[UpYours]

The better for everyone involved! Maybe you and those that believe in this BS. But certainly not everyone.

Hey if you enjoy watching a game for 3 hours while a team is up 45+ points with absolutely no merit then that’s your prerogative but the majority of football enthusiast like watching competitive games.

Why do you think commonwealth stadium is empty after halftime every year? nicker:

[mysonis55]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do enjoy watching a full game. I don't disagree with a running clock. I disagree with them changing it to 36. I have seen bigger come backs. I also think it is going to affect playing time for jv. I just looked at our jv schedule. It is 6 games and then a championship for 2 of the teams. We are a small school so, we don't have freshman schedule as we would only field probably 12 players. I think the true fans of the game don't want to pay to watch a 1 hour game. I do think this is an over reaction to the old timers complaining about blow outs. I think there are a lot of players on the losing teams that would not want it over so soon either. This was simply a bad rule change.

[2dog]

Hey if you enjoy watching a game for 3 hours while a team is up 45+ points with absolutely no merit then that’s your prerogative but the majority of football enthusiast like watching competitive games.

Why do you think commonwealth stadium is empty after halftime every year? nicker:

What I see is a bunch of crybaby losers getting there way. These people are weak, gutless and should be ignored. I like a good game too, but if a bad team is getting beat up they should take there butt whipping like a man and learn from it.

[mysonis55]

2dog, I would really be shocked if it is the losing teams complaining. I know Fulton over here gets killed in most games of almost every season. They barely get enough kids to play, but theones that play would rather play football than do anything else. I am certain it is all these old guys getting on the forums and complaining that has caught attention.

[RoShamBo]

A lot of teams will be home by 9 with this rule. It makes sense in theory, it's a 1 in a million chance that a team is going to be able to come back. But I agree with the fact that with that running clock you are going to miss out on a lot of work with your second and third guys. I think you should set it at 42 and then let the coaches decide if they want to run the clock or play it out.

[2dog]

It makes common sense that varsity playing time would help kids on both teams. Those that believe it doesn't are simply choosing to ignoring reality. Now that the crybaby attitude has taken over, what's next?

[mysonis55]

Before you know it we will be giving out participation trophies to all teams.

[2dog]

I like the rule. Not sure I like it dropped to 36 but there definitely needs to be a running clock rule. No one likes being blown out. Not the players, coaches, officials, parents or fans. The quicker the game is over the better for everyone involved. Players on the losing in are obvious out matched and this will prevent injuries. On the flip side why get a key player injured for the team who is up 40+. The change has nothing to do with people getting on these forums and complaining about blowouts. It’s all geared around safety and injury prevention. As far as getting the younger guys playing time, that’s what Monday night jv games and Thursday night freshmen games are for. If you have a good program with a lot of kids there’s no reason you can't fill a 10 game schedule for both freshmen and jv. When I saw the topic thread I thought for sure everyone would like the change. Blows my mind how many people and the silly responses that are against it.

Do you really believe that varsity playing time for younger kids has no value? Injuries are part of the game. You take that risk every time you strap on the pads. The only way to stop injuries is to stop playing the game. Would this make you happy? If cowards are allowed to take over and make the rules, football will cease to exist in just a few years.