New overtime rule

Isualum13

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2018
1,942
2,635
113
I apologize if this has been discussed as it isnt exactly new news, but it's the first I've seen of it.

I came across an article that they are adding a rule for overtime that will rarely be seen. Starting in the 5th overtime, instead of lining up at the 25, The teams will alternate attempting a two point conversion until one of the teams fails.

I think I like that. It's like a penalty shootout in soccer or hockey if still tied after overtime. It will be interesting to see the first time it's used how well received it is. Last year there were 2 games that went to at least 5 overtimes, so we might get to see it before the end of the season.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sb...38/new-ncaa-overtime-rule-2-point-conversions
 
Was it Auburn and aTm that had the insane 5-6 OT game last year? The players were so effing tired at the end both teams were scoring at ease.

aTm and LSU went to 7 last year.
Hawaii and San Jose State went to 5.

If you click the link there is a list of games back to 2001 that went to at least 5 overtimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The_Architect
I realize they are doing this from a safety standpoint, but are short yardage plays statistically safer? I would think shortening the field would increase the amount of contact and possibly injuries for linemen in particular, given how many bodies are piled into a small area.

Is it simply limiting the possible amount of overall plays, thus reducing the number of chances to get injured?
 
I realize they are doing this from a safety standpoint, but are short yardage plays statistically safer? I would think shortening the field would increase the amount of contact and possibly injuries for linemen in particular, given how many bodies are piled into a small area.

Is it simply limiting the possible amount of overall plays, thus reducing the number of chances to get injured?

I'm not a doctor, but I did take intro to physics in college, and I would think a receiver running full speed into a defender while running a route 20 yards down field is more likely to injure than run blocking and short slant patterns.
 
Buffalo v. Western Michigan went to 7 overtimes in 2017. Score was 71-68. Woof!
 
I'm not a doctor, but I did take intro to physics in college, and I would think a receiver running full speed into a defender while running a route 20 yards down field is more likely to injure than run blocking and short slant patterns.

I know high-speed plays have the potential for more severe impacts, but I swear I read once that a much greater % of football injuries are to the legs and knees with a much higher percentage of injuries occurring on running plays. I'm curious to see if there are stats out there showing the breakdowns. I'll have to dig around a bit.
 
I know high-speed plays have the potential for more severe impacts, but I swear I read once that a much greater % of football injuries are to the legs and knees with a much higher percentage of injuries occurring on running plays. I'm curious to see if there are stats out there showing the breakdowns. I'll have to dig around a bit.

Yeah but knee and leg injuries are generally fixable. Specifically more than head, neck and spine injuries.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: coolerifyoudid
Sounds reasonable.

The NFL should adopt something like this if the first OT ends in a tie.

Have a field-goal off or something to decide it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aauummm
I realize they are doing this from a safety standpoint, but are short yardage plays statistically safer? I would think shortening the field would increase the amount of contact and possibly injuries for linemen in particular, given how many bodies are piled into a small area.

Is it simply limiting the possible amount of overall plays, thus reducing the number of chances to get injured?

They are trying to limit the number of total plays at the very end of the game when both teams are completely gassed, which in theory would limit some fatigue injuries.
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron