I really like these. It does sweeten the conference championships. I wonder if there could also be a way to make regular-season champs have a higher seed than conference tournament champions.
NCAA Rules You'd Change
- Thread starter isucy86
- Start date
Building on this one, I'd institute revenue sharing for all D1 athletes. Title IX doesn’t require dollar-for-dollar investment equality, which is commonly thrown out as a reason against revenue sharing.
- All D1 athletes get a standard amount based on a percentage of revenue
- Athletes in revenue generating sports get an additional amount based on a percentage of revenue for their sport
- Athletes that appear in a certain percentage (let's say 50%) of their team's contests get an additional amount on top of that
The last one would encourage athletes to go places where they might actually see the field instead of just taking the biggest NIL deal they can find and riding the bench behind a bunch of 5 stars.
NIL would still be permitted, but it has to be in exchange for services rendered. Some kids would still chase NIL money, but a base salary would blunt some of the negative aspects of NIL and keep some level of talent distribution outside the major NIL donor schools.
Get rid of the unofficial rule that states to **** over Iowa State whenever possible.
Really love the first two, can live with the WBB idea, but not in favor of expanding the BB tournament to 72, nothing wrong with the current number.
Do something about the helmet to helmet rule. Do it like basketball fouls and grade it, happens by accident, 15 yards, no one gets out. Intentional or trying to plant a guy that could have been avoided, 15 years and the player is down for the rest of the game. If it happens in the 2nd half, he misses the next game at the point he left the original game. 2nd offense for a grade 1, then the grade 2 penalties kick in.
With every player gets five years to play, bring down scholarship limits from 85 to 75, with no red shirts, everyone should have plenty of players to field a team.
Two targetting tiers. Tier 1 15 yard penalty, stay in the game. Tier 2 15 yard penalty and ejection.
Conferences pay players with a salary cap. Ex: If Big 12 figure of $50 million is accurate, 8 million of that goes to players across sports. Obviously football getting the largest share of that. NIL will still be a thing, but if everyone is getting something I think a lot of what you're seeing with it being the wild-west out there calms down.
Conferences pay players with a salary cap. Ex: If Big 12 figure of $50 million is accurate, 8 million of that goes to players across sports. Obviously football getting the largest share of that. NIL will still be a thing, but if everyone is getting something I think a lot of what you're seeing with it being the wild-west out there calms down.
In football, injured players need to sit out the remainder of the possession. If a guy goes down, he needs to give time to make sure he's OK. If it's a cramp, get to the sidelines and don't hold up the game. Too many 'injuries' for strategic purposes.
I think targeting should just be called like other unsportsmanlike conduct penalties: 15 yds/auto 1st down. And 2 in the same game gets you ejected for the rest of the game, and only that game. No carry over to the next one.
Global changes I'd like to see for football (all levels here) --
KICKOFF ELIMINATION AND REPLACEMENT
Kickoffs are eliminated. They're very disproportionately dangerous plays because players run into each other at a full sprint. Onside kicks are also stupid/random and never seem to work out.
Instead, the team that would have had to kick off under the old rules (the scoring team for TDs and FGs and the scored upon team for safeties) is given the ball on their own 35 under a 4th and 10.
They can either punt (and a longer punt like that has some chance of being returned, which preserves the return game, certainly more than almost-automatic kickoffs into touchbacks does) or go for it. The punt is safer for special teams players because they're lined up right in front of each other at the snap and the returner can fair catch/is protected. Going for it on "4th and 10" is an interesting comeback mechanic --
-- while they would be rare, ten yards is not too far for the occasional fake punt gadget
-- plays from scrimmage are less random than an onside kick
-- offensive and defense stars are on the field, not no-name special teamers
-- ten yards leaves room for some diversity in the playbook (e.g., the screen game)
-- ten yards is difficult but not impossible to convert in one play, which means the attempt is going to be worth it for teams in desperation mode needing the ball back
-- at the same time, the chance of not converting is high and the field position penalty of giving the opponent the ball amid your 35 and 45 is not going to allow this to be a standard
ONE AFTER TOUCHDOWN FOR FREE
This is to speed the game up. When a team scores a touchdown, they can elect to receive one point for "free" (no need to kick the PAT) or they can line up from scrimmage and go for two. This deemphasizes the role of kickers, sure, but only in the boring ways that waste time they are being deployed under the current rules. They would still be necessary for field goals, though, and all the exciting drama that brings.
OVERTIME SHOOTOUT
I'm stealing this from association football and penalty kick shootouts.
In the event of a tie, the two teams each have five attempts at a two-point conversion. The game ends when one side is mathematically eliminated from at least tying the number of successful conversions made by their opponent. If tied after five, then do rounds until the tie is broken -- sudden death.
Exciting and quick, right?
I have heard soccer and hockey fans bemoan penalty shootouts because it is a "warped" version of the game. PKs do not resemble the real "heart" of the game of either live-ball action on the field or the set pieces involving the whole of both teams. I can see their argument there about it being "artificial."
This is not an issue with American football. Running plays from scrimmage, and either moving the ball or stopping its progress, is the core of the sport. Testing the two team's relative abilities to either score touchdowns or stop a score in short-yardage goal-line situations is a worthy test of that. This is not artificial.
So yes, build overtime around that pitched battle.
KICKOFF ELIMINATION AND REPLACEMENT
Kickoffs are eliminated. They're very disproportionately dangerous plays because players run into each other at a full sprint. Onside kicks are also stupid/random and never seem to work out.
Instead, the team that would have had to kick off under the old rules (the scoring team for TDs and FGs and the scored upon team for safeties) is given the ball on their own 35 under a 4th and 10.
They can either punt (and a longer punt like that has some chance of being returned, which preserves the return game, certainly more than almost-automatic kickoffs into touchbacks does) or go for it. The punt is safer for special teams players because they're lined up right in front of each other at the snap and the returner can fair catch/is protected. Going for it on "4th and 10" is an interesting comeback mechanic --
-- while they would be rare, ten yards is not too far for the occasional fake punt gadget
-- plays from scrimmage are less random than an onside kick
-- offensive and defense stars are on the field, not no-name special teamers
-- ten yards leaves room for some diversity in the playbook (e.g., the screen game)
-- ten yards is difficult but not impossible to convert in one play, which means the attempt is going to be worth it for teams in desperation mode needing the ball back
-- at the same time, the chance of not converting is high and the field position penalty of giving the opponent the ball amid your 35 and 45 is not going to allow this to be a standard
ONE AFTER TOUCHDOWN FOR FREE
This is to speed the game up. When a team scores a touchdown, they can elect to receive one point for "free" (no need to kick the PAT) or they can line up from scrimmage and go for two. This deemphasizes the role of kickers, sure, but only in the boring ways that waste time they are being deployed under the current rules. They would still be necessary for field goals, though, and all the exciting drama that brings.
OVERTIME SHOOTOUT
I'm stealing this from association football and penalty kick shootouts.
In the event of a tie, the two teams each have five attempts at a two-point conversion. The game ends when one side is mathematically eliminated from at least tying the number of successful conversions made by their opponent. If tied after five, then do rounds until the tie is broken -- sudden death.
Exciting and quick, right?
I have heard soccer and hockey fans bemoan penalty shootouts because it is a "warped" version of the game. PKs do not resemble the real "heart" of the game of either live-ball action on the field or the set pieces involving the whole of both teams. I can see their argument there about it being "artificial."
This is not an issue with American football. Running plays from scrimmage, and either moving the ball or stopping its progress, is the core of the sport. Testing the two team's relative abilities to either score touchdowns or stop a score in short-yardage goal-line situations is a worthy test of that. This is not artificial.
So yes, build overtime around that pitched battle.
Last edited:
No transfer unless coach that recruited you and/or head coach leaves/fired.
Problem here is that when ISU is called for targeting 90% of the time it wasn't targeting, 80% of the 90% the player was thrown out of the game. B12 officials specifacially look for anything that could be targeting, and enjoys making the call, similar to an offensive charge in basketball or a KO in baseball. Targeting and being tossed should require an extreme act of violence.
Changing college football OT back to the way it belongs. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it
Im good with doing the 2pts starting at 5. At some point it gets a little ridiculous. But starting at 3 now is stupid
Not a fan of the current rule putting ball at the 25, too easy to score and advantage to really good offensive teams.
I would go with pro rule. But I could also go with modifying the existing college rule by putting ball at mid-field. At least that way a team needs to get a 1st down or two to be in FG range.
The other thought- what is wrong with a tie? Maybe that would impact coaches decisions in the 4th quarter to go for the win in regulation.
I think sending a guy to prison is a bit extreme...
