Overtime Rule Change: Yay or Nay?

[bonarae]

After an FBS game went to NINE overtimes today, and an Ivy League game to five, I am thinking of considering a rule change to NFL-style rules and bringing back ties after one overtime ends with no movement in scores.

Did the AAF, XFL and Arena Leagues have similar OT rules to NFL's?

The many overtimes an NCAA game can have can be boring to fans sometimes. Is there a quota to the number of OTs an NCAA game can have? xchinscratchx

[Bisonoline]

After an FBS game went to NINE overtimes today, and an Ivy League game to five, I am thinking of considering a rule change to NFL-style rules and bringing back ties after one overtime ends with no movement in scores.

Did the AAF, XFL and Arena Leagues have similar OT rules to NFL's?

The many overtimes an NCAA game can have can be boring to fans sometimes. Is there a quota to the number of OTs an NCAA game can have? xchinscratchx

NFLs OT rules are ****ed up. I like the college rules.

[bulldog10jw]

I would have left things as they were.

[smilo]

The old way was best. No one was complaining when LSU-A&M went so many extra frames. It's a few extra plays and avoids all this random garbage. Harvard should be furious by the dumb luck of their successful conversions on a 50-50 play not counting and being unable to replicate.

[NY Crusader 2010]

OT should be an untimed period of real football where both teams go possession for possession. Whenever a team fails to answer it's opponent the game's over (a safety would also end the game).

Current college OT rules are terrible, the old college OT rules were dumb but not as bad as the current rules. And the OLD NFL rule where any score was sudden death was the worst. The current NFL format is the best of the bunch as of now. One thing I do like about the NFL rule is that I still enjoy a good tie every once in a while. And they'd happen slightly more often in college because kickers at this level aren't automatic from 60 yards.

[Chalupa Batman]

Just as well get team captains at midfield and play rock, paper, scissors for the win. The new rules are DUMB!!

[AmsterBison]

I like the college rules... don't think they should count in stats though... the team that wins should get 1 pt added to their score and none of the stats should count.

[ElCid]

Pro rule sucks. Leave it alone. Each team deserves an equal shot.

[JSUSoutherner]

What's wrong with 9OT?

The best game I ever went to was the Kennesaw game where we went to 5OT. It was easily the most intense and exciting experience I've ever been at involving a football game. Right up with Auburn. Also an OT game.

The only thing I would consider changing is moving the start back from the 25 to the 35. Or maybe the 40.

Leave everything else alone. If it goes to 9OT. It goes to 9OT.

NFL OT is ass.

[Hammerhead]

I have no problem with the college rules and think the college rules are better than the NFL.

[Laker]

College rules > NFL rules

[CockyGeek]

The trading of 2 point conversions is stupid. It sounded cool in theory but actually seeing it play out was ridiculous. Especially moving up and down the field every 5 minutes. Just eliminating field goals after the second overtime should do the trick.

[atthewbon]

I liked the old college rules and I like the new ones. There are still two "normal" overtime periods I don't mind if after that they go to a 2 point conversion "shoot out." The Illinois v Penn State game was amazing to watch. Both are way better than the NFL.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

The NFL tiebreaker is absolute trash.

My suggestion: 3 normal OT periods then each team gets a possession on their own 20, and the team with more yards wins.

[chattownmocs]

They are deciding the closest and hardest fought games by methods that are microscopically shrinking the game down. Overtime should replicate the game as closely as possible. A timed period is most sensible, followed by sudden death. Beyond that it doesn't make any sense to me, it was bad enough before.

[Ivytalk]

I don’t object to bringing back the tie. — Love, Your Sisterxsmiley_wix

[NY Crusader 2010]

What's wrong with 9OT?

The best game I ever went to was the Kennesaw game where we went to 5OT. It was easily the most intense and exciting experience I've ever been at involving a football game. Right up with Auburn. Also an OT game.

The only thing I would consider changing is moving the start back from the 25 to the 35. Or maybe the 40.

Leave everything else alone. If it goes to 9OT. It goes to 9OT.

NFL OT is ass.

The closest thing to real football, the better. Why not just have Team 1 kickoff to Team 2 (after coin toss) and go possession for possession. Whenever Team 1 fails to match whatever Team 2 put up in their prior possession, the game ends. Unlike the NFL, in my system, if Team 2 returned the opening OT kickoff for a TD, the game wouldn't end. Team 2 would still need to kickoff to Team 1 and attempt to score a TD + whatever point-after conversion would be needed to tie or win. Under my system, I would consider eliminating the one point PAT and force teams to go for 2 in OT right away. Field goals would remain part of the game. So if teams traded FG on 4 straight possessions each, game goes on. And like I said above, a safety at any point ends the game.

[ElCid]

The closest thing to real football, the better. Why not just have Team 1 kickoff to Team 2 (after coin toss) and go possession for possession. Whenever Team 1 fails to match whatever Team 2 put up in their prior possession, the game ends. Unlike the NFL, in my system, if Team 2 returned the opening OT kickoff for a TD, the game wouldn't end. Team 2 would still need to kickoff to Team 1 and attempt to score a TD + whatever point-after conversion would be needed to tie or win. Under my system, I would consider eliminating the one point PAT and force teams to go for 2 in OT right away. Field goals would remain part of the game. So if teams traded FG on 4 straight possessions each, game goes on. And like I said above, a safety at any point ends the game.

I like this a lot.

[Pard4Life]

The old way was best. No one was complaining when LSU-A&M went so many extra frames. It's a few extra plays and avoids all this random garbage. Harvard should be furious by the dumb luck of their successful conversions on a 50-50 play not counting and being unable to replicate.

I was at the game yesterday - everyone was confused starting in the third OT frame, including myself. Would have been nice if the PA or refs reviewed the rules.

I do not like the 'two point conversion' rule after third OT. You have a great chess match game - one where Princeton has not even scored an offensive TD - that ends on something arbitrary, a coin flip essentially.

On that note, what are PATs/two-point conversions anyway? The entire point of football is to get the ball into the end zone, yet the game insists on 'well ok can you do this one little play and we will give you a point or two' ... it's just so arbitrary.

Now time for some whiplash - ok, so you score a touchdown, six points. So the next play is the 'bonus points play'... why not have 3-pt or 4-pt conversions?? If we are going to have arbitrary 1-2 pt attempts, let's make it high-risk/reward.

But overall, great game by H-P and legendary drama, but it just seemed unnatural to the flow and pace of the game being played for four quarters.

[JacksFan40]

I dislike ties with a passion, so that’s a no from me. Go back to the old CFB rules, like how A&M and LSU did it in 2018.

[Hammerhead]

If you are just trying to have "real" football, why not just have a rule stating that a game can't end in a tie and team possessing the ball just like at the end of the 1st or 3rd quarter?


The closest thing to real football, the better. Why not just have Team 1 kickoff to Team 2 (after coin toss) and go possession for possession. Whenever Team 1 fails to match whatever Team 2 put up in their prior possession, the game ends. Unlike the NFL, in my system, if Team 2 returned the opening OT kickoff for a TD, the game wouldn't end. Team 2 would still need to kickoff to Team 1 and attempt to score a TD + whatever point-after conversion would be needed to tie or win. Under my system, I would consider eliminating the one point PAT and force teams to go for 2 in OT right away. Field goals would remain part of the game. So if teams traded FG on 4 straight possessions each, game goes on. And like I said above, a safety at any point ends the game.

[Outsider1]

Have no issue with the college rules.

[Chalupa Batman]

The closest thing to real football, the better. Why not just have Team 1 kickoff to Team 2 (after coin toss) and go possession for possession. Whenever Team 1 fails to match whatever Team 2 put up in their prior possession, the game ends. Unlike the NFL, in my system, if Team 2 returned the opening OT kickoff for a TD, the game wouldn't end. Team 2 would still need to kickoff to Team 1 and attempt to score a TD + whatever point-after conversion would be needed to tie or win. Under my system, I would consider eliminating the one point PAT and force teams to go for 2 in OT right away. Field goals would remain part of the game. So if teams traded FG on 4 straight possessions each, game goes on. And like I said above, a safety at any point ends the game.

I like this a lot. Every team gets equal possessions no matter how the previous drive ended. The NFL OT rules would be a lot better (but not quite perfect) if a TD didn’t automatically end the game.


What's wrong with 9OT?

The only thing I would consider changing is moving the start back from the 25 to the 35. Or maybe the 40.

Leave everything else alone. If it goes to 9OT. It goes to 9OT.

NFL OT is ass.

This would be okay too if they moved the ball back to at least the 40 to start possessions. I think starting at midfield might be even better.

[Redbird 4th & short]

I like the current OT format as is - maybe move it from 25 to 35, so they have to get at least 1 first down to kick a FG (42 vs 52 yarder) with decent chance. But I like current format, and I'm just fine starting at the 25.

[NY Crusader 2010]

If you are just trying to have "real" football, why not just have a rule stating that a game can't end in a tie and team possessing the ball just like at the end of the 1st or 3rd quarter?

Hmmm...so whoever has the ball at the end of the 4th quarter starts with the ball at that spot to begin OT? Kind of takes the juice out of potential game winning-drives in regulation as there'd be no sense of urgency, no tough decisions at the 38 yd. line (Hail Mary versus try 55yd FG, etc). Because the end of the 4th quarter is the end of a HALF, like the 2nd quarter, I think OT should start with a kickoff. Winner of toss decides whether to receive or defer, and basically everyone would defer obviously.

[Chalupa Batman]

Hmmm...so whoever has the ball at the end of the 4th quarter starts with the ball at that spot to begin OT? Kind of takes the juice out of potential game winning-drives in regulation as there'd be no sense of urgency, no tough decisions at the 38 yd. line (Hail Mary versus try 55yd FG, etc). Because the end of the 4th quarter is the end of a HALF, like the 2nd quarter, I think OT should start with a kickoff. Winner of toss decides whether to receive or defer, and basically everyone would defer obviously.

Yep, OT needs to start with both teams on equal footing and equal possessions, whether it’s with a kickoff or both teams starting from a specific yard line.

[MR. CHICKEN]

...AFTERAH REGULATION....GOAL IS TA GET GAME OVERAH....PRONTO!.......SO KEEP IN MIND.....WHIFF YER IDEARS........BRAWK!

[bulldog10jw]

I don’t object to bringing back the tie. — Love, Your Sisterxsmiley_wix

Well, after all, Harvard's most famous "win", was a tie

[Bisonator]

I don't know why it has to be so complicated. Just treat it like a new game and after 1 team scores the other gets a possession and if they tie it you keep playing if they don't game over.

[Ivytalk]

Well, after all, Harvard's most famous "win", was a tie

Best 42 seconds in CFB history.

[ngineer]

The thinking behind the new rules was probably that moving the ball to the three and going for two would likely 'shorten' the OT and lessen the risk of injuries by having players getting overly tired/beat. This past weekend didn't seem to support that. I think I prefer the prior system with starting at the 25 for all periods, and requiring the scoring team to go for two after the second OT.

[bulldog10jw]

Maybe all the bettors were getting fed up with betting the under, have the game go to OT, and then see the total go over. Betting on sports is more and more mainstream. Maybe gamblers have a good lobby.

Games that previously went to 5 OT's would not usually end up 18-16

[Bisonoline]

The thinking behind the new rules was probably that moving the ball to the three and going for two would likely 'shorten' the OT and lessen the risk of injuries by having players getting overly tired/beat. This past weekend didn't seem to support that. I think I prefer the prior system with starting at the 25 for all periods, and requiring the scoring team to go for two after the second OT.

They use those excuses but if the truth be told its all about the game running over its alotted time slot. Which effects advertising $$$$$$.

[OhioHen]

I was always in favor of a modification to the previous NCAA rule. Instead of first and ten at the 25, the first OT should have been first and goal at the 10. Each successive overtime, move the ball 5 yards farther back and make it first and goal from the 15, the 20, the 25, etc.

[NY Crusader 2010]

Maybe all the bettors were getting fed up with betting the under, have the game go to OT, and then see the total go over. Betting on sports is more and more mainstream. Maybe gamblers have a good lobby.

Games that previously went to 5 OT's would not usually end up 18-16

Not a bad point and I never thought of this side of it. Under the old system you'd have games finish 21-21 at end of regulation and end 50-48 after a million overtimes.

[MR. CHICKEN]

They use those excuses but if the truth be told its all about the game running over its alotted time slot. Which effects advertising $$$$$$.


......UH......ER......UMMMMM!......DUH ADVERTISIN'.....COMES......WETHER GAME IS EXTENDED O' NOT........MAY GET MO' BEER ADS....FO' PIGGY........BUT DUH ANTIQUE ROAD SHOW....WILL SEE MO' MR. CLEAN.....AWK!

[CHIP72]

FWIW, I've always preferred the NFL overtime rules because the game is played similarly to how it is played in regulation and doesn't remove non-field goal special teams (or to some degree, good defense, particularly forcing turnovers) from the equation. Mind you, I really dislike the combination of shorter, 10 minute overtimes AND field goals on the opening possession cannot win the game; in combination they create more ties. One of those two requirements should be dropped.

To be fair, (probably like many people on here) I remember the days when college football didn't have overtimes, so that might be part of the reason for my preference, along with the fact that I'm a bigger NFL fan than college football fan.

[Sonic98]

I definitely don't like the idea of the old old NFL Rules. Just straight sudden death is terrible. I see no problems with limiting the number of OTs. Yes, there have been some great games with a lot of OTs, but if the current rules were in place we would still be talking about how great some of these OT games were. I'm not sure how I feel about the rule forcing teams to go for two after a while. I guess it somewhat makes sense. Maybe what they could do is after 2 OTs, move the ball back farther. Maybe it could be a mix of rules. The first OT teams kick it off. The 2nd and 3rd it's on the 25. The 3rd and 4th ball starts on the 35 or 40

[ElCid]

I really like, starting in OT1, beginning out of normal FG range. As it is, even if both D's do their job and force FGs, most teams can just kick if they don't get a first down and make it. Putting it at the 40 to start makes a three and out very problematic. It would probably eliminate multiple OTs.

[POD Knows]

The closest thing to real football, the better. Why not just have Team 1 kickoff to Team 2 (after coin toss) and go possession for possession. Whenever Team 1 fails to match whatever Team 2 put up in their prior possession, the game ends. Unlike the NFL, in my system, if Team 2 returned the opening OT kickoff for a TD, the game wouldn't end. Team 2 would still need to kickoff to Team 1 and attempt to score a TD + whatever point-after conversion would be needed to tie or win. Under my system, I would consider eliminating the one point PAT and force teams to go for 2 in OT right away. Field goals would remain part of the game. So if teams traded FG on 4 straight possessions each, game goes on. And like I said above, a safety at any point ends the game.
I give a thumbs up to this.

[HootyHoo]

Hooty says Nay.

[POD Knows]

Maybe timeouts during the two point conversion part of the OT be eliminated. The two Ivy’s seem to have a hell of a time with that.

[crusader11]

I haven't read through this entire thread, but will be short in my analysis -- new OT sucks.