<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, okay. I’ll agree with you that they don’t have the level of play that the SEC and Big 12, etc. have, but to lump them in with C-USA is just wrong when the winner of C-USA goes to the Liberty Bowl.</p>
<p>C-USA = small/bad
Big East = middle/okay
SEC = big/great</p>
<p>^^^exactly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not arguing with you about that. I go to an SEC school. I’m just saying what the original guy did was lump Big East with C-USA which is wrong.</p>
<p>Technically there’s no difference between any FBS school, they all get the same number of scholarships and coaches as any other. The only differences are reputation, fan support, opportunity for TV exposure, BCS or specific bowls, and what individual athletic depts are willing to spend on coaches and facilities.</p>
<p>The Big East is just going through a down period. In BCS bowls in 2005, 2006, and 2007 the Big East champion beat the SEC, ACC, and Big-12 champions respectively.</p>
<p>Lane Kiffin named his kid “Knox”. lolololololol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not surprised at all.</p>
<p>That’s what you get when you start dropping your admissions standards so drastically for recruits.</p>
<p>I know this isn’t entirely college football related or really relevant at all, but I’m an Alabama student and a New Orleans Saints fan. Life is soooo good.</p>
<p>Congrats to the saints and all, but the NFL really needs to adopt the NCAA overtime rules (or some other variation that makes more sense)</p>
<p>Let both offenses have a shot. Spend less time doing replay reviews at midfield. At minimum, don’t have the coin flip matter so much.</p>
<p>I agree about switching to college rules, but i believe that in college ot, you start at the 25? It would be great if both teams started at the 50, or even the opposite 40 yard line. In the NFL of course, i’m good with starting at the 25 in college. It would take longer but I feel it would fair</p>
<p>I see your point - 25 yards, you’re just testing red zone offense/defense.</p>
<p>Still, I don’t think longer is necessarily good. The point of overtime is to bring a quick and fair conclusion to the game which has already been going for 60 game-minutes.</p>
<p>Also, NFL coaches are absurdly conservative. In the NFL teams only average about 2.5 touchdowns per game (+/- 1.5), and teams average about 1.6 turnovers per game (+/- 1). It wouldn’t necessarily be surprising if NFL coaches would play a college-style OT conservatively, for the field goal, in the hopes of their defense getting a turnover (or some conservative runs managing to get the TD)</p>
<p>I say start at the 40 or 50 BUT make them score a TD and not settle for a field goal.</p>
<p>Switching to college OT rules would be ■■■■■■■■.</p>
<p>The only bad thing about the NFL OT is how the game can end in a draw. The rules are pretty fair because teams need to showcase offense and defense, not just offense. And teams that win the coin flip are 8-6 in OT, that’s pretty even.</p>
<p>I think it’s reasonable to say no FG in OT. Also, no extra points in OT. I still think starting at the 25 is better but putting teams at the 50 isn’t so bad either.</p>
<p>I don’t like the NFL OT rules at all. On average, about 60% of the time, the NFL OT coin toss winner wins the game. That might not seem like a huge edge but, statistically, it is. The “Advanced NFL Stats” blog has a bunch of good articles on this. </p>
<p>People say the sudden death overtime is exciting but I don’t see it. The only part of the Saints-Vikings game I saw was OT and frankly it was slow and dry. As soon as the saints won the toss you knew that their offense could get the 30-40 yards needed for a FG. There wasn’t even any excitement like when a team drives down the field in the final seconds, not with 15:00 on the clock. The only question was whether they would choke and fumble/turnover the ball.</p>
<p>Not to mention all the replays happening at mid field. I say put both Brees/Favre at the 25, and if there’s going to be a replay, it’ll be whether a catch was a TD, not whether it’s a first down at the 45.</p>
<p>Football is about offense AND defense. All the coin toss does is decide which one your team is going to be playing first in OT. If your defense can’t perform it’s primary function on the field (which is and has always been to stop the opposing offense and get a turnover) then you’re going to lose the game.</p>
<p>Sure NFL OT could be better by not being sudden death, but I still like it a lot more than College OT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So logically each team should do both during OT.</p>
<p>^ LOL true</p>
<p>It’s not really that I think the NFL OT is unfair, it’s that it’s uninteresting. </p>
<p>The NFL has built itself into a sport where there is a lot of star power at QB, to the point where the team is basically defined by that position (far more than any other level of football) and also other offensive skill positions. But we never saw Favre play in OT. Watching the Vikings defense is nice and all, but when the “star” of the team (usually the QB) never takes the field, it’s like the Vikings didn’t play in OT.</p>
<p>I think the best option for overtime is play a 10 minute quarter. That’s enough time for each team to get the ball and put together a long drive. It’s completely fair in my view.</p>
<p>Everyone complaining about the replays needs to realize that (especially in overtime), every play matters. No one wants a season to end on a bad call that could have been reviewed but wasn’t.</p>