Coaches take issue with game clock rule changes

[Bullsfan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2544174

Pretty interesting article as far as rule changes.

[BullyPulpit]

"I think it will help the underdog teams," South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier told USA Today. "If you're the underdog, obviously you would like fewer plays in the game."

Idiot! It won't help an underdog who is trailing and trying to make a comeback. It has nothing to do with teams that are favored, it just eliminates some of the excitement from the game if there is a late comeback occurring.

I actually think this might help USF. Defense is obviously our strength, and the less the other team's offense can run plays, the less chance they have of getting lucky and scoring on "The Green Wall of Tampa" (we need to name our defense, **** the fact that Gang Green has been taken!)

[Minotaur]

I understand what he is saying.

In the short term you can get ahead of a superior team with a turnover or big play and hold on to win. If the game was played indefinately the stronger team would always catch up and win. Luck and emotion run out and talent and physicality win.

[BullyPulpit]

I understand what he is saying.

In the short term you can get ahead of a superior team with a turnover or big play and hold on to win. If the game was played indefinately the stronger team would always catch up and win. Luck and emotion run out and talent and physicality win.

I agree with what you are saying to an extent. But if luck and emotion still have a team winning or in a game after playing 55+ minutes, it is impossible to say which team the decrease in time benefits. I could understand if they wanted to shorten the game to 4, 10 minutes quarters, but my point is that it is incalcuable to determine which team the reduction in time will benefit without looking at each game individually. Obviously a team that is favored to win and that just scored a go ahead touchdown with 15 seconds to play is getting an advantage on the underdog. His statement does not take into consideration the underdogs who would need a few more seconds to win a game.

[Minotaur]

You are right it can cut both ways and there is no way to know up front which way it will go.

The rule I wish they would change is the automatic clock stoppage after a first down during the last 2 minutes of each half. That is an unfair advantage to the offense. It can ruin a game. (ie: ND vs USC)

[smazza]

"I think it will help the underdog teams," South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier told USA Today. "If you're the underdog, obviously you would like fewer plays in the game."

HE IS CORRECT.THERE WILL BE 10-15 LESS PLAYS A GAME.OVER COURSE OF TIME WITH MORE PLAYS TALENT WILL OVERTAKE LESS TALENT.

SOMEONE ON THIS BOARD CALLING SPURRIER AN IDIOTT IS FUNNY

[Minotaur]

What are you trying to say Steve?  ;D

[BullyPulpit]

"I think it will help the underdog teams," South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier told USA Today. "If you're the underdog, obviously you would like fewer plays in the game."

HE IS CORRECT.THERE WILL BE 10-15 LESS PLAYS A GAME.OVER COURSE OF TIME WITH MORE PLAYS TALENT WILL OVERTAKE LESS TALENT.

SOMEONE ON THIS BOARD CALLING SPURRIER AN IDIOTT IS FUNNY

You are right, I should not cast judgement. I should leave that for the Washington Redskins fans.....I wonder what they think?  ;D

[bulls96go]

makes no difference!

[BigShoop]

I just wanna know this: WHY are they doing this? What's the benefit? If they're tired of games running too late, here's a novel idea - START THEM EARLIER