At the start of overtime just skip to a single 2 pt conversion try for each team.

1 play apiece for each team. Put the ball on the 3 yard line. No kicking allowed.

this will also keep scores down and not skew stats so much.

Set up a 3' diameter target at the goal line and have each QB throw 5 passes from the 25.

I do see some merit in the concept of the OP. I have often thought that water balloons at ten paces would be as effective as the current system. But seriously, I'd rather see each team get an offensive series starting at the 50 (out of field goal range). This forces coaches to take normal risks instead of playing ultra conservatively which in part lends to the 2nd & 3rd overtimes. I also think it gives the defense the legitimate chance for a stop. I could be mistaken, but I seriously believe most games would be decided after 1 overtime this way. And hate me for being old, but what the heck was wrong with a tie? I'm totally for overtime in bowls and championship games, but it seems to me that ties were valid outcomes for the regular season. Now some will say valid how? My response is that sometimes you have two teams that played so well neither deserves a loss, and other times you have two teams that played so poorly that neither deserved a win.

Just eliminate kicking. TD or nothing.

I think the OT method is fine for determining the outcome of the game, but i HATE the way it inflates player stats. You'll hear that some QB threw for something outrageous like 7 TD passes in a game, then you read the recap and four of those came in quadruple OT. It also inflates team scoring stats. The game finished regulation tied at 28 but the final score is 56 - 49 or some crap.

I say play the OT by the current rules, but no matter who wins and no matter how many TDs or FGs are "scored" in the several OT sequences, the official final score should be just either one TD or one FG more than the score at the end of regulation, and only the guy who scores the winning TD or winning FG gets official credit for that score.

(11-23-2013 11:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think the OT method is fine for determining the outcome of the game, but i HATE the way it inflates player stats. You'll hear that some QB threw for something outrageous like 7 TD passes in a game, then you read the recap and four of those came in quadruple OT. It also inflates team scoring stats. The game finished regulation tied at 28 but the final score is 56 - 49 or some crap.

I say play the OT by the current rules, but no matter who wins and no matter how many TDs or FGs are "scored" in the several OT sequences, the official final score should be just either one TD or one FG more than the score at the end of regulation, and only the guy who scores the winning TD or winning FG gets official credit for that score.

I like the scoring suggestion Quo, but just make it 1 point. That way there is very little skewing of the final score. So in overtime you are awarded 1 point for the period in which you outscored your opposition. As far as stats they just need to be broken down into two categories for the official record: Actual Game Stats & Overtime Stats. Both will be shown under the players names but separating the two officially limits their artificial inflation impact.

I still prefer college fb ot over NFL...more equitable and exciting. Considering marketing is why these games are on in the 1st place...this is an exercise in swimming upstream. What's the rush...to cut away to ESPN highlights that you will see in full rotation for the next 24 hours?

Stop and smell the roses dude.

I actually like college football's overtime the best - high school overtime periods start too close to the goal line (10 yard line), and the NFL's overtime can be determined by who won the coin flip.

I like college OT the best, but I would prefer if the teams started from the 50 instead of the 25. I'm not a fan of having an easy FG even if you just sit on the ball, I'd prefer to see a team have to somewhat drive down the field.

I think it's fine but they need to stop keeping stats for overtime.

I always liked sudden death. I think after 25+ years of sudden death in the NFL, the coin flip winner won only half the time anyway. Sudden death made every play meaningful... tough to beat that for excitement.

(11-23-2013 09:12 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I think it's fine but they need to stop keeping stats for overtime.

This.

(11-23-2013 08:12 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  I still prefer college fb ot over NFL...more equitable and exciting. Considering marketing is why these games are on in the 1st place...this is an exercise in swimming upstream. What's the rush...to cut away to ESPN highlights that you will see in full rotation for the next 24 hours?

Stop and smell the roses dude.

I agree. If two teams play 60 minutes to a draw, they deserve equal chances. Why shorten it. I love it.

(11-23-2013 08:51 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I like college OT the best, but I would prefer if the teams started from the 50 instead of the 25. I'm not a fan of having an easy FG even if you just sit on the ball, I'd prefer to see a team have to somewhat drive down the field.

I agree. Make it so there is some effort to score.

I love OT the way it is. Don't mess with a system that works.

(11-23-2013 11:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I do see some merit in the concept of the OP. I have often thought that water balloons at ten paces would be as effective as the current system. But seriously, I'd rather see each team get an offensive series starting at the 50 (out of field goal range). This forces coaches to take normal risks instead of playing ultra conservatively which in part lends to the 2nd & 3rd overtimes. I also think it gives the defense the legitimate chance for a stop. I could be mistaken, but I seriously believe most games would be decided after 1 overtime this way. And hate me for being old, but what the heck was wrong with a tie? I'm totally for overtime in bowls and championship games, but it seems to me that ties were valid outcomes for the regular season. Now some will say valid how? My response is that sometimes you have two teams that played so well neither deserves a loss, and other times you have two teams that played so poorly that neither deserved a win.

I miss ties. What the heck is wrong with playing 60 minutes and the teams being equal?

I love CFB overtimes. PSU just lost one yesterday, but they are great. NFL overtimes are awful.

(11-23-2013 12:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-23-2013 11:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think the OT method is fine for determining the outcome of the game, but i HATE the way it inflates player stats. You'll hear that some QB threw for something outrageous like 7 TD passes in a game, then you read the recap and four of those came in quadruple OT. It also inflates team scoring stats. The game finished regulation tied at 28 but the final score is 56 - 49 or some crap.

I say play the OT by the current rules, but no matter who wins and no matter how many TDs or FGs are "scored" in the several OT sequences, the official final score should be just either one TD or one FG more than the score at the end of regulation, and only the guy who scores the winning TD or winning FG gets official credit for that score.

I like the scoring suggestion Quo, but just make it 1 point. That way there is very little skewing of the final score. So in overtime you are awarded 1 point for the period in which you outscored your opposition. As far as stats they just need to be broken down into two categories for the official record: Actual Game Stats & Overtime Stats. Both will be shown under the players names but separating the two officially limits their artificial inflation impact.

I can buy that.

(11-24-2013 08:43 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  I love CFB overtimes. PSU just lost one yesterday, but they are great. NFL overtimes are awful.

This. +1

NFL OT is much better with the change.

Somewhere out there is a blog post by some math nerd who had a reform proposal for college OT.

He or she had a pretty good argument that the current system provides too large of an advantage to the team going second. To correct that, if the team going first does not attempt a field goal, the team going second should not be allowed to attempt one. That way if the team going first has a fourth and one they don't feel compelled to play safe and kick.