CFB51 College Football Fan Community

The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: ELA on July 23, 2018, 09:07:16 AM

Title: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - OT vs. Narrower Hashmarks
Post by: ELA on July 23, 2018, 09:07:16 AM

SYSTEMIC CHANGES

End of TV monopoly

Recruiting coverage

Early NFL Draft entry

Conference networks

.

SYSTEM RULE CHANGES

Academic ineligibility

CFP

Conference championship games

Scholarship limits

.

GAME RULE CHANGES

OT

Narrower hashmarks

Tearaway jerseys banned

Play clock modifications

.

GAME PLAY CHANGES

Wishbone

SEC integration

Read option

Film study

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - OT vs. Narrower Hashmarks
Post by: ELA on July 23, 2018, 09:08:13 AM

While I don't like exactly how OT is done, I like the idea of it, as opposed to the other, which is part of a long list of rule changes to create more offense.

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - OT vs. Narrower Hashmarks
Post by: FearlessF on July 23, 2018, 11:54:59 AM

I always thought the OT set up favored a great running game such as the option offense

so I liked it

would have loved to have OT vs the Canes in the 84 OB - in hindsight

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - OT vs. Narrower Hashmarks
Post by: betarhoalphadelta on July 23, 2018, 02:21:09 PM

While I can see tinkering with the OT rules a bit, I actually really like its concept. 

Each team gets a chance. Coin flip decides who goes first and second, favoring the team going second because they know what target they have to meet/exceed (kinda like the 9th inning favoring the home team in baseball). Alternate who goes first as you reach extra OT, and change the rules [go for two] as your start getting to later overtimes to force the game into a conclusion.

Could I see changes? Maybe start at the 40 instead of the 25 to reduce the likelihood of getting to multiple OT? Maybe not counting score or stats in OT as a true "final" score? Yeah, I could see those things. 

But the basic concept of college football overtime is, in my mind, one of the most sound, fair, and exciting overtimes in sports. 

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - OT vs. Narrower Hashmarks
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 23, 2018, 02:38:16 PM

I agree with Bwar.  Also, I voted OT.  Norrower Hashmarks are a big deal but I just think that OT is a bigger deal.  It completely changes to strategy near the end of every tight game.  

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - OT vs. Narrower Hashmarks
Post by: ELA on July 23, 2018, 03:12:42 PM

Quote from: bwarbiany on July 23, 2018, 02:21:09 PM

While I can see tinkering with the OT rules a bit, I actually really like its concept.

Each team gets a chance. Coin flip decides who goes first and second, favoring the team going second because they know what target they have to meet/exceed (kinda like the 9th inning favoring the home team in baseball). Alternate who goes first as you reach extra OT, and change the rules [go for two] as your start getting to later overtimes to force the game into a conclusion.

Could I see changes? Maybe start at the 40 instead of the 25 to reduce the likelihood of getting to multiple OT? Maybe not counting score or stats in OT as a true "final" score? Yeah, I could see those things.

But the basic concept of college football overtime is, in my mind, one of the most sound, fair, and exciting overtimes in sports.

Yes, I agree, and my stance on that has changed.  I wanted the game to simply extend into sudden death, but I think I'm ok with the format now.  Like you said, and what I said last round, I do wish they'd move it back, and stop counting stats.  Those things aside, I like it.

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - OT vs. Narrower Hashmarks
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 23, 2018, 03:38:08 PM

I agree with both of you on moving it back and my main reason is that it would lessen the advantage of going second.  

As it stands now, going second is a HUMONGOUS advantage.  Part of this is because you know exactly what you need to do and part is because you are so close (25 yards out) that you can usually make a FG from where you start and a TD is just two first downs and five yards away.  

If the other team scores a TD then you know that you have to score a TD but the advantage is that you know going in that you have four downs to get 10 yards instead of the typical three downs to get 10 yards.  Upthread @FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) suggested that the OT format should be to the advantage of running teams and I agree.  You only need 2.5 yards per play.  If you can get 90 inches per play you will get your TD.  

The other problem with starting at the 25 is that it is within FG range for most teams.  Thus, if the first team fails to score then the second team can almost just kick the FG on first down.  Almost nobody would actually do that because a 42 yard FG isn't quite automatic but there is VERY little motivation to take any risks at all because gaining just one yard per play would get you to a 39 yard FG.  

I agree with moving it to the 40 yard line.  In theory 90 inches per play would still win, but for that matter that would work for a whole game.  The farther away you are the less likely it is to happen.  Additionally, a FG from the 40 would be a 57 yarder.  That isn't impossible but it is long enough to be far from automatic.  

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - OT vs. Narrower Hashmarks
Post by: ELA on July 23, 2018, 03:40:30 PM

I've also seen the suggestion of starting each possession with a kickoff from the goal line, so you involve that portion of the game too.

The way things are going we are heading towards eliminating returns, not adding more of them.  So that'll never happen.

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - OT vs. Narrower Hashmarks
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 23, 2018, 07:26:16 PM

Wouldn't moving it back simply give a huge advantage to whichever team has a better kicker? 

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - OT vs. Narrower Hashmarks
Post by: ELA on July 23, 2018, 07:36:49 PM

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on July 23, 2018, 07:26:16 PM

Wouldn't moving it back simply give a huge advantage to whichever team has a better kicker?

No, if you moved it back you'd move kickers out of range.  So the offense would actually have to do something to get into FG range.  Right now it gives a bigger advantage to the team with a better kicker because you don't even have to do anything to be in FG range.

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - OT vs. Narrower Hashmarks
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 23, 2018, 07:39:46 PM

Yeah, but teams with a strong kicker won't have to move the ball as far in order get into FG range. 

OSU typically has a guy that can hit a FG from over 50 yards. Does Northwestern? Indiana? Rutgers? 

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - OT vs. Narrower Hashmarks
Post by: ELA on July 23, 2018, 11:36:42 PM

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on July 23, 2018, 07:39:46 PM

Yeah, but teams with a strong kicker won't have to move the ball as far in order get into FG range.

OSU typically has a guy that can hit a FG from over 50 yards. Does Northwestern? Indiana? Rutgers?

Well no, but that's football.  I'd rather one team not have to move the ball as far, than reward a team for not moving the ball at all.

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - OT vs. Narrower Hashmarks
Post by: FearlessF on July 23, 2018, 11:48:32 PM

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on July 23, 2018, 07:39:46 PM

OSU typically has a guy that can hit a FG from over 50 yards. Does Northwestern? Indiana? Rutgers?

can hit it, but probably about a 50% chance
better chance than Rutgers, but a good enough chance that Urbs would take that shot?  If they are going 2nd and have nothing to lose, sure.

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - OT vs. Narrower Hashmarks
Post by: ELA on July 23, 2018, 11:54:57 PM

And while OSU has had a solid run of kickers, on the whole the helmets have less of an advantage in the kicking position than going offense on defense.  

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - OT vs. Narrower Hashmarks
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on July 24, 2018, 07:10:15 AM

Good point. The Michigan kickers don't have anything on Rutgers.

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - OT vs. Narrower Hashmarks
Post by: ELA on July 24, 2018, 08:52:21 AM

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on July 24, 2018, 07:10:15 AM

Good point. The Michigan kickers don't have anything on Rutgers.

Last year the 1st team All-Big Ten kicker played for Indiana.  2016 was a split, between Wisconsin and Minnesota.  2015 was Indiana again.  2014 was Maryland.  2013 and 2012 was Northwestern.  2011 was Nebraska.  2009 and 2010 was Michigan State.  I'd take the non-helmets chances of producing great kickers WAY above producing a great offense and/or defense.