(09-29-2015 12:45 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 12:37 PM)RCM1029 Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 12:31 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 12:09 PM)Mimi Wrote:  If there are an average of 40 total first downs a game that require brief clock stoppages before resetting the chains...those are about 15 seconds each. So that only adds about 10 minutes a game.

Thats 10 minutes of game time. You have to multiply it by three to get the actual time saved, which would be about 30 minutes.

I suck at math, so please excuse this question: why do you have to multiply it by three?

An NFL game lasts for 60 minutes of game time, but three hours of actual time. If you are stopping the clock when you could be running it, you not only add ten minutes of game time, but also more stoppages, commercials, replays, and all the things that make a football game last three times as long as the game clock shows.

I think TV people love the high scoring, entertaining games. That's a win for their viewership. The increased stoppages of play afford more opportunities to sell commercial time. That's a win for their advertising. SO IT WOULD SEEM THAT SHOULD RESULT IN MORE COMPETENT, PROFESSIONAL ANNOUNCERS than we were subjected to in the Cincy game.

Alas, no.

Yeah, our game was a few minutes into its 5th hour, lol.

While watching I was hoping it would be over soon, just watching our defense imho was painful.

But on second thought it was fun to watch and pretty good football entertainment. Lots of value per minute for the fan.

Longer games and more commercials are a necessary evil for modern broadcasting. Nearly every Tiger game is broadcast in some form or fashion, whether it be on ESPN or online via WatchESPN. Those broadcasts are generally free (cable and internet company charges notwithstanding) so we are subjected to more commercial breaks. The alternative is pay-per-view which would really suck.

So, when a game gets put on ESPN like that... do we get any kind of kick back in ad revenue sharing? Or do we just consider ourselves lucky for the national audience?

(09-29-2015 01:17 PM)aardWolf Wrote:  So, when a game gets put on ESPN like that... do we get any kind of kick back in ad revenue sharing? Or do we just consider ourselves lucky for the national audience?

I'm not sure of the exact contractual details, but the short answer would be no. Most TV contracts - except for Notre Dame and Texas - are with the conferences, not the schools...and the conference schools split the contract money. The network then goes out and sells advertising the money from which they keep for themselves.

look at the length of a non-ESPN game, even the ones on ESPN3. They're much, much shorter. The blame goes on ESPN and the other major networks for adding more ads.

Plus an NFL halftime is 12 minutes compared to the college 25.

The Kiel injury and subsiquential targeting review was around 15 minutes and there was numerous injury stoppages in the game especially on Cincy side, add the tv timeouts and there's the long game right there

(09-29-2015 01:29 PM)yakko Wrote:  look at the length of a non-ESPN game, even the ones on ESPN3. They're much, much shorter. The blame goes on ESPN and the other major networks for adding more ads.

Missouri State: time 3:02 37 1st downs
At Kansas: 3:20 57
At BGU: 3:37 52
Cincinnati: 4:07 60

(09-29-2015 01:32 PM)UofMark Wrote:  Plus an NFL halftime is 12 minutes compared to the college 25.

Is that true? I thought they were both 20 minutes but now that you mention it I've never actually looked at the clock at the beginning of half of either.

The increase of the four-plus-hour football game is an incredibly recent thing. To wit, there have been as many 4+ hour college football games in Sep 2015 (four) than there have been in the NFL since 1996. The average 2014 college game lasted 3h22m. It's been a rapid increase, and while changes in offensive philosophies and video reviews have lengthened games, the impetus behind the super long increases lies on TV.

People like to make fun of the NFL for its TV broadcasters frequently doing something like this:
Score
BREAK
Kickoff
BREAK
Offensive drive

College does the same thing, really.

(09-29-2015 12:31 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 12:09 PM)Mimi Wrote:  If there are an average of 40 total first downs a game that require brief clock stoppages before resetting the chains...those are about 15 seconds each. So that only adds about 10 minutes a game.

Thats 10 minutes of game time. You have to multiply it by three to get the actual time saved, which would be about 30 minutes.

I don't understand. Why do you need to multiply it by three? If the clock is running and at, say, 3:15 when they stop it, then they move the chains, set them, wind for the clock to start again, the clock then moves to 3:14 and counting. I am not sure where the additional 3X lost time comes from.

Regardless, agree there are games with even more first downs, and even an added 15 minutes adds up. Media timeouts certainly a big deal too.

I re read the response above. The stoppage time for setting the chains does not create media time. Only if there is an actual timeout or a quarter break.

(09-29-2015 02:25 PM)Mimi Wrote:  I re read the response above. The stoppage time for setting the chains does not create media time. Only if there is an actual timeout or a quarter break.

Of course it does. If instead of finishing the game, you still have 10 minutes of game time left, you will have even more commercials, first downs, penalties, dropped passes, runs out of bounds, and perhaps injuries.

Multiply by 3.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. You are bootstrapping this. And that is ok.

Look at it this day. Let's say you totally space on the game time for the South Florida game this week. You went out to dinner and came back only to realize that this week the game is a Friday game.

You turn on ESPN2 to the game, and see that there is 10:05 left in the fourth quarter.

Just then, a friend calls and wants to hang out. Do you tell her: "Sure... there is only 10 minutes and five seconds left in the game. I'll leave for your house in 11 minutes."

I would hope not. It will likely take close to 30 minutes before that game is over (and only if it doesn't go into overtime.)

(09-29-2015 02:49 PM)Mimi Wrote:  We will have to agree to disagree on this one. You are bootstrapping this. And that is ok.

They called me mad at the academy.

Last year most channels had college games blocked for 3 and a half hours compared to NFL games which were listed as 3. This year college games are being listed as 3 hours. I think part of this is because of the rise of streaming platforms. It used to be unheard of to channel dump away from a game to start the next one. You can see that more and more now. Running ads on streaming platforms is a little more involved than on a broadcast station but they are getting better and better at it.

(09-29-2015 01:49 PM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  

(09-29-2015 01:32 PM)UofMark Wrote:  Plus an NFL halftime is 12 minutes compared to the college 25.

Is that true? I thought they were both 20 minutes but now that you mention it I've never actually looked at the clock at the beginning of half of either.

The NFL halftime, they barely have time to jog back to the locker room and come back out to warm up.