Thoughts on the new Overtime rules?
Illinois just beat Penn State in nine overtimes.
It was fun as hell, but it is not sustainable if we are going to get many games like this.
The new overtime rules where you have to go for two as your one-play "drive" after 2 OTs remove too many of the variables that can end the game: Multiple plays per drive, distance from the goal line, and potential touchdown / extra point / field goal points differential.
Under the new rules those variables are gone by the third OT: both teams have the same number of plays (one), from the exact same 3-yard distance from the goal line, for the exact same score.
If you have two high-scoring teams, or two low-scoring teams (like today), you can't get them off the field.
Thoughts on this or a better system? Or just keep it the way it was?
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:09 PM ^
Exciting but too arbitrary. Felt a bit like penalty kicks. I liked the old better
October 23rd, 2021 at 6:39 PM ^
It's a terrible and juvenile way to decide a game, imagine this being a playoff game being decided like this or even worse the championship game?
Go back to the old system except start the 2pt try in the 2nd OT and maybe put the ball at the 35 instead of the 25 so it isn't such a gimme.
I also wouldn't mind using the NFL system and give them 12 minutes instead of 10.
October 23rd, 2021 at 8:46 PM ^
I wouldn’t mind bringing back tie games after 2 or 3 overtimes. After 3 OTs, the teams have proven that they are even. In normal situations, it’s a shame that one team has to lose the game. In today’s game, it was a shame that one team won the game. Neither team deserved a win.
October 24th, 2021 at 2:54 AM ^
I don't get why people are so dead set against ties. That 2 point conversion crap was dumb. I'd prefer going to the NFL model but each team gets at least one shot (sudden death makes coin flip unfair, especially in high scoring college football). After the OT period if no one has won its a tie. How has that been bad for the NFL? It hasn't. Rarely even happens.
October 23rd, 2021 at 7:24 PM ^
It felt worse than penalty kicks. It felt like a basketball game being settled in OT by free throws.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:12 PM ^
I don't like that they kept switching ends, but otherwise the new system is better. This game went 9 OT, but probably had fewer extra plays than you would get in a typical 4-OT game under the old system. Saves some wear and tear on the players.
This is less of a concern, but I also like that games won't end up with ridiculous scores like 73-71 under the new system.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:15 PM ^
But how many 4-OT games were there under the old system? For us, I remember only 2013 PSU. The third OT, with the required 2-point try, usually ended things (if they hadn’t already).
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:25 PM ^
The two-point try didn't help much in that North Texas 7OT game a while back--neither team scored a TD in 14 overtime possessions.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:28 PM ^
Rules shouldn’t be changed because of outlier outcomes. In 25 years, Michigan played exactly one game beyond three OTs. The rule was functioning as intended.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:35 PM ^
I can't find any stats on the number of multiple-OT games, except for lists of the longest. But Arkansas once had three games of 6+ OTs in three seasons. One of them started at 7:05 Saturday night and didn't end until Sunday morning.
October 23rd, 2021 at 7:50 PM ^
I was thinking of that score the whole OT
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:12 PM ^
Thought the old way was fine
Not a fan of the 2 point conversion after 2
October 23rd, 2021 at 7:26 PM ^
I agree the old way was better. Although I don't have a problem with 2pt conversions after 2 OT's, I do have a problem with the format changing to one play drives after 3 OT's. In this age of the transfer portal and NIL, why not ask the players what they prefer.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:12 PM ^
I thought it was fun, but very very silly, and the Illinois-Penn St game was the perfect demonstration of how silly it has the potential to be. If it were up to me, I wouldn't have changed anything. If the NCAA thinks that they need a new format to make overtimes go faster, then why not switch to a 1st and Goal from the 10 after thr 3rd OT?
October 23rd, 2021 at 7:40 PM ^
To be fair, this game didn't need nine overtimes to be silly.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:13 PM ^
I wasn't a fan of the constantly changing sides of the field.
What about starting in the 3rd OT giving each team 2 downs from the 5 yard line with the ability to kick field goals. I think that would add more strategy that felt lacking on the 2 point conversion attempts and I think it would end the game quicker than what we saw today.
October 23rd, 2021 at 9:35 PM ^
Main initial issue I could see with this model is: Team 1 gets sacked for a 7 yard loss on their first play and then kicks a FG. Team 2 rushes the ball for 4 yards on 1st down and then gets stuck with the tough decision of going for the win or prolonging the game on their second play. Seems to slightly reward the team that went first and ran a bad play.
I definitely think the current OT model has to go though. This game was painful to watch. I like the idea of starting at the 35 so that teams need to at least gain a couple of yards to get into FG range.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:13 PM ^
If it means even-more-glorious ways for Franklin to look like an idiot in a PSU defeat, well I'm all for 'em
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:13 PM ^
I'd prefer the old method.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:13 PM ^
Hate the new rules intensely. That game was a fun disaster to watch, but it was not a fair way to determine a winner.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:19 PM ^
why was it not fair? great game, the better team won.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:24 PM ^
It isn’t true to the nature of the sport; the way you win is not the same way you play the rest of the game. One piece of evidence: Illinois barely tried to run at all after piling up over 300 yards in regulation
It would be like choosing the winner of a basketball game with a free throw shootout or a game of HORSE. Exciting, but not exactly what the sport is.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:41 PM ^
You mean like penalty kicks in soccer?
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:51 PM ^
Precisely.
October 23rd, 2021 at 7:28 PM ^
Not being "true to the nature of the sport" is not the same as being unfair. Both teams played according to the rules, so the outcome was fair.
October 23rd, 2021 at 7:18 PM ^
Penalty kicks in football would probably be more comparable if kickers went head to head. Instead of them taking shots from 35 yards away over and over you could just keep making them back up until someone misses.
October 23rd, 2021 at 8:14 PM ^
Agree. It was not the best way to determine a game winner. You score and you could potentially end the game on an uncalled penalty.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:13 PM ^
Before this year, OT games usually went no more than three sessions, when teams had to start going for 2. They moved that up to the second OT for this year. That should have been enough.
OT football already had no punting, but at least it had downs and placekicking. This 2-point fest takes too much away from the game.
October 23rd, 2021 at 9:55 PM ^
Yep. If you hate 7 OT games then just keep the current system and call it a tie after 2, 3, or 4 OTs. This was stupid
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:13 PM ^
I don’t like it. I prefer the previous college OT
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:14 PM ^
I thought I’d hate it because of many of the items you pointed out. And if Michigan is involved, I’d probably have a heart attack. But watching it today, I kind of liked it. I like the fact that they have to actually win by crossing the goal line rather than relying on a kicker to win it.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:35 PM ^
Kicking is part of the game, though, and in “traditional” overtime, if you don’t like field goals, you need to gain real yards.
Michigan this year with a clear advantage over most teams at kicker and a demonstrated history of struggling to score inside the 5 would be ill-served if we got to multiple OTs.
October 23rd, 2021 at 6:10 PM ^
We would be screwed with this new format as evidenced by our goal line offense and 2 point conversion play.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:40 PM ^
OTOH, you don’t need to score a TD to win in regulation time (e.g., 2012 MSU game). So why require it in overtime?
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:16 PM ^
In the end it didn't involve any more plays than three or four OTs would have under the old system. What made it take so long was running everyone to the other end of the field every second play.
If it were me, I'd say call it a tie if there's no winner after the second OT. Ties are a good result when neither team does enough to win. But I suspect that's a minority opinion....
October 23rd, 2021 at 6:09 PM ^
I agree. I miss tied games. Literally everyone is angry and disappointed and you get to complain about the result for an entire year until you play again.
October 23rd, 2021 at 6:35 PM ^
The best thing about ties was that both teams (usually) felt a sense of urgency at the end of a tied game in the fourth quarter, because they didn't want that blemish on their record. Occasionally a coach would play for the tie and would be deservedly ridiculed.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:19 PM ^
It ended badly for Penn State.
I approve.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:19 PM ^
I don’t like it. If you want teams to go for two after touchdowns earlier, fair enough, but there should be more to an OT possession than just one try from the 3-yard line. And placekicking is part of the game; it shouldn’t be eliminated entirely.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:29 PM ^
That wouldn't have helped much today, would it? Under the old rules they'd have been trading field goals until sometime next week.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:36 PM ^
We don’t know. Given four downs to work with, Illinois probably would have run the ball more.
At any rate, I’m sure today will be an outlier and most games won’t need this many OTs. My argument isn’t based on this game. I just don’t like giving teams only one play to score per OT possession.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:21 PM ^
The old system: after 2nd OT, any TD scores had to go for a 2 point conversion - Seemed fine!
New system: after 2nd OT, just 2 point conversion plans. ALTHOUGH, this does open Scorigami options. That maybe the system was adopted - someone at the NCAA wants to add a 2 point scoring option besides the safety.
Suggestion: after 2nd OT, move the ball BACK from the 25 and to the 35. After the 3rd OT, if needed, move the ball back to the 45, etc, keeping down so as needed until the ball reaches to the opposing 25 and let it stay there.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:34 PM ^
I haven’t factored in scorigomi. I am now in favor.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:21 PM ^
I rather enjoyed watching Franklin go through that experience. Anyone still have him going to USC? LSU?
I think it boils down to Bret roasting his guys. I hope Harbaugh can find in him to do the same this week.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:23 PM ^
Don’t judge all books by one terrible cover
October 23rd, 2021 at 6:00 PM ^
Even if teams aren’t as inept as PSU and Ill, this is always going to feel like penalty kicks in soccer.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:25 PM ^
I would possibly change it. We can't have ties because of the playoff. I am not crazy about that...but let's save that rant for another time...
1st and 2nd OT ---- series from the 20. Or is it 25? Whatever. FG and extra points ok.
2nd and 3rd OT --- series with no extra points. FGs ok...just no extra points.
4th OT and all after...2 Point Conversions from the 2. Come, let us reason together.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:40 PM ^
Why are ties impossible with a playoff? Do you mean B1G championship game or national championship playoff?
I don't see why ties couldn't be taken into account when evaluating teams - am I missing something?
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:50 PM ^
I just mean ties would complicate all playoff pictures. Both for conference championships and overall CFP standings.
In 1992, Michigan went 8-0-3...ties with ND, Illinois (Illinois?!?!?), and...Ohio State.
That would bring even more chaos into the current CFP setup.
October 23rd, 2021 at 5:51 PM ^
You can easily have different ot rules in the post season. See almost every other sport as an example.