OT: as in overtime, hopefully off-topic this year
since CFB is going through some heavy changes, now is the best time to shore up these messy OT rules.
Exhibit A: a sassy soft USC takes down an upstart unheralded Arizona with referees not really knowing the rules as it went into multiple OTs late last Saturday night.
parsimony and reason suggest rule changes that improve the quality of the game for the players, coaches, and fans by: increasing the probability of a regulation win, and reducing the length of OT sessions when needed.
the present system often boils down to botched extra points, dubious 2 point conversion decisions, and multiple OTs resulting from boring "playing the percentage" point matching strategies.
In other words, the advantages given to the offensive side of the ball by the present rules are not having the desired effect because it is too easy to score in OT.
why is running out the clock in regulation a good strategy? why is an OT coin toss needed and what does it add to the game? Why are two point plays that are often used multiple times in close games that end in ties re-emphasized in OT? Only you can answer these questions for yourself.
One rational solution is:
the team with possession at the end of regulation (Team A), has to take the ball first in OT, Team A also gets to select the end of the field. After a short hydration break, Team A gets 4 downs to score the the 20 yd line, so the featured scenario changes from 2 point plays to a time condensed variation of red zone performance.
Team A has 3 basic options. Score a TD for 6, a FG for 3, or turn it over on downs or otherwise. Team B then gets their shot and gets to choose the end of the field for their offensive series. Repeat multiple OTs, switching the team that goes first, as needed until one team wins.
--it gives players in all 3 phases more ways to significantly impact the outcome in OT.
--for the coaches and fans, it would add some new strategy to clock management at the end of the game and open up the play books in OT. Less boring extra points and commercials and hopefully less risk of injury.
October 10th, 2023 at 11:51 PM ^
Just add another 10 minute or so period and let it play out. I can't stand the coin toss, win-if-you-do-this-but-not-that, one team possession nonsense.
The problem is it "messes up TV schedules," which has become more important than a fair/good game.
October 10th, 2023 at 11:56 PM ^
My solution is similar. Just turn off the game clock. Whoever had the ball at the end still has it, where they had it. Next score wins.
Also, I thought it was Jedd that messed up on the OT rules, not the refs.
October 11th, 2023 at 9:56 AM ^
Interesting idea. I don't really like it though. It greatly changes end-of-game situations in a tie game. There's no clock pressure if you are driving downfield at the end of a tied game.
October 11th, 2023 at 10:31 AM ^
Why should a team with the ball in a tied game feel clock pressure?
October 11th, 2023 at 12:35 PM ^
Because it's a 60-minute game.
Your idea is a valid idea. It is not a "wrong" idea. But it fundamentally changes regulation, so I vote no.
October 11th, 2023 at 9:59 AM ^
Don’t like this. Reason being that it eliminated the importance of the end of the 4th quarter.
October 11th, 2023 at 8:46 AM ^
The OT rules are horrible. They emphasize only a small slice of the game (eliminating punting, open-field defense, deep threats, full-field tactics in general. Get rid of extra point kicks and make it a 1 point play from the 1 and a 2 point play from the 3. That will make for fewer ties. Then, bring back the tie (except in championship/playoff games). There's nothing wrong with a tie.
October 11th, 2023 at 1:38 PM ^
The problem is it "messes up TV schedules,"
It's not only that. They also don't want players playing too many snaps. Tired players are more likely to get injured.
October 11th, 2023 at 12:02 AM ^
Hold on...which conference officials are these?
...oh yeah
But agreed with a change needed from current format
October 11th, 2023 at 12:11 AM ^
I find your ideas intriguing, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
October 11th, 2023 at 12:23 AM ^
that will cost you. but as a teaser, I am still-not-okay with baseball now that they have the pitch clock, but that was a good idea.
October 11th, 2023 at 12:31 AM ^
Keep the current setup, move the OT start line back to the 35. Or 40. Make it harder to score. Move the 2-point conversion line to the 5 or so.
Your version isn't bad, tbh.
October 11th, 2023 at 2:03 PM ^
I could go for the first idea, but no to changing the distance for the 2-point try - unless you also want to do it for regulation. I don't like having different sets of rules for different times of the game.
October 11th, 2023 at 12:53 AM ^
Let ‘em tie!
OT only in playoffs and maybe bowl games .
October 11th, 2023 at 9:17 AM ^
I'd like to see ten minutes additional time, maybe switch directions after five minutes. If it's still tied after ten minutes leave it a tie. For some games a tie is the most appropriate result.
October 11th, 2023 at 1:42 AM ^
I have to say... The USC/Arizona game was pretty entertaining.
October 11th, 2023 at 2:23 AM ^
My solution is based on the Armageddon tie break used in chess.
1) Each team makes a "secret" bid that represents the number of yards from the endzone (1-99).
2) The team with the largest bid gets the ball on offense at the yard mark representing their bid. If bids are the same then there will be a coinflip and winner decides if they want offense or defense.
3) If the offense scores then they win the game*.
4) If the Defense gets a stop (turnover on downs, int, etc.) they are awarded 1 point and get the win.
*I am on the fence if the offense should have to score a TD or is a FG good enough. I think in the NFL a TD requirement would probably be necessary.
Pros: Simple. Short OT but still exciting. It is very similar to the game that was being played the previous 60 minutes, it is not just an aspect of the game like red zone offense/defense.
Cons: Hilariously poor bids that will result in a dull finish to an otherwise great game.
October 11th, 2023 at 10:04 AM ^
NFL OT is terrible.
College OT was perfectly fine before albeit could have used tweaks. They ruined it by essentially making it a 2 point exhibition. There were so many simple things they could have done to shorten OT but keep it fair and exciting
October 11th, 2023 at 12:07 PM ^
The only thing college football needed was to make teams go for two earlier than the third OT. Moving it up to the second OT was sufficient. They didn't need to tweak things further.
October 11th, 2023 at 10:17 AM ^
I thought I'd seen something similar to this floated before. Unfortunately, the paper is gated, but someone else might be able to summarize it better:
An auction with positive externality and possible application to overtime rules in football, soccer, and chess (Granot and Gerchak 2014)
The version I thought I'd seen before was same as yours, except that there wasn't a score-or-die mechanism. Instead, first to score wins. The obvious limitation is that if you have two Iowas playing, the game could last to the heat death of the universe.
I like having a TD as sudden death -- it would encourage bids closer to the goal line, and a play that ends close to the goal line (but not a touchdown) doesn't immediately trigger a field goal to win. However, #collegekickers adds some chaos/drama to the calculation if a FG would win.
October 11th, 2023 at 2:32 AM ^
While I sort of agree, maybe overtime should just be an extension of the 4th quarter, with sudden death past a certain point, I kind of like the CFL rules: overtime possessions from the 35 yard lines.
Win in regulation: 3 points in standings
Win in overtime: 2 points in standings
Loss in overtime: 1 point in standings
No reason you should be rewarded or punished as much for a win/loss in overtime as a blowout in regulation.
October 11th, 2023 at 6:39 AM ^
I don't have a problem going back to the old rules and having games end in ties - it wasn't so awful then with a few exceptions (Notre Dame vs. Staee 1966 and Michigan vs. The OSU 1973) and would be less awful in a world with a CFB playoff. We would need OT in the CFB playoff of course. No overtime set up is going to be completely satisfying because they all have flaws.
I think the changes to the college OT rules have generally made the result worse in exchange for having the game end sooner. Going to 2 point conversions is just as bad as a shoot out in hockey.
October 11th, 2023 at 6:40 AM ^
the team with possession at the end of regulation (Team A), has to take the ball first in OT, Team A also gets to select the end of the field.
Lol. Doesn’t make sense. Any team in possession of the foosball nearing the end of regulation would punt with seconds left (regardless of down and distance) so they can go 2nd in OT.
October 11th, 2023 at 8:49 AM ^
Exactly. Coin flip is necessary. But frankly ot is not except in playoffs and title games. And then I would push it back to 35 yard line. Tougher to score and most importantly a 53 yard field goal is a lot tougher than a 43 yard field goal. So you have to do something even if the other side fs up.
October 11th, 2023 at 8:31 AM ^
How about going back to allowing ties? Makes for some interesting strategy at the end of games and doesn't mess with anyone's time allotment.
The famous ND-MSU game back in the 60's wouldn't have the fame that it does if that game hadn't ended in a tie.
October 11th, 2023 at 8:52 AM ^
Your suggestion seems barely different than the existing rules. You eliminate the coin toss. Okay. You start at the 20 and not the 25. Okay. You say that players in all 3 phases get more opportunity, yet you are making them score in 4 plays from the 20? This almost totally eliminates the running game. Da fu? Whenever someone calls their own ploy "rational", they're usually just making the human bias fallacy that they have some better command over reason and interpretation than others.
October 11th, 2023 at 1:23 PM ^
this is all good feedback. Thanks.
I don't agree that these changes eliminate the running game in OT but it does require an offense to use running plays that potentially gain more than 3 or 4 yards, unless you are positioning for a game winning FG or you find yourself near the goal line on 2nd or 3rd down.
If your team can't run the ball during regulation, then ya it's better to win in regulation if at all possible.
No one seems to like the changes to the end of regulation. This is something that would provide a new skill set for punt teams to drill on, not to mention the changes in strategy for the O and D's involved.
The team possessing the ball would have to put the ball in the field of play to earn the change of possession. punts that go out of bounds or into the end zone on the last play or say under a minute would result in a 5 yard penalty and the punting team having to rekick or run out the clock.
In other words, This part is half-baked but I still like it. It's kinda like hot potato. You might have situations where the offense fumbles on purpose or takes chances on hail mary's risking the unlikely pick six to get the second possession in the first OT. You might get "dead ball's" when the defense decides it ain't worth picking up to let the clock run out.
Not sure if trickeration is a word yet, but it would be revitalized by the hot potato rule.
October 11th, 2023 at 4:33 PM ^
Wait, why wouldn't a team just always use these "running plays that potentially gain more than 3 or 4 yards", as you say? So teams are choosing running plays which go for fewer yards on purpose, because they actually have other running plays for more yards? Interesting. Is that to run out the clock, or wear down the defense? Why not just use the longer running plays and have the back take a knee at 4 yards?
October 11th, 2023 at 8:52 AM ^
i don't know how they let that terrible rule change pass in the first place. Player safety my ass. Such an overreaction.
October 11th, 2023 at 1:59 PM ^
Making teams go for two in the second OT was a sound decision. Now, most OT games no longer go past that period, whereas previously they were often going to the third (when teams then had to go for two).
The one-play setup for the 3rd OT and beyond is weird, but only a small percentage of OT games make it that far.
October 11th, 2023 at 10:21 AM ^
I think I'm the only one who doesn't mind the 2p shootout OT. If a game is tied, you need to break the tie, and this does so expediently and fairly - both teams get perfect information (whereas the team that goes second has an advantage in the first 2 OTs) and it ends quickly. While it does dilute the game, the fact is the 60 minutes previous proved these two teams are even. The OT is a way to break the tie in a fair way. It's not s full football game, it's a football tiebreaker.
If I were to modify, I think I'd start the teams further back in the first 2 OTs and mandate 2PA from the start over XP, so both teams have some level of an equal understanding. But after a pair of OT sessions like that - just break the tie.
October 11th, 2023 at 10:23 AM ^
I guess one other option to me is go with the NFL style OT - except mandate that both teams get the ball an even number of times before the game is over. So even if you open OT with the ball and score a TD, you have to stop the other team from getting a TD before you've won.
October 11th, 2023 at 10:24 AM ^
I'm all for change, but wouldn't just 4 downs from the twenty completely favor passing, open offenses?
Think of a fully operational Minnesota team with a typical (healthy) running back that can reliably move the ball 3-4 yards per play (yes, I know, the whole game is kind of boring then, but still....teams do it). Give that team just 4 downs from that far out and they might as well just end the game and skip OT.
October 11th, 2023 at 11:52 AM ^
I like the NFL's revised OT rules. I think NCAA should use a similar model.
October 11th, 2023 at 12:19 PM ^
The only thing I dislike about the current OT structure is starting at the 25. It needs to be moved back to the point where a FG is not a given without a first down or two. Start at the team's OWN 25, 35, 40, something like that.
October 11th, 2023 at 1:52 PM ^
Field goal shootout between the place kickers, starting at the 25 and going back 5 yards each round. Kicker can tap out for a replacement from their team but they can’t get back in. Long snapper, holder and kicker only.
/s and I think Hockey shootouts are silly.
October 11th, 2023 at 1:52 PM ^
the present system often boils down to botched extra points, dubious 2 point conversion decisions, and multiple OTs resulting from boring "playing the percentage" point matching strategies.
It feels like you're complaining about the original college OT system, when teams were never required to go for two. That hasn't been the case for many years now.
Now, teams have to go for 2 in the second OT, so the only time they even get to attempt a PAT (or make a decision about it) is in the first OT session.
Your suggestions are ... odd. If you want teams to go for the win in regulation, why adopt an OT system that penalizes the team that had the ball last?
Why have teams need to gain 20 yards in four downs, when throughout regulation they only need to gain 10? What exactly does that solve, and how would that be more equitable than the current setup?
October 11th, 2023 at 3:20 PM ^
College OT is pretty good compared to NFL, though obviously imperfect. Your idea, while interesting, is more complicated than necessary.
The main problem with the current OT rules is that the second team has an advantage of both teams score TDs. They can go for 2 for the win, while the team that went first really can’t go for 2 because if they don’t get it, the other team can just kick the XP to win, and if they do get it, the other team can still go for 2 to tie.
The simple solution is just to make it so that if the team that goes first scores a TD and elects to go for 2, then the second team must also go for 2 if they score a TD. That greatly reduces the advantage of going first without all the end-of-game gamesmanship that would happen with your plan. If your plan was adopted, I think coaches would just get clever and punt the ball away with 10 seconds left to guarantee they got the ball first. That’s even worse than a coin flip, imo.