VJCPatriot

I would. It would create a more fast paced game. Also teams couldn't count on "killing" the clock as much. So there would be more scoring and the finish of games would be more tense/exciting since it's harder to hold the ball the entire time to end it. If a team is in the lead but can't gain first downs, they'd likely have to punt and give the other team another chance to mount a comeback.

__________________

JoePats

A 30 second playclock you'd have to go to college rules where you don't start the clock until they spot the ball. There's no way they could do it as they do currently, starting the playclock as soon as the previous play ends (if inbounds).

pheenix11

There aren't many things I would say this about but I think the NFL the way it is now is pretty much perfect. Everything from the schedule to the playclock seems to be just about right. From a purely selfish perspective the Pats are usually the ones trying to run out the clock, so no I wouldn't want to see them make that more difficult.

__________________
16-0? Yup I called it:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

DarrylS

Compared to just about any other major sport football is paced just fine, killing the clock is a major strategy for any team..

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

JoePats

I agree, and along those lines I think college football should adapt the NFL policies of timing the game. If a player goes out of bounds, they stop the clock for good instead of restarting after the ball is spotted, stopping the clock on a first down until they spot the ball, the games take 4 hours.

Tunescribe

Why does the game need to be sped up? Most are right at three hours including halftime as is. I wouldn't want it any shorter than that. The game that needs a 30-second play clock is baseball (between pitches).

Rob0729

The increase of delay of game penalties would grow exponentially. It would make it very difficult to do substitutions and allow QBs to audible and read defenses. I think they should just keep it like it is.

jmt57

I sometimes think that would be a good idea worth considering now. Seems like far too often after a long play that stays inbounds, the team with the ball ends up with a delay of game or needing to call a timeout.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

primetime

I think they should return it to the clock being stopped after going out of bounds, rather than being re-started on ball placement. While the college game is way too slow (and occasionally hard to watch) because it's stopped after first downs, the pro game is a little too fast (not enough plays) because of the rule change where the clock doesn't stop when the ball goes out of bounds until like the last 5 minutes of the half or whatever.

Sicilian

Assuming the D doesn't call any timeouts, the MOST amount of time you can kill without getting a 1st down is 2:00. I think that's balanced pretty well, especially with timeouts and the two minute warning. If a defense can't make stops in obvious running / short distance situations, why should the league give them ANY advantage?