Dawg Sports: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: Along The Olentangy for Ohio State Fans!

How Good-Looking is Your Head Coach's Sister?: The Moral Case for Abolishing Overtime in College Football

It’s always interesting to me how current events invariably confirm our preconceived notions, in sports at least as much so as in politics, religion, and most of the rest of life. For instance, no matter which side of the playoff divide you happened to claim, Boise State’s victory over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl verified the correctness of your position, proving either the wisdom of a winner-take-all system that gave all contenders a fighting chance or the wisdom of a postseason arrangement that allows the Broncos perpetually to claim a B.C.S. bowl championship rather than being reduced to being college football’s George Mason.

So it is with overtime. Dr. Saturday loves overtime because he hates ties. I hate overtime (at least in principle; I will confess to enjoying it in practice) because I love what ties say about a coach’s character.

In 1962, No. 1 Alabama arrived in Atlanta for a game with Georgia Tech. The Crimson Tide were winners of 19 in a row but Joe Namath’s four-interception day had ‘Bama trailing 7-0 in the fourth quarter. A late score gave Bear Bryant the choice of playing for the tie or for the win.

Coach Bryant went for two, didn’t get it, and lost 7-6. The Tide ended the season with a 10-1 record, finished a half-game in back of Ole Miss for the S.E.C. title, and were ranked fifth in the final poll. A lot of football fans who are not Alabama fans gained a lot of respect for the Bear that day.

Examples of such courage abound, as do corresponding instances of cowardice. Tom Osborne went for the win in the 1984 Orange Bowl when a tie likely would have assured Nebraska of a national title. Bobby Bowden played it safe during the "Choke at Doak" game against Florida in 1994, in which Florida State came back from a 28-3 third-quarter deficit yet settled for a 31-31 draw.

Before earning well-deserved ignominy for flagrantly cheating and losing his pants, Pat Dye became an object of universal disdain for his gutless tendency to play for the deadlock rather than try for the victory as the head coach at Auburn. (I hate Auburn.) No self-respecting football fan will ever regard as anything other than shameful Ara Parseghian’s wimpy decision to settle for a tie in Notre Dame’s anticlimactic 1966 game against Michigan State.

Warning: There is a Teddy Roosevelt reference near the end of this posting.

There also are coaches who demonstrate through such decisions when they have crossed the line between risk-taking and risk-aversion. Following impressive early successes in his first five years as the head coach at Georgia, Vince Dooley went through a rough patch in his next six seasons, finishing at .500 three times between 1969 and 1974.

The program again rose to a lofty level, led by Erk Russell’s "Junkyard ‘Dawgs" in the Cotton Bowl campaign of 1975 and the Sugar Bowl season of 1976. It was in that climate that the Red and Black welcomed Clemson to Sanford Stadium for the second game of their fall slate on September 17, 1977. The Tigers had not won in Athens since 1914 and Coach Dooley had gone 10-1 against the Country Gentlemen in his career.

In their first year under Charley Pell, though, the Fort Hill Felines held a 7-0 lead on the Bulldogs between the hedges with 25 seconds remaining in the game when Coach Russell’s defense held Clemson on fourth down. From the Georgia 42, quarterback Jeff Pyburn tossed a lateral to tight end Ulysses Norris, who hurled the ball downfield to flanker Jesse Murray. The Red and Black receiver came down with the ball in the midst of four Tiger defenders for a 50-yard gain to the Clemson eight yard line.

Two plays later, Norris caught a Pyburn pass in the corner of the end zone with six seconds left. Despite a five-yard delay of game penalty on the conversion attempt, Coach Dooley elected to go for two points and the win. Pyburn rolled out under pressure and threw too high for the leaping Norris to bring in the aerial, producing a 7-6 setback for the Classic City Canines.

The outcome altered the course of both programs, and of the rivalry. Georgia went on to post its only losing season of the 25-year Vince Dooley era. Clemson, which did not attend a bowl game between 1960 and 1976, received a Gator Bowl bid and became a regular fixture of the college football postseason in years in which probation did not prevent the Tigers from appearing in bowls. Between 1977 and 1987, the Bulldogs and the Tigers went 5-5-1 against one another in what became the country’s most closely-contested rivalry.

Warning: There is a Faulkner reference near the end of this posting.

The lone tie came in 1983, when Georgia was coming off of a 33-3 three-year run during which the ‘Dawgs won one national championship, played for another, and captured three straight conference crowns. The Red and Black were ranked seventh in the coaches’ poll when they traveled to Death Valley on September 17, 1983, six years to the day after the failed two-point conversion against the Country Gentlemen.

Georgia trailed 16-6 heading into the fourth quarter. Defensive end Calvin Ruff recovered a Clemson fumble to set up a 14-play, 54-yard drive including a fourth-down conversion near midfield and a pair of third-down conversions inside the Tiger 20 yard line. An eight-yard touchdown pass from quarterback Todd Williams to tight end Clarence Kay with a little over nine minutes remaining made it decision time for Coach Dooley. The Bulldogs were behind 16-12 and had to choose whether to kick the extra point or go for two.

Coach Dooley sent in placekicker Kevin Butler for the point after and he made it a three-point ballgame. The game ended with a 76-yard Georgia drive that set up a 31-yard Butler field goal with 38 seconds to play. (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, unaware at the time of the last-second heroics Butler would pull off against the Tigers one year later, published a photograph of the kicker the following day with the caption, "The Butler did it.")

Afterwards, Coach Dooley explained, "I thought we had momentum and I wanted to maintain that momentum. I did not want to do anything that would have killed our momentum – and going for two and not getting it would have surely done just that."

Against Charley Pell in 1977, Vince Dooley was 45 years old and barely two years removed from the day in the summer of 1975 that Fred Davison had stood up to mounting fan criticism by giving the coach a four-year extension at a time when he had just one year left on his existing contract. Against Danny Ford in 1983, Vince Dooley was 51 years old, ensconced as athletic director, and the winningest coach in Bulldog football history.

Was Coach Dooley too desperately reckless in 1977 or was he displaying the sort of intestinal fortitude that helped to turn the players who finished with a losing record as freshmen into the players who won a national championship as seniors? Was Coach Dooley too cautiously conservative in 1983 or was he displaying the sort of mature wisdom that led to six conference championships, 20 bowl appearances, and 201 victories?

Warning: There is a Captain Kirk reference near the end of this posting.

I have my own opinion upon that subject, but the point is that the absence of overtime is what made each of those decisions consequential and, hence, controversial. With the possibility of a tie now off the table, only the desperation of a team facing a prohibitive favorite (such as, for instance, Boise State facing Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl) would cause even the boldest coach to consider going for two and the win instead of kicking the extra point for the tie.

I’d rather know that a coach’s decision is an expression of his character instead of the dictate of a chart. Ultimately, my opposition to overtime (again, conceptually rather than practically) springs from the fact that it takes courage out of the equation and therefore robs the sport of some small yet significant measure of its dramatic and moral force.

We care about the fact that James T. Kirk doesn’t believe in the no-win scenario because a lesser man might have accepted placidly what he believed to be his doom and it speaks volumes about our favorite starship captain that he, like William Faulkner, declines to accept the end of man. The existence of overtime in college football relieves coaches of the choice, robs fans of the enjoyment and illumination to be had in the making of that choice, and makes the short-term acceptance of the no-win scenario---acceptance of appeasement in lieu of guts and gusto---obligatory instead of shameful. "Do or die" time is now "do like Dye" time.

Bear Bryant in November 1962, Vince Dooley in September 1977, and Tom Osborne in January 1984 all lost games in which they won respect because they proved something that allowed their fans to feel proud even in defeat. Ara Parseghian in November 1966, Bobby Bowden in November 1994, and Pat Dye on more occasions than I would care to count all sacrificed respect for fear of falling in an honest and honorable fight, and they thereby accepted their place among those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

That college football’s rules no longer require the highly-paid decisionmakers prowling the sidelines to choose between glory and timidity, between leaving the field with their heads held high regardless of the outcome and taking the walk of shame back to the locker room, does a disservice to the sport and to all of us who love it. Ties should be possible because the consequences of settling for ties should be meaningful and negative as we spit the lukewarm out of our mouths.

Go ‘Dawgs!

Poll
What should happen when two college football teams are tied at the end of 60 minutes of play?
The game should end in a tie
25 votes
The game should go to overtime using the current college format
142 votes
The game should go to overtime using a different format
39 votes

206 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs  |  Comment 17 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Interesting argument BUT

… having ties rewards the timid coach! Sure, Bowden may have been less of a man for going for the tie rather than the win… but that said, aside from opposing fans’ scoffing and a slightly-tarnished reputation, the timid coach still doesn’t lose the game. Yes, that Saturday night doesn’t feel nearly as rewarding as it might have to fans of the team, but it feels better than the alternative. The situation’s only magnified if it’s an important game — sure, Osborne took the high road and is still lauded for it today, but I wonder if at least a part of him (and the Nebraska fan base) wishes he would’ve taken the kick and gotten a ring and a trophy. Ditto for the Tide against Tech.

Put it this way: If I had a choice between Georgia being 12-0-1 and winning a national title, or 12-1-0 and finishing third or worse, I’d take the tie. And if Richt went for two instead of one (as if that would happen!) and caused us to lose rather than tie, I would be upset with him. Maybe you would disagree, but I think you’d be in the minority. So while I’m curious about a coach’s character, ties would reward the wrong kind of behavior. I like the way it is.

by NMdawg on Jun 7, 2009 10:23 PM EDT reply actions  

Undoubtedly that was true in Bowden's case

Tying Florida earned him got him a Sugar Bowl bid so that the rematch with the Gators could be billed as “The Fifth Quarter by the French Quarter.”

I just can’t abide any system that encourages coaches to be more like Pat Dye and less like Bear Bryant.

Go 'Dawgs!

by T Kyle King on Jun 7, 2009 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

I prefer having overtime and I detest ties, but I’m not a huge fan of the current system. I don’t really like the NFL’s sudden death either. Short of just playing another full quarter, there’s no good way to structure overtime so that it still conforms to the spirit and intent of the game.

That said, I’m okay with keeping the college system instead of sudden death because the idea of a coin flip functionally deciding a game just doesn’t compute with me. I would like to submit a proposal, though, that all stats that are accrued in overtime do not count toward season totals. There’s nothing about overtime stats that reflect the reality of the entire game just played to a deadlock under a completely different premise.

Team Speed Kills
SBNation's SEC Blog

by Year2 on Jun 7, 2009 11:20 PM EDT reply actions  

I always get into arguments with people about this.

I’m not a fan of college football’s overtime principally because it is a different game than the one that had just been played for 60 minutes—as if the winner won a game of ‘overtime’, not college football. The ‘character’ motives you expounded upon as reason for a tie are interesting, and I would be in favor of the tie returning myself. However, since we live in an overtime world I would prefer it to be an extra period (like, 8-10 minutes)—with the same rules as the rest of the game: kickoffs, downs, etc…much like the NFL, though not sudden-death but an actual extra period. None of this start-at-the-25, one-first-down, must-go-for-two at a certain time stuff.

If anything, they could at least not make the stats count. They just inflate things.

by The ArchDawg on Jun 8, 2009 1:03 AM EDT reply actions  

I once heard a similar argument about soccer . . .

. . . which decides tie games by shootout or kickaround or whatever they call that thing where you just line up and kick a bunch of penalty kicks until somebody outscores the other side.

When criticizing about soccer the very thing you criticize about college football—-namely, overtime rules that establish a completely different game—-the commentator said, “It’s like deciding extra-inning baseball games with a round of home run derby.”

Baseball gets it right. If you’re not going to have ties, keep doing what you’ve been doing. If nine innings can’t decide it and you need a clear winner, play ten or eleven or as many as it takes. If four quarters can’t decide it and you need a clear winner, play five.

Go 'Dawgs!

by T Kyle King on Jun 8, 2009 8:33 AM EDT up reply actions  

Agreed, with one caveat

I would like to see more special teams play come into deciding overtime games. Instead of starting OT at the 25, why not have a kickoff and then play the possessions normally after that, with each overtime being decided after each exchange of possessions?

Adding an entire extra period is a good choice, too (although then it could not legitimately be called a quarter). I think it’s likely you would lose that argument, though, to whiny mommas-boys scientists and medical-type people who would trot out some study that showed that most career-threatening injuries happen near the end of games, and as games went longer, more (and worse) injuries would occur.

by vineyarddawg on Jun 8, 2009 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions  

OT

Personally, I’m a huge fan of the OT we have now, just based on the excitement.

But dang it, reading this argument I think might’ve changed my view a little.

The Captain Kirk reference did it.

by UgaBulldog14 on Jun 8, 2009 8:13 AM EDT reply actions  

Great post

I almost agree with Kyle 100% on this one – at least until he compared football to that Euro soccer sport-like thing…..

I love the way a tie calls the hand of coaches. I always knew that Coach Bowden was a gutless slug, but 1994 just proved the point. Everyone from both sides knew that FSU could have easily waltzed into the end zone for 2 points because we hadn’t stopped a single thing they tried over the past 11 minutes. But Bobby was just happy with the tie and FSU fans still think they won that game, while all Gators view it as a loss. That sums up both programs pretty nicely I believe.

I don’t like the current system either and am on board wih not counting the stats. The numbers are already ridiculous in those Big 12 games already, and when they go to a 52-46 overtime “thriller,” it overinflates the numbers to the point of absolute absurdity.

Perhaps an 8 minute overtime would be better, but that would still leave Kyle’s question of coach’s character unanswered.

by skigator93 on Jun 8, 2009 10:03 AM EDT reply actions  

In defense of the other football

I’d like to see any person go run around at full speed on a field bigger than a football field for two 45-minute periods, with a 20-minute break in between, with linebacker-sized people (who are also running full-speed, sometimes straight at you) lunging and kicking at your shins, ankles, and feet the whole time.

Then tell me soccer’s not a sport.

( /vent )

by vineyarddawg on Jun 8, 2009 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions  

Come on now

Running at full speed for two 45 minute periods?!? We must be watching different sports, because I see a bunch of wind sprints with a lot of walking and jogging in between. I also see guys flop down and pretend to be hurt to draw yellows for the other teams. I also rarely, if ever see a linebacker-sized, or even free safety-sized player on the field.

  • Note: All the “I sees” above refer to short clips on blogs and whatnot, as I dp not actually watch soccer games live or on TV.

I am not arguing that soccer players are not good athletes. They are. I am just saying that soccer deserves no comparison to the American version of football.

by skigator93 on Jun 8, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions  

Sorry... stepping up onto my soapbox

Since you admitted that you don’t actually watch soccer games, I think I can easily refute your argument by pointing out that the actual game of soccer, and the athletes involved, are very different than the wimpy, alfalfa-sprout-eating, we-like-a-tie-because-everybody-wins crowd that you see in the rec leagues our kids play in. Not to mention David Beckham, also, though those two examples are probably redundant.

Wind sprints? With walking and jogging in between? I think you’re describing American football, my friend. That’s not to say that soccer players are running full-tilt all the time, either, but unlike a wide receiver, they’re not asked to accelerate to very top speed for 3-6 seconds, stop, leisurely jog back and rest for 35-45 seconds, and then engage in 3-6 more seconds of extreme exertion. Soccer is a game of stamina… of fitness.

As for diving, that’s undeniable. People dive in a lot of leagues, but don’t you also see every wide receiver in the world jump up every time he drops the ball and passionately appeal to the referee that he was interfered with? Or when a catcher in baseball catches a ball that was thrown outside the strike zone, does he not try to “frame it” by smoothly and quickly jerking it back into the strike zone? And on a 3-2 pitch, does not every batter (who doesn’t swing) immediately start throwing the bat away and jogging down the first base line, to help sell the call? Same idea. I’m not saying it’s good… I’m just saying it’s not unique to soccer.

As for the build of soccer players, I give you Oguchi Onyewu. He’s the #1 defender for the US national team, and he’s certainly not unique among world defenders. He’s 6’4", 210, and if you Google a picture of him (warning, you’d better be secure in your flabbiness), you can see how he easily has the build to play football for the Fort Hill Felines. Instead, however, he chose to play soccer there. Other examples? Carlos Puyol (with manly pic) and Rio Ferdinand (he has more muscles than pretty much everybody, too) immediately come to mind.

Alas, though, I sense that on a blog devoted primarily to, among other things, college football, I will ultimately lose this argument due to popular opinion. There’s a reason, though, that my two favorite sports are college football and soccer (in that order). If you try to reach past the rec-league, King of the Hill-esque stereotypes that most of the ESPN media (cough JIM ROME cough COLIN COWHERD cough) push on us, however, and give the high-level games (like World Cup qualifying or European Champions League, for example) a chance, I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised once you become accustomed to what you’re watching.

I mean, think about it… if you grew up in a non-football playing part of the world like Germany, Poland, or New England and moved to Atlanta one autumn, what would your first thoughts be about trying to watch a college football game (which you would have virtually no choice but to do, since a game is shown on virtually every network channel at some point during autumn Saturdays)? It would take a little getting used to as you got used to the strategy, the flow of the game, seemingly endless rules (and exceptions) and the nuances. It might be a long time before you starting watching things we “seasoned professionals” watch, such as line play, blocking assignments, and basically any action happening in a place where the ball isn’t. Soccer is much the same way.

I’m not saying it’s better than college football… I’m just saying it’s a fiercely contested sport among top-level athletes. And, like college football, it can take time to appreciate the excitement, nuances, and beauty of the game if you’re new to it. (Also, like college football, it is not best enjoyed just by watching the 9 seconds that consist of the time before, during, and after a score.)

by vineyarddawg on Jun 9, 2009 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions  

I think that the perception of that game is influenced by FSU winning the “rematch”. Had they lost, then the focus would be on just how bad they were getting beat rather than how great of a comeback it was.

by UgaMatt on Jun 8, 2009 10:51 AM EDT reply actions  

I don't like the "tie fighter" either...

… but it was refreshing to be able to remember Pat “Tie” Dye, though only because he had two of my favorite nicknames as a child.

by vineyarddawg on Jun 8, 2009 10:53 AM EDT reply actions  

I like the romance of your position

But in the end I agree with the Doc: ties are reprehensible and should be avoided at all costs.

Coaches are an essential part of college football as we know it, but in the end this is a game about 22 men on a field with a ball. If coaches’ personalities are that important, we can arrange pre-game chess matches (or checkers tournaments, with Cracker Barrel as our prime time advertising sponsor).

Leaving insightful football commentary and analysis to other people since 2006.

by wwcmrd? on Jun 8, 2009 11:25 AM EDT reply actions  

I'm a fan of overtime

Because a tie = a loss in my book. However you point is valid. No guts. No glory.

by deanpat92 on Jun 8, 2009 1:38 PM EDT reply actions  

I'm against regular season overtime at any level of football

The regular season is too short for a tie to be recorded as something other than a tie, and hence screw up standings (whether actual standings, poll standings, or BCS rankings). Besides, the game is too dangerous for people to be risking injury playing an extra period. Not to mention that neither NFL-style sudden death overtime (first one in field goal range, wins!) nor college-style alternating possessions from the 25 (lets start in field goal range!) have much in common with actual football.

For the postseason, where ties must be resolved, I’d argue for a ten minute overtime period and sudden death after that.

by drothgery on Jun 9, 2009 2:25 PM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation community devoted to the Georgia Bulldogs.
Start posting about the Bulldogs »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

SBNation.com Recent Stories

ATLANTA - SEPTEMBER 4: Russell Shepard #10 of the LSU Tigers runs down the field for a touchdown against the North Carolina Tar Heels at the Georgia Dome September 4 2010 in Atlanta Georgia.  (Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images) +11 updates

LSU (Barely) Holds Off Depleted UNC, 30-24

Jacksonville State players celebrate their 49-48 double-overtime victory over Mississippi in an NCAA college football game in Oxford, Miss., Saturday, Sept. 4, 2010. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis) +3 updates

Jacksonville State Pulls Major Upset, Stuns Ole Miss In Double Overtime

ARLINGTON TX - SEPTEMBER 04:  Tailback Ed Wesley #34 of the TCU Horned Frogs runs the ball past Dwight Roberson #59 of the Oregon State Beavers at Cowboys Stadium on September 4 2010 in Arlington Texas.  (Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images) +5 updates

No. 6 TCU Tramples No. 24 Oregon State With Ground Game, 30-21

More from SBNation.com >


Managers

Beard_47_series_wins_and_42_points_in_2007_small T Kyle King