FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Knightstalker]

NCAA football overtime sucks, it is nothing more than a glorified penalty shots.  The NFL's is bad enough but the NCAA is regoddamndiculous.

I'm in total agreement here...and no this isn't sour grapes from SJU's loss over the weekend. Though they are now 4-4 all-time in OT games.

In principle I don't mind each team getting an equal number of possessions from a fixed spot. My problem is with where that fixed spot starts from. By starting at the 25 yard line a team doesn't have to gain any yards to at least have a chance at a makeable FG. This was basically the case during the 2nd OT at GAC. Both teams attempted their final FG on 4th and 5 from the 20 yard line. It puts the defense in a tough spot while rewarding the offense for simply not turning it over.

I'd prefer each team start with the ball at the opponents 40 yard line. From this starting position a team would have to pick up at least one first down before feeling comfortable with a FG attempt. It would take some pressure off the defense and give OT a similar feel and flow of an actual game.

I doubt it will change. At the higher levels TV seems to enjoy the inflated scores that multiple OTs provide and for the most part I don't think fans mind the current version.

I think the current college OT is the best thing to come to football since the forward pass, at least at the d3 level where a 35+ yard FG is no gimmee for most teams.  What I would like to see is an elimination of the statistics in OT counting and the points.  I think the score should go in the books as a one point win for the team that pulls out the OT, or possibly a 2 point win if by 6 and a 1 point win if by 3 or less.

I totally disagree, it is one of the worst things to happen.  It changes the rules of the game for overtime, stupid move.  Play a shorter timed period just like basketball does (basketball overtime is the best overtime system going) play the game the way it is supposed to be played.  If they have to eliminate the kickoff in overtime, fine, place the ball in play at the opposing teams 20 yard line just like a touch back and make the teams earn the win.

I think it's fair, because both teams equally have the same opportunity as the other. Both teams start at the same spot and follow the same rules. However, I do think stats should be considered.

I will give you the fact that it is fair but it still sucks monkey balls.  I find it a very anti-climatic unsatisfying end to what has usually been a good game.  This years Penn State v Michigan game was a perfect example.  Great game in regulation, turned into a penalty kick situation for overtime.  The ending of the game sucked.

[DuffMan]

Is this in response to the volleyball questions....

That was you, wasn't it?

[cobbernation]

All the chatter should be about CCM vs UST.
I think AO may be a bit generous with his line. I see a 3 point game & the Cobbers coming out on top. 

If the cobbers take care of the ball and control time of possession they have a chance to win the game. 

However, if UST does win it doesn't guarantee a spot in the playoffs.  Last years cobber team was 8-2 with those 2 losses vs. BU and UST (I am guessing both were ROR opponents at the last rankings of 2012).  Plus, UST losing to SJU will hurt them since SJU will not be a ROR after last weeks loss.  So if history serves correctly, UST is already out of the playoff mix.  I also don't know if their history of being ranked in the top 25 each week for the past 2+ years does anything for them.

[sjusection105]

Is this in response to the volleyball questions....

That was you, wasn't it?

Yes....

[art76]

If the cobbers take care of the ball and control time of possession they have a chance to win the game. 

However, if UST does win it doesn't guarantee a spot in the playoffs.  Last years cobber team was 8-2 with those 2 losses vs. BU and UST (I am guessing both were ROR opponents at the last rankings of 2012).  Plus, UST losing to SJU will hurt them since SJU will not be a ROR after last weeks loss.  So if history serves correctly, UST is already out of the playoff mix.  I also don't know if their history of being ranked in the top 25 each week for the past 2+ years does anything for them.

We are down to 4 possible scenarios for the MIAC as it concerns final standings for end of season play, if the four teams still in the hunt win their respective "other games" in these final two weeks. The first is this weeks game between Concordia and St. Thomas.  If Concordia wins, they end the season at 9 and 1 all alone in 2nd place in the MIAC. If they lose and end at 8 and 2, they would be tied with the Tommies and for now tied with the Johnnies.

Next week, if Bethel wins, they are undefeated and MIAC champs. If they lose, they're still champs because they beat the Cobbers in head to head battle. If Concordia loses this week and St. John's wins next week, Bethel is still MIAC champ, but there would be a three way tie for 2nd. My head spins trying to figure out what the standings would be at the end of the season if that were to play out.

Go Cobbers!

[hazzben]

Speaking of UST v. Concordia. Here's a little dream scenario for Bethel:

UST gets in the regional rankings this week, then loses to the Cobbers. This makes room the following week for SJU to slide into the RR in place of UST. Bethel then defeats SJU in the final week of the season. SJU drops out in the final unseen RR and Wartburg (who has won out and secured the IIAC A bid) jumps in to take the Johnnie's spot.

Wishful thinking...probably. A WHOLE lotta what-if's. But it would give Bethel a 4-0 record against RRO (Concordia, UST, SJU & Wartburg) given the once ranked always ranked criteria. If this were to happen, it'd be very hard for an unbeaten Bethel with a strong SOS not to get the #1 slot in the West. What really makes Bethel's case so strong is when you consider all the different colored uniforms they've beaten.  I think this is in the 3rd tier of criteria for Regional Rankings 

A guy can dream can't he 

[AO]

Speaking of UST v. Concordia. Here's a little dream scenario for Bethel:

UST gets in the regional rankings this week, then loses to the Cobbers. This makes room the following week for SJU to slide into the RR in place of UST. Bethel then defeats SJU in the final week of the season. SJU drops out in the final unseen RR and Wartburg (who has won out and secured the IIAC A bid) jumps in to take the Johnnie's spot.

Wishful thinking...probably. A WHOLE lotta what-if's. But it would give Bethel a 4-0 record against RRO (Concordia, UST, SJU & Wartburg) given the once ranked always ranked criteria. If this were to happen, it'd be very hard for an unbeaten Bethel with a strong SOS not to get the #1 slot in the West. What really makes Bethel's case so strong is when you consider all the different colored uniforms they've beaten.  I think this is in the 3rd tier of criteria for Regional Rankings 

A guy can dream can't he 

That's a good argument to get ignore this criteria when determining the #1 seed/ranking.  When comparing two undefeated teams just go by the SOS.  When you get down the list and have some losses to compare then it's a little more worthwhile to count bad losses or upset wins.

[hazzben]

Speaking of UST v. Concordia. Here's a little dream scenario for Bethel:

UST gets in the regional rankings this week, then loses to the Cobbers. This makes room the following week for SJU to slide into the RR in place of UST. Bethel then defeats SJU in the final week of the season. SJU drops out in the final unseen RR and Wartburg (who has won out and secured the IIAC A bid) jumps in to take the Johnnie's spot.

Wishful thinking...probably. A WHOLE lotta what-if's. But it would give Bethel a 4-0 record against RRO (Concordia, UST, SJU & Wartburg) given the once ranked always ranked criteria. If this were to happen, it'd be very hard for an unbeaten Bethel with a strong SOS not to get the #1 slot in the West. What really makes Bethel's case so strong is when you consider all the different colored uniforms they've beaten.  I think this is in the 3rd tier of criteria for Regional Rankings 

A guy can dream can't he 

That's a good argument to get ignore this criteria when determining the #1 seed/ranking.  When comparing two undefeated teams just go by the SOS.  When you get down the list and have some losses to compare then it's a little more worthwhile to count bad losses or upset wins.

I assume you just mean the color domination criteria   

[ExTartanPlayer]

NCAA football overtime sucks, it is nothing more than a glorified penalty shots.  The NFL's is bad enough but the NCAA is regoddamndiculous.

I'm in total agreement here...and no this isn't sour grapes from SJU's loss over the weekend. Though they are now 4-4 all-time in OT games.

In principle I don't mind each team getting an equal number of possessions from a fixed spot. My problem is with where that fixed spot starts from. By starting at the 25 yard line a team doesn't have to gain any yards to at least have a chance at a makeable FG. This was basically the case during the 2nd OT at GAC. Both teams attempted their final FG on 4th and 5 from the 20 yard line. It puts the defense in a tough spot while rewarding the offense for simply not turning it over.

I'd prefer each team start with the ball at the opponents 40 yard line. From this starting position a team would have to pick up at least one first down before feeling comfortable with a FG attempt. It would take some pressure off the defense and give OT a similar feel and flow of an actual game.

I doubt it will change. At the higher levels TV seems to enjoy the inflated scores that multiple OTs provide and for the most part I don't think fans mind the current version.

I think the current college OT is the best thing to come to football since the forward pass, at least at the d3 level where a 35+ yard FG is no gimmee for most teams.  What I would like to see is an elimination of the statistics in OT counting and the points.  I think the score should go in the books as a one point win for the team that pulls out the OT, or possibly a 2 point win if by 6 and a 1 point win if by 3 or less.

I totally disagree, it is one of the worst things to happen.  It changes the rules of the game for overtime, stupid move.  Play a shorter timed period just like basketball does (basketball overtime is the best overtime system going) play the game the way it is supposed to be played.  If they have to eliminate the kickoff in overtime, fine, place the ball in play at the opposing teams 20 yard line just like a touch back and make the teams earn the win.

I think it's fair, because both teams equally have the same opportunity as the other. Both teams start at the same spot and follow the same rules. However, I do think stats should be considered.

I will give you the fact that it is fair but it still sucks monkey balls.  I find it a very anti-climatic unsatisfying end to what has usually been a good game.  This years Penn State v Michigan game was a perfect example.  Great game in regulation, turned into a penalty kick situation for overtime.  The ending of the game sucked.

I know this isn't a perfect solution either and still is no longer the game "as normally played" in regulation, but to eliminate the "penalty kick" feel of an overtime that turns into a FG contest (which is an analogy I've used before), I would be happy with it if they used the current system and just didn't allow FG's.  One team starts with the ball on the 25.  Score a touchdown and prevent your opponent from scoring touchdown, win the game.  Not perfect but I would be content with this.  I played three OT games in college, two decided on FG's, and while it was obviously exhilarating (won once, lost once in the FG contests, lost another that went to a third OT and was decided on a 2-point conversion) I would have been more excited if the game was decided by touchdowns.

[hazzben]

I know this isn't a perfect solution either and still is no longer the game "as normally played" in regulation, but to eliminate the "penalty kick" feel of an overtime that turns into a FG contest (which is an analogy I've used before), I would be happy with it if they used the current system and just didn't allow FG's.  One team starts with the ball on the 25.  Score a touchdown and prevent your opponent from scoring touchdown, win the game.  Not perfect but I would be content with this.  I played three OT games in college, two decided on FG's, and while it was obviously exhilarating (won once, lost once in the FG contests, lost another that went to a third OT and was decided on a 2-point conversion) I would have been more excited if the game was decided by touchdowns.

I hear what you guys are saying, but I don' think eliminating the kicking game makes for a more 'real' ending.

I'd propose starting the teams at midfield. No one is making a FG from that distance without at least gaining a few yards. It also keeps a certain element of excitement, which we lose if we go all the way back to the 20. If you eliminate FG's entirely, it penalizes the team with a kicking advantage and seriously helps out a team with no kicker. The entire game, the FG has been a real element to which team can win. Why should it get totally struck once OT starts? Go to midfield so you don't create an advantage for the team with the kicker. But keep the FG's in so that there's no advantage for the team with a poor kicker.

[MadRedFan]

I just want to say that I am done reading the SC Times chats with Frank R, not because of his responses, but because of the downright idiotic comments and questions.  Frank, lots of us appreciate what you do, and I'd like to apologize on behalf of those of us that aren't complete cynical arse-holes.

Well if you "liked" the chat with Frank yesterday, check out the one with Fasching today.  Cripes sake, there are some knuckleheads out there.

[repete]

If they can't video cast games, they ought to at least to at least stream Gary's BP and brain scans as he fields some of those ass-hat questions.

Props to him for composure ... and just doing it at all.

On a related note, I see CSB is streaming its VB playoffs. The horrors!

[DuffMan]

Well if you "liked" the chat with Frank yesterday, check out the one with Fasching today.  Cripes sake, there are some knuckleheads out there.

I'll check it out when I get a chance.  At least with Gary's chats, they're directing their frustrations at someone that has something to do with the program.

[AO]

I just want to say that I am done reading the SC Times chats with Frank R, not because of his responses, but because of the downright idiotic comments and questions.  Frank, lots of us appreciate what you do, and I'd like to apologize on behalf of those of us that aren't complete cynical arse-holes.

Well if you "liked" the chat with Frank yesterday, check out the one with Fasching today.  Cripes sake, there are some knuckleheads out there.

holy cow.  Fire the coaches and send in the 3rd string QB.  Great questions guys.   You'd think after watching the Vikings over the last 10 years you'd understand that the backup QB is probably worse than the starter with less potential.

[faunch]

Well if you "liked" the chat with Frank yesterday, check out the one with Fasching today.  Cripes sake, there are some knuckleheads out there.

I'll check it out when I get a chance.  At least with Gary's chats, they're directing their frustrations at someone that has something to do with the program.

I just wish some of the dumb-asses would take time to read some of the questions already asked.