Kevin, toward the end of the day, complains about the end of the UW-USC game. He suggests that maybe, just maybe, UW might have been able to pull out the upset if they’d had that extra time back taken away by the rules changes.
And I can’t help but want to fucking barf. I mean, really. Can you at least get the fucking story straight?
For a month, complaints centered on how in these rules-shortened games, the upset would be more likely, because the time to rally a comeback would be gone.
And we’ve experienced one of the most predictable (talking strictly won-loss, btw, I don’t pay spreads much mind at all) seasons in recent memory, if not even longer than that.
So, apparently the mantra of the four-hour-long game folks is going to try to appeal to my underdog sensibilities. Well, you know what? It won’t work.
I have a family. I have a five-year old. And while I enjoy watching college football, I (and my daughter) appreciate the ten or fifteen minutes back. There’s a quick game of Go Fish, a dash to the swing set out back, or a quick jaunt around the block that I can fit into that time back.
Or, even better from a football point of view, broadcasters with rights enough to pull it off (like Disney Sports), can let us watch the end of another game, and another game, till they decide they’ve shown us enough endings, and present us with WSOP coverage or some other garbage that makes my eyes bleed.
A final comment: Do you think an extra ten seconds would really have made a difference? Of course it could have, but a quick glance at the recent history of the Trojans suggests that UW/underdog supporters would have been disappointed given another ten or ninety seconds. And why was no play called, the line not in place, etc., etc., when the ball was put into play? The Huskies gave it what they had, and what they had wasn’t enough. Give ‘em another minute, give ‘em another hour… they still lose that game.
Of course, the rules changes are bad simply because you say they are…
October 9, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Well, given that they couldn’t get the snap off to spike the ball…the old rules would have at least allowed that and at least allowed Washington a shot. We’ve seen week after week now how these rules are changing the game, or at the very least affecting the game and there’s a whole lot of negative to them. I mean, 15 minutes is just 15 minutes and the majority of the audience is still looking to fill that 15 minutes with college football.
October 10, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Ouch. Harsh.
Firstly…UW had it at the USC 15 when time expired. They had marched down the field in about a minute after USC kicked off following their field goal. The odds were still against them, but they had momentum and would’ve gotten the ball into the end zone.
Secondly…I am unmoved by your appreciation for shorter games for your daughter’s sake because you don’t have to watch the games at all (speaking of wanting to puke, I’ll take that bit of pandering earnestness). It’s a given that watching sports is not as important as things like that.
Thirdly, “Of Course, the rule changes are bad simply because you say they are.” I’m not quite sure how to respond to this, or even what it means. It seems like something someone would write if they thought their adversary was not backing up their points and taking an arrogant tone. Assuming this is what you mean, I don’t think my tone is any more arrogant or unblanced than yours, ye who celebrates the ability to finally let your curse words flow and the “makes me want to barf” “makes my eyes bleed” bellicosity that defines most of your posts. I mean to say, such imagery suggests a high amount of certitude in your positions.
If I didn’t explain my opposition to the rule well enough in the post (the media and punditry I have read on it has been almost universally against the rule, so I guess I thought it would not be necessary for my to explain why I don’t like it), my bad. I don’t feel like the games in any sport are suddenly “too long.” If they are too long, with apologies to your daughter, I don’t think 10-15 really makes that much of a difference. I see this is as a cynical financially-motivated move, because besides the fact that they did not decide to shorten the games by relieving us of a commercial break or two, do you know who complains about games being too long, present company excluded? Casual fans, that’s who. This is another in a long, long list of sports decisions made with the casual fan in mind. The casual fan is where the money is at, because there’s so many of them.
I can think of at least one issue that could be called a victory for the causal fan (that being the BCS system and the idea of a playoff) that you have argued against in part because of “tradition.” Traditionally, hockey games aren’t settled by shootout, there’s no such thing as a BCS championship, and the clock doesn’t start until the ball is snapped after kickoffs. Which traditions you are willing to cast aside and which ones I am may vary. But we can’t really use the “this system is too hallowed to tinker with!” argument unless we are gonna apply it to everything in that sport, because hallowed is in the eye of the beholder.
October 10, 2006 at 4:55 pm
P.S. Forgot: Can I keep my “fucking story straight?” *I* never heralded this rule as being great for potential upsets. I would have liked UW to have won, but I assure you my opposition to this rule has been as such since its announcement.
October 11, 2006 at 4:36 am
Everything I’ve read suggests that the blame at the end of the USC/UW game lies nearly solely on the Huskies. Probably, they should have five seconds on the clock and been able to get the play off. But, the team could have been lined up and set over the ball, ready for the clock to tick. They weren’t.
Doug’s suggestion that the rules changes have a negative effect each week is exactly the type of kvetching I was railing about in my post. In fact (and it’s entirely possible I’ve missed something), I haven’t heard anything about the effects of the rules changes since week three. Prior to Kevin’s note on it, anyway.
I think maybe, Kevin, you took my post as some sort of personal assault, and while I understand how you’d get that, the fact is, I was belching my bellicosity at the general audience who’ve complained about the rules changes. I’ve been far more silent on this topic than I wanted to be, no thanks to work. Add to that that my mood was a bit on the curmudgeonly side after watching just how pitiful the Steelers played the second half of their game v. the Chargers.
I’ll point out here (I should have done this in my post, but didn’t want to at the time) that my preferred rule change to reduce the time of games would have left the Huskies stuck in the same position. I wouldn’t stop the clock on 1st down.
One more thing: I understand the cynical view that the rules change is about commerical time, but I’m not sure I agree. How many more commercials are being fit in now as opposed to the extra time we saw last week? Don’tcha figure they were sliding in at the very least :30 spots during breaks in the action in the final few minutes. I haven’t seen or looked for a study on this, but it’d be interesting to compare the numbers of commercials in a close game last season v. a close one this season, if for no other reason, because you brought up the whole commericals thing.
October 11, 2006 at 6:21 am
I don’t think there are more commercials now then there were last year…my point is, there’s not less, and cutting a commercial break or two not only would have solved my problem, your problem, and the NCAA’s “problem,” but it would’ve been a hugely popular move. I don’t exactly begrudge them from taking money that advertisers want to give them, but obviously I don’t think game length was a problem that needed to be solved.
I’m also not trying to absolve UW. Well, maybe a little bit. They WERE ready to snap the ball, but then they stood up out of their stance when Wilingham charged the field to demand more time be put on, and a couple official joined him in a powwow. It appears that they didn’t think the ref would start the clock until the confab was over and Willingham was off the field but, what do you know, they did.
October 11, 2006 at 6:41 pm
“I haven’t heard anything about the effects of the rules changes since week three.”
I think most people don’t talk about it because it doesn’t do much good to constantly bring it up. Most people understand the effects of the rules and as fans just watch the games. The coaches are the ones that are going to have to re-evaluate them at the end of the year.
October 14, 2006 at 3:25 pm
I think the resposibility lies on the teams that when the ball is kicked off, the head coach should already have his offense ready to go, with the play already called. I’ve been to several UGA games this year, and as much as I criticize Richt, his offense is ready and set on the field before the clock starts, almost every time. The head coach should be getting his team ready while the K.O./Punt is taking place, seeing as how he hardly has anything to do w/special teams anyway.
May 31, 2007 at 9:27 pm
mortgage qualification reverse
ka-ka-sh-ka 4068232 Relevant mortgage qualification reverse
June 1, 2007 at 5:11 am
c l r
ka-ka-sh-ka 4068232 Books about c l r.
June 7, 2007 at 6:08 pm
free young gay boys
ka-ka-sh-ka 4068232 The best of free young gay boys.
June 7, 2007 at 6:18 pm
featherlite
Description of featherlite.
June 7, 2007 at 6:42 pm
bbw vhs
ka-ka-sh-ka 4068232 Advantages of bbw vhs.