Clock rule change data after week zero and week one: games are being significantly shortened

Submitted by 42-27 on September 3rd, 2023 at 9:22 PM

How the new clock rules have impacted the games so far this college football season:

2022:

•plays per game: 131

•drives per game: 24.0

•plays per drive: 5.50

2023

•plays per game: 117 (-10.7% fewer)

•drives per game: 21.7 (-9.6%fewer)

•plays per drive: 5.40

Link to tweet

So about 10% less game time and from what I've seen, no difference in broadcast time.  10% of the game replaced by commercials.  Great for advertisers, fucking terrible for fans.  Schools are wondering why game attendance is dropping.  This right here.  The commercial breaks were already brutal when attending a game, this just makes it worse.

Personally, I am going to the OSU game this year, because...obviously, but I was offered free tickets to 2 of the non-con games and I declined.  Just not worth it to me anymore when I can hang out at home drinking cheap beer, eating cheap food, and go to the bathroom without a 10-minute trek and wait.  I'm in my 30's and writing this makes me feel pretty old.  I just don't have the will to sit in the 85 degree sun for 4 hours to see 30 minutes of football anymore.

Teddy Bonkers

September 3rd, 2023 at 9:58 PM ^

Great thread. I haven't watched much football, but it seemed like a lot of commercials... Although it seemed like that last year too.

"Great for advertisers, fucking terrible for fans. "

I think it's to be determined how great it is for advertisers. I'm likely to be watching fewer games. Will be interesting to see if this impacts ratings. Networks might regret their new contracts if ratings take a nose dive. More commercials might prompt more people to DVR games.

 

1VaBlue1

September 4th, 2023 at 8:16 AM ^

Do DVR'd games not count in the ratings?  Everyone has a smart TV connected to the internet now - those TV's are sending usage data back to the broadcasters unless you've searched deep into the 'Settings' menu and found a way to turn it off.  Most people (I'd say 98%) haven't done that.  The 'Neilson Ratings' aren't what they used to be!

NittanyFan

September 3rd, 2023 at 10:00 PM ^

Maybe my imagination ---- but it seemed (off one data point, WVU @ PSU) like NBC didn't air a metric-ton of commericals.

Could be good, since NBC has some B1G games this year, of course.

The other 2 games I watched yesterday: Colorado @ TCU on FOX was a torture-fest.  I attended the Coastal Carolina @ UCLA game at the Rose Bowl: that was an ESPN broadcast and it felt like they were in-between FOX and NBC in terms of number of commercials.

GoBlueGoWings

September 3rd, 2023 at 10:00 PM ^

My dad always says,”The answer is money. What is the question?”

Having so many commercials is stupid. The people in the stands won’t see them, people record the game and fast forward through the commercials or if they watch the game live, during the break they flip over to another game or get up to do something and not watch the commercials.

The only time people seem to care about commercials is during the Super Bowl, and those have been disappointing lately 

Michigan Arrogance

September 4th, 2023 at 8:48 AM ^

The people in the stands won’t see them, people record the game and fast forward through the commercials or if they watch the game live, during the break they flip over to another game or get up to do something and not watch the commercials.

Your second point has been true for 50 years and yet TV execs still collect data that says they make money on selling commercials. IDK

The 1st point: on the 'Cock, were you able to FF via DVR? In my expereince on the streaming services the commercials are unavoidable. This will be the future: all games streamed, can 'record' the stream but can't FF thru commercials.

Teddy Bonkers

September 3rd, 2023 at 10:19 PM ^

Maybe if a protest could be organized, where enough fans turn off the games at the start of the 2nd quarter and leave it off for an hour it would put pressure on the rules committee and networks to stop diluting the game with commercials.

Or maybe enough people will just stop watching games that don't involve their school 

aa_squared

September 3rd, 2023 at 10:19 PM ^

"I just don't have the will to sit in the 85 degree sun for 4 hours to see 30 minutes of football anymore."

Unfortunately, this needs to be done for 3 non-con games and at least 1 league games. (Almost every year.) However, these are the games where you bring the kids and establish the tradition of them loving Michigan Football, the University, and Ann Arbor. Get them started by watching the "Band Take The Field" and then watching the Team running onto the field listening to The Victors. Goosebumps will happen.

It is tough, but it has to be done. With the Big 10 expanding, it may eventually be 2 games a year instead of 4 games per year.

GO BLUE!!!

42-27

September 3rd, 2023 at 10:33 PM ^

Anecdotal, but my high school football coach friend said it's tough to get as many football players playing as it used to be.  The AAU culture with kids specializing in only one sport combined with parents not wanting to expose their kids to CTE has killed his football team this year.  Went from 55+ kids a couple years ago to 30 kids this year, for a D2 Michigan high school that has won a state championship recently.

ST3

September 4th, 2023 at 12:08 AM ^

It’s really unfortunate too, because nothing brings the community together like a Friday night football game. My son was in the marching band for 4 years. I went to every home game. 
In addition to the football players, you’ve got the band, chearleaders and the dance team. Add in all the parents and the younger kids and we’d have 3-4K people at the games. Nothing else brings the community together regularly like Friday night football. I hope they figure out the safety issues. Football has value far beyond the entertainment it provides.

1VaBlue1

September 4th, 2023 at 8:26 AM ^

"I hope they figure out the safety issues."

I've said it a hundred times - the NFL needs to lead this.  Most high schools and lower level college teams (and Pop Warner/AAU) can't afford the better helmets, the ones the NFL uses.  Or better (best?) safety equipment all around.  The NFL could address that quite easily, along with sponsoring coaching clinics to teach proper form all the way down to the volunteer coaches for community leagues.  

What would that take, other than 1 or 2 Billion $$$?  What NFL owner couldn't afford that investment in the game?  Let alone the consortium of 32 billionaire NFL owners and the NFL itself?  It would go a LONG WAY towards securing the future of the game...

crg

September 3rd, 2023 at 10:37 PM ^

I had season tickets for numerous years (4 seats) straight but stopped purchasing after the 2019 season (decision was made pre-pandemic, but only by a few months).  I still feel comfortable with the choice.

TeslaRedVictorBlue

September 3rd, 2023 at 10:55 PM ^

One thing I didn't realize is that not only is the clock running on first downs, but it's running on plays that go out of bounds without the pause. According to what I just saw and heard on the lsu vs fsu broadcast.

I like none of it. I enjoy the game and all it brings. The game yesterday was neverending awful PEACOCK commercials. They didn't even have enough commercials so we got that garbage... Be back soon bullshit.

Collateral Whiz

September 3rd, 2023 at 11:29 PM ^

Does this exclude special teams plays? I looked up the average plays per game last year recently and it was closer to 160/game.

Regardless, sad to see the solution to shortening games be playing less football and not showing fewer commercials. 

 

Qmatic

September 3rd, 2023 at 11:29 PM ^

Here’s the truth for me as an alum, with season tickets from the day I stepped on campus all the way through almost 2 decades to today:

I love everything about the gameday experience, but what I like the least is the game. I love tailgating with my mgobrother and bringing our spouses and 5 kids between us. It’s the best. The games though have become a drag on the fan. I think of the freezing slog games of night game Indiana, Nebraska last year, and our embarrassing OOC schedule and it’s a rough go. We got home at 6:00 yesterday and I was shot; and my favorite part of the day wasn’t even the game. I start to think meeting up with my brother and his kids and have our kids play all game and watch the game in A/C would be more enjoyable at this point for most games.

And yet, it becomes worth it when games like 42-27 happen; there is the trap 

tybert

September 4th, 2023 at 12:12 AM ^

Been a season tix holder since the 80s. Sitting in the S EZ for the last 30+ years. Long drawn out games like Saturday don't bother me anymore since I can figure SOMEDAY there will be a big win to make up for 4-5 of these snooze fests - whether 42-27 snowbowl, last year's 19-17 Freezer Bowl (thanks Jake Moody) win vs. Illinois, seeing Dicktonio get beat 44-10 in his last Big House showing, 42-7 vs. dickhead Franklin, Denard Robinson incredible runs, 100th year win vs. Ohio, Woodson '97, Desmond '91, Timmy B '95, Henne to Manningham in the dark vs PSU, etc. 

Arb lover

September 3rd, 2023 at 11:32 PM ^

Well this isn't my hill to die on, or to make a buck on, but if it was...

Make a website, heck, make it a weekly Diary here. Post all the advertisers who advertised nationally for NCAA CFB games AND post their competitors who offer similar products but who didn't advertise. (Please buy the competition and don't buy the advertisers). An argument could be made from a purely practical standpoint that the company who doesn't advertise in the space may actually have the superior product and may not be paying extra overhead for advertising and could pass some of that on to ensure competitive pricing. Enough people start tweeting this or sharing it on social media, I think some serious conversations would be had at that sorry excuse for a corporate headquarters in Indianapolis.

kalamazoo

September 3rd, 2023 at 11:46 PM ^

It'd be nice to keep the B1G strong so be nice just to weaken SEC if possible, get them to stop going or watching by trolling the message boards.

I like the out of box thinking tthough. A good organized response would be interesting.

I'm sure the money folks in charge just think we'll get used to it.

Carcajou

September 4th, 2023 at 10:35 AM ^

OTOH I watched the game in the "bistro" pub area at the senior living facility my mother is in. Good turnout (especially because nobody has Peacock in their rooms). The guy running it was pretty busy so I had the remote; and I would mute the commercial breaks, to give our ears a break, let people converse, etc. But a couple of the elder ladies there complained that they wanted to hear the commercials. So I guess it takes all kinds.
We compromised by muting every other commercial break.

rob f

September 4th, 2023 at 12:11 AM ^

OP---when the author of your linked tweet was asked "What's the average time of broadcast?",  he admitted "I don't have that data".

Seems to me that's some pretty vital data he's lacking.

42-27

September 4th, 2023 at 8:33 AM ^

I agree.  I do know the week zero broadcast times were 1% less than the year before, while having 8% fewer snaps.  If you excluded the Navy-Notre Dame game, week zero games actually took LONGER than the average game last year, while having fewer snaps.

More data is needed, because there were only 8 week zero games, but it feels like games really haven't been shortened to the extent that snaps have been taken out.  My gut tells me this was just a way for broadcasts to shove more commercials in.

BKBlue94

September 4th, 2023 at 3:32 AM ^

This sucks. I'm a big in person game watcher, and I'm constantly trying to convince people it's better to be there. This just makes it that much harder

Savoy88

September 4th, 2023 at 8:56 AM ^

What else is new? They're doing everything they can to maximize profit and fans are doing doodley squat in response. The college football powerhouses aren't afraid for their jobs, or afraid of fans ability to effect their profits. They're not afraid, period.

I won't mention the Citizenry of the U.S and their ability to hold federal politicians responsible for doing their jobs and keeping their promises in general because of the board's general policy on politics, but I have little hope that college football fans will do jack to change things in the college football world. Oh, they'll discuss which coaches are in "hot seats" ad nauseam. But they won't make the people in positions of power over college football fear for their jobs and the profits of their entities. 

You present interesting data in a concise manner and then make some interesting points in the first following paragraph. Pretty good. I don't know what to make of that second paragraph though. "Hanging out at home while drinking cheap beer" and "eating cheap food" definitely helps the "feeling pretty old" and "will to sit" make more sense. I feel for you man, I really do. 

College football fans effecting changes in regards to "advertising"? And the dumping of feces onto those who pay money to sit in the stadium in order for people at home to delay the game watching advertisements? I'm trying to keep a straight face, I truly am.

 

MaizeBlueA2

September 4th, 2023 at 9:05 AM ^

Said this was going to happen when all of the NFL slappies were talking about how this is a great rule.

Also, this is going to hurt Michigan more than it hurts teams who throw the ball a lot.

Fewer plays to wear you down with the run and more commercials that let you rest.

It going to hurt fans of Michigan and other running teams because their games will be significantly shorter.

If you root for an Air Raid team you're going to get incomplete passes and guys getting knocked out of bounds along the sideline. Meanwhile, Michigan is going to be running it up the middle.

It's all bad.

steviebrownfor…

September 4th, 2023 at 9:51 AM ^

I end up having the mute button on so frequently that I forget to turn it on and I end up tuning out of the games.

CFB is circling the hole at the bottom of the toilet.  But at least we got these last few years as a solid send off.