Changes to CFB rules effective this season

I'm guessing the LSU-TAMU game put this rule into effect?

Same. It is the 4th OT but still I'd rather have ties than wins determined on 2 point conversions.

I still don't get why they don't do an NFL style OT. Except both offenses should get the ball at least once.

I agree.  Why not just require a 2pt conversion from the start instead of 3 OT?  Seeing how a 2pt is about a 50/50 shot it seems like that alone would significantly reduce the odds of getting to 4OT.

I don't. If a game goes into 4OT, teams have already played almost an extra quarter (six shortened drives). It's not like OT results aren't arbitrary anyway - may as well shorten the game further, like a shootout at the end of OT in playoff soccer or hockey.

Then again, I'm the guy who thinks OT should be eliminated, since a tie is the result that most accurately reflects two teams scoring the same number of points in 60 minutes.

I agree.  No rules after 4 OT.  Bring on the cage match.

Just make them go for 2 after TDs starting in OT1.  That would have to reduce the number of OT possessions. 

Ooh, ooh, ooh.  Ooh, ooh, ooh.  I got it, I got it, Mr Kotter.  Targeting is both subjective and arbitrary.

Overtime isn't good for blood pressure, regardless. 

It will definitely be two Big 12 teams playing it too.

One of the most NCAA moves ever.  A couple dudes are definitely going to get smoked this season and hurt badly because of this rule change.

Wedges prompt kicking teams to assign wedge-breakers, guys whose job is to kamikaze into the blockers at high speed. 

They want fewer of those collisions. Thus the rule. 

. . . and Cleveland State gets hammered by all new rules. 

Aside from being completely arbitrary and subjective, my biggest problem with targeting is that offensive players are immune to the foul.  Example, ball carrier dives head first to gain an extra yard and a knee from a defensive player gets in the way of his head.  Not only will it be the defensive player called for targeting, his knee may never be the same.

Only the NFL has the cache' and money to effect real change.  They won't do it, because doing so would force them to admit it is a problem, and that's bad for PR.  It would also cost a lot of money, which is something the owners have in spades.  Yet they prefer to hold onto it at all costs.  Greedy bastards.

A good start would be to provide modern safety equipment to every youth league and high school team in the country.  Throw a couple Billion $$$ at new, safe, helmets.  That would be a great start, and a huge goodwill publicity boost to start it all off on the right foot.

Alas, billionaire owners will never be smart enough to do this.

No, they do not have a problem.

The only problem is that people are too impatient. People (like you) are not giving the rule changes time enough to play out. You can’t put in a rule one year and expect some miraculous change in stats for a condition that shows up YEARS after playing. It won’t be for about five more years AT LEAST that results from these rules will be seen.

This is what I as a teacher run into with policy changes at district, state, and federal levels: people expect overnight flips in stats as soon as a policy is put in place, but that’s not how education works. It can take years to see the effects of a rule change, but because we have this horrid “fast-food-I-want-it-now-and-don’t-want-to-wait” mentality we get pouty and impatient when we don’t see immediate results and so we pass MORE rules thinking that doing the same thing over and over again will produce a different result.

You have to let things play out. You have to understand that the consequences of a rule intended for player long term health safety, as well-intentioned as they are, will not show results until years later. We need to stop overreacting as a society and realize that patience and non-emotionalized reason need to be incorporated into our thinking, and not knee-jerk react to every possibility that might or might not happen.