Why Overtime Needs To Be Abolished

The coin toss winner is still a favorite and the injury situation is still present. Football as we know it does not need to be played more than 60 minutes. Fatigue increases the chance of injury.

but in addition to 50’s two problems I’ll add one more, and that is sudden death itself. Sudden death, also, isn’t football. You play to the end of the period. Just slap the 15 minutes on the clock, and let them play till time expires. If it’s still a tie, then let them keep the tie. (Of course this probably just means we need to play till regulation expires and be satisfied with that, but if we’re going to do an extra period of some sort, give them a full extra quarter to play).

when I posted above, but I totally agree.

Football was played for well over 100 years with ties. Surprisingly even when ties occured life went on. Furthermore I do not feel the football played before the overtime rule was less than today’s football. In some ways I think it was more.

One of the most famous college games of all time was in 1946 when #2 Notre Dame and #1 Army tied 0-0. I know you guys think that would be a terrible game, but I would have loved to watch it live. That kind of game has been out lawed today,

on the coin flip.

But being satisfied when we win OT is not the same as saying that a person opposes it generally. I hate OT periods, and I hated it when we went into it against Arky a few years back, and I hated it Sat. night – before the end results of either game. Sure I’m glad when Bama wins in OT – what fan wouldn’t be? But that doesn’t mean I have ever agreed that we need them. I’m not surprised this post came after a loss in OT. I don’t guess I’d expect it to appear after a win in OT. That doesn’t change how some of us generally feel about the concept of OT in football, however.

Never have, never will. I posted this because this past Sat when I saw us sit on the ball late it reminded me of how much I hate OT. AND….anyone who has guts and believes in his guys would not sit on the ball with 1 minute and 2 time outs. I think somebody needs to grow a pair and that goes for the guys on the LSU side too.

Would not change the results of last night’s game. LSU won, fair and square, no voodoo, just good defense getting us out of FG range in overtime.

That said, I don’t like the way college OR NFL overtime works, regardless of what happened last night. 5026’s best point is the fact that OT only faintly resembles the actual game of football. No clock, no need to get down the field, just look at what your opponent does and try to match or 1-up it. I DO think OT should exist in general, but I think it should resemble an actual period (though shortened) of football, as the game is actually played during regulation.

It makes modern scores not comparable to pre-OT scores and warps stats.

I ’ve hated the NCAA OT rule since Day 1 without letup. Of course, I’ll take a W whatever the rules are. And I ’ ll take a BCS Championship. But I very strongly prefer NFL style OT and playoff system.

However, I’ m not sure if we would have won in a 15-minute sudden death OT. What would we have done differently in the Fifth Quarter? The playcalling sucked, so unless Trent and/or someone on D would have gotten a big play, probably just more of the same results on offense. While some reporters have suggested that the NCAA OT seemed to favor the LSU kicker, I suppose he would be better at longer FG’s than Foster and Shelley. And Wing showed what he can do with field position. At least the short field of the current rules helps us with Trent and Shelley.

to decide the winner, and the players never even saw the field, you better believe I’d pull for Bama to win the toss. That doesn’t mean it’s a good system to use.

Yeah, I’m hurt that Bama lost, but long before this game I felt that having to have a winner (at least by these OT rules) sets up two unfair situations for teams. First, it causes situations where a lesser team valiantly holds their own against a better team till the buzzer, and then loses in OT – they should be given the dignity of a tie. And second, it misrepresents situations where two equal teams play one another to a tie in regulation – the winner in those OT situations does not reflect the more dominant team, because sometimes there’s not one.

I doubt this post exists if Bama won, and I don’t doubt it exists because of the hurt of the loss, but whatever the motivation behind the post, situations like this give us the chance to evaluate what we think of these things in general, and I appreciate 50 bringing it up.

what he said.

That post was very well-reasoned. How could you say this? Disagree, but it’s silly to think that came out of a momentary hissy fit. It obviously has years of thought behind it.

Ridiculous and a perfect reason why football has been made more boring than ever. By ending the “Golden Goal” sudden death nature of football tounaments, they actually rewarded stoneage footballing and guaranteed a sleepy 30 minutes of extra time. Sounds like a great idea, huh?

I would change it giving each team a possession. Keep the rules about a team having to win the same, going for two, etc but just make teams kick it off and drive the length of the field. Thats a much better reflection of a teams ability to win than just getting the ball on the 25.

and we had a fair amount of ties. I’m glad we never lined up for the penalty kick circus.

I know it sounds wierd but why do we think ties are evil or something?

someone must win to advance. But of all the formats, I dislike college the most.

I’ve even seen a HS game with the “penatration rule.” That OT game was too confusing for the fans. However, at least the penatration felt like football was being played.

I’d go for 1 extra 15 minute qt. and then a tie EXCEPT that wears down the players too much and exposes them to injury.

or where the INT was returned to.

So then you wouldn’t ever return an INT? Or are you saying the inverse? If you intercept and return to your own 40, then you have to drive (from your 30) to the opponent’s 40?

The whole thing seems even more convoluted than our current system.

I’ve seen high schools in Ga. play. At least it is real football. The team going second does have an advantage of knowing what they need to do.

you would often have one team playing for a tie at the end while the other team desperately needs a score.

Not necessarily endorsing this idea, but that scenario is not significantly different from what already happens at the end of most non-tied games. One team is playing to kill the clock and the other is desperately trying to score.

The second we want to OT I turned to my friend and said “I HATE college overtime.” (Of course, I already knew we were at a disadvantage due to field-goal kicking, but I digress. . . .)

Anyway, just like you, I have been hatin’ on OT ever since it came around. In particular, as a stat freak, those ridiculous 64-56 scores just stick in my craw. The “it’s not football” argument gets me, too.

Anywho—even though I had already come up with most of your arguments on my own, you gifted me with a couple of new ones, particularly the elimination of the game-ending 2-pointer. I hadn’t thought of that, but you’re right, that was the most dramatic situation in football and they legislated that sucker right ouf of existence.. So I thank you for the post.