Interesting Overtime Proposal

[gr82be 14,401]

Hadn't seen this before today. This would definitely add a twist to OT.  If both teams aren't going to be guaranteed a possession as the NFL does then I like this much better. Apologies for the portion that's a little hard to read because of font size. 

The perfect overtime format was proposed 17 years ago, and it's time college football adopted it

• By Tom Fornelli
• Jan 31, 2019 at 12:20 pm ET • 9 min read

Overtime in football is a popular topic these days. With both of the NFL's conference championship games going to overtime a couple of weeks ago, some have been wondering whether it's time for the NFL to change its overtime format. The fact the Chiefs never got the ball in an overtime loss to the Patriots in the AFC Championship Game made fans question whether it was sensible for the NFL to have an overtime format that makes it possible a team never gets the ball.

Many have suggested the NFL adopt an overtime format similar to that used in college football. In the college game, each team gets a possession starting at the opponent's 25-yard line in each overtime period. They then either score (whether a touchdown or field goal) or do not, and if both teams are still tied after the period, they go to another overtime. If the game remains tied after two overtime periods, teams must go for a two-point conversion following touchdowns. More often than not, this leads to games ending quicker in overtime, though last year we saw LSU and Texas A&M go seven overtimes before settling things, and even though that's a rare occurrence, it has the NCAA wondering whether or not it should reconsider its overtime format.

And the NCAA should debate that concept, but not because of the Texas A&M-LSU affair. College should change its overtime format because, even if it's better than then the one used in the NFL, it's far from perfect.

 

I've always felt that the smartest thing the college game could do would be to have the offense's starting field position move back with each overtime period. So if the teams start at the 25 in the first overtime, the second overtime would begin at the 35, the third at the 40, then the 45, and should it extend that long, as far back as the 50. I doubt many games would get that far.

While I liked that idea, last week, by sheer chance, I came across an overtime concept I'd never heard before. It was an idea that struck me as brilliant and the absolute best way to settle things in overtime at both the college and professional levels. I came across the idea via a tweet from Matt Hinton, but as Hinton informed me, the idea first surfaced way back in 2002 from an electrical engineer and Green Bay Packers fan named Chris Quanbeck. The idea was simple.

Overtime should begin with an auction of the football.

View image on Twitter

Matt Hinton

 

✔@MattRHinton

 

 

Hard to believe we're still arguing about how to fix OT when the answer's just been sitting here.

Of the options available in the proposal, the silent auction makes the most sense. The coach of each team would inform the officials of where they'd be willing to begin overtime with possession of the ball without the other team knowing. Then, whichever team is willing to start furthest from the opponent's goal line would get the ball. So, if Nick Saban said he'd start at the Alabama 30 but Dabo Swinney said he'd start at the Clemson 25, Clemson would get the ball, and the first team to score would win. Both teams would have had a chance to possess the ball that wasn't dependent on the flip of a coin but their own choice.

It would bring a whole new level of strategy to the game as well. If you have a fantastic defense, you could tank the auction process. You could tell the refs you were willing to start at your opponent's 10-yard line and hope your opponent says it will begin at its own 25. Then, you'd hope for a quick three-and-out and much better field position following a punt than you would have had if you had bid with your own 20-yard line. Of course, you'd also run the risk of your opponent saying they're only willing to start at your 15, so now you've given them the ball at the 15, and they're a 32-yard field goal away from ending the game.

I mean, it's easy to envision coaches losing their jobs over this. That's horrible for coaches -- who already get fired for a billion different reasons as is -- but it would be fun as hell as a fan. This is the overtime format football needs to adopt.

[AU64 10,122]

Seen lots of proposals to move the ball further back but I'm thinking if you do that, some OTs will go on forever if you have a couple defensive teams involved. Despite the complaining about the LSU game thing, almost all OTs end by the end of the second round.   The few that go longer get the attention but JMO, it makes no sense to change the whole system because of a handful of outlier situations.  

I definitely don't like the NFL  OT scheme when if you win the toss you hard automatically put yourself in the most favorable position and can win a game without the opponent every getting an offensive play.  That stinks....NFL has known it stinks for a while and modified the rule so that if you kick a FG the other team gets the ball but not if you are able to score a TD.   

The auction if interesting but I can just see the refs trying to explain that to fans and the TV audience …..and especially to a couple excited coaches who can get confused with the simple system we have now.   And imagine some of our favorite TV guys trying to explain the rule...😀

[Tiger 8,817]

I suspect many on here think this deviates too far from "traditional" rules but I wouldn't mind seeing this adopted in the NFL. I'm OK with college OT rules

[IronMan70 3,277]

Any proposals that don't allow both teams to have possession of the ball should be a non-starter. I think the current CFB OT system is a good one and provides for some exciting football. The NFL system is idiotic.

[beaumak 174]

i think this sounds great, for the XFL.

or better yet maybe we should have the coaches just run out on the field armed with spikes and helmets and beat the crap out of each other. Whoever left standing wins. Wouldn't mind having lil' nicky from that point on 0-for the century in overtime games.

But of course there is always the classic clip from Bob Uecker's Wacky World of Sports where the ref asks the player if he would like to win the game or lose the game. He says win the game and so the refs award it to them LOL. Couldnt find the video uploaded on the interwebs, but for those of you who know what i'm talking about i'm sure appreciate the nostalgia!  "Pinpoint Accuracy"!

Edit: well found one of the videos but dont think its in this one. if you have 30 minutes to spare i highly recommend for a good laugh!

wacky world of sports

 

[meh130 1,043]

I think a key change would be to require teams to go for two point conversions starting with the first overtime, and perhaps consider not allowing field goals at all.

Putting more risk into OT would change the decisions around allowing the game to go into OT in the first place.

The downside of no field goals would be the risk of a defensive stalemate.

[KolchakAU85 430]

Do it stupid, in honor of Major League Baseball:

In the event of a tie at the end of regulation play in the Super Bowl, the declared winner shall be the team from the conference that won the Pro Bowl in the preceding year.

[WhoDatWarEagle 111]

The auction concept...is very....interesting....haha..

[aujeff11 6,243]

20 hours ago, gr82be said:

I've always felt that the smartest thing the college game could do would be to have the offense's starting field position move back with each overtime period. So if the teams start at the 25 in the first overtime, the second overtime would begin at the 35, the third at the 40, then the 45, and should it extend that long, as far back as the 50. I doubt many games would get that far.

I actually love this proposal. 

Tbe auction proposal is silly and will leave fans complaining as well. 

[Auctoritas 2,826]

4 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

I actually love this proposal. 

Tbe auction proposal is silly and will leave fans complaining as well. 

Concur - that would add an interesting wrinkle and would probably shorten games. Also, eliminating PATs in OT. Keep FGs. There's strategy involved there too (even if there's generally only 1 right answer, the decision still has to be made to do it).

But @AU64 also is right that most OTs end after the 2nd time through.In fact, there have only been 11 FBS games since 2001 that went more than 5. You only see about 35-45 OT games a year as it is, but since the new OT rules came into effect in 1997 (which had the have to go for 2 after the 3rd OT requirement put in), that's only 11 times out of around 950 OTs.

@IronMan70 is also right that any OT that involves sudden death is a non-starter (as well as that the NFL rule is stupid). The current OT rules, in part, exist (as a modified version of the Kansas Playoff, which had teams start at the 10 yard line) to make sure both sides got a chance - particularly since there isn't as much parity in HS and CFB as there is in the NFL. (The other reason it exists, of course, is ties are stupid).

The reason that the NFL rules still exist, however, is more probably tied to the tight broadcast windows and collective bargaining agreements. I don't know a ton about it but I bet it would be an interesting thing to dig into.

[toddc 13,194]

I think the ref should place the ball at the 50 yard line, blow the whistle, and the first team player who touches the ball wins!

Advantage Auburn! Auburn fast!! Waaaar Eagle 🦅 

[doc4aday 1,887]

I have an idea of sorts..... Each team's QB with the strongest arm stands in his own end zone. He throws the ball as far as he can throw it. Then the other team's QB does the same. Each team gets to start their drive on the yard line where the ball settles. Each team gets a total of 5 offensive plays to score.

If there are no scores after each team has their chance. The field goal unit comes on the field. Each team attempts a FG of 35 yards. Each team gets a chance to make a FG. If both teams make the the FG, the next OT will consist of each team attempting a 48 yard FG. The next FG attempt will be a 57 yard FG. The 1st team to miss loses the game. If both teams make it to the 57 yard and each misses, they do this over until someone makes it.

This would be fun to watch and full of entertainment. Better have a steady and great FG kicker. Carlson would be a huge weapon for us in this format. This should reduce the wear and tear on players that occurs in long OTs like last year with LSU & TAMU.

Call this the "Throwing up & kicking off OT format"

[meh130 1,043]

On 2/9/2019 at 10:54 AM, Auctoritas said:

The reason that the NFL rules still exist, however, is more probably tied to the tight broadcast windows and collective bargaining agreements. I don't know a ton about it but I bet it would be an interesting thing to dig into.

I think TV had a lot to do with it. The NFL may be 100 years old, but it is, and has been, for half of that time, a sport of, by, and for television.

[wde1968 262]

On 2/8/2019 at 6:20 PM, KolchakAU85 said:

Do it stupid, in honor of Major League Baseball:

In the event of a tie at the end of regulation play in the Super Bowl, the declared winner shall be the team from the conference that won the Pro Bowl in the preceding year.

Use the stupid soccer aggregate where in a tie the team that's scored more that season wins.

[AUApostle 7,648]

You want to add thinking into foozball? Oh boy...

[macus23 24]

Keep the same OT format.  However, the PAT is actually a field goal of 35 yards for the first OT.  Then move the kick back 5 yards for each additional OT.

If both teams miss the kick, then the first team kicks again from 5 yards closer, followed by the second team. 

If they both miss again.  Repeat the alternating kicks from 5 yards closer. 

If they both make the kick, then OT resumes as normal, moving the PAT back 5 yards per OT period.

[nixtosanders94 2,180]

I’ve never understood why they make teams start going for two after the second OT...why not make them do it the first OT? Much more likely that both won’t convert it even if they both score TD’s. Seems like that simple change would shorten a lot of these OT’s.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

Something does need to be done about OT. I hope to see the NCAA make change it up a little. I think after 3 or 4 OT's, the games should end in a tie. These 6 and 7 OT's is hurting these players in a big way.