cotton
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 11,216
- Likes
- 9
They have been explained during every single game I've watched this year, so I won't repeat them, but I did want to add my two cents on the latest attempt to shorten the game:
1. The general consensus seems to be that games are shortened by about 10 plays. With a smaller sampling of plays, we should see a few more upsets, as better teams have less chance to overcome short-term anomalies.
2. It isn't just any 10 plays that are removed from the games; it is the last 10. Stronger, deeper, better conditioned teams have less opportunity to mount that late game, push the worn-down defense down the field drive.
3. The "problem" these rules are designed to fix is that the games often stretch beyond TV's 3 or 3.5 hour time window. If they really want to fix that "problem," there is a much better way: shorten commercials. Nobody seems to have an issue with non-televised games being too long.
If you haven't figured it out yet, I don't like the rules, but I would like to hear other thoughts.
1. The general consensus seems to be that games are shortened by about 10 plays. With a smaller sampling of plays, we should see a few more upsets, as better teams have less chance to overcome short-term anomalies.
2. It isn't just any 10 plays that are removed from the games; it is the last 10. Stronger, deeper, better conditioned teams have less opportunity to mount that late game, push the worn-down defense down the field drive.
3. The "problem" these rules are designed to fix is that the games often stretch beyond TV's 3 or 3.5 hour time window. If they really want to fix that "problem," there is a much better way: shorten commercials. Nobody seems to have an issue with non-televised games being too long.
If you haven't figured it out yet, I don't like the rules, but I would like to hear other thoughts.