Bring Back Overtime

[EasyGoer]

With relatively open subbing, the loss of OT in regular season makes little sense to me.  Ties create a lot of issues with ranking and assessment, and I think OT would be a better way to conclude games. Id love to see us go back to having two OT periods then a tie.....again, plenty of ability to sub for sake of workload on players - and deeper teams likely are rewarded....as they should be. Maybe just my humble opinion, but would love to call the question.  fellas, please indulge this lady...thoughts??

[stlawus]

Fully agreed.  I am extremely skeptical at the amount of claimed wear and tear a few overtime periods have on players that was cited in the original reasons as for wanting to scrap it.  The season is compact as it is, are a few OT periods truly going to make that much of a difference in terms of player work load?

I think it was Dr. Jay Martin that said that college coaches think college soccer is the premier league and are ruining the traditions that make college soccer so great.  College soccer is no longer a primary professional pipeline.  It is a league and system unique to the United States, so leave it like that and give us back overtime. Overtime is part of what makes college soccer so great and exciting. If teams played more than 16-20 games a season it would make sense, but they don't.  Why would you put a team on a bus for 4 hours, play a game that ends 0-0 and be satisfied with that type of system?  I highly doubt most D3 coaches think it's a good rule change, which means there needs to be mechanism to split the rules among divisions instead of it being a blanket rule change.

[Kuiper]

When the rule change was being discussed, coaches talked a lot about being worried about injuries due to the load.  They could reduce the injury risk without a rule change by playing their bench more, but they don't want to do that unilaterally for competitive reasons. That's why open subbing doesn't change their view of the rule.

I tend to think an even more influential argument may have been the effect two OT periods had on how late the away team got to leave. For some programs, that meant getting home even later into the night.  For others (especially outside the Northeast), it meant missing the last direct flight home.  It also affected how long the home team event staff had to stick around.  These logistical issues influence how the people who vote about a proposed change think about it more than most people realize.

[SierraFD3soccer]

Which D3 coaches didn't want OT, that's my question. I'm sure tons did want OT. Wear and tear was always crap. Any D3 coach with success generally plays 6 or more subs a game just to make it through a little over 2 month 16 game season. Giving kids at least a chance to get a golden goal enhanced the excitement so much more for the players.

D1 D2 D3 players are not going on to fabulous careers at some other level. This is it for them.

Why can field hockey, football, basketball and other sports have OT in D3? 

[Crossit4fun]

I prefer Golden Goal much more exciting and plays into the less time on pitch argument.

[BlueJay95]

I concur. This is not the Prem and this makes it way more difficult for committee members to distinguish teams on the bubble. Golden goal victories are fantastic moments which can be memory makers, especially for some programs who will never sniff the tournament, etc. The most valid argument against is the extended time, especially for midweek matches with long bus rides. The wear and tear argument is bunk when the average D3 roster now has to exceed 30.