Doug Rhoads outlines ACC rule changes including low hits to the passer, addition of eighth official

[OrangeXtreme]

http://www.syracuse.com/orangefootball/index.ssf/2014/07/acc_2014_rule_changes_doug_rhoads.html

 

[SteveC]

Woo more rules/penalties. /s

 

[OrangePA]

Next thing you know, there will be an official for every player on the field.

The game is suffering because it is becoming an officials' game.

And that does not bode well for the future of football - too long, too many calls, too many subjective violations, too much influence on the outcome by officials.

Ugh.

 

[Scooch]

Next thing you know, there will be an official for every player on the field.

The game is suffering because it is becoming an officials' game.

And that does not bode well for the future of football - too long, too many calls, too many subjective violations, too much influence on the outcome by officials.

Ugh.

You keep saying this OPA, but there is no evidence of it being true.

Like at all.

 

[OrangePA]

You keep saying this OPA, but there is no evidence of it being true.

Like at all.

I keep saying what?

That the games are too long?

That there are too many penalties?

That too many of the calls are too subjective - normal fans can't tell the difference between holding and non-holding for example or the difference between offensive and defensive pass interference?

I don't have raw statistical data if that's what you mean.

But I have lots of anecdotal evidence.

I live in Philly.

I have a number of football freak friends - lifetime fans - who now refuse to attend Eagles games - because the games are too long - there are too many time outs, etc. One friend, while we are at a Monday Night game two years ago, commented that we were simply part of the "studio audience" - that the game presentation was not for us but for the TV audience.

And I have heard on talk radio - I think this AM - that the NFL has concerns about game attendance - fans prefer watching from home.

I have read posts I think on this board commending the World Cup because, in part, the games last only two hours - not four hours.

I have heard many football fans - and even announcers - complain that there are just too many calls during games.

People watch on TV - no doubt about it.

But, its become more and more about various forms of gambling including fantasy leagues, and just the social event of watching every week. It's less and less about the game itself.

In the absence of data, obviously it's my opinion, but I think I'm right.

Sorry.

 

[Scooch]

I keep saying what?

That the games are too long?

That there are too many penalties?

That too many of the calls are too subjective - normal fans can't tell the difference between holding and non-holding for example or the difference between offensive and defensive pass interference?

I don't have raw statistical data if that's what you mean.

But I have lots of anecdotal evidence.

I live in Philly.

I have a number of football freak friends - lifetime fans - who now refuse to attend Eagles games - because the games are too long - there are too many time outs, etc. One friend, while we are at a Monday Night game two years ago, commented that we were simply part of the "studio audience" - that the game presentation was not for us but for the TV audience.

And I have heard on talk radio - I think this AM - that the NFL has concerns about game attendance - fans prefer watching from home.

I have read posts I think on this board commending the World Cup because, in part, the games last only two hours - not four hours.

I have heard many football fans - and even announcers - complain that there are just too many calls during games.

People watch on TV - no doubt about it.

But, its become more and more about various forms of gambling including fantasy leagues, and just the social event of watching every week. It's less and less about the game itself.

In the absence of data, obviously it's my opinion, but I think I'm right.

Sorry.

Yes, you keep claiming that time of game and penalties will harm football interest.

Football, both college and pro, has never, ever been more popular. It's not just about fantasy and gambling. 20 million people play fantasy football, that's about 10% of all people who watch football on TV each season, and the number hasn't moved significantly in several years now (while ratings increase).

Why would it being about a "social event" be a negative? In a culture that is more and more fragmented, unifying social experiences are more powerful and valuable than ever.

It's easy to "predict" something in the absence of data. Feel free to scare some up and make a case.

Of course you think you're right. Everyone thinks they're right.

 

[OrangePA]

Yes, you keep claiming that time of game and penalties will harm football interest.

Football, both college and pro, has never, ever been more popular. It's not just about fantasy and gambling. 20 million people play fantasy football, that's about 10% of all people who watch football on TV each season, and the number hasn't moved significantly in several years now (while ratings increase).

Why would it being about a "social event" be a negative? In a culture that is more and more fragmented, unifying social experiences are more powerful and valuable than ever.

It's easy to "predict" something in the absence of data. Feel free to scare some up and make a case.

Of course you think you're right. Everyone thinks they're right.

Fantasy football is only one form of gambling.

There are office pools, local parlays, sports book betting and many other forms.

I really don't know the stats - as you have noted - but it seems to me that on a typical Sunday less than 20 million people watch an Eagles game on TV.

And, by the way, the move to TV is really what I'm talking about.

Fewer fans want to watch NFL football in person.

The game experience is just not all that enjoyable.

And that's a problem.

Football is great. I love it. That's why I'm on this board everyday.

But the games are becoming too long. There are too many penalties and too many subjective rules and the officials do have too much control over outcomes.

Indeed, I think this post was prompted by the news that an additional official will be used for ACC games and I believe the post that followed the OP complained about too many penalties being called during games.

I didn't just pull this out of thin air.

The fact is that mass public taste changes. At one time Jerry Lewis was as big as the Beatles. And at one time horse racing was this country's favorite spectator sport. And boxing dominated TV.

The defects in a product sometimes take awhile to impact sales or popularity.

Time will tell.

 

[SU2NASA]

Fantasy football is only one form of gambling.

There are office pools, local parlays, sports book betting and many other forms.

I really don't know the stats - as you have noted - but it seems to me that on a typical Sunday less than 20 million people watch an Eagles game on TV.

And, by the way, the move to TV is really what I'm talking about.

Fewer fans want to watch NFL football in person.

The game experience is just not all that enjoyable.

And that's a problem.

Football is great. I love it. That's why I'm on this board everyday.

But the games are becoming too long. There are too many penalties and too many subjective rules and the officials do have too much control over outcomes.

Indeed, I think this post was prompted by the news that an additional official will be used for ACC games and I believe the post that followed the OP complained about too many penalties being called during games.

I didn't just pull this out of thin air.

The fact is that mass public taste changes. At one time Jerry Lewis was as big as the Beatles. And at one time horse racing was this country's favorite spectator sport. And boxing dominated TV.

The defects in a product sometimes take awhile to impact sales or popularity.

Time will tell.

The officials definitely have too much control over the game, particularly in the NFL (increasingly) and the NBA.

And with a league with billions of dollars at stake, what's more likely - that the league is sitting back and letting whatever happens happen, or that there may be some helping hand in one direction or another to maximize revenue?

I'm not saying that the games are fixed, but rather that the officiating does benefit teams that maximize value to the league.

 

[Scooch]

Fantasy football is only one form of gambling.

There are office pools, local parlays, sports book betting and many other forms.

I really don't know the stats - as you have noted - but it seems to me that on a typical Sunday less than 20 million people watch an Eagles game on TV.

And, by the way, the move to TV is really what I'm talking about.

Fewer fans want to watch NFL football in person.

The game experience is just not all that enjoyable.

And that's a problem.

Football is great. I love it. That's why I'm on this board everyday.

But the games are becoming too long. There are too many penalties and too many subjective rules and the officials do have too much control over outcomes.

Indeed, I think this post was prompted by the news that an additional official will be used for ACC games and I believe the post that followed the OP complained about too many penalties being called during games.

I didn't just pull this out of thin air.

The fact is that mass public taste changes. At one time Jerry Lewis was as big as the Beatles. And at one time horse racing was this country's favorite spectator sport. And boxing dominated TV.

The defects in a product sometimes take awhile to impact sales or popularity.

Time will tell.

Responding to the bolded, in order...

> Incorrect. Attendance has been remarkably stable. League-wide attendance in 2008 was 17.3 million. In 2013 it was...17.3 million.

> Kinda, but not because of the reason you gave. Average game time is up about 6 minutes per game over a few years ago. But the reason is not penalties. The amount of penalties called per game has been consistent, it's been about the same over the past few years. The reason for the extra minutes is because of instant replay, specifically the new-ish rule that require a reply to confirm every score and turnover.

> Well, no kidding. You also conveniently fail to note the fact that there is more scoring in the NFL (and college) in decades. And more passing than ever. Both of which tend to add more time to each game given more frequent clock stoppages. The continued growth in ratings coincides with that increase in scoring and passing. So perhaps the public is responding to an improvement in the "product", not lagging in responding to a defect.

I'm in a field where we tend to discount a "focus group of one". Or opinions formed from selection bias. You think there are too many penalties and the games are too long. Thus when someone agrees you reinforce your opinion as if that is broad evidence. It's human nature to do that, but it's also not representative.

 

[OrangePA]

Responding to the bolded, in order...

> Incorrect. Attendance has been remarkably stable. League-wide attendance in 2008 was 17.3 million. In 2013 it was...17.3 million.

> Kinda, but not because of the reason you gave. Average game time is up about 6 minutes per game over a few years ago. But the reason is not penalties. The amount of penalties called per game has been consistent, it's been about the same over the past few years. The reason for the extra minutes is because of instant replay, specifically the new-ish rule that require a reply to confirm every score and turnover.

> Well, no kidding. You also conveniently fail to note the fact that there is more scoring in the NFL (and college) in decades. And more passing than ever. Both of which tend to add more time to each game given more frequent clock stoppages. The continued growth in ratings coincides with that increase in scoring and passing. So perhaps the public is responding to an improvement in the "product", not lagging in responding to a defect.

I'm in a field where we tend to discount a "focus group of one". Or opinions formed from selection bias. You think there are too many penalties and the games are too long. Thus when someone agrees you reinforce your opinion as if that is broad evidence. It's human nature to do that, but it's also not representative.

Yes, replays are part of officiating and in keeping with the idea that the game is becoming one of officials.

And there must be more commercials on TV than ever before.

I may be wrong - you will tell me I'm sure! - but there are far more rules of the game now than there were say thirty years ago. And that means the officials play a more prominent role in the game now than they did many years ago - more rules to enforce.

We'll just have to see what happens in the next 20 years.

As I said before, I can only report anecdotal evidence.

A movement or a trend usually begins quietly and is oftentimes not noticed for awhile.

If it bothers me - a huge fan - and it bothers other huge fans I know and talk to - there has to be something to it.

We shall see.

I seem to recall you being a Newhouse guy?

What do you do?

I mean, you seem to have the answers - what is your field?

 

[Scooch]

Yes, replays are part of officiating and in keeping with the idea that the game is becoming one of officials.

And there must be more commercials on TV than ever before.

I may be wrong - you will tell me I'm sure! - but there are far more rules of the game now than there were say thirty years ago. And that means the officials play a more prominent role in the game now than they did many years ago - more rules to enforce.

We'll just have to see what happens in the next 20 years.

As I said before, I can only report anecdotal evidence.

A movement or a trend usually begins quietly and is oftentimes not noticed for awhile.

If it bothers me - a huge fan - and it bothers other huge fans I know and talk to - there has to be something to it.

We shall see.

I seem to recall you being a Newhouse guy?

What do you do?

I mean, you seem to have the answers - what is your field?

OPA, I appreciate the responses, but if you want to continue this you should address the data I put forth. Otherwise, honestly, it's a waste of time if all you're going to do is repeatedly cite your opinion. I have lots of opinions too, and many aren't representative of a majority of the population. Google is your friend, go look stuff up. Type in "NFL penalties per game", you don't just have to "only" report anecdotal evidence.

I do research for a living, hence my rather strident point of view. I'm perfectly willing to concede on any point if someone can show data suggesting their perspective is valid.

 

[OrangePA]

OPA, I appreciate the responses, but if you want to continue this you should address the data I put forth. Otherwise, honestly, it's a waste of time if all you're going to do is repeatedly cite your opinion. I have lots of opinions too, and many aren't representative of a majority of the population. Google is your friend, go look stuff up. Type in "NFL penalties per game", you don't just have to "only" report anecdotal evidence.

I do research for a living, hence my rather strident point of view. I'm perfectly willing to concede on any point if someone can show data suggesting their perspective is valid.

I don't think you understand what I am trying to convey.

I'm curious though, what do you research?

TV, cable, broadcasting, marketing, sports and entertainment?

 

[Scooch]

I don't think you understand what I am trying to convey.

I'm curious though, what do you research?

TV, cable, broadcasting, marketing, sports and entertainment?

Are you not suggesting that football is going to suffer a major decline in popularity due to the length of games, exacerbated by a growing amount of penalties and "influence" on the game by officials?

And yes, all of those.

 

[OrangePA]

Are you not suggesting that football is going to suffer a major decline in popularity due to the length of games, exacerbated by a growing amount of penalties and "influence" on the game by officials?

And yes, all of those.

Excellent.

You have mentioned part of what I see.

But, I don't think you get the fundamental point I have tried to make in response to your calculus.

And that is this.

I know many football fans in the Philly area and in other large metropolitan areas who without prompting have repeated the same mantra - they don't like going to the games anymore - the games take too long - there are too many commercials and yes, there are too many penalties including instant replay delays.

What I have tried to convey, is that in my opinion, those kinds of grass roots observations mean something or should mean something.

I wonder.

Have you looked at poll results addressing the length of games, the game time experience, the concern about penalty calling or the amount of involvement that officials have in pro football games?

Those would be interesting polls.

What does your research tell you about the length of college and pro football games over the last twenty years? Or, about the number of commercials during NFL games over the last twenty years? Or, about the number of additional rules added to the college and pro games over the last twenty years?

That would all be interesting to know.

I don't expect the game to lose TV ratings in the near future. But in twenty years, I would not be surprised if the interest in the game has peaked.

Time will tell.

 

[Scooch]

What does your research tell you about the length of college and pro football games over the last twenty years? Or, about the number of commercials during NFL games over the last twenty years? Or, about the number of additional rules added to the college and pro games over the last twenty years?

In the past couple decades the length of games has increased (I think by ~10 minutes), and there are more commercials. I can't speak to the increase in "rules", but from some cursory research it seems that # of penalties hasn't grown substantially.

Also over the past couple of decades the average game attendance and audience levels on TV have both increased considerably.

I'm not disputing that people you talk to have expressed dissatisfaction with going to games, their length, etc.

Suggesting that football may be some degree of less popular 20 years from now is not exactly going out on a limb. You're offering up a coin toss prediction, no?

Thanks for the dialogue.

 

[Opus]

Up for next next year, whether the defensive line will have to yell 1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi, 3 Mississippi before rushing the passer...

 

[OrangePA]

In the past couple decades the length of games has increased (I think by ~10 minutes), and there are more commercials. I can't speak to the increase in "rules", but from some cursory research it seems that # of penalties hasn't grown substantially.

Also over the past couple of decades the average game attendance and audience levels on TV have both increased considerably.

I'm not disputing that people you talk to have expressed dissatisfaction with going to games, their length, etc.

Suggesting that football may be some degree of less popular 20 years from now is not exactly going out on a limb. You're offering up a coin toss prediction, no?

Thanks for the dialogue.

I don't think I'm offering a coin toss. I'm going farther than that.

I truly believe that the popularity of pro football is cresting - I think the game has a number of subtle but significant problems. And, I think we will see the effect of those problems.

When I have time I will try to do some research on the issue of game length.

I find it hard to believe that the length of games has not increased significantly in the past 10, 20, 30 years.

Heck, in the old days a 1 pm NFL game ended before 4 pm.

That never even comes close to happening nowadays.

But, I'll see what I can find and report back to you.