(07-04-2023 05:51 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  JR right kids are getting hurt, takes pressure off coaches & puts on the players
coaches start playing for OT middle 3rd quarter.

there were 6 ties when they changed to OT
following yr there were 30 OT games

they did't fix the promblem, they created it

my favorite is team A kicking x-point at end of game to send game into OT
6 OT latter team A has to go for 2 to win

Bold is interesting if true. It would be more interesting if we had the data for the 3-5 years before the change and the 3-5 years after it.

I googled it, article was 7 yrs old, stat's are for 1st 20 yrs
'96 had 26 OT games
by'15 there were 636 OT games for avg 32 a yr
'12 had high of 45 OT games

sorry do not know how upload articles

(07-04-2023 09:46 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  I googled it, article was 7 yrs old, stat's are for 1st 20 yrs
'96 had 26 OT games
by'15 there were 636 OT games for avg 32 a yr
'12 had high of 45 OT games

sorry do not know how upload articles

Gambling houses love them some overtime. The spreads are very controllable, especially with yellow hankies. Just going to overtime controls a spread greater than 8 points. IMO, realignment is an attempt to level the playing field at the top of the sport by having fewer programs. It means that the talent, while concentrated among that tier, is somewhat leveled out which holds scores closer. If the game is close it can be controlled. Paying players and giving them NIL makes it easier to control as well. The more money they make the less emphasis is solely on winning, and the easier it is to control the games. Reviews are for suckers. Holding and interference have been controlling games for decades now in professional ball. It will be no different in college, especially when the talent is leveled out. Football and basketball are popular for one very similar reason. Put them on TV, make them adaptable to culture and the House cleans up. Both are easily controlled as to spread. Baseball, not so much. You can control the strike zone with a crooked ump, but you still can't prevent a big blast over the wall, and a hit is still a hit.

I got y'all. Considered increasing number of games, start of CCGs, FBS team additions, increasing number of bowl games, but I didn't see much correlation.

Wiki conference standings, counted them up and divided by 2
Ties: (0.5 games means likely at least 1 FBS vs. FCS tie)
1982 - 14.5 FBS games (FBS/FCS split, 105 FBS teams, 16 Bowls)
1983 - 13.5 tie games
1984 - 16 tie games (18 Bowls)
1985 - 15 tie games
1986 - 9 tie games
1987 - 13.5 tie games (104 FBS teams)
1988 - 11.5 tie games (17 Bowl games)
1989 - 14.5 tie games (106 FBS teams, 18 bowls)
1990 - 15.5 tie games (19 bowls)
1991 - 15 tie games (18 bowls)
1992 - 12.5 tie games (107 FBS teams, start of CCGs)
1993 - 11 tie games (106 FBS teams, 19 bowls)
1994 - 13 tie games (107 FBS teams)
1995 - 9 tie games + 1 OT game (108 FBS teams, 18 bowls)

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/4j..._football/
OTs:
1996 – 26 OT games (111 FBS teams)
1997 – 25 OT games (112 FBS teams, 20 bowls)
1998 – 25 OT games (BCS era, 22 bowls)
1999 – 29 OT games (114 FBS teams, 23 bowls)
2000 – 36 OT games (116 FBS teams, 25 bowls)
2001 – 17 OT games (117 FBS teams)
2002 – 31 OT games (28 bowls)
2003 – 34 OT games
2004 – 32 OT games
2005 – 39 OT games (119 FBS teams)
2006 – 34 OT games (12 game seasons, 32 bowls)
2007 – 34 OT games
2008 – 32 OT games (34 bowls)
2009 – 29 OT games (120 FBS teams)
2010 – 29 OT games (35 bowls)
2011 – 34 OT games
2012 – 45 OT games
2013 – 35 OT games (124 FBS teams)
2014 – 35 OT games (start of NY6/CFP, 126 FBS teams, 39 bowls)
2015 – 34 OT games (127 FBS teams, 41 bowls)

(07-04-2023 10:31 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  I got y'all. Considered increasing number of games, start of CCGs, FBS team additions, increasing number of bowl games, but I didn't see much correlation.

Wiki conference standings, counted them up and divided by 2
Ties: (0.5 games means likely at least 1 FBS vs. FCS tie)
1982 - 14.5 FBS games (FBS/FCS split, 105 FBS teams, 16 Bowls)
1983 - 13.5 tie games
1984 - 16 tie games (18 Bowls)
1985 - 15 tie games
1986 - 9 tie games
1987 - 13.5 tie games (104 FBS teams)
1988 - 11.5 tie games (17 Bowl games)
1989 - 14.5 tie games (106 FBS teams, 18 bowls)
1990 - 15.5 tie games (19 bowls)
1991 - 15 tie games (18 bowls)
1992 - 12.5 tie games (107 FBS teams, start of CCGs)
1993 - 11 tie games (106 FBS teams, 19 bowls)
1994 - 13 tie games (107 FBS teams)
1995 - 9 tie games + 1 OT game (108 FBS teams, 18 bowls)

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/4j..._football/
OTs:
1996 – 26 OT games (111 FBS teams)
1997 – 25 OT games (112 FBS teams, 20 bowls)
1998 – 25 OT games (BCS era, 22 bowls)
1999 – 29 OT games (114 FBS teams, 23 bowls)
2000 – 36 OT games (116 FBS teams, 25 bowls)
2001 – 17 OT games (117 FBS teams)
2002 – 31 OT games (28 bowls)
2003 – 34 OT games
2004 – 32 OT games
2005 – 39 OT games (119 FBS teams)
2006 – 34 OT games (12 game seasons, 32 bowls)
2007 – 34 OT games
2008 – 32 OT games (34 bowls)
2009 – 29 OT games (120 FBS teams)
2010 – 29 OT games (35 bowls)
2011 – 34 OT games
2012 – 45 OT games
2013 – 35 OT games (124 FBS teams)
2014 – 35 OT games (start of NY6/CFP, 126 FBS teams, 39 bowls)
2015 – 34 OT games (127 FBS teams, 41 bowls)

I combed the season records for all 111 FBS teams in 1996. I found 22 overtime games. It was interesting to me that 7 of those involved PAC teams and 5 involved WAC teams (one game was between a PAC team and a WAC team). 77 FBS teams did not play an OT game that season.

USC had the most OT games that year (3) while 8 other school played in 2 each. Both of Notre Dame's OTs were against teams that also played in more than one OT (Air Force and USC). Same thing for Fresno (Oregon and Air Force). Both of USC's rivalry games (UCLA and ND) went to OT.

It stands to reason that there would be more OT games than ties. Before the rule change, playing to get to OT wasn't an option. And only in some games now is playing for a tie an option. The only team that really has an option is the one that comes from behind to tie the game.

That certainly a remarkable jump.

Other factors to consider:

FBS has a lot more teams and a longer season (11 games vs 12 games + CCG)

The option of OT has certainly impacted 4th qtr decisions. Think of how many pre-OT games resulted in losses because the trailing team played for the win and fell short. Or conversely, how many 4th quarter gambles paid off.

(07-04-2023 04:53 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(07-03-2023 09:19 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(07-02-2023 12:40 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  I'm not sure what everyone's opinion is about the 1 play, 2 point shootout starting in the 3OT, but I'm not a big fan of them, and it seems like many fans agree. I think there's the potential it can hurt the sport if this occurs frequently enough or during CFP games. We already had it happen in the Iron Bowl in 2021 and it seemed like it was mostly hated back then. I liked how OTs were done before, but I understand that this move was done to reduce the risk of injuries. I want to toss out a few alternate ideas to the 2 point shootout here and see what people think. Some of these ideas could be combined or merged as well.
Side Note: I'm completely ignoring the "OT rules were changed because the games were too long" argument because it's a dumb argument for OT, and that's been addressed for regulation now so…

Option #1: Revert back to the old OT format for the 1st 4 OTs and delay the 2 point shootout
This is pretty self explanatory. 1st 2 OTs are normal college OTs. On the 3rd OT, you must go for 2 if a TD is scored. Then on the 5th, use the 2 point shootout. It reduces the chances of 2 point shootout occuring to determine a winner, but not impossible. I know 1 pushback might be players potentially seeing an increase in plays so we might have already gone a bridge too far for this to happen.

Option #2: Replace the 1 play, 2 point shootout with a 3 play OT shootout
This one actually takes inspiration from the XFL extra point tries after TDs.
- Each team gets 3 plays for each OT needed, starting with the 3rd OT
- one play from the 2
- one play from the 5
- one play from the 10
- Each successful try, same amount regardless of the spot, is worth 1 or 2 points
- Originally had it worth a point each, but would be okay with 2 points each
- This includes the defense if they return a try back
- ex. scoop n' score or pick-6
- Each offense can choose the order of their 3 plays (ball spotting)
- Teams still alternate ball possession after each play
- Game ends if:
- a team is leading after the 6 plays
- a point is reached where the losing team cannot tie the winning team
- If still tied after 6 plays:
- teams swap ends of the field
- games goes to next OT (repeat 6 plays)

This would still keep the gimmick of the 2 point shootout, but I think it improves on it while not significantly increasing the number of plays a player plays. I think it'll also add some strategy for teams and variability than just doing 1 play from the 2 over and over again. I might also disallow timeouts during these OTs, but would be okay with 1 timeout per. team in each OT.

Option #3: Eliminate 2 point shootout and reintroduce ties (during regular season) after 2-4 OTs
If injuries are a major concern and 2 point shootout after 2 OTs receive more criticism, why not bring back ties, but after 2-4 OTs. We had ties in college football until 1996 so it's not foreign. The NFL has had ties as well. The difference in college football ties now compared to before 1996 would be playing OTs before declaring a tie, and with college OTs, I think it would be a little easier to try to go for the win by going for 2 (especially in the 1st OT). Obviously, this would only be for the regular season as I wouldn't expect ties to be acceptable in CCGs or CFP games (maybe Bowl games) so they could use the 2 point shootout or use 1 of or both ideas above. I can see some pushback from fans, especially younger fans, but if you want to reduce injuries, ending the game after 2 OTs slightly improves that, and teams will still have plenty of opportunities to choose to risk going for the win during the 1st and 2nd OTs rather than settling for a tie. If ties are less desired, extending the game to 3 or 4 OTs before a tie is an option (maybe no FGs in 3rd OT before a tie or option 1 rules), but then you're increasing the risk of injuries.

After typing out the proposals, I looked up and found some data going back to 2002 that games going at least 3 OTs occurred 77 times in 21 seasons or on average about 3.67 times per season out of up to 780 FBS regular season games (would be 3.8 times of 804 FBS regular season games in 2024).
https://www.sportsbetting3.com/ncaafb/mu...am-records
The 2 point shootouts are or would have occurred at the equivalent of 1.33 NFL games ending in a tie in a regular season (had 2 ties last season, 2 ties in a season 3 of the last 7 seasons, and at least 1 tie 9 of the last 11 seasons). Obviously there is some variance with OT rule changes, which is why I only mention games reaching 3 OTs. It's not happening often, but when it does, it seems dreaded by fans. Thought I would add some extra perspective to this. Let me know your thoughts on the 2 point shootout or the ideas above.

No ties. College football doesn't need to be like European soccer. It needs resolutions, no matter how long they take.

Agreed. I hate ties in football. It irks me to no end that the NFL insists on having ties.

I wish the NFL would adopt the college overtime rules.

Overtime should just be 7 v 7.

Line up and play one more 15 minute period. If still tied in the regular season, call it a tie.