In light of the New Orleans Saints overtime win Sunday night, Daily Bruin senior staffers Farzad Mashhood and Ryan Eshoff talk about the fairness of NFL versus NCAA football rules. Should the pros continue overtime the way it currently is, or should they adopt something else?
Should the NFL continue its current overtime rules or should it adopt something else?
Farzad Mashhood: What’s better, a 35-yard field goal going through the uprights after a lucky 75-yard kickoff return to put a team into the Super Bowl, or a couple teams duking it out for seven overtimes, well into the wee hours of the a.m., because neither team can get a stop? College does it way better.
Ryan Eshoff: There has to be a change; outcomes of games can’t be that reliant on a coin toss. My solution? NFL overtime games have to be won by at least four points ““ if you score a touchdown on your first possession, fine. Or, it’s field goal ““ defensive stop ““ field goal.
The NCAA stops the clock after first downs in the final two minutes of each half. Should the NFL use this?
Mashhood: Stop that clock on first downs! Chain gang needs some time to move! Kidding, but I like the clock stopping on first downs. It rewards offenses for getting past that line by any means thus encouraging teams to do something other than throw deep.
Eshoff: I don’t think it’s necessary; at the professional level dudes like Peyton Manning and Drew Brees (hey, wouldn’t that be a great match-up!) are masters of matriculation when it comes to the two-minute drill, and render the extra help unnecessary.
In the NFL, hash marks are lined up with the goal posts, while college’s hash marks are over 10 feet wider. Which is better?
Mashhood: Widen those hash marks! Sure, some kickers have been choking lately, but wider hash marks just add another element of difficulty. As it stands, the narrow hash marks make kickers a rubber stamp on three points on any fourth downs in the red zone.
Eshoff: This postseason has shown that NFL kickers don’t need things to be made any more difficult for them. With the current trend of exciting and prolific offensive attacks in the pros, it’s hard to justify changing the field layout. NFL takes the cake here.
NFL wants both feet in bounds but college says just one. What do you think?
Mashhood: This is the NFL. You pay me a million dollars a year and I’ll get two feet in bounds and I’ll even paint the sidelines, too. Come on, these guys are getting the big bucks, not a college scholarship. Get two feet in.
Eshoff: Give me two. Most mediocre pass-catchers can
manage to get one foot in, sometimes even on accident. Requiring two puts a premium on a combination of athleticism, concentration and field awareness. That’s my two cents.
If you fall down in the NCAA, you’re down; in the NFL, a defensive player has to touch you. What do you think?
Mashhood: Defense needs to follow through. Forget slipping in the open field, that’s the ball carrier’s fault. But the defense has to get the runner for him to be down. Since when do we reward the opposition for not doing the work themselves?
Eshoff: Gotta go with the NFL again here. There’s nothing more frustrating when watching a college football game than seeing a guy slip on a big play in the open field and not get a chance to get back up. Plus, that happened to me in IMs and it sucked.
Have questions or topics for Daily Bruin sports senior staff to debate? E-mail your ideas to sports@media.ucla.edu.