SBNation: It should cost 1 point to punt.

[Direckshun]

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.



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?



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.

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by notorious

The game is fine. Officiating is my only complaint.

It sucks! Piss poor idea!

Screw it,roll back the clock on rules 25 years, your game will improve greatly and attendance will increase!

[LoneWolf]

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.

[Tombstone RJ]

Do it in the preseason games and see if it’s something the league will do if it gets more people to watch!

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

Originally Posted by notorious

The game is fine. Officiating is my only complaint.

Jeff Tripplett says **** you.

[TribalElder]

Make punts like onside kicks

After 10 yards possession goes to the team that recovers the ball

Punts would be more exciting then

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

Teams don't like to punt to Tyreek anyway .Lets penalize them.

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

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.

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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.

You would also have to give the defense a point for a turnover. Only way it makes sense.

[AssEaterChief]

Dumb

Doesn't make sense

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by KC Tattoo

I like punts and kickoffs quit ****ing with the game.

This. Just stop. Please.

[RINGLEADER]

If a team is trailing let them go score more points instead of adding stupidity into the game to make it more “fair.”

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Hog's Gone Fishin

Jeff Tripplett says **** you.

From the beach house he paid for with his bribe money.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by JohnnyV13

You would also have to give the defense a point for a turnover. Only way it makes sense.

That could work.

[rico]

Glad we traded Smith away before something like this was implemented. He would have lost like....all of his value.

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

If a team is trailing let them go score more points instead of adding stupidity into the game to make it more “fair.”

Awh now shit, why the hell do you want to add common sense to this damn shit fest idea?

Shitheads just don't understand!