Overthinking Overtime

The Rams had nothing to do with the terrible non PI/helmet call while on the other hand NOS had everything to do with their OT loss. IMO Rams did get it done by forcing the turnover and subsequent winning FG. NOS does their job they are in the SB but that's why they play the games....

For the record I'm also glad NOS isn't in the SB........

 

I agree with all of this except I think there's nothing wrong with having co-champions of a conference. Bolded is an excellent point.

 

you're kidding right?
we're talking about breaking a tie after the a game was fully played based on the rules in place. by your line of thinking we should only play one point in tennis, score one basket in basketball, play one hole in golf....that's not how the rules of the games work.
should we not allow an overtime goal in hockey to count if it's on the first shot of the OT period because the other team didn't get a chance to shoot the puck?

 

definitely disagreeing on this. hockey shootouts are the horrible. there's so much delay between shots. so much standing around. the energy gets completely sucked out of the arena. waiting, waiting, waiting...only to watch the player lose control of the puck and not even get a shot off. compared to the actual OT it's the absolute worst.

 

I don't have a problem with co-champs either but, in the CFP era, there wil be concern a tie reduces that conference's chance of getting a CFP participant. I also think the CCGs will eventually become de facto playoff games.

 

I agree. The OT rule should be first team to get a stop and a score wins, that being said the OT rules as they exist now don't really bother me that much, if nothing changed I wouldn't complain.

 

Especially since kicking is the ONLY foot in football.

 

If player safety is the overriding issue then the OT rules should mimic whatever was going on in the Pro Bowl.

 

No, it's your line of thinking and you just made my point for me. Your justification for the sudden-death rule is the team doesn't deserve to win if it can't stop the other team from scoring on the first possession. I just applied your reasoning to regulation time, and that doesn't sound so logical, does it. You're right, that's not how the game is played so why change the rules for OT. Play the game, not a sub-set of the game just because regulation ended in a tie.
And though I couldn't care less about hockey so I may be speaking out of ignorance in this case because I don't follow hockey, no, I don't think the first goal in NHL overtime should determine who wins. Play the whole 5 minute OT period.

 

I get your point but if Alabama can get in without even winning their division, I'm not convinced a tie (especially if it's against another high ranking opponent) will prevent a team from getting into the playoffs.

 

Northern Iowa showed

That doesn't even take into account throwing twice before the non-call and not running the Rams out of timeouts

 

The 3 on 3 is awesome though

 

After two overtimes, let the fans vote.

Well, OK, if you don't like that, team with the tallest player.

OK, if not either of those, flip a coin to see who gets the ball first, and the first team to score a touchdown wins.

Ok, if none of those, just call it a tie and go home, even if it is the national championship game.

If they have played 60 minutes and it is a tie, then it should be a tie.

 

So starting alternate possessions from the opponent's 25 yard line isnt a subset of the game?
Sounds like you need to rethink your argument

 

for regular season i'd rather they just played 3 on 3 until someone scores. i'm guessing it would take less time than the drawn out shootout.