Iowa-Ohio State: why college OT is pointless

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Senser81
    VSN Poster of the Year
    • Feb 2009
    • 12804

    Iowa-Ohio State: why college OT is pointless

    Possibly the worst ending to a good game I've ever seen. Neither team makes a first down in OT, yet Ohio State can win with a gimme field goal. Why is college football's OT process so whack? Even Ohio State's fans were booing...and they had just clinched a Rose Bowl berth.
  • kbpsu
    next year.
    • Mar 2009
    • 424

    #2
    I like the idea of college better than pro for the fact that both offenses get to play. But I think it's retarded for the teams to start at the opponent's 25 yard line.
    RIP HK, JJ

    Comment

    • killgod
      OHHHH WHEN THE REDSSSSS
      • Oct 2008
      • 4714

      #3
      Why can't the football leagues understand the following

      1) Mini Games ARE FUCKING DUMB

      2) Sudden Death and football DO NOT FUCKING MIX


      Play another quarter, half quarter...who cares. Set a time limit and fucking play NORMAL GOD DAMN FOOTBALL.

      Comment

      • shag773
        Senior Member
        • Jul 2009
        • 2721

        #4
        Not sure I would call a 40+ yard field goal to win a conference championship in college a "gimme", but I agree it was kind of anticlimatic. I agree with killgod, just play a straight half quarter to decide a winner.

        Comment

        • Senser81
          VSN Poster of the Year
          • Feb 2009
          • 12804

          #5
          Originally posted by shag773
          Not sure I would call a 40+ yard field goal to win a conference championship in college a "gimme", but I agree it was kind of anticlimatic.
          Jim Tressel thought it was a gimme.

          Comment

          • JeremyHight
            I wish I was Scrubs
            • Feb 2009
            • 4063

            #6
            College OT >>>>> NFL OT

            I think though that the better alternative is one of the following...

            1. Same rules as usual for college OT, but start at the 40.
            2. Another 15 minute quarter with the winner being the team with the most points at the end of the quarter.

            I personally think option 1 is the best because it is far less risky to the health of the players.

            Comment

            • Senser81
              VSN Poster of the Year
              • Feb 2009
              • 12804

              #7
              Originally posted by JeremyHight
              College OT >>>>> NFL OT

              I think though that the better alternative is one of the following...

              1. Same rules as usual for college OT, but start at the 40.
              2. Another 15 minute quarter with the winner being the team with the most points at the end of the quarter.

              I personally think option 1 is the best because it is far less risky to the health of the players.
              If you are really concerned with the health of the players...wouldn't sudden death be the best option? The college OT "process" can drag on forever.

              Comment

              • RainboUnicorn
                No Homo
                • Nov 2008
                • 1873

                #8
                I like the NFL overtime. They are in the NFL and if they don't get the ball first then who cares. The defense is supposed to hold the offense. Thats what they are paid to do.

                The teams don't play the whole game with just their offense on the field. They have to win with both the defense and offense. If the defense can't hold them then they don't deserve to win.
                Last edited by RainboUnicorn; 11-16-2009, 01:57 PM.

                Comment

                • kyhadley
                  Carefree
                  • Oct 2008
                  • 6796

                  #9
                  Originally posted by RainboUnicorn
                  I like the NFL overtime. They are in the NFL and if they don't get the ball first then who cares. The defense is supposed to hold the offense. Thats what they are paid to do.

                  The teams don't play the whole game with just their offense on the field. They have to win with both the defense and offense. If the defense can't hold them then they don't deserve to win.
                  Think about what you just said. They have to win with both the offense and defense...yet only one may have a chance to see the field?

                  Comment

                  • JeremyHight
                    I wish I was Scrubs
                    • Feb 2009
                    • 4063

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Senser81
                    If you are really concerned with the health of the players...wouldn't sudden death be the best option? The college OT "process" can drag on forever.
                    Picking purely between those two options, the one that could end in five minutes is far more beneficial than the one that at the shortest, is still 15 minutes of game time. Plus, the 15 minute quarter would have kickoffs and punts, which are far more dangerous than any other play.

                    I didn't put the sudden death option in that one simply because it is the worst option of the bunch, IMO.

                    Comment

                    • Senser81
                      VSN Poster of the Year
                      • Feb 2009
                      • 12804

                      #11
                      Originally posted by JeremyHight
                      Picking purely between those two options, the one that could end in five minutes is far more beneficial than the one that at the shortest, is still 15 minutes of game time. Plus, the 15 minute quarter would have kickoffs and punts, which are far more dangerous than any other play.

                      I didn't put the sudden death option in that one simply because it is the worst option of the bunch, IMO.
                      But not if your criteria is 'which option is most beneficial to the health of the players'.

                      Comment

                      • killgod
                        OHHHH WHEN THE REDSSSSS
                        • Oct 2008
                        • 4714

                        #12
                        Interesting point to argue.

                        Never with baseball/hockey/soccer/basketball have I ever heard an argument about player safety as why you need to keep your overtime shorter.

                        More action = positive for the fans
                        More airtime = more commercial time = more revenue?

                        But the players might get hurt? Well so what? That's why they make astronomical salaries, they get their danger pay, so strap up and hit somebody for 15 more minutes you sally skirt mfers!

                        Comment

                        • JeremyHight
                          I wish I was Scrubs
                          • Feb 2009
                          • 4063

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Senser81
                          But not if your criteria is 'which option is most beneficial to the health of the players'.
                          The option most beneficial to the health of the players is just to call it a tie. But you have to narrow it down to the one that best gets a clear winner, while being fair to both parties, doesn't jeopardize player health, and is not a complete diversion from the true form of the game.

                          Comment

                          • JeremyHight
                            I wish I was Scrubs
                            • Feb 2009
                            • 4063

                            #14
                            Originally posted by killgod
                            Interesting point to argue.

                            Never with baseball/hockey/soccer/basketball have I ever heard an argument about player safety as why you need to keep your overtime shorter.

                            More action = positive for the fans
                            More airtime = more commercial time = more revenue?

                            But the players might get hurt? Well so what? That's why they make astronomical salaries, they get their danger pay, so strap up and hit somebody for 15 more minutes you sally skirt mfers!
                            More gametime = more injured players

                            It is all great until when you have a full quarter and Tom Brady gets injured on a freak pass play in the 2nd overtime because his line was so tired.

                            The risks become increasingly higher the more tired each team gets.

                            Comment

                            • killgod
                              OHHHH WHEN THE REDSSSSS
                              • Oct 2008
                              • 4714

                              #15
                              Originally posted by JeremyHight
                              More gametime = more injured players

                              It is all great until when you have a full quarter and Tom Brady gets injured on a freak pass play in the 2nd overtime because his line was so tired.

                              The risks become increasingly higher the more tired each team gets.
                              Tom Brady can also break his knee when his team is completely energetic. So what?

                              These guys are paid to do what they do, but lets completely change the rules of the sport instead of 5-10 extra minutes of play? It's that much of a risk? These guys can't handle 70 minutes of football? Cmon.

                              Comment

                              Working...