SBNation: It should cost 1 point to punt.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...587956/punting
Why it should cost one point to punt Here are seven ways this would make football better. By Ryan Nanni Jul 19, 2018, 5:33pm EDT Many blackjack tables have a surrender option that, without getting too detailed, allows you to fold your hand after all the cards have been dealt but before you do anything else. If you think your bad cards are likely to lose to the good card the dealer’s showing, you get to keep half of what you bet while the house gets the other half. It’s an interesting wrinkle, and one many players just avoid. It’s the equivalent of punting in blackjack, with one major difference: punting doesn’t formally cost you anything. You’re going to say, “hey, punting means you don’t have the ball anymore, and maybe they’re going to score on a punt return!” While all those things are true, those costs are still clearly not high enough to keep coaches from punting on fourth-and-short or in opponent territory or all the other times we wish they wouldn’t. I don’t blame coaches for their hesitation. I blame the risk/reward calculus football has provided them, so I propose we change it by deducting one point from each team that punts, every time. (waiting for thunderous applause to stop) Thank you. Here’s why I think this will make football better: 1. Keep games closer. Right now, one purpose the punt serves is to protect a lead. This doesn’t eliminate that entirely, but it does compromise it. Punt on your last three possessions in the current system with a 17-point lead, and your opponent has to score every time they get the ball. Do the same thing under this new system, and now they only need two touchdowns. Essentially, we’re making coaches really consider whether or not to punt, rather than just do it because it’s the comparatively safe option. 2. It’s more balanced than you think. In 2017, FBS teams punted a combined 8,233 times. So we have 8,000-plus points to distribute, though not evenly. Alabama and Ohio State, for instance, each had 39 more punts forced than punts themselves, which isn’t that surprising, given that both had top-10 defenses in S&P+. But it doesn’t just reward teams with good defenses. Oklahoma State’s also picking up 31 net points in this system. That’s largely because of their offense, which only punted 41 times all year, tied for second-fewest. On the other end of the spectrum, teams like Oregon State, Kansas, and Illinois punted at least 20 more times than their opponents did, adding to their scoring deficits. Those teams won a combined four games, so, yeah, I’m not gonna feel too guilty about that. It feels tricky to say which games this would’ve flipped, because coaches wouldn’t have made the same decisions. But for one example, 2017 Michigan State beat Michigan by four while punting 11 times to UM’s seven, so if that game had played out the same way, it would’ve gone to overtime. (Florida loses 10 points, and Iowa loses five, for the record.) 3. Coaches will have to go for it on fourth more often. Take the end of regulation of last year’s Rose Bowl. An incomplete pass on third down left Oklahoma facing fourth-and-2 at their own 45 with 17 seconds to go and the game tied. In reality, they punted it away and played for overtime. That’s not gonna work here. Every game that’s tied late now feels like overtime! 4. When coaches elect to punt, it’s going to feel weightier. Let’s go to the early fourth quarter of 2017’s Miami-FSU game, when the Canes had the ball at their own 44. It was fourth-and-6, and they led 10-3. Punting still might be smart; your defense has played pretty well, and you can give Florida State a long field to march down. But if you do that, you’ll put them in position to take the lead with a touchdown or tie it with two field goals. Is that a good trade in a close game with a lot of time left to play? Let’s find out! 5. Fake punts would be even more satisfying. Take this Melvin Ingram touchdown against Georgia in 2011. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P81MO9dnE70" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe> That’s not a seven-point swing in a close game. That’s an EIGHT-point swing. Even fakes that don’t work are going to be a little more enjoyable — you didn’t punt, so you didn’t lose a point! 6. It rewards defenses more tangibly. Stopping your opponent deep in their own territory is going to be more satisfying when you’re getting a point for it AND likely winding up with good field position. Even if the offense squanders it, you’ve got something positive to show for it. Heck, coaches already feel this is the way this should work, based on the convoluted offense-vs.-defense scoring systems they’ve devised for spring games. Jim Tressel has a championship ring, and he gave his defense one point whenever they forced a punt! 7. Scores are going to get really, really funny. Remember this game? https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/hbCY...3.22.09_PM.png Michigan punted four times, so let’s mark them down to 74. Rutgers? SIXTEEN PUNTS AND A FINAL SCORE OF 74 TO NEGATIVE SIXTEEN HELL YES. |
Sign me up. I hate punts.
|
Fun off season discussion fodder. Would never happen
|
Yes. It encourages non pussification.
|
The idea of any type of subtraction of points is completely stupid and would never happen.
|
One way to definitely spice up the game. Would it be better to deduct a point from the punting team, or award a point to the receiving team?
But ultimately, yeah, it will never happen. |
Quote:
|
I like it in a vacuum. The challenge, though, is that you're going to have to change the pass interference rules because teams are going to be chucking it long on fourth down a lot, hoping for either an interception or a PI penalty (or maybe a completion). You may also end up in situations where a team intentionally fumbles the ball forward on fourth and long in a tie game.
|
Give the receiving team a point may actually encourage more pussification in some regards, especially if you're down 3 with a 4th and short from FG range with a few minutes left.
I think it might be better to just outlaw punts. |
Perhaps the new XFL should jump on this.
|
Quote:
|
What happens when you have zero points? Can you actually go into the negative numbers?
|
Quote:
|
:facepalm:
The game is fine. Officiating is my only complaint. |
I like punts and kickoffs quit ****ing with the game.
|
Quote:
Screw it,roll back the clock on rules 25 years, your game will improve greatly and attendance will increase! |
Dumb ****ing idea and I’ll explain why.
1 minute left in the game and the game is tied. Team X has the ball at midfield. Team X’s QB throws an interception deep down the field and the defender for Team Y is tackled at the 10 yard line. Team X has all three of their timeouts left. On first down, Team Y gets called for holding and it is now first and 15 at the 5 yard line. The next three plays go like this: run up the middle for 3 yards, run to the outside for no gain, and incomplete pass. It is now 4th and 12 from the 8 yard line. Team Y’s choices are to go for it on 4th and 12 where there is a very low probability of converting and they essentially give Team X a chip shot field goal for the win or Team Y can punt and give Team X a one point lead and the win. Team Y is basically punished for a great defensive play and Team X is rewarded for throwing an interception. Dumb, dumb, dumb. |
Do it in the preseason games and see if it’s something the league will do if it gets more people to watch!
|
Quote:
|
Make punts like onside kicks
After 10 yards possession goes to the team that recovers the ball Punts would be more exciting then |
Teams don't like to punt to Tyreek anyway .Lets penalize them.
|
Give a team two free punts per game .they can choose when to use them . That way they could potentially save one for the end of the game.
|
Quote:
|
Dumb
Doesn't make sense |
Quote:
|
If a team is trailing let them go score more points instead of adding stupidity into the game to make it more “fair.”
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Glad we traded Smith away before something like this was implemented. He would have lost like....all of his value.
|
Quote:
Shitheads just don't understand! |
Spiking the ball should be intentional grounding.
|
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. I award you no points...
|
Y
|
Dumb. Football is not a stupid ****ing card game.
|
This is a loon Direction/Athletic level bad idea
|
If I had to guess, I'd say that the offense scores about 65 percent of points, special teams scores 30 (if you count extra points for them), and the defense scores 5. This is a big imbalance.
If we want to fix it, we need more special teams points and more defensive points. I propose the following: Special Teams: 1 point for the kicking team per fair catch 2 points for a kickoff between the uprights 12 points for a touchdown return 2 points per blocked kick or punt 2 points for a return that is stopped inside the 10 Defense 1 point per quarterback sack or tackle for loss 3 points per turnover 1 point for forcing a fourth down 1 point for any incomplete pass that touches a receiver That should even it up. We can turn this sport into a pinball game. |
Forcing a team to punt is worth a point, but a safety is still only worth 2?
A safety is like the defense scoring a TD without possession of the ball. Just as the offense scores a TD because they're basically out of yards on the field they can possibly gain, a defense has pretty much scored because they've forced the offense back so far they're no longer in the field of play... the offense is out of yards they can be pushed back. To me, I always thought a safety should be worth more. Maybe keep the "bullshit" safeties at 2 points like fumbling into the end zone out of bounds or offensive holding that occurs in the end zone. Everything else, however, should be worth more. Perhaps double it to 4, or you could even treat a safety like a defensive TD, which is what I argued for earlier. I think that rule should be changed before we **** around with subtracting points for punts. |
Quote:
|
Taking away points would get weird in a close game. What I would like to see is limit the number of punts per team through out the game. Don't know what a magic number would be though.
|
Dumb.
If you force every coach to go for it on 4th down, it takes away the awesomeness and balls of actually doing it. It's no longer a bold move It would take away alot of the depth and diversity from the game (i.e., aggressive vs conservative). When all coaches make the same decisions, that takes away 50% of the fun, and makes risky decisions like going for it, no longer "risky" |
Squirmin Herman Mother****ing Sack of **** Edwards would have negative points on the year if left to his own devices.
|
How about when a ref misses a blatant call on the field he gets ball tagged in the nuts?
|
Quote:
On kickoffs, I would only penalize for the kickoff landing out of bound. Lands in and bounces out, nice kick. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.