College Football Question

Don't know a lot about the game. But in tonight's Oklahoma/Oklahoma State game I saw something I'd never seen before. OK led State 21-13 in the 3rd Qtr, and OSU scored a TD to make it 21-19. So they decided to go for two. They fumbled the ball in the backfield, and OK recovered it and ran it all the way back the other way and THEY get the two points, so the score becomes OK 23 - OSU 19.

Now, here's my question. If on a ONE point extra point try, the defense blocks the kick and returns it all the way the other way, are they rewarded ONE point????

Thanks for any answers. Don't know much about this.:o

I'm not postive, but I think that a blocked PAT return is for 2 points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVEN11323

I'm not postive, but I think that a blocked PAT return is for 2 points.

---

You would be correct.

Anything ran into the endzone on a PAT/conversion, no matter what team, is give two points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Don't know a lot about the game. But in tonight's Oklahoma/Oklahoma State game I saw something I'd never seen before. OK led State 21-13 in the 3rd Qtr, and OSU scored a TD to make it 21-19. So they decided to go for two. They fumbled the ball in the backfield, and OK recovered it and ran it all the way back the other way and THEY get the two points, so the score becomes OK 23 - OSU 19.

Now, here's my question. If on a ONE point extra point try, the defense blocks the kick and returns it all the way the other way, are they rewarded ONE point????

Thanks for any answers. Don't know much about this.:o

---

Not only if they block it and run it the other way it's 2 points, but if it is blocked back to the kicking team and then runs it in they get two.

Thanks guys. Now this of course brings up another question. Sorry to be a bother, but now this brings up a strategy question. Can a team decline going for either one or two and just take the 6 points??? I ask because, suppose a team scores a TD with 0:01 left in the game to take a 1 point lead. If they risk the extra point, and it's blocked, and returned all the way, I guess they would lose right??? So, can they just say "We don't want no stinkin extra point try???"

they could just knee the ball or spike it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockiesfan4ever

they could just knee the ball or spike it

---

...or nuzzle the ball or spike it:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockiesfan4ever

they could just knee the ball or spike it

---

Agree.

My question.....If, as BCS backers always say, the college football regular season is a playoff, how are Boise St & Ball St getting no mention for the National Title Game? If the season itself is a playoff, and you don't lose a game, you then play for the title, right?

Don't get me wrong, I think OU or UF would smoke either team by a bare minimum of 30, but you can't say one thing (regular season is a playoff) & then not carry out such a statement to its full extent (undefeated teams not only not playing for a national title, but Ball St likely not even playing in a BCS game)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by etothep

My question.....If, as BCS backers always say, the college football regular season is a playoff, how are Boise St & Ball St getting no mention for the National Title Game? If the season itself is a playoff, and you don't lose a game, you then play for the title, right?

Don't get me wrong, I think OU or UF would smoke either team by a bare minimum of 30, but you can't say one thing (regular season is a playoff) & then not carry out such a statement to its full extent (undefeated teams not only not playing for a national title, but Ball St likely not even playing in a BCS game)

---

I'm sure I'm in the minority here (but what's new?) but I'm very much opposed to a college football playoff.

College athletics aren't supposed to be solely about the competition. That's what professional sports are for. People, IMO, get way too worked up about college sports and who is better than who when it is supposed to be about getting these young men and women ready for their futures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filihok

I'm sure I'm in the minority here (but what's new?) but I'm very much opposed to a college football playoff.

College athletics aren't supposed to be solely about the competition. That's what professional sports are for. People, IMO, get way too worked up about college sports and who is better than who when it is supposed to be about getting these young men and women ready for their futures.

---

BINGO!!!
and dont give me crap they are not getting paid... a free / partialy free (that you dont have to pay back) education is getting paid

As long as you aren't in favor of college baseball & basketball as well (which causes student athletes to miss more school than football) & can explain to me why Div II football programs (which includes the Ivy League) are able to put together a playoff

March Madness is (just about) the only college basketball that I watch. And I hardly follow college baseball at all.

March Madness is awesome. But I'd survive if it were done away with. I agree that it makes sense to do away with it.

But, that'll never happen - $$$$

And why Div II football can have a playoff - $$$$. Too many people make too much money off bowl games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by etothep

As long as you aren't in favor of college baseball & basketball as well (which causes student athletes to miss more school than football) & can explain to me why Div II football programs (which includes the Ivy League) are able to put together a playoff

---

for me its not that imnot in favor of it... its that they should not get scholerships or free rides because of a sport

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

for me its not that imnot in favor of it... its that they should not get scholerships or free rides because of a sport

---

I don't have a problem with it.

Unless you also think people shouldn't get academic scholarships.

I also think football players should be able to take Route Running 101, followed by Blitz Pickup 100 and Touchdown Celebrations as an elective.

If dude has chosen professional football as his career path, that should be equal to Accounting or Pre-Med. There's no guarantee that your Journalism degree is going to get you a job with the New York Times and there's no guarantee that your 4 years as a Michigan Football Wolverine is going to get you a job with the New York Jets.

These kids go to college to play football, and advance their football careers. We shouldn't waste time making them get a degree when they want to be football players. Those that WANT to get a degree in something else should have that opportunity, but no reason to force them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filihok

I don't have a problem with it.

Unless you also think people shouldn't get academic scholarships.

I also think football players should be able to take Route Running 101, followed by Blitz Pickup 100 and Touchdown Celebrations as an elective.

If dude has chosen professional football as his career path, that should be equal to Accounting or Pre-Med. There's no guarantee that your Journalism degree is going to get you a job with the New York Times and there's no guarantee that your 4 years as a Michigan Football Wolverine is going to get you a job with the New York Jets.

These kids go to college to play football, and advance their football careers. We shouldn't waste time making them get a degree when they want to be football players. Those that WANT to get a degree in something else should have that opportunity, but no reason to force them.

---

I agree to a point....

start a minors for football then... baseball has it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by etothep

My question.....If, as BCS backers always say, the college football regular season is a playoff, how are Boise St & Ball St getting no mention for the National Title Game? If the season itself is a playoff, and you don't lose a game, you then play for the title, right?

Don't get me wrong, I think OU or UF would smoke either team by a bare minimum of 30, but you can't say one thing (regular season is a playoff) & then not carry out such a statement to its full extent (undefeated teams not only not playing for a national title, but Ball St likely not even playing in a BCS game)

---

Don't forget Utah ! I think that Utah is also undefeated, although could be mistaken about that. I just thought when I was watching the game the other night the announcers mentioned two teams undefeated, one was Boise State and the other Utah. LOL, didn't even know about Ball St. Or maybe the other one they mentioned was Ball St. and for some reason I'm getting things mixed up again. :o

I agree with that college is supposed to be about academics. Problem is, when there are many undefeated teams like this year, there is always going to be talk about playoffs. I am for playoffs in college football. That being said it will never happen. They make too much money on the BCS and other bowl games to want to change it now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flapper

I agree with that college is supposed to be about academics. Problem is, when there are many undefeated teams like this year, there is always going to be talk about playoffs. I am for playoffs in college football. That being said it will never happen. They make too much money on the BCS and other bowl games to want to change it now.

---

I've heard this before, and I'll admit I'm no expert, but would they really make less money on a playoff system? It's hard for me to imagine the TV networks not wanting to plunk down a huge chunk of change for a set of playoffs, plus a playoff system would be a few more games, thus more gate revenues to.

Besides which, you could still have consolation "Bowl" games for teams not eligible for playoffs.

I dunno, maybe this system is making more money. I mean, you must be right because I've heard it before, it's just hard for me to imagine that a playoff system might not in fact generate more revenues.

They probably could make more money if marketed right. The games would actually would mean more to those playing too. They have like 36 bowl games now so they would lose like 5 games for a 32 team playoff. They don't need to discard the concept of BCS, just use it to seed the teams. That way each of the top 32 has a chance to win. There would not be complaints about Ball St or Boise St being not included. I think it would be better for the game in the long run too. More people would be interested.

A 32-team playoff gives the winner 5 games. Are you going to shorten the regular season - or have the national champions play 3 or 4 more games in the year than they currently do?
When college football playoffs come up, it is usually in the context of an 8-team playoff - with the BCS standings determining the 8 that make it. I'm still not sure that would resolve the problem - I doubt both Ball St. and Boise St. would be included in the top 8.

A solution that would actually resolve the problem is to require that any school that is going to participate in the BCS must have a schedule that meets a 'strength of schedule' requirement. This might include a minimum number of games against top teams, or some average measure of opponent quality. This would mean that an undefeated team had actually played against top quality opposition allowing for easier comparisons between teams.

Look at Div 1-aa, where schools like App St(they beat Michigan in 07) and Georgia Southern play. They use a playoff (16 team) and they play 11 games a season before that. The original format of the 11 game season should work to help lead to a play off. I chose 32 teams as my guide because there are 36 or so bowl games and also, we would have some teams in top 25 whining about not being included. We could also eliminate FBS/FCS games being played too. That would put a little more weight on better scheduling.

Here's the thing .. everyone in college FB want to know who the BEST team, even a playoff won't always settle that.

Does the best team always win the MLB playoffs? NFL playoffs? The NCAA basketball tourney ?

If you have some desire to crown a champion then whatever, they decided on a 2 team playoff.

So don't think a playoff will give you an unequivocal best team every year.

Well, there's no way to crown the "best" team. This is simply impossible. Best is an opinion, not a fact. But we can get as close as possible, by allowing more teams to compete, and having a fair way to select these teams. For those of you who like to think of student-athletes, why not have the tiebreaker(like the one used in the Big 12 South) be graduation rates?
The question with an 8-team playoff, is do you do it with:
6 BCS conference champs, and two at-larges
OR
the 8 highest ranked teams (BCS rankings, I suppose)
I'd chose the 8 highest ranked teams. Having an 8-team playoff leads to 7 games that would almost certainly raise the same, if not more, revenue than the
5 current BCS bowls. Then you could have like 30 other bowl games, which would presumably make the same amount of money. I would suggest that these be scheduled on non-Tournament days, in order to get more $.
This year my predicted match-ups would be:
1 Oklahoma vs. 8 Penn State
4 Alabama vs. 5 USC
2 Florida vs. 7 Texas Tech
3 Texas vs. Utah
Can you imagine how much money any of those game would make. A playoff would be soooo awesome! I'm really just to the point that I just hate the BCS, cuz it SUCKS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

BINGO!!!
and dont give me crap they are not getting paid... a free / partialy free (that you dont have to pay back) education is getting paid

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :D That was entertaining.

Seriously...colleges don't give a sh*t about player educations. College athletics exist for one thing only...making colleges big dollars.