Rules were made to be changed

The NCAA Rules Committee decided last year's experiment with college football did not result in the success it desired. Fans, players, coaches and many other people were upset with the rules changes. Scores were generally lower than in past years, not as many records were broken and there was a decrease in the number of plays in each game. The bottom line: Fans want to see a good football game, and they were not always seeing what they wanted last season. If the game will last another 14 minutes, the majority of fans will stay glued to the set or remain in the football stadium if it means seeing another 14 minutes of an exciting football game.

The committee voted to eliminate the rules that shaved this time off the game. It voted to have the clock start running on the snap after a change in possession rather than starting the clock when the referee signaled the ball ready for play as in 2006. The committee also brought back the rule on free kicks to that of 2005. This means the clock will start on kickoffs only when the ball is legally touched in the field of play. The 2006 football season proved effective in shaving time but ineffective in having an overall positive effect on the game.

The committee is drawing up new proposals to eliminate between 11 and 14 minutes from the game without disrupting actual playing time. These include limiting the play clock to 15 seconds following a timeout, moving kickoffs from the 30-yard line to the 35-yard line, reducing charged team timeouts to 30 seconds and limiting instant replay reviews to two minutes to decide to overturn or confirm the ruling on the field. All new proposals will be decided on by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel on March 12.

I am glad to see the committee is focused on pleasing its publics. It is trying to give busy spectators, athletes, coaches and other staff a little extra time on game days without ruining the game. Committee members tried to change some rules last year, and they were unsuccessful. After one season of the new rules, the committee decided to discontinue the rules and try a new approach. This is a display of a good public relations because they show a clear concern for the best interest of target publics, and they are looking to find a set of rules that will satisfy the need for a shorter game without eliminating playing time to gratify everyone.

There was brief discussion of making the new rules applicable only to Division I since it is affected the most, but the committee decided against the idea. Separating rules by division would only complicate the matter further, and the committee does not feel special rules should be in place for one division of a sport and not others. I could not agree more. From a public relations perspective, it is not a good idea to make Division I seem more important than Division II and Division III by essentially giving it privileges. Applying rules only to Division I would likely anger athletes and officials from the other divisions.

Thank you, NBA!

I would personally like to thank the National Basketball Association for making college basketball more exciting. The recently proposed rule imposing an age limit in the NBA has practically forced certain players to remain in school rather than leap to the NBA. As of the 2006 NBA Draft, a high school player is eligible for the draft one year after his graduating class has finished high school as long as he is 19 by the end of the calendar year of the draft.

Personally, I prefer to watch college basketball over professional, but many spectators argue that the level of experience in the NBA makes those games more exciting. Yes, it’s true that most NBA players have more experience than college basketball players, but I would rather watch a Division I college game any day. In the NBA, many players unfortunately just play for a paycheck. In college basketball, athletes are not allowed to accept payment for their participation in the game. Most college players play for the love of the game, to impress NBA scouts or to keep a scholarship. In the NBA, many players have already reached the pinnacle of their careers and strive mostly for more fame and more money.

It is unfortunate that many college basketball players leave college early to pursue professional careers. Imagine if Carmelo Anthony spent four years at Syracuse University or if Sean May stayed one more year at the University of North Carolina. I think it’s safe to say both of these teams would have drawn a lot more attention from the media if these key players decided not to jump to the NBA.

Perhaps the two freshmen most expected to forgo their remaining eligibility and enter the 2007 NBA Draft and be among the top picks are Greg Oden of the Ohio State Buckeyes and Kevin Durant of the Texas Longhorns. Oden and Durant were widely regarded as the top two high-school basketball players in the 2006 recruiting class. It is expected that one of these two will win the Freshman of the Year award. There are numerous Web sites dedicated to these players, and many fans are already discussing their NBA careers even though they have yet to leave college.

From a public relations perspective, this is simply wonderful. When college players generate this much excitement, the NCAA and many universities reap the benefits. Games featuring the most popular players are often televised, which only creates more publicity for the universities and their athletics programs. Without the new age rule in the NBA, some current college players would have skipped college and headed straight for a professional career in basketball, but this new rule ensures that the excitement over younger players will remain at the college level at least until they reach a certain age.

College Basketball Rivalry Week

As any college basketball enthusiast knows, last week was Rivalry Week in Division I. Texas played at Texas A&M. Michigan played at Ohio State. University of Southern California went across town to play UCLA. Kansas State traveled to in-state rival Kansas. Pittsburgh played at West Virginia. North Carolina played at Duke. Oklahoma State played at Oklahoma. Florida played at Kentucky. You get the idea. Throughout college basketball arenas all over the country, environments were much more hostile than usual, and the media couldn't have been more excited. Click here to find out which games analysts expected to generate the most excitement.

One of the most talked-about rivalries of the week was the No. 1 Florida Gators taking on the No. 18 Kentucky Wildcats. At Rupp Arena in Lexington, Ky., a record crowd of 24,465 people gathered in hopes of seeing Kentucky have its 400th home victory. Much to their disappointment, the Florida Gators dominated the beginning of the game. They led by as much as 16 in the first half. After two Florida players got into foul trouble, Kentucky was able to make a run and cut the lead to single digits. Unfortunately for the Kentucky Wildcats, they put forth a good effort in the second half and made it a one-possession game, but they were unable to attain a lead at any time in the game. A last-second attempt to tie the game was missed by the Wildcats, and Florida left with another tally in the win column. That makes the Gators the first Southeastern Conference team to score five consecutive wins against Kentucky in men's basketball since Tennessee did it from 1975-1977.

Even though Saturday night ended in heartbreak for Wildcats fans, they still had an exciting day. The game didn't start until 9 p.m., but fans entered at 9:30 a.m. for the taping of the 11 a.m. to noon ESPN College GameDay show. This was only the second time GameDay stopped for a home game at Kentucky. This brought a lot of attention to the university and its athletic program. The media coverage provided a ton of publicity for both the University of Kentucky and the University of Florida. Days prior to the event, ESPN featured commercials hyping some of the games that would take place during the week. The Florida-Kentucky rivalry was among the featured match-ups. From a public relations perspective, the concept of a rivalry week is a terrific way to promote universities and their sports programs. Bringing ESPN GameDay into the equation brings the attention to a higher level. The tactic obviously worked for the Florida-Kentucky rivalry since Kentucky brought in its largest crowd ever for a basketball game.

There are certainly many other rivalry games in college basketball that did not take place last week. The idea of Rivalry Week is to bring attention to college basketball games - specifically in-conference games. The most-promoted event of college basketball is by far the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament often referred to as "March Madness." It's only February, and college basketball is craving attention. Very few games in the tournament will feature two teams from one conference. Rivalry Week, especially with the addition of ESPN College GameDay, is a fantastic approach to create media coverage of in-conference games. To see how other teams performed in their rivalry games, click here.

NCAA Football Rule Changes

Recent changes in Division I football rules fired up a lot of controversy among spectators, players, officials and the media. The main objective of the rule changes was to shorten the duration of games. College football games were lasting up to four hours, and officials believed this to be excessive. While I understand time is valuable, the new rules have taken some of the excitement out of the game. The likelihood of a last-minute comeback significantly decreases if the clock continues to run. Click here to learn more about the change in rules.

The popularity and publicity of college football have increased to a level so high that many college football players are considered celebrities. Breaking records always draws media attention, but less records will likely be broken if the rule changes remain in effect for future seasons. Shorter games result in fewer plays. This makes it much harder to break records that were set in games with more plays. From a public relations perspective, this is probably not a good idea. The games were shortened by an average of only 15 minutes. I’m not sure it’s worth changing rules to shave 15 minutes off of a game. The most-watched football game each year is the Super Bowl. Coincidentally, this is also the longest football game each year. The length of this game never seems to prevent viewers from watching the game. The new rules were simply an experiment, and from a public relations perspective, it would be wise to change the rules back.

In all but two Division I conferences, the Big East and the Southeastern Conference, the average yardage, number of plays and points decreased. The decrease in points is very important to the media. Fans generally would rather watch a game with a higher score, such as 48-35, than a low score like 3-0. The excitement generated over a team scoring points draws fans to games. While defense is essential to a good football team, it is typically the scoring offense that creates the most excitement for a team. Most fans would likely watch a game for an extra 15 minutes to see more action on the field. From the perspective of public relations, it would be a wise decision to discontinue this experiment with the play clock.