Kansas tiebreaker

[Metal Panda]

Thoughts? I personally cannot stand it. I think it deviates too much from the way the game is played.

In some ways it benefits defense-minded teams who may not have strong offenses, because starting a drive at the opponents 25 guarantees (as long as you don't lose yardage) a shot at a field goal without having to even earn it, whereas if they played a standard overtime they might have had to drive the length of the field and struggled. To me that's ridiculous--teams score touchdowns in Kansas tiebreakers without even having to really earn them.

I'm more proponent of a standard overtime like the NFL except that instead of sudden death, each team is guaranteed at least one possession.

 

[Alex44]

You cant do it like NFL teams and guarantee one possession

Lets say there is a kickoff and you return it to the 30 yard line and go 3 and out, do you then punt? Well thats not fair because the field position is tilted, and if you go for it then that team has to kickoff the game can go on forever

As we saw in FSU vs Penn State being on the 25 doesnt guarantee a field goal, I like the way College overtime is but Id like to see the ball moved back to the 40 rather than 25

 

[Metal Panda]

You cant do it like NFL teams and guarantee one possession

Lets say there is a kickoff and you return it to the 30 yard line and go 3 and out, do you then punt? Well thats not fair because the field position is tilted, and if you go for it then that team has to kickoff the game can go on forever

As we saw in FSU vs Penn State being on the 25 doesnt guarantee a field goal, I like the way College overtime is but Id like to see the ball moved back to the 40 rather than 25

That's not how it would work. What I'm talking about has been suggested before at NFL meetings.

What I meant is that it would be "sudden death" in that the game would not last the full length of an entire quarter, just until somebody scored, but that the "death" would not occur when the first team scored, for instance, if both teams scored a td on their opening drive, then it would go until the next team scored.

Team A would kick off to team B. Team B would attempt to score just like it was a normal quarter of football, and if they got to 4th down, they'd punt just like normal. Then the other team would take possession, and if they too failed to score, then they'd punt, and it would continue just like regular football, then the next team to score would win the game, or if there was no score in the entire 15 minute period (unless it was the national championship) the game would end in a tie. Some say that benefits the defense, but I say "bah", because every overtime benefits certain types of teams in some way or another.

I don't see the reasoning behind the "3 and out" analogy, because if you go 3 and out, that means your offense failed, so the defense deserves that good field position. Even mediocre offenses can usually scrape out a first down. Besides, that's currently how sudden death overtime works in the NFL as well, with the exception that both teams aren't guaranteed a possession, it's just that whoever scores first wins

I dislike the Kansas tiebreaker because it's equatable to the hockey shootouts. I mean, the fact of the matter is, even a great defense may struggle to defend just a measly 25 yards. One fluke play and the team is in the end zone.

Kansas tiebreakers are like if they decided to make basketball's overtime a free throw contest.