Do we need college football rule changes? This week, the NFL changed the rule regarding the Point-After-Touchdown (PAT), or “extra point” in professional football. Naturally, that got us thinking about college football rules. Here are some quick ideas on how to fix some of the outdated and head scratching rules in college football.
The Need for College Football Rule Changes
1. Overtime. I’m not a huge fan of how overtime is structured in college football. However, I don’t really have a better idea of how to do it. My biggest problem with college football overtime is the disproportionate offensive statistical and scoring that it produces in the final box score. A tight 17-17 game at the conclusion of overtime could end up 34-31 by the time overtime is complete. It is completely feasible that a team could match the entire four quarters of scoring in just two iterations of overtime. So, having no better idea for the structure of overtime, let’s change the scoring system. We have two options. Option A is the hockey/soccer option. No points are awarded until one team has a better result during an overtime period. Once this occurs, the winner receives one point and the game is over. Our hypothetical 17-17 tie results in an 18-17 final. Option B is the alternate scoring option. Two points for a touchdown and one point for a field goal. No field goals allowed after the second overtime. I prefer Option A because I don’t like to see the value of touchdowns and field goals change, but I think this is better than what we have. Lastly, no statistics in overtime count. Passing yards, rushing yards, and touchdowns included. None of it.
2. Fumble out-of-bounds in the end zone. I’ve never understood why fumbling out-of-bounds in the end zone is any different than fumbling out-of-bounds in the field of play. If we don’t punish the offense for fumbling out-of-bounds in the previous 100 yards, why punish them in the last ten yards? The defense is denied the chance to recover a fumble if it goes out-of-bounds in the field of play as well. It seems only logical to enforce the normal fumble rules in the end zone and place the ball at the last spot of possession of the offensive player.
3. Ruled down by the knee. This is a classic case of college football not catching up with professional football. The college runner or receiver can still be ruled down simply because his knee was on the ground. The officials will let a quarterback throw the ball anywhere close to the same zip code as a blocking running back while he is being pile-driven by a defensive tackle, but if a wide open receiver catches a ball while on one knee he’s down? Let’s not limit the athleticism of the players by keeping this archaic rule. Football is about forward progress, not body parts. We spot the ball where the ball is, not where the player’s knee is when he is tackled. Touchdowns occur when the ball crosses the goal line, not the player’s feet, knees or elbows.
4. Three second spike rule. This is just illogical. If a team has time left on the clock, why can’t they spike it to stop the clock? Wait, you don’t think somebody could snap the ball with less than two seconds if the clock is not running? Really? The ten-second run-off for an offensive penalty adequately solved the problem of spiking without being set. This rule is a perfect example of over-regulating play. Get rid of it.
5. The “Saban Rule”/Snap Clock. Okay, so this isn’t an actual rule, yet. But let’s be clear, there should never be a snap clock. Offenses should never have to wait to snap a ball. The defenses have a fair opportunity to change players any time the offense changes players. One of the inherent advantages that an offense has is the knowledge of what play they will run and putting the players they want on the field to execute those plays. The injury rate argument sounds like some bad Dr. Oz junk science.
6. Letter of Intent obligations. This one is easy. Every Letter of Intent (LOI) signed by a recruit should have three signatures: the recruited player, the recruiter coach, and the head coach. The LOI is a signed agreement between those three. The recruiter coach is that player’s coach. The head coach is the representative of the institution. If either of those coaches leave the institution before the recruited player enrolls and attends his or her first class, that recruited athlete should be allowed to void his LOI and sign another LOI. The only caveat is that the player’s recruitment isn’t opened back up. Only the recruited player can initiate contact with other institutions. This is what is right for the players. With the NCAA scholarship greatly skewed towards the member institutions, this rule is just to provide the players with some recourse when a significant change occurs before they even enroll at the institution.
Those are my modest recommendations for making the game we love a little better. What do you think? Will these rules changes make the game better? Are there compelling reasons for keeping things the way they are (or aren’t, in the case of the “Saban rule”)? Let me know in the comments section below and on Twitter.
Main Photo:
