New rules changes in college football this year are having a significant impact on the games.  In an effort to shorten games, the NCAA changed two rules in the offseason in order to start the clock in games earlier than before.  Now the clock starts on a kickoff when the ball is kicked, as opposed to when the receiver gains possession.  Also, after every change of possession (kickoff, punt, interception, fumble, loss on downs), the clock will begin when the ball is set and ready for play (as opposed to when it is snapped).  Before the season began, Tennessee coach Phil Fulmer estimated that games would be losing 12-15 plays per game.  He was right.  After two weeks of games, teams are averaging 14 fewer plays per game than at this point last year, and the games are averaging 14 fewer minutes in length (3:06 as opposed to 3:20). 

My question is why make these changes?  I was shocked when I read about them over the summer.  The main issue (supposedly) is to prevent games from lasting up to four hours, and thus reducing the chance for players to get injured.  If that is really the case, then why did the NCAA add a 12th game for every college team?  Wouldn't adding the extra game increase the likelihood of injury?  Also, the NCAA says that these new clock changes are attempting to shorten the games, but instant replay is now available in all games in order to potentially overturn bad calls.  With the advent of replay, and thus prolonging the time of games, it seems as though some games may last just as long as they did last year.  Should replay even be a necessity in college football like it is in the NFL?  In the NFL, the players and teams are much faster than those in college, and thus it is harder to make some correct calls.

My suggestion to the NCAA would be to throw out these new stupid rules and go back to the old ones.  Most college coaches in the NCAA are strongly against the new rules anyway because they are changing the game like never before.  It's like some coaches have said, 'I don't hear any fans complaining about the length of games.'  My biggest concern with this new rule is what will happen at the end of games.  Teams have to strategize differently and rush plays just to save time.  That's not how it should be. 

Just think of what could happen tomorrow...Florida is up by two points late in the game with the ball, and fumbles on its own 20 yard line.  Two seconds remain on the clock and Tennessee, with no timeouts, has to rush out onto the field to try to kick the game-winning field goal.  However, the offense doesn't get completely ready in time (they weren't really expecting to be back on the field), and the ref starts the clock on the ready-for-play signal.  As a result, the clock runs out before the ball is snapped, and Tennessee loses the game.  Is this how a college football game, much less any football game should end?  The answer is obvious.

CHANGE THE RULES BACK TO THE WAY THEY WERE!!!

The Times Free Press had an article about this topic on Wednesday.  Read below:

Publication: Chattanooga Times Free Press; Date: Wednesday, SEPT 13, 2006; Section: Sports; Page 35

Clock rule alarming coaches

By Darren Epps Staff Writer

Leading 13-10 with 24 seconds remaining in the third quarter following a Vanderbilt punt, Alabama offensive coordinator Dave Rader told his offense to stay on the sideline. Under the much-maligned Rule 3-2-5-e, Rader knew the clock would start on the ready-for-play signal and his offense didn’t need to take a snap. "You say, ‘Well, that’s not very aggressive,’" he said. "And we say, ‘No, that’s how we’re going to help win this ballgame.’"

Rader let those 24 seconds run off and another 24 seconds tick down after Vanderbilt punted with less than six minutes in the game. Alabama took over and needed only two first downs to run the clock down to 48 seconds, giving the Commodores almost no chance of a comeback. Vanderbilt ran just 18 plays in the second half and lost by three points in a game that lasted 2 hours, 49 minutes. Sitting on leads is just one of the major ramifications of the NCAA’s attempt to shorten college football games. The rule is sparking nationwide criticism among coaches — aside from NCAA rules committee member and Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville — as about 10 percent of plays are disappearing from games. Tennessee had the ball for just seven possessions against Air Force.

"It’s just a funny feeling to sit there before a ball is ever even snapped to watch 23 seconds come off the clock," UT offensive coordinator David Cutcliffe said. "It’s not going to be fun to be behind in that situation."

Notre Dame’s Charlie Weis called the rule "comical." Purdue coach Joe Tiller used the word "horrible." Texas coach Mack Brown, his team doomed with six minutes left in a loss to Ohio State, said he hated the rule. Fans started a petition on wehatethenewclockrules.com that had online signatures from 15,623 fans as of Tuesday evening.

SEC coaches, most notably Florida’s Urban Meyer, were equally outspoken. "I’m very concerned with the direction of college football," Meyer said. "They want to quicken the game. My question is, why? Ask the 93,000 fans at Florida Field if they want to cut the game down. My guess is they don’t. "I read somewhere we had an opportunity to speak out against it. We did not. That went on during February and March, and coaches are recruiting during those months. But I’ll take responsibility. I did a bad job as a head football coach at a premier place by not being more vocal against it. I’ll let it known I’m disappointed in it. I’ll go nuts on it."

The Gators had just 10 full possessions in their season opener against Southern Miss, down from an average of 14 possessions last year. In the opening week of college football, teams combined for 101 fewer yards and 4.5 fewer points than in 2005. Games are averaging 14 fewer minutes and Arkansas State beat Army in a game that lasted 2 hours, 30 minutes.

Coaches expressed their concern when the NCAA announced the rule this summer. Now they’re even more upset. "I didn’t like it when I heard about it, and now I really don’t like it," Georgia’s Mark Richt said. "I don’t think many people like it. I don’t think the fans are going to like it. Not many coaches like it. You’re just taking away excitement from the game and the kids. Fans pay a lot of money for tickets, and they’re getting less game."

But less game is exactly what Tuberville and the NCAA rules committee wanted when they enacted the rule. Tuberville said the addition of a 12th game along with some contests reaching four hours prompted him to promote the rule for the safety of athletes. Tuberville also said the wishes of television networks did not factor into the decision, and even ESPN director of programming Dave Brown said in a conference call that his network had "no input" into the rule.

"I know a lot of people don’t like it. If it doesn’t work out, we’ll look for ways to improve it at the end of the year," said Tuberville, who thought the rule would take away 5-8 plays. "Right now, it’s good. Players are out there less plays. They’ll make up for those plays with the 12 th game at the end of the year. There’s less injuries. Other than that, the jury is still out a little bit."

Not among most of his fellow coaches, who hope the NCAA will terminate the rule at the end of the season. "I’m not sure how long it will actually last," UT coach Phillip Fulmer said. The new clock rule spawns two problems. In a rush to motion for the ready-for-play signal, referees are starting the clock but not allowing offenses to snap the ball because the defense isn’t set.

In the Tennessee-California game, Fulmer said the referee started the clock while the TV official was still on the field during a commercial. "We’re watching dang guys instead of snapping the ball," South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier said.

Tuberville said teams can combat the lost time by getting the offense ready before the punt instead of huddling afterward. But several coaches said they use offensive starters on the punt return team and rushing the offense on the field creates "gymnastics on the sideline," according to Meyer. Of course, he’ll be doing flips if the NCAA revokes the rule at the end of the season.

"Maybe it’s selfish on my part, because I like football," Meyer said. "Fans like football. The sport was great the way it was. We need more plays."

Facebook is back in the news, and another backlash against the company by its users may soon occur.  Most likely due to competition with Myspace--the social networking site with the most users--Facebook is planning to open its site to people anywhere.  Since its beginning, Facebook has differentiated itself from Myspace in that it only allowed users who had a valid school email adress to join its site.  Now the exclusivity of its members may be about to disappear as the site attempts to add more members.  There is even a rumor that Myspace might try to purchase Facebook and become the undisputed leader in social networking.  Several groups have already been formed on Facebook disapproving of the proposed changes.  My opinion:  Keep the site exclusive like it's always been!  That's why we like it!  It looks like Facebook's decision may be more about money than anything else.  Read more about this in the Forbes.com article below:

Open Facebook
Rachel Rosmarin, 09.11.06, 5:30 PM ET

BURLINGAME, Calif. -

They'll let anyone in to Facebook these days.

Once the exclusive online stomping grounds of college students, social networking site Facebook.com is throwing open the doors to rest of the world. The site is slated to announce in coming weeks that anyone can gain access to the site, simply by affiliating themselves with a particular city or region.

The company had planned to announce and launch this expanded registration Tuesday but has delayed the expansion as it sorts through the backlash from changes it made to the site Sept. 5.

"Last week, we learned we need to do a better job communicating on launches," says company spokeswoman Melanie Deitch. "We are going to think through how to better inform users, and we don't want to risk expanded registration being a big issue on the heels of last week's changes." Deitch said the company might communicate with users in coming weeks about the site's growth pace via blog postings and comments in user groups.

The growth move is fraught with risk for the company, whose more than 9.3 million registered users are intensely attached to the site because it lets them connect to a select group of peers. But the nature of social networking sites makes it easy for dissatisfied users to migrate. Facebook executives must try to expand the site's reach without diluting its appeal. If they fail, the company risks being viewed as a second-rate version of MySpace, the famously open social network that now receives more than 46 million visitors per month.

"Facebook could be hurt when users start drawing comparisons to MySpace," says Fred Stutzman, a graduate student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's School of Information and Library Science, who studies Facebook's use among that university's students. "There's a backlash with every change at Facebook--but this is now the point of no return."

Last week, the company created a furor when it tweaked its model to show users updates to their "friends" activities as soon as they logged on. Facebook fans squawked, citing privacy concerns, and hundreds of thousands joined online petitions threatening to boycott the site.

"The Facebook users feel like they have ownership in the company," says Stutzman. "When they realize that they're not the ones in control, it's a real slap in the face."

Facebook executives initially dismissed users' worries, but within days the company backtracked somewhat, allowing users more control over who sees what. On Friday, founder and Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg posted a public apology to his users on the company blog, outlining where he went wrong and what he has done to make amends.

Zuckerberg helped create the company in 2004, when the Harvard undergraduate wanted to find a way to let fellow classmates connect. The company later broadened its user base to include all Ivy League schools, then all universities, then high schools and eventually corporations. Would-be members had to demonstrate affiliation with one of these institutions, via a valid e-mail address. But as soon as the new look kicks in, users will be able to register with a generic e-mail account and join a group associated with one of 500 cities and towns, whether or not they live there.

Though group members can customize their security settings to include or exclude specific people from seeing certain personal details--such as photos, contact information and comments left on friends' profiles--default settings allow anyone within a network (such as a school, or now a city) see everyone else's profile details. The wealth of personal data available to large groups of strangers on Facebook has never been richer.

Comparisons to the much larger and more open MySpace--purchased by News Corp. (nyse: NWS - news - people ) in July 2005 for $580 million--are inevitable. But if Facebook truly wanted to emulate MySpace's success, it would have opened up its registration policy a long time ago. But until now, the site's restrictions restrained growth.

Now it seems ready to expand. The company has collected $38 million in venture funding collected since 2004; in August, it secured an advertising deal with Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ). The site's non-student population already appears to be growing. Between May 2005 and May 2006, the percentage of Facebook users older than 34 grew to 37.3% from 32.4%, according to eMarketer and ComScore Media Metrix.

Yet Facebook still has less than half the users MySpace had when News Corp. bought the company last year, and revenues are still small--an estimated $30 million a year compared with MySpace’s roughly $180 million--says eMarketer senior analyst Debra Williamson.

And perhaps because of the limited advertising real estate at Facebook, limits ads to sponsored profiles, banners on the side of the page and above a user's profile. "Facebook doesn't have that sexy glow as an advertising environment, as compared with MySpace's advertising buzz," says Williamson. "That could be a negative for Facebook unless they redesign their pages."

This year, U.S. advertisers will spend only $280 million on ads through social networks, according to eMarketer, but that will increase to $1.9 billion by 2010. Worldwide, that figure will reach $2.5 billion. Those numbers, coupled with the continued success of MySpace after News Corp.'s acquisition last year, have fueled rumors that Facebook is a likely acquisition target.

At the time of the company's last round of funding, the Silicon Valley rumor mill pegged the company's value at around $600 million. But the "why not?" logic of the latest tech boom has fueled reports placing even higher price tags on the company--someone purportedly attached to the company even managed to attach a $2 billion price tag/trial balloon last spring.

"We have to correct that. The $2 billion price tag reported in the media is so far out there," Zuckerberg said during an Aug. 17 interview. Zuckerberg, who admitted on a company blog that Facebook "really messed up" the launch of news feeds, wouldn't take interview requests about the delays in expanding registration. "We're not holding out for a price because we're busy building and growing the site." But Zuckerberg must tread carefully: Growth that scares his core could wind up hurting his young company's value.

Currently Listening Rocky Top '96 By The Osborne Brothers see related

Now for a real update…

Since my last “real” update, some exciting things have taken place.  One of such things is my purchasing of a new car!  That’s right…the “green machine” is no more…well it’s still in the driveway…but I’m not its official driver anymore.  I’m pretty excited about the new ride…won’t say what it is on the internet (you might already know anyway), but it is a four-door with a stick shift, and has a bright color.  Wow…sounds a lot like the Contour, but it’s not…haha.

The whole “buying a car” process was a good experience overall.  One of my coworkers lent me her Consumer Reports magazine so I could be well-informed of the different types of cars out there.  I was studying that thing like a madman the day before I went out looking with my dad.  I wrote down what cars I liked, and ended up filling up nearly a page of the different kinds that I was interested in.  I knew the general type that I wanted, but still had a lot of options for what I was looking for.  I could care less about the cars that are all about appearance.  If it mattered that much to me, I would have ditched the Contour years ago.  I’ve never been one to get a car just because it looks good or “cool”…what a way to waste a lot of money.  I don’t really understand why people will shell out mucho bucks just to please other people with their ride.  It’s their prerogative I guess.  I do care about the appearance of my car, but I’m more interested in whether it’s reliable enough to get me from point A to point B on a consistent basis.  The Contour did just that (surprising since it’s a Ford), but it got the job done.

So anyway, my dad and I set off one Saturday morning to go looking around for cars.  He’s bought several cars in his lifetime, so it was good to listen to his advice, and to help me discern between helpful salesmen and those that are full of it.  In fact, at one place we went, I had an uneasy feeling about some things the salesman was telling us about the cars there.  When Dad and I were alone, he confirmed my thoughts:  “He’s blowing smoke,” he said.  After looking around for a couple of hours at different places, I found the car that I wanted.  I had come into that day without the intention of buying a car…merely to look around…but I also didn’t rule out buying one if it seemed right.  Long story short…I bought what I wanted.  Throughout the buying process, I was still willing to walk away from it if things were to become complicated, but thankfully, it didn’t come down to that.  I was ecstatic driving it off the lot.  It was kind of weird at first driving MY car, and not my parent’s car for the first time.  And now the payments begin…

Over Labor Day weekend, I went to see California play Tennessee in Knoxville.  It was my first time at Neyland Stadium, and it was awesome!  I had a friend in California who came in to see the game as well, so it was good to meet up with him again.  We had been pumped about the game ever since the end of April when we first started planning it!  Cal came into the game ranked #9 in the country and TN was #23 I think.  But Cal’s defense decided not to show up that day, and TN won 35-18, at one point up 35-0.  Two or three of TN’s touchdowns came due to missed easy tackles.  To TN’s credit though, they played an excellent game, and they definitely used their home field advantage.  Coach Phil Fulmer later said that the Cal game was the loudest he’s ever heard Neyland Stadium.  That’s surprising since there’s been a lot of good games played there over his long tenure as coach, but it was indeed extremely loud that day!  Awesome football atmosphere.

It's hard to believe that it has now been 5 years since the terrorist attacks.  I remember it like it was yesterday.  The attacks began, unknowingly to me, while I was sitting in Biology class at college.  After class ended at 9:15, I walked to my next class without having heard about either of the two planes that had hit moments earlier.  As I was sitting in my next class, the professor came in a little late and burst through the door saying, "Two planes have hit both the World Trade Center towers!"  At first I thought it was an accident, since the idea of a terror attack was not on anyone's mind...but I also thought that hitting both towers couldn't have been an accident. 

That was my last class for the day, so I went home afterward.  When I turned on the car, I heard about the towers that had crashed, the Pentagon crash, and the Pennsylvania crash.  The coverage was on every radio station.  I then realized the magnitude as to what had just taken place over the past couple of hours.  For the next few days, I spent most of my free time glued to the TV watching Fox News and CNN for updates.  I think everyone was wondering "Who?" and "Why?" 

An event like 9/11 makes you take a step back and ponder what really matters in your life...God, family, friends.  We saw firsthand that we are not invincible, and that we are not guaranteed tomorrow.  But as Christians, we always have a Hope...a God who loves us and is in control of all things.  One of my favorite hymns is "A Mighty Fortress" by Martin Luther.  Consider the lyrics of the hymn that remind us that God is above anything the Devil tries to put in our way...either physically or spiritually: 

A mighty fortress is our God,
a bulwark never failing;
our helper he amid the flood
of mortal ills prevaling. 
For still our ancient foe
doth seek to work us woe;
his craft and power are great,
and armed with cruel hate,
on earth is not his equal.

Did we in our own strength confide,
our striving would be losing,
were not the right man on our side,
the man of God's own choosing.
Dost ask who that may be? 
Christ Jesus, it is he;
Lord Sabbaoth, his name,
from age to age the same,
and he must win the battle.

And though this world, with devils filled,
should threaten to undo us,
we will not fear, for God hath willed
his truth to triumph through us. 
The Prince of Darkness grim,
we tremble not for him;
his rage we can endure,
for lo, his doom is sure;
one little word shall fell him.

That word above all earthly powers,
no thanks to them, abideth;
the Spirit and the gifts are ours,
thru him who with us sideth. 
Let goods and kindred go,
this mortal life also;
the body they may kill;
God's truth abideth still;
his kingdom is forever.

Yeah...so Katie Couric didn't mention the Facebook stuff last night on her new show.  But the media has been all over it.  Due to all the negative reaction to the Facebook changes, and maybe even the fact that a Facebook boycott day was planned for September 12 (one week after the new feature was implemented), Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's creator, issued an "open letter" today to all users:

We really messed this one up. When we launched News Feed and Mini-Feed we were trying to provide you with a stream of information about your social world. Instead, we did a bad job of explaining what the new features were and an even worse job of giving you control of them. I'd like to try to correct those errors now.

When I made Facebook two years ago my goal was to help people understand what was going on in their world a little better. I wanted to create an environment where people could share whatever information they wanted, but also have control over whom they shared that information with. I think a lot of the success we've seen is because of these basic principles.

We made the site so that all of our members are a part of smaller networks like schools, companies or regions, so you can only see the profiles of people who are in your networks and your friends. We did this to make sure you could share information with the people you care about. This is the same reason we have built extensive privacy settings – to give you even more control over who you share your information with.

Somehow we missed this point with Feed and we didn't build in the proper privacy controls right away. This was a big mistake on our part, and I'm sorry for it. But apologizing isn't enough. I wanted to make sure we did something about it, and quickly. So we have been coding nonstop for two days to get you better privacy controls. This new privacy page will allow you to choose which types of stories go into your Mini-Feed and your friends' News Feeds, and it also lists the type of actions Facebook will never let any other person know about. If you have more comments, please send them over.

This may sound silly, but I want to thank all of you who have written in and created groups and protested. Even though I wish I hadn't made so many of you angry, I am glad we got to hear you. And I am also glad that News Feed highlighted all these groups so people could find them and share their opinions with each other as well.

About a week ago I created a group called Free Flow of Information on the Internet, because that's what I believe in – helping people share information with the people they want to share it with. I'd encourage you to check it out to learn more about what guides those of us who make Facebook. Tomorrow at 4pm est, I will be in that group with a bunch of people from Facebook, and we would love to discuss all of this with you. It would be great to see you there.

Thanks for taking the time to read this,

Mark

The creator of the big Facebook group that I mentioned yesterday (to protest the changes) posted a response to Zuckerberg's letter.  (The group, "Students Against Facebook News Feed," has now increased to nearly 750,000 members.)

"Facebook has listened, and they have given all Facebook users a simple way to remove themselves from most of the news feed feature. The creator of this group was informed of the coming privacy changes by CBS News during Thursday afternoon and was pleased to hear about them.

The group’s initial impression is that Facebook has implimented most of the privacy changes that we asked for. We never believed Mark Zuckerberg was out to hurt people and that his corporation had nothing but good intentions when they launched news feed and mini-feed.

Time will indeed tell if the new privacy options are satisfactory to the demands of this group. If the new privacy options do not indeed go all the way, do what you did before: complain. We asked for the ability to completely remove ourselves from news feed, and that is what we will continue to demand, if we must.

The student response has been overwhelming, and we thank you for helping the cause. Now is the time to test the new privacy settings and assure that they do remove you completely from news feed. If you have issues, please send them to Facebook, the suggestion link will still be on this page. This group will ask for tweaks to the settings if they are necessary.

This group has decided it's not going to declare victory, because there was not a loser, nor was there a winner. Instead, there was mutual consensus between all parties and together, we made our voices heard and Facebook listened.

A decision will be made in the next few days over the fate of this group, over the wall and discussion topics, and over other matters pertaining to this group.

Thank you students for your support, and thank you Facebook for listening."

- Students Against Facebook News Feed

We shall see if Facebook's modifications to the new feature will satisfy the users and enable them to once again feel comfortable with using the site...

EDIT:

Here is a link to an article regarding this:  http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-09-08T200503Z_01_N08409296_RTRIDST_0_MEDIA-FACEBOOK-PRIVACY-UPDATE-1.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna