Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Re: State Of The League Author: Brown Fan [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 12:21:01 11/14/24 Thu In reply to: Ivy Inquisitor 's message, "State Of The League" on 19:51:09 11/10/24 Sun I have a son at DIII Carleton College. The football games last 2.5 hours, and the main difference is the lack of endless commercial breaks. On changes of possession, players run off and on the field. Time outs are shorter. The quality of play is below that in the Ivy League, but the games are a pleasure to watch. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Subject: Three and A Half Hour Football Games Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:00:51 11/14/24 Thu I agree with the posters above who say that 3.5 hours watching a football game can feel too long. The main reasons for 3.5-hour games are, in order of increasing impact: (1) With offenses running the no-huddle hurry up throughout the game, the average game now probably includes 30% more plays than when we were huddling during the Pleistocene Era. (2) The innumerable, interminable commercial breaks. Don't forget the benefits of these two causes: (1) Offenses now know without a shred of doubt that the hurry up puts more pressure on a defense. Everybody runs the hurry up because it works. It's also more fun to watch. It puts a better product on the field. (2) We should be grateful for the commercial breaks. And by "we," I mean all of us who have ESPN+ accounts and can get our full fill of Ivy games in all sports. If I had told you ten years ago that, someday in the future, you would be assured of watching all of your alma mater's football games from the sunny and 72-degree comfort of your couch even if the players were playing in 30-degree sleet in Hanover, you wouldn't have believed me. If I had told you that, after watching your alma mater's game in its entirety, you could then, at a time of your choosing, check in on the critical Dartmouth-Harvard game to watch an amazing Crimson comeback and the following week see whether Columbia could finally get over the hump over same said Crimson, you wouldn't have believed me. If I had told you that you could watch your champion women's volleyball games in their entirety, you wouldn't have believed me. We all hate the commercial breaks, but the commercial breaks make everything else possible. Be grateful for the commercial breaks. There is no free lunch. A few weeks ago, local sports talking head Don LeGreca shouted at full volume on the ESPN radio show The Michael Kay Show, "I can't stand the commercials! When a commercial comes on, I turn the channel!" His co-host Michael Kay quietly said, "Uh, commercials pay our salaries, Don." [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Not grateful for the commercials Author: voy vey [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 09:51:37 11/15/24 Fri I'm not grateful for the commercials, because: 1) I PAY a monthly fee for ESPN+. Commercials belong on free TV. (And keep this to yourself, but if the commercials are needed because monthly fee doesn't fill the Disney coffers enough, I'd gladly pay more to have no commercials.) 2) Half the commercials are Ivy League fluff. I think people watching Ivy League sports on ESPN+ don't need to be persuaded to have a positive opinion of Ivy League sports. Complete waste of time. 3) Completely anecdotal, but it feels like there are more--but shorter--commercial timeouts in these games on ESPN+ than there are on "real" broadcasts. Breaks are often 2 minutes instead of 3, but they seem to be more frequent, thus disrupting game flow more often and creating more downtime for the in-person fans. The NCAA moved to address the increasing run time of games by letting the game clock run after first downs except in the last 2 minutes of a half. But then, they negated much of the benefit by adding a two-minute timeout (more commercials while players stand around...yay!). Timing football games should undergo a major re-think, but we seem to be stuck in a mindset of "it is this way because it's always been this way." Stopping the clock after incomplete passes or out-of-bounds plays was instituted because of the extra time it would take to retrieve the ball from a far-flung location and spot it for the next play, compared to a run up the middle. For decades, we've had dozens of balls available at a moment's notice; there's no longer a need for such stoppages. Injuries, penalties, and the ever-increasing endless replay reviews are the only valid reasons to stop the game clock. There's my curmudgeonly five cents (inflation). Now, get off my lawn, you darn kids. I've got clouds to yell at. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> Subject: Re: Not grateful for the commercials Author: Quaker62 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:07:03 11/15/24 Fri Regarding your last sentence: Joe Paterno, when speaking to an alumni group about how they can best support the program, said "we need your money, just not your two cents." Same goes for ESPN+ [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> Subject: Re: Not grateful for the commercials Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 17:44:54 11/15/24 Fri Cable stations are not "free tv." And they have commercials. And its even tougher for Dartmouth fans, as we generally get three commercials: Engelberth Construction, the Richards Group, and Ivy fluff. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Not grateful for the commercials Author: voy vey [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:31:38 11/16/24 Sat I consider cable to be in the same realm as broadcast. You're paying for the delivery of channels, individual channel carriage fees are generally pennies per month (excluding ESPN). Streaming, on the other hand, costs much more for one product, more akin to the old cable "premium" channels like HBO, which were commercial-free. For what ESPN+ costs, there's no justification (IMO) for commercials, especially on low-demand content like Ivy sports and other FCS conferences. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Not grateful for the commercials Author: Lion Rooter [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 09:31:17 11/17/24 Sun everything is now monetized - remember NHL hockey - the boards were white -- now ads abound -- even PBS has commercials for pete's sake! Agree it is annoying -- but apparently it costs a lot to field a football team -but I do shudder when the guy with the flourescent mitt comes on the field - it kills momentum. Some people are saying remove ads from the beginning of movies but I remember people booing when a local jewelry store ad came on at the flics. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]