New overtime rule

[clonedude]

First off, I'd prefer the teams start at the 40 or 50 so that they have to at least get a 1st down or two to be in FG range. Why should they start the drive already in FG range?

Also... what do people think of just putting like 8 minutes on the clock in OT, and doing another coin toss to see who gets the ball first? I really doubt a team is going to receive the ball and go on an 8 min drive in OT to win the game without the other team having a chance to have the ball.

 

[andybernard]

After 2 OTs, start from the 10. 4 downs. No FGs.

 

[Cyclones_R_GR8]

My sister was at that game.

How the heck do I get 2 disagrees to my sister being at the Va. Tech game?

 

[MuskieCy]

After the THIRD tied OT, you are required to go for a two point conversion.

 

[clonedude]

After 2 OTs, start from the 10. 4 downs. No FGs.

I like this idea, but start it off this way right away, don't wait until after 2 OTs.

 

[cyclones500]

I'm still an advocate of continuing the fourth quarter, including possession, field position and down, with play clock and some sort of game clock (for record-keeping purpose)

It could require some adjustment to some elements, but I never thought that far in advance.

 

[madguy30]

How about after 3 overtimes they have a kick off? Who can make the longest field goal?

The NFL should do this if OT ends in a tie.

 

[06_CY]

After 2 OTs, start from the 10. 4 downs. No FGs.

I like this idea, but keep them starting at the 25. You get 4 plays to score a TD from the 25 and must go for 2 if you score.

 

[Isualum13]

After the THIRD tied OT, you are required to go for a two point conversion.

One, 2 point conversions are required starting in OT3 not after.

Two, this is about the new rule that was implemented this year that's states if teams are still tied in the 5th Overtime, they will alternate attempting 2 point conversions.

 

[cyclones500]

Bloated stats with the current OT rules really make some teams/players look much better than they are statistically.

To the sports-historian part of my personality, the OT-bloat has bothered me. Maybe not as much with individual stats, but team records, especially scoring records. I realize a high number of overtimes//extra innings are likely to inflate score totals, but at what point is an asterisk applicable?

Specific to college, maybe a game that's already 42-42 and goes 4 OTs, it's "accurate" statistically. What about a game that's 9-9 at end of regulation, then each team scores a TD (and PAT) n first 4OTs, then one team gets 2-pt conversion in 5th -- that's 39-37, not even close to the type of game that took place in regulation.

OK, off my Geek Soapbox for now.