California overtime

Submitted by befuggled on January 27th, 2019 at 11:09 AM

I saw this on Every Day Should be Saturday (which in turn references this article on Slate) and hadn't seen it posted on the board. (I use the blog search function and google. It's probably been posted three times anyway.)

The team that wins the coin toss runs a play starting from the 50. The other team then runs a play from wherever they ended up. Then the first team runs another play from that spot, and so on until each team has run four plays.

So a hypothetical example as I understand it:

Team A from the 50: screen pass for 12 yards to Team B's 38.

Team B: Incomplete pass from their own 38.

Team A: Counter play for 4 yards to Team B's 34.

Team B: Long pass of 23 yard to Team A's 43.

Team A: Sack for a loss of 3 yards to their own 40.

Team B: Short pass of 6 yards to Team A's 34.

Team A: Completed pass of 17 yards to Team B's 49.

Team B: QB run on zone read for 5 yards to Team A's 46. Team B wins based on field position.

It sounds like a turnover will end the game, but it's not clear to me what happens if one team scores (especially on the first play). Would they end the game there? Or would the other team have a chance to run another play from the 50?

What makes this potentially interesting is that it's quicker than the current college system and gives each team a chance unlike the the NFL system. At the same time, deciding the winner on field position is just weird. However, the current college OT system is pretty damn weird.

Every play is critically important, though, and each team gets a reasonably fair chance to win the game.

Fishbulb

January 27th, 2019 at 11:14 AM ^

Use the college approach but start at the opposition’s 35. If you don’t gain a yard, you are in line for a 52 yard field goal. Not exactly a chip-shot. 

A Lot of Milk

January 27th, 2019 at 11:18 AM ^

I used to think that IU's logo was a candelabra and not an interlocking I and U. I probably didn't figure that out until like ten years ago

 

Wait, what are we talking about?

Brian Griese

January 27th, 2019 at 11:18 AM ^

I feel like I keep up with most football trends but I too had never heard of that. I can’t say that I particularly like the idea but it is different. 

With the era of higher powered offenses, I think the best solution is to implement a soccer style OT: two five minute halves with a kickoff to start both. No kicking extra points; must go for 2 on any TD. I think that is the most “fair” and doesn’t put as much emphasis on the coin toss. If the teams are still tied after that, repeat the process or go to sudden death. 

Piston Blue

January 27th, 2019 at 11:21 AM ^

I love that idea, but I doubt there's any chance it actually gets adopted by either the NCAA or NFL. Would be pretty fun to see, and it guarantees that both teams get the ball.

SeattleWolverine

January 27th, 2019 at 11:39 AM ^

If we're putting wacky ideas on the table, how about the concept that if the first team to possess the ball scores a TD, you then give the other team the ball, but limit the total # of plays to what the other team took to score? Since the Patriots had a methodical drive, the Chiefs get the chance to do the same with an additional drive length capped at 10 plays or whatever the # was. Or if the Pats had scored in one long TD pass then the Chiefs only get one. 

Michigan Arrogance

January 27th, 2019 at 11:45 AM ^

This is a dumb idea. Like, one of those ideas where you go into a board room and they try a brainstorming session and someone sasys, "there are no bad ideas."

Then some jack ass say this and everyone agrees it's a terrible idea.

Mr Miggle

January 27th, 2019 at 12:57 PM ^

The main criticisms are that the coin flip gives too much of an edge and that it sometimes goes on for too long. The last stats I saw showed about a 55-45 advantage for the team that wins the coin flip.

I have a simple tweak that addresses both points. Make the team the gets the ball second go for two in every OT. That lessens the advantage of going on defense first by lowering their information advantage. It seems obvious that it would also reduce the number of overtime periods.

It also adds a layer of strategy. If the first team scores a TD now, it would be foolish to go for two. If you knew the opponent couldn't just kick an XP to win, then you have a real choice to make.

Magnus

January 27th, 2019 at 11:49 AM ^

Not a fan. I like other things better, but I'd rather see some actual scoring. Have a 2-point-conversion festival if you want, as long as people are punching it (or throwing it) into the end zone.

jakeace

January 27th, 2019 at 11:57 AM ^

This sounds really ridiculous. Not football. I don’t mind the current NFL method. It’s not perfect. College overtime eliminates Special Teams, which I don’t like. No format will please everyone.

Mr Miggle

January 27th, 2019 at 12:01 PM ^

This sounds like it's designed for Pee Wee football, with parents looking at their watches and another game scheduled on the field in 15 minutes.

Fortunately, the NFL and CFB aren't subject to the same limitations.

Yo_Blue

January 27th, 2019 at 12:04 PM ^

How can it be "quicker' when you are changing out 22 players every play?  It seems to take "football" out of the equation and rewards the team with the best trick play or passing game.  Football is based on drives and putting three plays together that are designed to accomplish something.

Don't like.