In the ever-evolving world of sports, proposed rule changes are always a hot topic of debate. The NCAA and NFL have recently put forth some intriguing ideas aimed at improving the pace of play and enhancing the overall viewing experience. However, as with any proposed changes, there are advocates and devil's advocates voicing their opinions on the potential pros and cons. Let's take a closer look at two of these proposed changes and the arguments surrounding them.

The first proposed change up for discussion is the implementation of "robot chain gangs" in football. Advocates argue that using technology to spot the ball would lead to quicker and more accurate decisions, preventing botched spots that can heavily impact the outcome of a game. Additionally, this could eliminate the need for measurements, which have long served as unofficial timeouts for coaches. Furthermore, the use of robot technology would eliminate instances where a player's knee hits the ground but the location of the ball remains unclear. Although the NFL states that it will take two more years to fully implement this change, there is already anticipation about the technical aspects and personnel required to operate it.

On the other side of the spectrum, devil's advocates question the need for such a change. They argue that in the grand scheme of a billion-dollar industry, the cost of paying chain-gang members is minimal. Some even suggest that the NFL's interest in implementing such technology is driven by a desire to license the optical tracking tech to corporations like Microsoft. Additionally, opponents claim that eliminating the drama of a measurement after a fourth-down stand would take away from the entertainment value of the game. They argue that the theatrics of a close measurement, the crowd's reaction, and the subsequent defensive celebration are integral to the excitement that football brings. Moreover, some believe that the league, known for its controversial referee decisions, may be sacrificing this controversial aspect in the name of integrity. Questions are also raised about situations where the ball is visible but the knee touching the ground is not. Critics demand clarity on how those instances will be handled.

Another proposed change on the table is the introduction of helmet communicators and two-minute timeouts in football. Advocates claim that introducing helmet radios for quarterbacks and linebackers is long overdue. They argue that in a sport where millions of dollars are at stake, relying solely on the honor system is insufficient. The addition of helmet radios would provide a more efficient and secure means of play communication. Furthermore, the introduction of two extra timeouts, which would align college football with the NFL, aims to address concerns over the pacing of games. Supporters believe that this change would allow coaches to manage the game more effectively and potentially save precious timeouts.

However, devil's advocates argue that the stipulation of only allowing two players per team to have helmet radios leaves room for inequality and expense-related disputes. They believe that the NCAA should prioritize the provision of these devices to all 22 starters, given the financial capabilities of the sport. Critics also view the addition of two extra timeouts as a response to recent clock-stoppage rules that were intended to speed up games for sponsors. While this change may help revert game duration back to the traditional three-and-a-half hour window, opponents view it as a way to cater to sponsors' demands rather than prioritize game flow and quality.

As the NCAA and NFL continue to explore potential rule changes, the debates surrounding these proposals highlight the complexity of balancing efficiency, entertainment value, and financial realities within the world of sports. It will be intriguing to see how these discussions unfold and whether compromises can be reached to create a better overall experience for players and fans alike.