Simple Improvement to College Football Overtime Rules
For a long time I have thought that a simple tweak to the NCAAF overtime rules would fix several problems with no downsides. The Alabama-LSU game reinforced my impression of this by showing what we could have every time.
PROPOSED: In overtime, teams cannot kick an extra point that ties the game.
This replaces the new ‘teams cannot kick extra points in the second and later overtime periods’ rule.
This does three things.
Dramatically improves the chances the game will end quickly, avoiding the need for two-point-try-only periods. If either team gets a touchdown, unless both miss extra points, the game is over.
Reduces the advantage of winning the coin toss. Under current rules, knowing what you need to do, and thus having the ability to use four downs, is a big advantage.
Ends games on a great moment. Everyone loves all-or-nothing final plays.
If you want an additional safeguard against too many overtimes, rather than successive two point tries, one can (starting with the third or fourth overtime) add a rule that one cannot kick a field goal to tie the game, either. That all but assures that the next overtime period will be the last one.
Compare this to the current rule that requires both teams to go for two starting with the second overtime. This rule is so bad it is essentially a bug. It is harder to explain, and half the time it fails to achieve its goal of ending the game.
Is a pair of offensive possessions a better way to resolve a tie than a timed overtime period? I don’t know. However, once you do use a pair of possessions, this is a strictly better way to do that.
Somewhat tangential, but I'd like to suggest an alternative to the Elam ending in basketball, which I find a bit confusing for casual fans because the target score is different every time and requires new graphics and scoreboards to explain. I call it "Score to Win."
The idea is simple: once regulation time is over, the game continues until a team scores while in the lead or to take the lead.
This removes the incentive to intentionally foul, and gives many trailing teams the opportunity to play perfectly and come back (14-0 runs do happen!) Teams will still be "in it" in the closing minutes, but most games will end quite quickly. The one downside I can see is players intentionally trying to draw fouls and the likelihood of the game ending on a free throw, but that is a problem more broadly of basketball. Free throws are a legitimate way to score and win at any point of the game.
I'm not sure it's better than Elam from a game theory perspective, but I think it's a simpler change and easier to explain. "You have to score one last time to end the game."
Doesn’t forbidding XP to tie give an advantage to the winner of the coin flip?