As a part of what seems to be a participant security initiative, the NCAA Guidelines Committee is contemplating altering a couple of guidelines so as to restrict gamers’ “exposures” on the sector. What does that imply precisely? Nicely, in response to reviews, these modifications are supposed to guard participant well being, and will, in flip, shorten video games as nicely. Potential rule modifications like stopping back-to-back timeouts so as to “ice” a kicker or eradicating prolonged durations for untimed downs after defensive penalties are being introduced up however are thought-about inconsequential. A way more critical rule change is being thought-about although — permitting the sport clock to run after first downs (besides within the final two minutes of every half) and incomplete passes.

The latter is just not being as significantly thought-about as the previous but, however these are each potential modifications that will probably be mentioned on the Guidelines Committee’s annual assembly subsequent week. Assuming they move, how would these modifications have an effect on the school soccer product? Nicely, first issues first, video games could be shorter. That’s nice. No sport has ever improved upon sport time and seen a decline in leisure. You can argue the alternative has occurred in actual fact. Baseball has seen quite a few enhancements in viewership as they’ve made an effort to get by means of video games faster. Whereas soccer has by no means skilled such a rule change, the thought of attending to one of the best elements of video games in a speedier style doesn’t sound too horrible to me. The ultimate two minutes of every half are at all times essentially the most thrilling a part of a detailed sport, and as I discussed earlier, the Guidelines Committee desires to maintain the principles roughly the identical for these pivotal moments. Due to this fact, rushing the sport up so as to get to these high-flying drives that get us on the sting of our seats might really be an enchancment.

That stated, there are nonetheless some considerations

School executives have been instructed that offenses would lose about seven performs per sport if the clock was allowed to run after first downs. They might lose 18-20 performs per sport if the clock ran after incomplete passes. Clearly, the latter is a gigantic drop-off that I wouldn’t wish to see. Whereas seven offensive performs could not seem to be a lot on the floor, that equates to 84 performs in a season, or about one sport’s value of performs we wouldn’t get to see beneath present NCAA guidelines. Does that matter? Possibly not. Not solely would 11 video games in all probability be sufficient for NFL groups to scout particular gamers on high-profile groups, however with the growth of the CFB playoff coming in 2024, those self same high-profile groups will probably be getting an additional sport to strut their stuff anyway.

The NFL averages nearly 155 performs per sport (together with particular groups). FBS averages 180. By letting the clock run after first down, that quantity would shrink to 166. Whereas student-athletes not getting paid NFL salaries shouldn’t must endure way more performs than their skilled counterparts, they’re additionally already taking part in far fewer video games as a complete. Most accidents are sustained throughout the offseason anyway, and eliminating seven performs per sport isn’t going to alter that.

Is it actually about participant security?

As I’ve already stated, these potential modifications are reportedly meant to forestall participant accidents, not shorten video games. If the latter was true, apparent modifications like shortening school soccer halftimes would take the forefront. Moreover, CBS reviews that performs per CFB sport have decreased every of the final three seasons, however sport size has nonetheless elevated from 3 hours, 16 minutes in 2018 to three hours, 21 minutes in 2022. That stated, I’m undecided letting the clock run improves participant security considerably.

I perceive that the NCAA desires to make these modifications with out incurring critical monetary repercussions, however that’s additionally the quickest manner to enhance participant security. Shoveling cash into gear analysis or using extra on-site medical workers could be a straightforward repair, however they don’t wish to spend that cash? To that I say, why make the change in any respect then? Don’t half-ass participant security after which fake to be making modifications within the identify of participant security. That’s unethical, ineffective, and simply downright shady. These modifications aren’t going to alter something, so cease sitting on a pedestal propping them up.