[1] Icing. Calling a single defensive time-out before a game-changing, end-of-half, longer-than-34-yard FG attempt has been found to decrease the likelihood of making the attempt. The new rule would only limit multiple TOs, which to my knowledge have not been shown to make any greater difference. I hate waiting for the end of a game when I know there is only a snap and kick remaining. This rule would not significantly reduce number of snaps or injuries, but it has little evidence to suggest it makes trouble, and I would certainly not cry if it were implemented.
[2] Untimed Downs. Removing the rare untimed down to end and odd-numbered quarter will do little to shorten the average game. It would likewise not necessarily affect the game negatively. Play could continue in the following quarter with the appropriate penalty applied. This doesn't remove any particular pet peeve of mine, but neither does it bother me.
[3] 1st Down Clock. This rule would significantly change the feel of CFB, shorten games, and reduce plays. Playing less football results in fewer football-related injuries. And in less football-watching enjoyment. Keeping the old rule in place in the final 2 minutes of halves preserves the greater comeback score potential of college ball somewhat. I am not a fan of the need to move the clock along, but I could see considering this if other options weren't available. First of all, we have decided injuries are an acceptable risk: we still play the game. Secondly, there are other ways to accommodate those who need the 2:30 game over by 5:55. See below. I'm against it but think it's coming anyway.
[4] Incompletions. This rule would likewise change the feel, shorten the games, and reduce plays. I like watching football and still prefer looking for alternatives that do not result in fewer snaps played. Even so, I can see a reasonableness to expecting an offense to be at the line ready to run a play when the ball is spotted or deal with the clock winding down. Teams get time-outs. In the end, I come down here as on [3]: I would go along more were this the only way to help manage routine game length in real time.
[+1] Reviews. Reviews are frustrating because they ruin the rhythm of the game and because even with them, obviously or seemingly wrong calls (or non-calls) are left to stand with great frequency. The average game has 4 minutes waiting on review results. More camera angles (including always having goal-line and side-line cameras in place) with officials watching every angle from the booth would allow rapid response when a review official sees something obviously contradicting the call on the field. If no official buzzes in before the next snap, play continues. If he does, the senior booth official has 30 seconds max to agree with the call or the booth objection.
[+2] Officials. If they are too out of shape to hustle running the ball back for the next snap, let them do something else on Saturdays. Proliferating cameras in the venues that host D1 games is a trivial expense compared to the revenue this sport generates and the cost of bringing in officials. Some calls such as out-of-bounds, offsides, false start, etc are easily seen by cameras and can even be automated like the dreaded tennis line alarm.
[+3] Injuries. Stopping play for an injury automatically uses a time-out. A team that has failed to preserve a time-out in case of injury is charged with unsportsmanlike conduct on the bench each time (with one "grace injury stoppage" per game) the officials must stop play anyway. The penalty is not applied if the injury is associated with a foul by the opposing team.
[+4] Dynamic rules. Some or all of the accelerated clock rules to be considered could be used only in the event that a game is running long. This would have the drawback of confusing people who barely keep up now, but the precedent is set in differing timing rules in the final 2 minutes already. Once, for example, 3 hours have elapsed since kick-off, rules [3] and [4] apply; 4 hours after kick-off, a running clock is initiated. While more susceptible to confusion, it would limit the effect of the new rules on games that otherwise were going to end on time anyway with the old rules.
TLDR : While more football causes more injuries, I reject this as a reason to eliminate plays. Carried to its logical conclusion, this rationale leads one to cancel the season. I do see the need to have some predictability for when games will end, and the game has changed a great deal in terms of what offenses do compared to the NCAA of the 20th century. We don't need another NFL, though. In the end, the networks are going to get what they want, so there is little point to our forming or stating opinions anyway.