Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

I got to thinking today, about a point that Lou Holtz brought up a long time ago. I'm not sure how many years the college OT rules switched to the way they are now, but it hasnt been for too long. That being said I do remember one coach who was STRONGLY against the rule change to both teams getting the ball at the 25, as opposed to the traditional way. That coach was Lou Holtz. Lou is someone that I reguard very highly not only as a great football coach (he won a NC and turned around a dismal program) but as a human being as well. Anyway the main reason that he hated the new OT rules was because it takes ST's out of the game. If you really think about it, he is right. There is virtually no ST's involved in OT nowadays. With the traditional rules, you would have normally had a kickoff, a kick return, possibly a punt, which means punt coverage, punt return, and shot at a punt block. Also most of those games were won by the offense getting in FG range and then trying to set up and win the game on a FG. Which once again puts pressure on your line, holder, kicker, as the other team has a shot at a block and return as well.

With the way OT is now, you hardly ever see a FG. Especially in the MAC, where for the most part the offenses can man handle the defenses and the ST's are shaky at best. If you are the team that goes on offense 1st, you better be thinking touchdown, otherwise you are at a disadvantage IMO, even if you make the FG. But even if you do score a TD, now that completely makes it 4 down territory for the other team and writes off a FG and ST's once again. So you say well what about the XP's? Well you can only kick them in the 1st 2 OT's, then you no longer have the option to kick them, and how often have we seen the road teams just go for 2 and the win?

My point from all of this is, in an attempt to make myself feel better about the rest of the season for BG I came to realize that yes we did "bounce back" or "recover" or "grind out" as many of you have noted and say that we wouldnt have done that last year. This is where I disagree, because we dominated UB on O and D, and got completely blown out on ST's all game long. Therefore as soon as the game went to OT, you should think wow we are going to win no matter what. Fortunately we did get the win, but we ALMOST lost the game on D (which we didnt during regulation) and we ALMOST lost the game on the tiny bit of ST's that are allowed during OT (which was evident during regulation). If the rules would have been the way they were a few years ago, I think we would have lost in OT. Luckily they arent and we didnt. But is that really good coaching or just random luck?

My take from all of this is, if we go in OT a lot this year, expect us to win everytime because we are so much better on O and D compared to ST's. However there seems to be a thought in my head that says something isnt quite fair about that... what do you think?

I never thought we needed overtime. Ties were fine with me. And I sat through more than one of them when I was in college.

But college OT is infinitely better than the NFL.

I hate ties. I'm waaaaay too competitive to deal with no winner. There has to be a winner. Ties are fine in tee-ball, not in D1 football.


And yeah, NFL overtime blows. I prefer the college system by a wide wide margin.


By the way -- Lou Holtz is a walking cesspool. I have no respect for Lou Holtz.

I hate Lou Holtz.

I love him, he is the man!

BGSUFootballFan wrote:I got to thinking today, about a point that Lou Holtz brought up a long time ago. I'm not sure how many years the college OT rules switched to the way they are now, but it hasnt been for too long. That being said I do remember one coach who was STRONGLY against the rule change to both teams getting the ball at the 25, as opposed to the traditional way. That coach was Lou Holtz. Lou is someone that I reguard very highly not only as a great football coach (he won a NC and turned around a dismal program) but as a human being as well. Anyway the main reason that he hated the new OT rules was because it takes ST's out of the game. If you really think about it, he is right. There is virtually no ST's involved in OT nowadays. With the traditional rules, you would have normally had a kickoff, a kick return, possibly a punt, which means punt coverage, punt return, and shot at a punt block. Also most of those games were won by the offense getting in FG range and then trying to set up and win the game on a FG. Which once again puts pressure on your line, holder, kicker, as the other team has a shot at a block and return as well.

With the way OT is now, you hardly ever see a FG. Especially in the MAC, where for the most part the offenses can man handle the defenses and the ST's are shaky at best. If you are the team that goes on offense 1st, you better be thinking touchdown, otherwise you are at a disadvantage IMO, even if you make the FG. But even if you do score a TD, now that completely makes it 4 down territory for the other team and writes off a FG and ST's once again. So you say well what about the XP's? Well you can only kick them in the 1st 2 OT's, then you no longer have the option to kick them, and how often have we seen the road teams just go for 2 and the win?

My point from all of this is, in an attempt to make myself feel better about the rest of the season for BG I came to realize that yes we did "bounce back" or "recover" or "grind out" as many of you have noted and say that we wouldnt have done that last year. This is where I disagree, because we dominated UB on O and D, and got completely blown out on ST's all game long. Therefore as soon as the game went to OT, you should think wow we are going to win no matter what. Fortunately we did get the win, but we ALMOST lost the game on D (which we didnt during regulation) and we ALMOST lost the game on the tiny bit of ST's that are allowed during OT (which was evident during regulation). If the rules would have been the way they were a few years ago, I think we would have lost in OT. Luckily they arent and we didnt. But is that really good coaching or just random luck?

My take from all of this is, if we go in OT a lot this year, expect us to win everytime because we are so much better on O and D compared to ST's. However there seems to be a thought in my head that says something isnt quite fair about that... what do you think?

Contrary to what you might believe after reading this post, the sky, is indeed not falling.

The obvious counter argument to this is that it takes special teams to get to overtime, so special teams in overtime really doesn't matter, and I think that makes a lot of sense. If two teams are good enough to get to OT, then the are good enough to duke it out with offense and defense - the special teams have already done their jobs.

Oh, and Holtz is a lying b**ch. That man has brought more corruption the collegiate game than anyone, but he's a cute, harmless old man now, so no one seems to care. His opinion is irrelevant anyways, unless you are Irish-Catholic. I happen to be Irish-Protestant.

BGSUFootballFan wrote: Lou is someone that I regard very highly not only as a great football coach (he won a NC and turned around a dismal program) but as a human being as well.

Yes I admire him for being human as well, and for turning around the Razorbacks.

As for the the NFL OT system being better, I can't say I get real excited to see the kickers trot out of the field to decide a game. Give me a smash-mouth goaline face-off in OT anytime.

Special Teams are part of the game. As anyone who watched BG vs BU this weekend knows, it can be a big part. I think that the NCAA chose this route to speed up the contest and force a quick conclusion.

I actually like the way the NFL does it with the sudden death. The game is already supposed to be over, what's wrong with sudden death? Both teams have already had 4 quarters worth of chances and didn't get it done. As exciting as college overtimes are-- they are very restricted. It virtually eliminates the advantage passing teams have and teams with good special teams. A strong rushing team has an almost unfair advantage.

A few thoughts on that...
1) in your discription of Holtz, you forgot to mention that as he turns teams around, he also always puts them on probation (and it is torture trying to watch him speak pregame on ESPN)
2) it does suck they take out special teams (mainly just the punting game)...however with BG's punting game of recent, I'm not too upset about that
3) special teams are still important...see: UVA vs Wyoming. Wyoming misses an extra point and they lost.

It's not safe for me to mention Skip Hotlz's father here in South Carolina.

Interesting debate.

My father-in-law believes that there should be no field goals allowed after the third quarter.

I kind of like the college OT, but then again, I'm a video game freak and that's probably why!

I don't care for Holtz or his opinion. He may have turned teams around but I wouldn't trust the guy as far as I could throw him.

Shouldn't we all be very thankful that special teams are not needed to win in OT