Overtime Rule

No, i did not mean the 1st team to score wins, play the whole 7 minutes, of each overtime
 
atlanta jacket said:
No, i did not mean the 1st team to score wins, play the whole 7 minutes, of each overtime
Click to expand...

Yes, and that's just going to result in the first team to score winning, because it's not hard to waste close to 7 minutes on a scoring drive. Once you get into field goal range just run the ball up the middle and let the play clock run down. It's basically the pro version except less exciting.
 
I like pro and college being different. However here is how I would tweak each:

College: start the ball on the 40-45 instead of the 25.

Pro: My main issue here is the kicking of FG for the win on 2nd down on the 1st possession. My change would be that if the other team has not had a possession yet you must win by 4. Go for the TD to win or kick a FG and go play some defense.
 
So isnt it the object of the defense to STOP the other team and force a punt or am i missing something.
 
atlanta jacket said:
So isnt it the object of the defense to STOP the other team and force a punt or am i missing something.
Click to expand...


You just presented the argument for the Pro version of overtime.

According to the data presented by Nance, when the rules was first implemented the split between teams winning and losing the toss were fairly close, within a reasonable statistical variance. After the NFL started to change rules to favor the offense (like moving back the kickoff) then the results changed. Now winning the toss is a much bigger advantage.
 
RamblinPeck said:
NCAA over NFL, but I'd be happier with them just adding another quarter, and another after that, and if that doesnt decide it (and theres still players able to stand up) ruby scrum for the ball in the middle of the field for possesion and go to sudden death.
Click to expand...

Now THAT would be cool. But I would make a special American football version. Line both teams up at the respective 35 yard lines. Then put the ball on the 50 and blow the whistle. Or the ref could bounce the ball like in Australian rules.
 
I don't like moving the ball back in college overtime, because it will simply result in a lot more field goals.
 
No doubt the college procedure is superior because it is more fair. The pro rule is really dumb.

The pro method would be better if they just required each team to have at least one possession.
 
I'd be okay with the college rule if it was treated basically like a shootout in soccer or hockey. I'd have no problem with it if they didn't count the stats and set it at 2 possessions each, and just called it a tie after that (unless it was for a championship or something). People act like Ties were a creation of Lucifer put into sports to damn the offenders(and their fans) to eternal life in hell.
 
BerryGT said:
I'd be okay with the college rule if it was treated basically like a shootout in soccer or hockey. I'd have no problem with it if they didn't count the stats and set it at 2 possessions each, and just called it a tie after that (unless it was for a championship or something). People act like Ties were a creation of Lucifer put into sports to damn the offenders(and their fans) to eternal life in hell.
Click to expand...

They were.

Weren't they?
 
BerryGT said:
I'd be okay with the college rule if it was treated basically like a shootout in soccer or hockey. I'd have no problem with it if they didn't count the stats and set it at 2 possessions each, and just called it a tie after that (unless it was for a championship or something). People act like Ties were a creation of Lucifer put into sports to damn the offenders(and their fans) to eternal life in hell.
Click to expand...


I never had a problem with ties that happened because neither team was able to score as the game ran out. I had problems with coaches playing for a tie when they were behind. It just seemed - gutless. (like Notre Dame kicking a FG against GT instead of going for the first down. :fingersx:)
 
I agree with LoneStar and Berry. An overtime win is always better than a tie. But, a tie is better than an overtime loss. To me, a game with a clock should end in a tie either after regulation or a timed overtime period, unless it is a playoff situation. It is like kissing your sister, but there is nothing fair about getting a loss when you were equal on the field for sixty minutes and somebody beats you in OT with a field goal kicked in first down.

I am just glad that we got a tie in Chapel Hill in 1990, not an OT loss. My best experience ever as a Tech fan at the Citrus Bowl would not have been possible.
 
I'm not crazy about ties, but I do think considering BCS rankings, bowls, conference championships etc. that money does find it's way into the ruling (not because a particular game is longer). The current BCS formula would likely be even more convoluted than now if ties were allowed.

A lot of former HS level and up players who watch a college game go into the 3rd or 5th OT, will tell ya there should be no "loser" in that game. Bookies and some fans who never played, probably feel differently.

I'd much prefer the college rule, but with one major change...move the ball back to the far 20. This way a TD or FG is "earned" (even though it would be 4 down territory all the way).
 
GoldZ said:
I'd much prefer the college rule, but with one major change...move the ball back to the far 20. This way a TD or FG is "earned" (even though it would be 4 down territory all the way).
Click to expand...

The game might never end.
 
So put a time limit on it or limit the number of possessions by each team, and if it's still tied, then it's meant to be a tie.
 
I'd be happy with a number of changes. The simplest is probably the Pro version but without a coin flip.

Penalize the team who had to come back just to get a tie by giving the ball ot the other side first. (The last team to score in regulaton must kick off the overtime.) Then, teams might play for the win rather than the tie in regulation more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top