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.