Illinois beats Penn State in 9 OT

I think it’s at least possible they look at Saturday and say “uh this isn’t what we had in mind.” But we shall see.

Personally, I have no problem with a game ending in a tie. At least after a couple of OT’s.

I wouldn’t mind seeing overtime rules with the NFL twist, pick a number of reasonable OTs. Then declare a tie if there is no winner.

For example, after two OTs, require a two point attempt. Then if it is still tied after three, it’s a tie.

I hate ties. I liked the old OT rules. I do get the problems with it, but with HDN no longer coaching, the odds of going 6 or 7 OT’s were limited! We had 2 7’s and a 6, as well as several others. He was the king of OT.

Ivy League has announced that the refs screwed up and cost Harvard the game with Princeton. In OT3, Princeton’s 2-point try failed. Harvard’s succeeded, but the refs said Princeton called timeout before the play, which was confirmed by review, and Harvard’s re-do failed. However, whether a timeout was called before the snap is not reviewable, and Harvard should have won.

Is the Ivy going to award the game to Harvard because of the error? What do you think? Did they award us the Auburn game last year?

How about we settle ties similarly to the way we do in soccer … with field goals replacing PKs.

Both teams attempt field goals starting at 25 yards out. If both are made, flip the field and attempt 30-yarders. Repeat at 5-yard increments until only one team misses.

Lots of possible variations…

  1. Cap the distance at 50 yards.
  2. Pick one distance (say, 40 yards) and kick only from there.

A. Significantly reduces chances of player injuries (especially if the FG attempts are not defended).

B. Puts the “foot” back in football.

There is merit to that. They do call it football.

That is a really brilliant suggestion. Wish I had thought of that. You should forward it to NCAA Selection committee.

Takes out everything except the field goal kicking part of the game. There is a lot more to football the kicking field goals. The old system left everything in play except punting and kickoffs. People complained about that. I don’t like just going to field goal kicks. I don’t like going to just two point plays but it least you are running a play that could be a pass or a run.

The old OT was not broken IMO. Yes, you had a FEW games that went real long, but just a few. Most ended in the first or second OT.

Indeed, my suggestion does.

Just as PKs eliminate everything else in soccer: player possession, passing, beating a defender, flooding the 18, crossings, headers, nutmegs, etc.

And yet … and yet … PKs are always exhilarating, emotional roller-coaster rides.

Certainly not the worst way to end a sporting event…

I always thought they should adopt the HS rule. Go from the 10 instead of the 25. That would cut down greatly on the number of plays without resorting to 1 play only.

They could start from the ten beginning in the third OT and give each team 4 downs. That’s better than the 1 play method.

Easy way to do it:

Each team starts from their own 25
Each team gets one possession

Whichever gains the most yards wins

If the both go 75 and score, redo

Flip a coin. Heads you win. Tails you lose.


I didn’t think there was anything wrong with ties, but others in positions of authority disagreed.

I keep going back to the famous 10-10 tie between Notre Dame and Sparty in 1966. ND sat on the ball at the end instead of going for the win. Dan Jenkins of Sports Illustrated wrote a great sendup in which he rewrote the lyrics of the Notre Dame Victory March to replace any reference to victory with tying, such as “whether the odds be even or small, old Notre Dame will tie over all”.

I also thought back to the Big Shootout, where Darrell Royal went for two after the clip/first TD so there wouldn’t be a tie, assuming Happy Feller made the second PAT, which he did. If I remember the SWC tiebreakers at the time, we would have gone to the Cotton Bowl with a tie since Texas went the year before. That may have been why DKR played for the win.

I don’t like idea of playing for a tie instead of a win, but if a tie can’t be easily avoided, then accept one. Having limited OT’s, for example, would only yield very few ties. There have been only 3 games in the last 20+ years that went to 7 OT’s. That’s not many. Stop them at 2 or 3 or make the 3rd or 4th one start from the 10 or have a 40 yard FG for each team. If the game is still tied, leave it tied.

However, that doesn’t seem acceptable to the rule makers.

I have the same solution I’ve always had.

Love the now “old” rules, with one exception. Put the ball on midfield when you have them start the offensive series. Make them earn a score.

As it is (or was), you ASSUME at least a FG in every possession, and generally that is the case. So, if you ONLY get a FG, you feel like you’re going to lose.

But starting them at the 50, you’d need at least one first down to be in legitimate range for most kickers, and two (or, a big play) to get in “probable FG range”. One sack or penalty on the offense and no score at all is a real possibility.

Then, perhaps, also make them go for two from the beginning, and I guarantee you won’t see many OT’s go beyond 2 or 3 sessions, and you’d never see another 7 OT game.

But it would be REAL football, not a bunch of 2 point plays.


This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.