Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

I'm not sure if this has been posted before on here, but I wanted to get the opinions from everyone on how the new rules with affect the MAC games, seeing as they are usually more wide open than other conferences, will it drive scores down? I think it's a dumb move and will take out a lot of the drama late in the games. On the other hand, it'll make timeouts that much more important since the prospect of depleted time from a kickoff could hinder a last minute drive.

For the rundown of the new rules:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... htm?csp=34

This is just plain stupid to me.

I think its stupid and I dont like it because I want all the college football that I can get. However, it should help BG and the MAC and I have said that all along. If you read what Spurrier says its pretty much my point. Teams that are often underdogs will gain an advantage from there being less plays in the game. Also teams who run no huddle offenses should gain from this, in the case of needing quicker scores than usual at the end of the game. Well in most OOC games BG is going to be the underdog along with other MAC schools. Also BG runs a no-huddle offense and can score really quickly especially at the end of important games. So I guess for the sake of selfishness of being such a big BG fan I should keep me my mouth shut and hope the new rule changes stay. But since my opinion can never really have an impact on the true outcome, and since I like other teams and all of college football in general I will say that these rule changes suck. No more Cal-Stanford kick returns to win the game because as Joe Pa says you can just boom the ball out of bounds and time will come off of the clock! Also what stinks is the point of these rule changes is to shorten the length of games! AHHHH! I cant get enough college football, it is already such a short season compared to other sports, and mostly only once a week during the season! I just wish they wouldnt want to shorten the time it takes to play these games, if people can't pay attention that long then thats there own fault, but I guess it will never be seen that way. Anyway thats my opinion. What do you all think?

Television causes games to last over 3 hours. Go to a game not on TV and you won't have those built in TV timeouts, and when the ball changes possession the game moves faster also. TV has commercials, it seems, after every change of possession.

Unfortunately, this rule was put into effect for the minority of games on TV, and the majority of schools need to abide by rules that only involve the celebrity schools.

Here is radical idea. Have a game time length of exactly 3 hours, which is 180 minutes. Just as in soccer, let the clock run continuously. Have 40 minute quarters, which would give a 20 minute half-time.

You know, the bottom line here is that commercials are the problem. It is funny that Falconian has brought up soccer in this conversation because - and I don't think that this has occurred to many people - televised soccer does not have commercial breaks during game play. Think about it - Americans love football like it is crack and, generally, hate soccer because it is boring, lame and just plain sucks (BUT YOU STUPID AMERICANS JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!! ).

Albeit a very simple one, this point does beg the question of why soccer can get away with it and football can't? Is it because advertisers just don't think they are going to get any return on their investment in soccer advertising? I really doubt that this could be the case because the game of soccer is not built for any kind of timeout for 45 minutes at a time. So what gives? The easy answer, I think, is simply television "greed," but somehow I think it runs deeper than that. I've never hear this question raised before, and I'm interested to see what some of you might think.

Oh, and the first person to try and "convince" me that soccer isn't lame and doesn't suck gets a swift e-kick to the throat. It isn't going to happen. In my estimation it sucks, its lame, and it isn't football, hockey, baseball, rugby, hurling or anything else that is interesting.

Soccer (even the World Cup) doesn't have billion dollar rights packages to pay for with advertising.

I don't know how they came to decide to make this a rule ahead of anything else that might speed up play, or other times to start/keep the clock running where now it wouldn't be. As was mentioned in an example here, or maybe somewhere else, if you just kick the ball out of bounds, you'll wind 6-10 seconds off before the offense even gets a chance to snap the ball. It's absurd, and I can't believe this got voted in as a rule change by the same people that have drug their feet for years on something as practical as instant replay.

Before long, you'll start seeing 12 minute quarters and :30 run-offs after plays less than 15 yards.