According this article it is:
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/call-to-end-overtime-in-college-football/
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/call-to-end-overtime-in-college-football/
Is it time to do away with OT?
- Thread starter 76-1
- Start date
I don't agree with the author at all. Ties suck, and both teams lose. This guy may be the only sports fan in the US who thinks a tie is a satisfactory result in an athletic contest.
That being said, the current overtime system in college football is flawed. The most obvious improvement would be to make both teams attempt a two-point conversion after a score - even a field goal. No extra point kicks.
Score a touchdown, you have to go for two. Kick a field goal, you have to "prove" it with a two-point conversion. I think that would stop the nonsense of five and six-overtime games and seal the deal quickly. Just one fan's opinion.
Yeah, there are changes that might help the process but allowing ties IMHO is not one of them. I don't even like them in soccer.
His reasoning is flawed. He says the team on offense first has a disadvantage which is correct but does not concede the same in the second overtime.
I don't have a problem with the current CFB OT approach...I no longer watch the NFL but I've never liked their OT process. The approach you've outlined would likely make OT a shorter, more dramatic engagement and that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
We went to the Navy game at Annapolis. Good game, bad end. But we may never go to another game because of all the down time waiting for commercials to be over. At home it's easy to do something else. Anyway, to my point: almost anything to shorten the game would be good.
It really frustrates me to hear constant conversations within the NCAA and in the media about the need to shorten games and how to do so. Those conversations are consistently focused on ways to "speed up play"
Play doesn't need to be sped up. Interruptions to play need to be reduced. Excessive tv timeouts and increasingly disruptive replays are 100% of the problem. That is why fans with time concerns don't come or don't stay. Until there is a serious conversation about fewer tv timeouts (and I'm not holding my breath) the game can't be shortened without jeopardizing the quality of play. The replay situation has become absurd.
As long as tv money is a priority over fans in the seats, not much is going to change. Unless/until tickets can't be sold and concession sales suffer, individual schools and conferences will continue to ignore the fans in the seats in favor of the advertising dollar.
I will continue to go because as a rule I clear my schedule for home game days and I love being in the stands at MS. But I do leave when the game is no longer in doubt, especially for the night games. I hate doing that, but getting home at midnight or later is something I'm not willing to do in order to finish watching a game with a decided outcome. I dvr all games so I can re-watch even the last few series the next day. I really feel for those people who have to drive 3+ hours to get to and from games. It must be even more frustrating having to sit through endless periods of no play so more ro-tel queso can be hawked and a dozen officials have to look at every other play on the replay video (and still get the damn call wrong half the time).
My biggest problem with overtimes is the teams start too close to the end zone. With having the ball on the 25, a team does not even have to move a yard and it can still kick a 42 yard field goal. Put them back on the 40 and they likely have to gain a first down in order to have success in kicking a field goal.
Actually, I'd be for no FGs. You have to score a TD. But also keep moving the starting position in 5 yards each round so OT doesn't completely stall because of good defense or bad weather.
A national columnist wrote a few years ago that the kicking game should be eliminated, with the exception of punting. That either forces teams to go for first downs or punt the ball back. It would also force teams to go for two points after touchdowns, which would eliminate most of the ties after regulation play.
Actually, (he said, tongue in cheek 
), I think a game that features two equally dispised opponents is when I'd be happiest to see a tie .
I d still want a tie breaker if it were us vs someone though.
Given the absolutely correct renewed emphasis on player safety, it's obvious that a shorter game would be a safer game.
I'd go for a hybrid of what was mentioned just above this post by hoosier r...: I'd like to see all but 1st & 2nd half kickoffs eliminated but keep Field Goals. I think that might cut down on at least a few injuries, still allow a couple of dramatic returns a game, plus retain the historical flavor of the game and not penalize a bunch of guys who spent 10 years of their life learning to become a good Kicker.
Losing all the after score kickoffs would unfortunately cut out a few dramatic comebacks due to the loss of late game onside kicks but the reality is it would just help insure that the actual better football team wins and not the guys who get the best bounce...
The other reality is that the kickoffs are so rampant with missed calls these days (mainly holding) that it's more a function of who can lock guys up the longest without getting caught versus truly great blocking that causes me to say I wouldn't miss them much... (just my opinion).
), I think a game that features two equally dispised opponents is when I'd be happiest to see a tie .I d still want a tie breaker if it were us vs someone though.
Given the absolutely correct renewed emphasis on player safety, it's obvious that a shorter game would be a safer game.
I'd go for a hybrid of what was mentioned just above this post by hoosier r...: I'd like to see all but 1st & 2nd half kickoffs eliminated but keep Field Goals. I think that might cut down on at least a few injuries, still allow a couple of dramatic returns a game, plus retain the historical flavor of the game and not penalize a bunch of guys who spent 10 years of their life learning to become a good Kicker.
Losing all the after score kickoffs would unfortunately cut out a few dramatic comebacks due to the loss of late game onside kicks but the reality is it would just help insure that the actual better football team wins and not the guys who get the best bounce...
The other reality is that the kickoffs are so rampant with missed calls these days (mainly holding) that it's more a function of who can lock guys up the longest without getting caught versus truly great blocking that causes me to say I wouldn't miss them much... (just my opinion).
Speaking of kickoffs, I was so angry last year in the game at Ohio State when we scored to be only behind 17-10 with 1:03 left in the first half, but then we kicked off deep so that the Buckeyes brought it all the way back to our six yard line. So they scored to make it 24-10. I couldn't believe that didn't either squib kick or just knock it out of bounds so OSU would have to start at the 35 with little time left.
So I had called in after the game and told Greg Murray and Ken Bikoff that the safer option would be to kick it out of bounds, and Murray said that teams just don't do that. If I hadn't already been cut off I would have said that it was brilliant strategy to kick it deep and let the Buckeyes almost return it for a TD!
So I had called in after the game and told Greg Murray and Ken Bikoff that the safer option would be to kick it out of bounds, and Murray said that teams just don't do that. If I hadn't already been cut off I would have said that it was brilliant strategy to kick it deep and let the Buckeyes almost return it for a TD!
Similar threads
