The Irony of Overtime

[Lott's Bandana]

In 1973, first-year coach Barry Switzer went into the Colosseum in LA and stunned John McKay, Pat Haden and the defending national champion Trojans by playing them to a 7-7 tie. (OU threw 1 pass)

In 2007, LSU lost to Kentucky in 3 OTs and Arkansas in 3 OTs.
--------------------------------------------------------

Under the old system, without overtime, LSU would be 10-0-2, undefeated and likely still #1, set up to play for the NC after winning their conference championship game.

Under the new system, Switzer could possibly have beaten McKay and had 3 NCs in a row, instead of finishing 10-0-1 and ending up ranked 5th.


Incidently, Notre Dame beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl to go 11-0 and Alabama ended up 11-1-0, both claiming the NC for 1973. (Alabama was UPI NC which didn't vote after bowl games, OU was NC in 3 other services-including Sagarin, ironically a BCS computer input now)

[CORNholio]

Few things in sports are more intense than a college overtime game. They definitely got that one right.

[TUSooner]

Few things in sports are more intense than a college overtime game. They definitely got that one right.
It may be intense, but I don't like it because it's only a little better than penalty kicks in soccer. At least make them start from the 40 or 50.

I'd like a system like the NFL's, except making sure each team gets at least one possession in OT.
If Team A wins the toss, gets the ball, and kicks a FG, Team B then gets to receive a kickoff. If Team B fails to score, they lose; if they get a TD, they win; if they get a FG, then they kick off and it's REAL sudden death OT from then on out.

EDIT: It's not all bad for some games to end in a tie, though

[Widescreen]

I think the system is fine as-is. The networks probably don't want to have games that go on forever and starting at the 50 would make things a lot more uncertain. Right now, it's almost a gimme fieldgoal. So the first team to get a TD has a big upper hand. I always hated ties.

[XingTheRubicon]

NFL overtime is the best system.


If you don't have a defense, you deserve to lose.

[Suerreal]

Under the old system, without overtime, LSU would be 10-0-2, undefeated and likely still #1, set up to play for the NC after winning their conference championship game.

Can't really say that, because playing for a regulation tie is done much more often now that there is overtime, rather than having the game hinge on a late 2-point conversion attempt or go for a TD on 4th down when a FG would tie the game.
IOW, the existence of overtime is a disincentive for coaches to gamble and try to win in regulation.

[TUSooner]

I think the system is fine as-is. The networks probably don't want to have games that go on forever and starting at the 50 would make things a lot more uncertain. Right now, it's almost a gimme fieldgoal. So the first team to get a TD has a big upper hand. I always hated ties.

Ah yes, I forgot that TV rules the world. :(

But these 25-yard-line affairs can go on and on, too. Starting at the 50 would make a team work harder for a score.

[sooneron]

They should get rid of field goals in OT, altogether.

[Ash]

Ties are for soccer and pee-wee games.

[sanantoniosooner]

Ties are for soccer and pee-wee games.
And funerals.

[jkjsooner]

Can't really say that, because playing for a regulation tie is done much more often now that there is overtime, rather than having the game hinge on a late 2-point conversion attempt or go for a TD on 4th down when a FG would tie the game.
IOW, the existence of overtime is a disincentive for coaches to gamble and try to win in regulation.

I'm not sure if you think it's better to go for the win in regulation or not. IMO, it's much better this way.

I don't like a team being forced to go for 2 and the win. A two point conversion is converted less than 50% of the time and forcing a team to try it puts them at a disadvantage. I say you are "forced" to go for two because the fans and media would blast a coach for going for the tie.

It was ridiculous that Osborne felt obligated to go for two in the 1984 Orange Bowl. That put Miami at a distinct advantage. NU should have been able to kick the extra point just as Miami had done and played for OT.

Given, NU was almost guaranteed the national title even had they tied Miami. To heck with what people say about ties, Osborne should have gone for the title and the tie. Sure he won his titles later but those players in 1983 only had one shot.

[Suerreal]

Not saying that gambling on a win in regulation is better than gambling on being able to win in overtime, just stating that having overtime changes what coaches do as the end of regulation approaches, and that the statement I quoted - that LSU would be 10-0-2 under the old system is not necessarily true because either Les Miles or the opposing coach would have been likely to make different decisions if there was no overtime option.

Bottom line: there are many more games that go into overtime than there were ties under the old system.

Personally, I think the college overtime system is far fairer than the NFL sudden death system. I think that pushing the starting point back to the 35 or 40 would cut down drastically on the 3 and 4 overtime games, and make overtimes more like regulation play than some kind of penalty shot.

[KingBarry]

They should get rid of field goals in OT, altogether.

I disagree. The kicking game is a key part of football, and our current system has almost removed it from the OT game altogether by getting rid of punts, KOs, and even extrapoints after the 2nd OT. At least FG's alow the kicker to continue playing.

[Widescreen]

I wouldn't mind seeing them force teams to go for 2 in the 2nd overtime. Let's get this thing moving along.