the college game completely.

Among what's being considered:
No longer stopping the clock after first downs. This is a foundational piece of college football that differentiates it from the NFL. This change has long been considered, but the game's overseers have been hesitant, in part, because it would make the college game more like the NFL.
 
So...they want to reduce exposure, yet they want to increase the number of games played. Well, I guess that would work if your team never reaches any kind of playoffs. We all know how injuries late in the season can shatter a team's Championship hopes.

ROLL TIDE!
 
This is what catches my attention. It'll change the college game completely.

Among what's being considered:
No longer stopping the clock after first downs. This is a foundational piece of college football that differentiates it from the NFL. This change has long been considered, but the game's overseers have been hesitant, in part, because it would make the college game more like the NFL.
I peeped that. Now if we had that rule in that drive against Auburn... We would've had to spike the ball and take a a shot down the field.. we would've lost the game under the new rule. But then again, Mahomes, Jones and other in NFL did just fine with that rule.
 
The formula for shorter games is very simple - cut down on commercials.

Team scores - 5 minute commercial break
Team kicks off - 5 minute commercial break
Punt - 5 minute commercial break
Timeout - 5 minute commercial break
Injury - 5 minute commercial break

It’s a dang travesty. It takes 4+ hours now to watch a marquee matchup game. I get paying your sponsors but come on folks.
 
It takes 4+ hours now to watch a marquee matchup game.
They are changing the wording for the problem they are solving to player exposure. That makes it ok for games to take 4+ hours but with less actual football. So I would expect those 5 minute commercials to turn into 6+ minute commercials. Gotta make that money smh.
 
On the game length stuff... As mentioned by others, the biggest issue by far is the amount of commercial breaks and the length of most of them. Until/Unless they figure out a way to fix that issue without a dip in revenue, then the problem will remain a problem. There are other small things that could be done to shave some time off games (shorter halftime, more stringent video review rules, etc.) but the impact overall would be minimal compared to reducing the ridiculous amount of breaks that are taken. If they meddle too much with rules trying to manufacture shorter games through in less organic ways, they run the high risk of turning into MLB.... which would be watering down the traditional integrity of the sport for little to no time savings whatsoever.
 
The formula for shorter games is very simple - cut down on commercials.

Team scores - 5 minute commercial break
Team kicks off - 5 minute commercial break
Punt - 5 minute commercial break
Timeout - 5 minute commercial break
Injury - 5 minute commercial break

It’s a dang travesty. It takes 4+ hours now to watch a marquee matchup game. I get paying your sponsors but come on folks.

The most unpopular guy in the stadium is the TV timeout guy. He used to get booed when he'd walk out on the field because you knew a TV timeout was coming. They gave him a digital clock on a pole several years ago, so you now know if it's a 2:30 or 3;15 or so break. Having the counter helps the team, but it helps me, too.
 
If they meddle too much with rules trying to manufacture shorter games through in less organic ways, they run the high risk of turning into MLB.... which would be watering down the traditional integrity of the sport for little to no time savings whatsoever.
A few weeks ago on an episode of ESPN's College Football podcast Ryan McGee made the comparison to NASCAR. I don't follow that sport but it's easy to see how the popularity of that sport has dropped over the last quarter of a century because they've been "tinkering" with the product.

So...they want to reduce exposure,
Here the wording jumped out at me; exposure versus the number of plays. They can point to reduced exposure in the regular season to justify more games being played in the season.

I find it quite ironic how Saban was vilified by the media and other coaches when he mentioned they needed to consider how these offensive schemes could lead to more injuries. "Oh, it's Saban's Achilles heel...that's why he doesn't like the new offensive schemes." And here we are...
 
popularity of that sport has dropped over the last quarter of a century because they've been "tinkering" with the product.
That is a major part for sure, but the ass-hats that run the sport now alienated their fan base and have gone "woke". I hope they dwindle down to nothing. Toothless rednecks would save money for months in order to buy a ticket and go blow it out on a weekend. Not any more.


"Exposure" sure is an encompassing word. That could mean practice time, among other things.

Back when the PPV games were still a thing, I didn't mind going to them as much because the duration was typically an hour shorter game.

@Brandon Van de Graaff mentioned a shorter half time. I think you could easily shave 10 minutes off. I honestly can't remember an opposing team's band doing a half time show in years. I didn't go during the Covid year, but I'm almost 100% certain no visitor marched last year. Make it where only the home team marches.
 
"Exposure" sure is an encompassing word. That could mean practice time, among other things.
That's what the Ivy League has already done and what Bowlsby is suggesting in his quote. It's a self defeating approach in my view. There's a reason programs focus on fundamentals with tackling and a large part of that is doing it correctly which in turn leads to a safer playing field.
 
I don't think anyone would have a problem with a split screen on extra points.
Absolutely not. I wouldn't mind if it carried over into kickoffs as well. With how everyone is about protecting money in this litigious society, I could see NCAA doing away with kick-offs altogether. I know they have discussed it.

As far as the practice thing. I could see them mandating the inflatable thingy's for their helmets all the time. Stuff like that.
 
As far as the practice thing. I could see them mandating the inflatable thingy's for their helmets all the time. Stuff like that.
As long as it's stopped there. No surprise I'm sure when you consider the source. The NT Times called the Ivy League's policy "The Future of Football" because they eliminated all tackling during the regular season. What bothered me about the move boiled down to the research leading to the decision: a comparison of concussions between pre-season and the regular season for NFL teams. N.F.L. Teams!

It's, figuratively, comparing collision forces between a Chevy Citation and a Chevy 3500.



I'm still hung up on the clock changes on first downs. It's going to effect the tempo which gives advantages to teams on both ends of the spectrum. Some teams are built to kill the clock: it's their MO.

Where I'm still getting hung up here is if this passes the tempo is directed by the officials. Teams are going to playing to their level of speed which will give us another inconsistency in officiating from week to week. Maybe that's better than "spot the ball and get the hell out of the way?"



I don't like the half time reduction. The band is an integral part of college football.


Juxtapose this:

We don't like having four hour games and we don't want plays taken away.

If you're going to make football fit into a designated window—3:30 until 6:30 or 12:00 until 3:00—you're going to end up cutting plays. It's inevitable.
 
A few weeks ago on an episode of ESPN's College Football podcast Ryan McGee made the comparison to NASCAR. I don't follow that sport but it's easy to see how the popularity of that sport has dropped over the last quarter of a century because they've been "tinkering" with the product.


Here the wording jumped out at me; exposure versus the number of plays. They can point to reduced exposure in the regular season to justify more games being played in the season.

I find it quite ironic how Saban was vilified by the media and other coaches when he mentioned they needed to consider how these offensive schemes could lead to more injuries. "Oh, it's Saban's Achilles heel...that's why he doesn't like the new offensive schemes." And here we are...

Wow, pretty dang good analogy right there. I have to agree, a lot. I'll never forget how alive a Nascar race was at it's height. Now, you have more people at a girl's high school basketball game. It's watered down and boring.

College football headed that way fo sho. I saw where attwndance was down again for like the 5th year in a row.
 
Back
Top Bottom