I heard this the other day while watching a bowl game. Announcer Gary Danielson said he's not thrilled about the overtime rules in college football. His partner (not in every way, I don't believe) suggested they move the line back to the 35-yard line from where it stands now at the 25. Danielson said something along the lines of, "Why don't we just not allow field goals? Force the teams to score touchdowns."
On one side of the coin, I think I'd actually enjoy watching overtimes more if the rules were changed to his. I get a little tired of teams playing it ultra-conservative in overtime and setting themselves up for a field goal. However, in the end, I think the suggested rule change is pretty stupid. Special teams is an integral part of the game of football. If you don't believe me, just watch the replay of the Florida/Ohio State game yesterday. Florida blocked a punt and ran it back for 6 and also returned a kickoff for a touchdown. Their special teams (including extra points) were responsible for 18 of their 24 points. Without their special teams, they would have lost to the Buckeyes. So, why eliminate one of the three major components to the game of football? That makes absolutely no sense to me. What, in college basketball, should we eliminate free throws in overtime? In baseball, should we eliminate intentional walks in extra innings? I say the only reasonable rule change would be to move the starting line-of-scrimmage back some. I say double it and start from midfield. This will force teams to convert at least two first downs in order to get into reasonable field goal range. It won't allow teams who only need a field goal to win to just run the ball up the middle, center it with a quarterback sneak and then attempt a 37- to 42-yard field goal. I appreciate Danielson's thinking outside-the-box, because I too agree that we need to change the overtime rules somewhat. However, I honestly don't believe it's a good idea to eliminate special teams from overtime. Just like offense and/or defense, special teams can make the ultimate difference between a win and a loss and it'd be rather silly to strip that component from the game when deciding it in overtime.
On one side of the coin, I think I'd actually enjoy watching overtimes more if the rules were changed to his. I get a little tired of teams playing it ultra-conservative in overtime and setting themselves up for a field goal. However, in the end, I think the suggested rule change is pretty stupid. Special teams is an integral part of the game of football. If you don't believe me, just watch the replay of the Florida/Ohio State game yesterday. Florida blocked a punt and ran it back for 6 and also returned a kickoff for a touchdown. Their special teams (including extra points) were responsible for 18 of their 24 points. Without their special teams, they would have lost to the Buckeyes. So, why eliminate one of the three major components to the game of football? That makes absolutely no sense to me. What, in college basketball, should we eliminate free throws in overtime? In baseball, should we eliminate intentional walks in extra innings? I say the only reasonable rule change would be to move the starting line-of-scrimmage back some. I say double it and start from midfield. This will force teams to convert at least two first downs in order to get into reasonable field goal range. It won't allow teams who only need a field goal to win to just run the ball up the middle, center it with a quarterback sneak and then attempt a 37- to 42-yard field goal. I appreciate Danielson's thinking outside-the-box, because I too agree that we need to change the overtime rules somewhat. However, I honestly don't believe it's a good idea to eliminate special teams from overtime. Just like offense and/or defense, special teams can make the ultimate difference between a win and a loss and it'd be rather silly to strip that component from the game when deciding it in overtime.
Comments
Post a Comment