NCAA Football: Are the new clock rules hurting the game?

by Glenn Logan on Sep 26, 2008 10:37 AM EDT in Kentucky Wildcats Football

John Clay of the Herald-Leader has an interesting post today on his blog, Sidelines, looking at the total number of plays run in the SEC last year vs. this year. As you know, the NCAA changed the clock rules substantially this year, and we have seen several cases of delay of game penalties because the time between plays is now 40 seconds from when the previous play is blown dead rather than 25 seconds from when the whistle is blown to begin the next play.

Several college coaches have complained bitterly about the new rules, including Florida's Urban Meyer. I thought I would add a bit to John's analysis, as per the following chart:

Team	# of plays 2007	# of plays 2008	Diff	% Diff	Remarks
Alabama	74	65.2	-8.8	-11.89%	Significant difference
Arkansas	73.2	69.7	-2.5	-3.42%
Auburn	69.2	71.7	2.5	3.61%	This is an outlier. Auburn changed to a spread option offense, with a lot of no-huddle.
Florida	65.2	57	-8.2	-12.58%	Significant difference
Georgia	67.2	63.7	-3.5	-5.21%
Kentucky	77.9	72.3	-5.6	-7.19%
LSU	75.3	65	-10.3	-13.68%	Significant difference
Ole Miss	64.2	62	-2.2	-3.43%
Miss State	67.7	69.8	2.1	3.10%
S Carolina	68.7	67.2	-1.5	-2.18%
Tennessee	70.9	69.7	-1.2	-1.69%
Vanderbilt	69.7	58	-11.7	-16.79%	Significant difference
Average	70.27	65.94	4.33	6.16%

John's take (and Steve Spurrier's as well) is that a reduction in plays benefits the less talented team, the argument being that a more talented team is more likely to put points on the board the more chances they get. It's hard to argue with that logic, but does the data support that?

Well, I would say it's a mixed bag. So far, most teams are down only marginally, but Florida, LSU, Alabama and Vanderbilt are all running significantly fewer plays than last year. Has this translated into upsets? Well, Alabama-Clemson was an upset, but looking at what Clemson has done to date, I'm not sure they were the most talented team. Clearly Vanderbilt has sprung some upsets, but it's hard to argue that LSU and Florida have suffered from the changes at this point. It's also hard to argue that Auburn, who is running more plays than last year due to a change in offenses, is benefiting from that fact.

We'll revisit this issue later in the year when we have more data, but right now, it looks like Meyer, and those who join him in the criticism, don't have much of a leg to stand on. But it is early.

Tweet Comment 7 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I agree with Clay and Spurrier

The smaller the sample size (in this case, the number of plays run) the more likely it is that luck will have a greater influence on the results. As more plays are run, luck will tend to even out and the more talented team will emerge.

I think the OSU-USC game last night is prime example of this, as OSU benefited from some luck in the first half of the game to get that 21-0 lead, but as the game went longer USC’s superior talent started to show up and they started to close the gap. As it turned out there wasn’t enough time for them to run enough plays to catch up (and OSU certainly had something to do with that), but you could see the talent of the USC offense start to assert itself in the second half and all three scores came rather quickly and easily. If there had been enough time for USC to run even 6-7 more plays there might have been a much different result.

"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball

by JLeverenz on Sep 26, 2008 12:05 PM EDT reply actions

That certainly ...

… seems logical.

A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan

by Glenn Logan on Sep 26, 2008 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions

As far as data is concerned

First, I think there’s two ways to go about checking to see whether this is actually happening. The most obvious way is to look at the number of upsets that happen and compare to previous seasons. I’m not sure what the best way to go about classifying “upset” is, but I think looking at unranked teams beating ranked teams (at the time of the game) is one way, and a ranked team beating another ranked team that is, say, 5 spots ahead would be another.

The other – maybe less obvious – way is to look at margins of victory in the types of games listed above. Even if lesser teams aren’t pulling upsets, if games with fewer plays are actually benefiting them then it should show up in the scoring.

Having said that, I’m not sure where the best place is to go to get this data. The NCAA website maybe? Does anybody know of any good sites that keep track of this kind of thing in an easy-to-use format?

"That's not a Sherman tank, it's Frank Thomas!" - Monkeyball

by JLeverenz on Sep 26, 2008 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Gambling theory

It’s like going to a casino where the odds aren’t in your favor. Your greatest expected value (if you are going to bet at all) is to make one bet and then leave. It’s better to bet all your money on one bet than to make small bets over and over. If you make the small bets indefinitely, eventually the casino will own all of your money.

Of course this is all irrelevant because Gov. Beshear has stolen the gambling domains from the rest of the world, so the planet can rest easy now. Oh, unless we bet on horse racing, then we’re just as screwed. Darn it.

;)

by EEWildcat on Sep 27, 2008 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions