More unwatchable game?

[King Crimson]

ugh, #15.

[Van]

NO!!

HUGE drop by the Washington receiver!!

Ballgame.

Fantastic performance by both QBs, and ND's three goal line stands ended up doing the trick.

Bet Sarkisian would like to have those back, and just take his chances with Locker stuffing it in four times, rather than those slow developing plays which ended up in lost yardage.

Huge balls by the ND D when they had to have it, in a game where they otherwise got fairly well lit up.

Great atmosphere, great effort, great game.

[King Crimson]

lol at Mark May taking a long piss on Lou Holtz's "ND is the greatest team of all time" rambling nonsense.

[Van]

I'm sure I won't. If ND is playing, I almost always pull for the other team.

Would Cal be the reason for that "almost" qualifier?

[Cross Traffic]

Boise State once again plays to the level of their opponent...up 27-16 to UC Davis, who was smoked by Fresno State 51-0.

[Van]

They should be banned from football for even scheduling UC-Davis.

[campinfool]

If Cal were playing the Taliban team coached by Bin Laden, I think most of us here would be rooting for the Taliban and hope that they took Cal players and fan(s) prisoner after the game.

Tough call. I think I would be confused the entire game since it would be hard to tell the difference between the Taliban special teams and the Cal cheerleaders. You know with the beards and all.

[Terry in Crapchester]

About time ND won an OT game. First time since the opening game of the '03 season, IIRC. I still hate CFB's OT rules, though. The NCAA should have been able to come up with something better than high school rules for overtime.

If Cal were playing the Taliban team coached by Bin Laden, I think most of us here would be rooting for the Taliban and hope that they took Cal players and fan(s) prisoner after the game.

I wouldn't go quite that far, although it certainly wouldn't break my heart if the Taliban took a certain poster here hostage and repeatedly buttfucked him in the mouth after the game. But, had the Taliban suited up against Miami circa mid-late 80's, I probably would've had a towel on my head for that one.

[Van]

College football's O.T. blows away the NFL's. I could maybe see moving it back to the 40, just so they don't begin in FG position, but other than that it's the most fair way to do it, and it's the most exciting too.

[Terry in Crapchester]

CFB's OT rules completely ignore some important game variables, among them, the game clock, field position, punting and kickoffs, etc. And, as you allude, they're unfair to the defense. Not to mention that they have the potential to drag a game out forever.

If I were the king of football, OT rules would be the NFL rules with a minor twist. I wouldn't let sudden death kick in until a team scored six points. If you start out on D, just keep your opponents out of the end zone and you'll get a chance to win. Kick a FG on your first drive, and you can win the game with a FG on your next drive, provided that you keep your opponents out of the end zone in between.

[Mr T]

Just make it like the NFL but each team must have possession at least once.

Team A receives the kick, takes it down the field and kicks a FG.
Team B will also get to receive one kick and must make a FG to continue the OT or a TD for the win.

After both teams have had the ball once, next team scores wins.

Or just have a 10 min OT Qtr and after that do the regular shootout OT we got now.

[Van]

Each team needs to have the ball an equal amount of times. The thing should never end with one team's offense never having had a chance.

The coin toss is way too important in the NFL's version.

[Mr T]

Each team needs to have the ball an equal amount of times. The thing should never end with one team's offense never having had a chance.

The coin toss is way too important in the NFL's version.

I think each team having it once is enough.

If you feel you cannot stop the other team then go for two after you score on your first touch.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I'll agree that each team should have a chance, but I don't think it has to be exactly equal. At some point you need to come up with a defensive stop if you expect to win an OT game.

As for the coin toss, I saw stats on it once. Winning the coin toss is a big advantage, of course, but the percentage of teams who win an NFL game on the first possession is much smaller than you would think.

In any event, my proposed change would mean that you couldn't win an OT game merely by getting a FG on your first possession.

[Van]

Each team needs to have the ball an equal amount of times. The thing should never end with one team's offense never having had a chance.

The coin toss is way too important in the NFL's version.

I think each team having it once is enough.

If you feel you cannot stop the other team then go for two after you score on your first touch.

That's not fair to the team who goes second. Why should they have to go for two, when the other team didn't?

The current system ain't broke. It could be adjusted a little, to give the D a better chance, but that's all it needs.

[Danimal]

Washington did get hosed on that overturned td. No way was there strong enough evidence to overturn the call on the field. He was no less over than the ND back on their two-point conversion which didn't get a second look.

WTF is up with prevent D when there is more than a few seconds on the clock? Washington did the same dumb shit Purdue did against ND the week before, played off a damn mile and ND drove it right down the field on both occasions.

I feel for Locker, he makes two on-the-money passes on 3rd and 4th and 19 only for his wr to drop the rock.

Props to ND on doing what it takes to get another W. This ND team isn't THAT much better than last year. But they're a little better team that avoids the big errors and makes a difference-making play or two. They're not kicking ass but they're finding a way to win where last year they were blowing 4th quarter leads.

[Terry in Crapchester]

The current system ain't broke.

I beg to differ. There's a pretty significant disconnect between the way the game is played in regulation and the way it's played in OT. It's almost like deciding a baseball game with a home run derby, or a basketball game with a free throw shooting contest.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I beg to differ. There's a pretty significant disconnect between the way the game is played in regulation and the way it's played in OT. It's almost like deciding a baseball game with a home run derby, or a basketball game with a free throw shooting contest.

I'm not a huge fan of the college OT, but I don't think those are accurate analogies. Even starting at the 35, all the basic elements of the game are still in-tact: pass offense, pass defense, rush offense, rush defense, and special teams. All players at all positions are still on the field playing the same game though the strategies might be altered a bit due to the field position and lack of game clock.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I beg to differ. There's a pretty significant disconnect between the way the game is played in regulation and the way it's played in OT. It's almost like deciding a baseball game with a home run derby, or a basketball game with a free throw shooting contest.

I'm not a huge fan of the college OT, but I don't think those are accurate analogies. Even starting at the 35, all the basic elements of the game are still in-tact: pass offense, pass defense, rush offense, rush defense, and special teams. All players at all positions are still on the field playing the same game though the strategies might be altered a bit due to the field position and lack of game clock.

Maybe I went a bit overboard with my analogies, but special teams is certainly limited quite a bit compared to regulation. There are no kickoffs or punts in overtime. And starting position in OT is well within field goal range for most college kickers (in fact, if you go on defense first and get a stop, it might not be a bad idea to send out the field goal team immediately rather than risk a turnover). Even moving starting position back to the 40 doesn't really expand special teams play, since there's no incentive to punt from the 40 in overtime, as opposed to regulation.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

You're right, punting and kickoffs are excluded. Many college OT games come down to a field goal, though, so I guess that's why I threw in special teams. But they're still playing the game of football, albeit with tweaked strategies -- which is far different from a home run derby or 3 point shootout.

[Van]

Beats the shit outta the completely anti-climactic NFL version.

Team wins coin toss...

Team gets a pass interference call to go their way...

Team finds themselves within FG range...

Team doesn't even try to score a TD, they just move the ball towards the center of the field to set themselves up for a gimme FG, removing any tension at all from the scenario...

Some kicker with a huge shnoz 'wins' the game, and a stadium collectively says "Yay," before filing out.

Horrible.

[indyfrisco]

I too hate the NFL OT rules. I like the college better. It's ro-sham-bo. I agree moving the starting position back to the 40 would be a good thing. However, for the sake of time, I understand why they start at the 25.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I too hate the NFL OT rules. I like the college better. It's ro-sham-bo. I agree moving the starting position back to the 40 would be a good thing. However, for the sake of time, I understand why they start at the 25.

Moving it back to the 40 might actually shorten games on average. Certainly there's a better chance of a defensive stop under those circumstances.

[Van]

I'd move it back to the 40, or even midfield, since a lot of kickers can reach from 57 yards.

Otherwise, that's the only change it needs.

The main things are both teams have to receive equal opportunities, and a premium must be placed on scoring TDs, not just FGs. Watching a great game end by having a team attempting to merely position themselves for a cripple FG is like watching a beloved friend bleed out.