COLUMN: New overtime system isn't real football

The four series that ensued after 60 minutes of regulation play expired can in no way be described as football. The new NCAA rule calling for all tie games to be decided by what amounts to a shootout is at best a ridiculous facsimile of the real game. According to the rule, which is based on the Yankee Conference's tie-breaking system, each team gets a series from the opponent's 25-yard line. If the score is still knotted after each team has had a series, both teams are given another shot to break the tie. This continues until someone has "won." But don't be mistaken. What took place at Bucknell's Christy Mathewson Memorial Stadium was not football. What the overtime process rewards -- red zone performance -- is merely one aspect of the game. Consider all of the intricacies of football that become non-factors is this new system: kick returning, clock management, field-position considerations, downfield offense and punting. It doesn't even necessarily reward the better team. A team that has an effective short-yardage game has a distinct advantage over a team that is more in the run-'n'-shoot mold. If this system is so fair, why don't they just scrap regulation play and go immediately to the playground overtime version from the get-go. For over 100 years, collegiate teams didn't find it necessary to break ties at all. If, after an hour of play, one team couldn't demonstrate its superiority over the other, then they would just called it a draw. The past century has demonstrated that a tie game can be every bit as exciting as a victory. In fact, the 1968 Harvard-Yale game that ended in a 29-29 draw is often mentioned as one of the greatest games ever played. It is the action, not the outcome, that makes a great game. And in that game, it was the Crimson's miraculous comeback, in addition to the championship implications, that make the contest stand out above the thousands of other games that have been played since football was invented. With a perfect 8-0 record on the line, the Crimson found themselves down 29-13 with 42 seconds remaining in the game. But Harvard miraculously scored two touchdowns and made good on two two-point conversions to force the tie and clinch an Ivy League championship. If those 60 minutes of action weren't exciting enough for you, maybe football is not your sport. If 1968 is a little before your time, look no further than last season's final day of Ivy League play. If you'll remember, a Dartmouth victory over Princeton and a Penn victory over Cornell would have sealed a four-way tie for the conference championship among those four teams. While the Quakers were midway through the fourth quarter of their rout of the Big Red, Princeton found itself down by three to the Big Green in the final minute of play. Faced with a fourth-and-goal situation on the Dartmouth one-yard line, the Tigers went for the sure score and kicked a game-tying 18-yard field goal, clinching the Ivy crown by a half-game. That scenario could never be played out under the new rules. And in this case, Princeton could have lost out on a deserved league title. It is ironic that the NCAA, coaches and fans alike beg for parity, then cry foul play when parity reins. The NCAA has already instituted a tie-breaking device --Ethe two-point conversion, which was designed to give coaches the choice to go for the win or go for the tie in late minutes of a close game. Of course, you're not likely to hear many complaints about the overtime system coming from the Penn locker room. The Quakers stole a game they really didn't deserve to win. Penn benefited from a borderline grounding call that pushed Bucknell out of field-goal range in the final minute of regulation. Had the call gone the other way, this debate may not have even been necessary. The fact remains that the Bison went point-for-point with the Quakers for 60 minutes, but, because of some rules committee's decision, was credited with a loss. Instead, the team that completed only three passes in regulation walked away with the win. After Penn and Bucknell sent out their punters a combined 18 times in regulation, did it really make any sense to all of the sudden make the punter ineligible? Let's play football the way it was meant to be played -- with kickoffs and 100-yard fields and a clock.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.