Crimson Red Sports

If NCAA is so concerned about safety, why don't they outlaw cut blocks!!


http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/25827234/ncaa-oversight-committee-open-changes-targeting-rule-over

Regarding the overtime issue, I would be in favor of pushing the ball back, say, 10 yards with every subsequent OT series.  1st starts on the 25 as it is now, 2nd the LOS would be the 35, 3rd, the 45, and so forth with still requiring them to go for two as it is currently.  If they make it harder to score by pushing the ball back then I think odds are that one team would likely score and the other wouldn't.   :dunno:

But they didn't ask me...  :eyeroll:

NALT that does sound good. RTR!

Rather than move the ball back, how about removing one player from each side with each continued overtime.  That's be more interesting too.

 :popcorn2:

Ummm, I don't like that because it would totally screw up how the plays are called.  Plays are designed with 11 on the field and if you start removing them then that totally messes it all up.  You remove a WR but the defensive team removes a LB.  Next series you remove a TE and they remove a CB, etc.  It just wouldn't work.

Forgot this:   :eyeroll:

:lol2:

A different idea.... starting in the 4th OT, put the ball at the 10 yd line.  You have four plays to score a TD & if you score you have to go for two.  No FGs allowed.

How bout just calling it a tie after 3OTs??    ???

 :-\  If you're indeed our king, you've gotta take a better stand than that!   :lol2:

The main problem with OT is that the people who paid to be there at the game get the shaft.  All of the action is at one end of the field, and those at the far end can't see squat.
Just sayin'.   :dunno:

There is no reason they can’t do it like the pros. Only difference would be that if the first team scores a TD, the other team gets their chance.

What they're trying to address is games lasting too long and player safety issues.  A 3OT cutoff addresses that directly.

If no team can win after 3OTs, they don't deserve a win.

With your proposal, after 11 OTs you have the same effect.   :lol:

How about a substitution like in extra-inning baseball, where an assistant goes in as pitcher.  After several OTs the coach has to play QB.  :lol2:

I vote subbing in the head coach.  Saban in would guarantee a win.   :)

They basically do that now after the 2nd OT with the exception of moving the ball to the 10.  IMO, it is logically more difficult to score from the 25 than the 10 but it isn't necessarily because from 25 yards out it opens additional plays that would be far less likely to work from the 10.  I like my idea better actually.  Surprise, surprise!  ;)  By moving the ball back an additional 10 yards per subsequent OT then that adds a bit of additional difficulty.  And to add to the suspense, only allow 4 downs, PERIOD!  No 1st downs granted for gaining 10+ yards... Of course, that could make it even more difficult to finalize the game too...  :dunno:

Are ya'll even talking about football?   ???

Not really.  It's the off season.   :dunno:

Starting with the quarterback? :)

No amount of fair rules changes will make the game end any sooner because you are making it harder or easier for both teams.  :dunno:  Just suck it up and play ball!  This ain't tiddly winks!  :lol2:

Make them switch end zones after each OT to address the crowd issue.

Then the center!  :lol2:

Eliminate blocking below the waist outside of the free blocking zone. If they are concerned about health and stress targeting, then this needs to be stressed as well.

Oh, serious comments.  E-cred for that!   #+

I think I like the intent of the proposed change to the targeting rule.  Unfortunately it also inherently brings in another layer of subjectivity.

IMO, college football OT doesn't need changing.  Why change a system just because you may get one crazy 5+ OT game every decade?  Well over 90% of OT games are settled within a couple OT periods.  The NFL system is far too reliant on the coin toss.

Fully agree on OT.

I do think one thing that needs to be done is for the teams to start on the 50 yard line each time. RTR!

LSU prolly couldn't find it.   :lol2: :lol2:

They don't have to worry about OT with us.  :lol: :lol:, RTR!

They already do that. One team picks (usually to go on defense first), the other team picks the direction of play.  If tied after OT1, repeat the choices.

It just looks the same on TV.   :lol:


http://amarefs.org/FR16.pdf

Au Contraire!  College teams that win the OT coin toss have a greater chance of winning than their NFL counterparts:

Watching the LSU/Aggies OT game, by the end of the game both defenses were too gassed to make a stop.  That's my real problem with extended OT games -- not some generic "player safety" argument, but real football terms --  every game turns into a Big12 game by the end.  So I stick with my position:

After 3 OTs, call it a tie.  But don't require teams to go for 2 point conversations -- leave it up to a coaching decision, like the good ole days, whether to go for the tie or a win at the end.

I like it.   :clap:

I could live with this one. RTR!

That wouldn't work.  It makes too much sense...  :-X

Except for the part where my computer changed "conversions" to "conversations."    ???

You sure about that?  ???

LSU/aTm never switched ends.  Unless the aTm fan with the green shirt on behind the end zone ran to the other end of the field each time.  :lol2:

Well the rules appear to allow it... maybe there were two Aggie fans wearing green shirts, or the coach didn't care? 

Allowing it is not the same as making them switch.

How about playing perpendicular to the field, facing each bench, after the first OT?

 :deadhorse:

The refs can't make them switch.  The coaches/team captains decide.  Maybe there was no good end zone to pick in College Station?

Well, if they are going to force teams to go for 2 after scoring a TD, just make the 50 yardline the goal line and let each team play toward whichever direction they choose.  That way would remove any "home goal" benefit to some degree.

Except maybe they just need a FG.

It really doesn't need changing.

Hence the proposed rule change to make them switch.  :lol2: