PDA

View Full Version : Nfl contemplates changing overtime rules


CloakNNNdagger
03-04-2010, 04:50 PM
An NFL spokesman announced this weekend that the league could change its overtime format for playoff games, starting next year. Under the new proposal, a field goal on the opening possession of overtime would not trigger sudden death. "Both teams would get the ball at least once unless the first team with the ball scores a touchdown. If the first team with the ball makes a field goal and the other team ties the game, action would continue until a team scores again."
Basically:

* A team that scores a touchdown on the opening possession of overtime wins.

* A team that scores a field goal on the opening possession of overtime might not. The other team gets a chance to extend overtime (with a field goal of its own) or win outright (with a touchdown).

This thought-provoking article (http://www.sports-central.org/sports/2010/03/03/the_best_way_to_fix_overtime-print.php) compares solutions other than the present "sudden death" scenario.

Wolf
03-04-2010, 04:55 PM
I'd rather see it like this

Each team gets the ball once .. and then after that, it is sudden death


meaning if team 1 gets the ball and scores a TD then team 2 has to score a TD and if they do game goes to sudden death, if team 2 doesn't score on first possession, game over

If team 1 kicks a field goal and team 2 goes down and gets a TD, game over Team 2 wins

if team 1 on first possession doesn't score , then it is first one to score wins

Double Barrel
03-04-2010, 04:55 PM
I have been advocating these exact changes in OT rules for years.

Why just the playoffs, though? :um:

HOU-TEX
03-04-2010, 04:56 PM
I have been advocating these exact changes in OT rules for years.

Why just the playoffs, though? :um:

Time constrictions?

Double Barrel
03-04-2010, 04:58 PM
Time constrictions?

Probably so. I'll take the playoffs for now, though. Baby steps. :thumbup

HOU-TEX
03-04-2010, 05:07 PM
Probably so. I'll take the playoffs for now, though. Baby steps. :thumbup

Yep, all cuz baby Favre didn't get a shot in OT. Ha, JK

brakos82
03-04-2010, 05:09 PM
Yep, all cuz baby Favre didn't get a shot in OT. Ha, JK

....or are you? :spy:

Pantherstang84
03-04-2010, 05:14 PM
....or are you? :spy:

He may have been kidding, but there is probably an element of truth to it.

TheCD
03-04-2010, 05:38 PM
It would never happen, but I've always thought it would be great if they kept sudden death overtime but removed the option for a field goal.


If the other team scores a TD on you in overtime, you lose. Period. Same as if they had scored a TD on the last possession of regulation.

brakos82
03-04-2010, 05:41 PM
It would never happen, but I've always thought it would be great if they kept sudden death overtime but removed the option for a field goal.


If the other team scores a TD on you in overtime, you lose. Period. Same as if they had scored a TD on the last possession of regulation.

I'm on the "first-to-6" bandwagon. Seems like the simplest way to go.

Double Barrel
03-04-2010, 05:47 PM
It would never happen, but I've always thought it would be great if they kept sudden death overtime but removed the option for a field goal.


If the other team scores a TD on you in overtime, you lose. Period. Same as if they had scored a TD on the last possession of regulation.


This is pretty much the rule change that they are talking about.

* A team that scores a touchdown on the opening possession of overtime wins.

* A team that scores a field goal on the opening possession of overtime might not. The other team gets a chance to extend overtime (with a field goal of its own) or win outright (with a touchdown).

But I see the difference that you are talking about in removing FGs altogether.

The Pencil Neck
03-04-2010, 06:23 PM
I like the rules the way they are.

BigTimeTexanFan
03-04-2010, 07:32 PM
I'm fine with the way it is. From pee-wee football on, we have always been taught there are three phases of football: offense, defense, and special teams. If you lose an over-time game because your defense could not stop the offense, obviously you need to get better on defense and you did not deserve to win the game. I have seen enough rule changes favoring the offense. That's just my opinion.

Speedy
03-04-2010, 08:07 PM
Leave it alone. The game of football is not just offense. If you want the ball, play defense and make a stop.

Thorn
03-04-2010, 08:13 PM
Each team should get a wack at the ball one time in overtime. After that, 1st come 1st serve.

If ta bad guys score on ya, and you can't score back, tough do-do. At least that keeps a stupid coin flip from potentially winning the game. I hate that.

The Pencil Neck
03-05-2010, 01:26 AM
Each team should get a wack at the ball one time in overtime. After that, 1st come 1st serve.

If ta bad guys score on ya, and you can't score back, tough do-do. At least that keeps a stupid coin flip from potentially winning the game. I hate that.

Everybody had their wacks during the game. In OT, play some D.

Or how about this, the 4th quarter doesn't end until someone scores. There's no stop. There's no coin flip. No re-set of time outs.

Just keep playing until someone scores. True sudden death.

Or maybe not. That thought just popped into my head and it seemed better before I typed it out. :clown:

brakos82
03-05-2010, 01:36 AM
Or..... give the players guns.

TRUE Sudden Death. :evil:

The Pencil Neck
03-05-2010, 01:38 AM
Or..... give the players guns.

TRUE Sudden Death. :evil:


No, no, no.

Not guns.

Machetes.

brakos82
03-05-2010, 01:43 AM
No, no, no.

Not guns.

Machetes.

Ooooh..... I like where this is going.

Hoss
03-05-2010, 01:54 AM
I'll get the rope...

brakos82
03-05-2010, 01:56 AM
Rocket-propelled chainsaws. Beat that suckers. :wild:

The Pencil Neck
03-05-2010, 09:04 PM
Rocket-propelled chainsaws. Beat that suckers. :wild:

Rocket propelled HEAT SEEKING chainsaws.

With poisoned spikes.

And rattlesnakes.

brakos82
03-05-2010, 09:08 PM
Rocket propelled HEAT SEEKING chainsaws.

With poisoned spikes.

And rattlesnakes.

You forgot the uh-ranian nucular warheads. [/w]

The Pencil Neck
03-05-2010, 09:10 PM
You forgot the uh-ranian nucular warheads. [/w]

:facepalm:

How could I forget that?

brakos82
03-05-2010, 09:13 PM
:facepalm:

How could I forget that?

I dunno.... don't worry, I saved ya. :tiphat:

infantrycak
03-17-2010, 11:38 AM
From profootballtalk

As expected, the NFL's Competition Committee will propose at next week's league meetings (which will be held not in Maui but at the Ritz-Carlton in Orlando) a change to the overtime rules.

The new rule, as previously reported by many, will allow the team that receives the kickoff to start overtime to win the game only by scoring a touchdown. At that point, the game would end without the other team getting the ball -- and without an extra point being attempted.

If the team that receives the kickoff scores a field goal, the other team would then get the ball. A field goal by the other team would then extend the game, making it truly sudden death. Failure to score at all would end the game, as would a touchdown by the team that kicked off to start overtime.

Looks like a pretty good proposal to me.

TimeKiller
03-17-2010, 11:47 AM
Just eliminate overtime field goals. First TD wins. That simple and that much better. No time limit, possession limit: 2. Each team has 2 extra possessions and no score: tie.

Thorn
03-17-2010, 11:59 AM
Just make it simple. Each team gets at least one shot at the ball. After that, whoever has the most points wins regardless.

Or, just make it real simple. No overtime in regular season. What's so bad about tie games? It all washes out in the end anyway.

BIG TORO
03-17-2010, 12:00 PM
I like the changes, that means you can still win with a field goal if your defence can keep the other team from scoring.

El Tejano
03-17-2010, 01:19 PM
I propose that in OT, the first team that scores gets the ball for the sudden death. For example:

Texans and Indy go to OT. Indy gets the ball on coin flip, comes down and scores a TD/FG. That determines that Indy gets the ball back for the sudden death.
Then Indy goes on offense and for some reason The Texans get them to punt. Well then the Texans go and score a FG, and they win - yea!

Seriously though, if you get the ball twice and can't score twice, you deserve to lose.
If you get the opp. to defend twice and can't get the ball back in one of those possessions you deserve to lose.
If you score on both possessions you deserve to win.
If you score on your only possesion because you didn't win the ball for sudden death, you deserve to win.

JCTexan
03-17-2010, 01:36 PM
Each team should get a wack at the ball one time in overtime. After that, 1st come 1st serve.

If ta bad guys score on ya, and you can't score back, tough do-do. At least that keeps a stupid coin flip from potentially winning the game. I hate that.

I agree with this. The bad thing with a coin flip is that teams don't have to try to score a touchdown to win the game. They just have to get the ball to the 30 yard line for the field goal. Most NFL offenses can get the ball to the 30. Once both teams have had an opportunity with the ball in OT then it should be sudden death.
I propose that in OT, the first team that scores gets the ball for the sudden death. For example:

Texans and Indy go to OT. Indy gets the ball on coin flip, comes down and scores a TD/FG. That determines that Indy gets the ball back for the sudden death.
Then Indy goes on offense and for some reason The Texans get them to punt. Well then the Texans go and score a FG, and they win - yea!



If Indy won the coin flip for OT they would have to score first. If they didn't score and Houston did the Texans would win the game. Basically what you purposed is that the winner of the coin flip gets first shot with sudden death?

Dutchrudder
03-17-2010, 02:09 PM
Sudden Death - First touchdown wins. Make them earn it.

gwallaia
03-17-2010, 02:32 PM
I like the proposed rule change for OT.

I would also propose rewarding 10 points for a field goal attempt in which the ball hits the upright. That thing is 8" wide! Hitting that from any distance is much more difficult than sailing the ball through all that empty space between them.

Hardcore Texan
03-17-2010, 02:33 PM
For the love of pete can somebody please bring Donovan McNabb up to speed on this.....:facepalm:

El Tejano
03-17-2010, 02:52 PM
I agree with this. The bad thing with a coin flip is that teams don't have to try to score a touchdown to win the game. They just have to get the ball to the 30 yard line for the field goal. Most NFL offenses can get the ball to the 30. Once both teams have had an opportunity with the ball in OT then it should be sudden death.


If Indy won the coin flip for OT they would have to score first. If they didn't score and Houston did the Texans would win the game. Basically what you purposed is that the winner of the coin flip gets first shot with sudden death?

No I'm basically saying, play for the coin flip. Instead of letting heads or tails determine who gets the ball first (and typically wins), play for who gets the ball first in sudden death.

infantrycak
03-17-2010, 02:59 PM
People can suggest 8 million different ideas, but what is wrong with the one they have proposed?

HOU-TEX
03-17-2010, 03:03 PM
People can suggest 8 million different ideas, but what is wrong with the one they have proposed?

Nothing, but personally, I'd keep it the way it is

El Tejano
03-17-2010, 03:06 PM
People can suggest 8 million different ideas, but what is wrong with the one they have proposed?

Nothing is wrong with it. Just seeing if there is anyway to enhance that idea. I like anything that increases the competitiveness of the game. Wouldn't it be cool if you won something in an OT only to find that is not the final battle? Adds to the drama.

Speedy
03-17-2010, 03:50 PM
Football is played with offense, DEFENSE, and special teams. If you lose the coin toss....PLAY DEFENSE!!!

OT works fine just like it is, just like it has for however long it's been in play. Leave it alone.

That said, with the way the world is these days with people always wanting change just because....the proposal infantrycak posted from profootballtalk is the best proposal I have heard....IF it has to be changed at all.

El Tejano
03-18-2010, 11:29 AM
Anyone else notice that these OT rules come the season after Brett Favre throws an INT in the OT postseason loss to New Orleans?

This hasn't been said by anyone but judging by the way the league really hugged his testicles all season and how several commentators and reporters were crying for two possessions right after Brett Favre lossed, I find it kind of funny.

HoustonFrog
03-18-2010, 11:37 AM
Nothing, but personally, I'd keep it the way it is

You know I was kind of in your boat but I now like the new proposal. One major reason is one cheap PI call can put you in FG range and to me that isn't the way to end a game.

gtexan02
03-18-2010, 11:54 AM
I propose that in OT, the first team that scores gets the ball for the sudden death. For example:

Texans and Indy go to OT. Indy gets the ball on coin flip, comes down and scores a TD/FG. That determines that Indy gets the ball back for the sudden death.
Then Indy goes on offense and for some reason The Texans get them to punt. Well then the Texans go and score a FG, and they win - yea!

Seriously though, if you get the ball twice and can't score twice, you deserve to lose.
If you get the opp. to defend twice and can't get the ball back in one of those possessions you deserve to lose.
If you score on both possessions you deserve to win.
If you score on your only possesion because you didn't win the ball for sudden death, you deserve to win.

This is needlessly complicated. You're playing for the coin flip, but what about that first coin flip? Eventually, you'd have them playing 10 go arounds.

I like the proposal the NFL made. It makes sense. A TD wins it, but if they score a FG, the other team gets a chance to tie or win.



Either that, or have one player for each time fight MMA style. Last one standing wins

El Tejano
03-18-2010, 12:14 PM
This is needlessly complicated. You're playing for the coin flip, but what about that first coin flip? Eventually, you'd have them playing 10 go arounds.

I like the proposal the NFL made. It makes sense. A TD wins it, but if they score a FG, the other team gets a chance to tie or win.



Either that, or have one player for each time fight MMA style. Last one standing wins

Yeah, you're right. It's basically the same thing because if you tie you go into a sudden death from that point.

Did you see what I said about how the league is probably doing this because they got cheated out of Favre being in the Super Bowl?

Blake
03-18-2010, 12:16 PM
People can suggest 8 million different ideas, but what is wrong with the one they have proposed?

Nothing, but personally, I'd keep it the way it is

I think it is a good proposal. That or just leave it the way it is. We just keep leaning more and more towards offense. Defense can take a back seat.

Lets flip this thing on its head.

FIRST OFFENSE THAT TURNS THE BALL OVER LOSES!

Give teams with good defenses the option to win the coin toss and still elect to kick off.

infantrycak
03-18-2010, 12:21 PM
I think it is a good proposal. That or just leave it the way it is. We just keep leaning more and more towards offense. Defense can take a back seat.

Lets flip this thing on its head.

FIRST OFFENSE THAT TURNS THE BALL OVER LOSES!

Give teams with good defenses the option to win the coin toss and still elect to kick off.

Seems to me like this already flips things on its head. If you're such a good defense that you would elect to kick off then how is that different than stopping them on the first drive short of a TD. Offenses used to get off with a short field a field goal and a win. Now they have to drive the field to win.

Blake
03-18-2010, 12:53 PM
Seems to me like this already flips things on its head. If you're such a good defense that you would elect to kick off then how is that different than stopping them on the first drive short of a TD. Offenses used to get off with a short field a field goal and a win. Now they have to drive the field to win.

If I am a defense heavy team, with a crappy offense, what does it matter if I stop them short of a touchdown? My offense is just going to give it back and thats the game?

Plus it turns the entire field into 4 down teritory.

The proposal is still telling teams to play for a field goal. its just that you need 2 this time.

RazorOye
03-18-2010, 12:58 PM
Anyone else notice that these OT rules come the season after Brett Favre throws an INT in the OT postseason loss to New Orleans?

This hasn't been said by anyone but judging by the way the league really hugged his testicles all season and how several commentators and reporters were crying for two possessions right after Brett Favre lossed, I find it kind of funny.

a piece in the Denver Post saw this link and took it to an amusing, tongue-in-cheek extreme:

link: Krieger: Future of OT tied to Favre (http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_14696655)

teaser:

This just in from the Future News Agency, which has some great stuff nobody ever sees because it's behind a gigantic pay wall:

ORLANDO, Fla. (march 24, 2010) NFL owners narrowly defeated a proposal today that would have changed the league's postseason overtime rules by requiring that each team get at least one possession.

In a separate vote, they approved an alternative proposal that any team quarterbacked by Brett Favre gets the last possession in any overtime playoff game.

"That was the point of the original proposal anyway," said one general manager who asked not to be identified because he thought it was possible Favre would eventually play for his team.

"This way, when Brett retires for good in 10 or 15 years, the rule will go away. Otherwise, we would have this senseless difference between the playoffs and the regular season forever."

The Saints were the only team to oppose the Favre Clause. "Sudden death is fine for 36 years and suddenly Brett Favre loses an overtime playoff game and it's no good?" asked indignant Saints owner Tom Benson.

"Duh," said ABC Sports president George Bodenheimer.

NitroGSXR
03-18-2010, 06:06 PM
Apply hockey overtime rules here. Ain't no more thrilling thing in sports as overtime hockey. Shootout all! I know it's not in our favor considering our kicker's struggles but i'd like to see kickers get played a little more.

If it's up to me.... i'd remove half the refs for overtime and keep sudden death the way it is. Just let 'em play football. They can sort it out on the field.

Double Barrel
03-18-2010, 06:39 PM
They should just change OT to a punt, pass, and kick contest. :fingergun:

Giant Tiger
03-18-2010, 09:03 PM
They should have to score a touchdown with a two point conversion. No PAT's in overtime. The team that does both beats the team that can't convert :pirate:

GP
03-18-2010, 09:34 PM
Or...

How about my idea:

Eliminate field goals ALTOGETHER.

In regulation, you are required to attempt a 2-point conversion after each TD. There are no field goal attempts. The only reason you have a kicker on your roster is for kickoffs.

Outraged at the idea? Why? Punters don't get a chance to score points. All they do is punt the ball so the other team can receive the ball.

Due to my no-field-goals-policy, you make football about the main thing and not a situation where a hardly-used, non-combatant player can decide the outcome of a game solely upon his foot and whether he has the yips or not.

It just eliminates the B.S. that occurs when some guy who played soccer all his life gets to come in and decided games for-or-against his team.

There would likely be no overtime, at all, because it would be unlikely that each team would make all of its 2-point-conversion attempts. Thus, one team is going to win when the final whistle blows.

It also makes offenses have to nut-up and get the job done, instead of cruising into "Field Goal Range" so they can cop out on their duties and put the responsibility upon a FG kicker's foot.

If there is an overtime, I am in favor of the college rules where each team gets a shot from the opponent's 20-yard-line. If after three possessions, neither team can score a TD, the game ends in a tie. In short: You get a "tie" on your record because you suck so badly that you can't find a way to get a TD after 3 tries from 20-yards out.

Do away with field goals, install the college rules for overtime, and NFL suddenly becomes even more exciting to watch than it already is.

NitroGSXR
03-18-2010, 09:40 PM
Or...

How about my idea:

Eliminate field goals ALTOGETHER.

In regulation, you are required to attempt a 2-point conversion after each TD. There are no field goal attempts. The only reason you have a kicker on your roster is for kickoffs.

Outraged at the idea? Why? Punters don't get a chance to score points. All they do is punt the ball so the other team can receive the ball.

Due to my no-field-goals-policy, you make football about the main thing and not a situation where a hardly-used, non-combatant player can decide the outcome of a game solely upon his foot and whether he has the yips or not.

It just eliminates the B.S. that occurs when some guy who played soccer all his life gets to come in and decided games for-or-against his team.

There would likely be no overtime, at all, because it would be unlikely that each team would make all of its 2-point-conversion attempts. Thus, one team is going to win when the final whistle blows.

It also makes offenses have to nut-up and get the job done, instead of cruising into "Field Goal Range" so they can cop out on their duties and put the responsibility upon a FG kicker's foot.

If there is an overtime, I am in favor of the college rules where each team gets a shot from the opponent's 20-yard-line. If after three possessions, neither team can score a TD, the game ends in a tie. In short: You get a "tie" on your record because you suck so badly that you can't find a way to get a TD after 3 tries from 20-yards out.

Do away with field goals, install the college rules for overtime, and NFL suddenly becomes even more exciting to watch than it already is.
Dood! I have given out too much rep in 24 hours. Why do you not have a job in the NFL somewhere?

GP
03-18-2010, 11:17 PM
Dood! I have given out too much rep in 24 hours. Why do you not have a job in the NFL somewhere?

Thank you for the compliments. I appreciate it.

I just think that now is a good time to end the era of the field goal.

Some people might think it's too ingrained into the game, but there have been so many changes to football over the course of its history...how could they not look at how field goals basically destroy the fabric and integrity, and the SPIRIT, of the game?

Two teams are out there, battling their guts out...and onto the field trots a little guy in a perfectly clean, freshly-starched uniform to decide the game?

It's like when you spend all weekend digging up the bad sewage line in your backyard. Your dirty, you're tired, you've just wasted two days of freedom. You go get the PVC pipe, put it into the trench you dug, and juuuust as you are about to slip the last length of pipe into place...some plumber in clean clothes runs out from his van, shoves you out of the way, slips the pipe into place and your family runs out the backdoor and into your yard to hug him, chanting his name and lifting him onto their shoulders for a parade down your street. You: "WTH?!?! Is this really happening?"

That's what happens with game-deciding field goals. The guy is either a hero or a goat, and the funny thing is that he had no real influence upon the entirety of the game except for a few seconds of non-combat action.

It's messed up, IMO. Why they don't think of this, I will never know. Removing field goals will stop the insanity. It will cause a drop in alcoholism for certain fans of certain teams whose kicker costs them the playoffs or a Super Bowl. Families will be saved. Marriages rescued. Unity in America. It's change we really CAN believe in. :butterfly:

Thorn
03-19-2010, 08:03 AM
It's messed up, IMO. Why they don't think of this, I will never know. Removing field goals will stop the insanity. It will cause a drop in alcoholism for certain fans of certain teams whose kicker costs them the playoffs or a Super Bowl. Families will be saved. Marriages rescued. Unity in America. It's change we really CAN believe in. :butterfly:

LOL. OK, I'm on board.

HOU-TEX
03-19-2010, 09:14 AM
They should just change OT to a punt, pass, and kick contest. :fingergun:

I'd be cool with a helmet-less team brawl. Who ever's standing last wins it for their team.

El Tejano
03-19-2010, 09:17 AM
a piece in the Denver Post saw this link and took it to an amusing, tongue-in-cheek extreme:

link: Krieger: Future of OT tied to Favre (http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_14696655)

teaser:

Funny how I saw nothing about this floating anywhere and just kind of put two and two together and yet there is someone with the same thought. I mean you have to atleast have a small part of you that says that is the reason why they are even voting on OT rules.

GP
03-19-2010, 09:56 AM
LOL. OK, I'm on board.

I think the beer, wine, and liquor industry has lobbied the NFL to keep field goals a part of the game. Has to be. LOL.

Blake
03-19-2010, 10:29 AM
Thank you for the compliments. I appreciate it.

I just think that now is a good time to end the era of the field goal.

Some people might think it's too ingrained into the game, but there have been so many changes to football over the course of its history...how could they not look at how field goals basically destroy the fabric and integrity, and the SPIRIT, of the game?

Two teams are out there, battling their guts out...and onto the field trots a little guy in a perfectly clean, freshly-starched uniform to decide the game?

It's like when you spend all weekend digging up the bad sewage line in your backyard. Your dirty, you're tired, you've just wasted two days of freedom. You go get the PVC pipe, put it into the trench you dug, and juuuust as you are about to slip the last length of pipe into place...some plumber in clean clothes runs out from his van, shoves you out of the way, slips the pipe into place and your family runs out the backdoor and into your yard to hug him, chanting his name and lifting him onto their shoulders for a parade down your street. You: "WTH?!?! Is this really happening?"

That's what happens with game-deciding field goals. The guy is either a hero or a goat, and the funny thing is that he had no real influence upon the entirety of the game except for a few seconds of non-combat action.

It's messed up, IMO. Why they don't think of this, I will never know. Removing field goals will stop the insanity. It will cause a drop in alcoholism for certain fans of certain teams whose kicker costs them the playoffs or a Super Bowl. Families will be saved. Marriages rescued. Unity in America. It's change we really CAN believe in. :butterfly:

So if the kickers get too good we cut them out of the game? Sounds alot like what the NFL did with cornerbacks. Wideouts getting shut down too much? Make a change!!! Kickers getting too accurate? Make a change!!!

Really there is nothing wrong with overtime. If you cant beat a team in 60 minutes of football, then you are subject to a coin flip possibly putting you at a disadvantage.

"McKay said the league's field-goal kickers have become so accurate that it has made the overtime coin toss a bigger factor than it should be. According to league statistics, from 1974 to 1993, the team that won the overtime coin toss won 46.8 percent of the time and the team that lost it won 46.8 percent of the time.
In the last 16 years though, the winning percentage among teams that have won the coin toss has shot up to 59.8 percent. Since '94, teams that won the overtime coin toss have won on their first possession 34.3 percent of the time, compared to 25.4 percent between '74 and '93."

So the team that wins the coin toss in the past 16 years has won 60% of the time. Do we really think that 60% 40% is that unfair???

eriadoc
03-19-2010, 11:21 AM
People can suggest 8 million different ideas, but what is wrong with the one they have proposed?

Well, JMO, but what's wrong with it is it perpetuates the one runaway problem that's at the root of this whole debate, and that is they've changed the game to the extent that offense dictates everything.

If you think about it, there's nothing wrong with the existing system except for the problem I noted. People like to say Team A didn't "get" the ball, but it's not like they had to sit on the sidelines while the other team drove down the field. Their defense was on the field. Guess what? Those 11 guys get to play also, and they get paid. That's their shot at the game.

The league has made the game so heavily dependent upon the offense that this move becomes appealing to many. Despite that, only 55%-60% of teams who won the toss in the past decade actually won the game. So even with the offense being the driving force, the number isn't overwhelming.

This change just takes us further down that path. One day we'll just have Arena football with scores of 77-63.

Thorn
03-19-2010, 12:30 PM
I still think there is no need for overtime in the regular season anyway. Just let the damn game be a tie. If you can't score more points in 60 minutes, then bad on you.

Overtime in playoff games shouldn't be so lopsided as a coin flip. Both teams should get at least one whack at the ball before it's done.

infantrycak
03-19-2010, 03:49 PM
Well, JMO, but what's wrong with it is it perpetuates the one runaway problem that's at the root of this whole debate, and that is they've changed the game to the extent that offense dictates everything.

If you think about it, there's nothing wrong with the existing system except for the problem I noted. People like to say Team A didn't "get" the ball, but it's not like they had to sit on the sidelines while the other team drove down the field. Their defense was on the field. Guess what? Those 11 guys get to play also, and they get paid. That's their shot at the game.

The league has made the game so heavily dependent upon the offense that this move becomes appealing to many. Despite that, only 55%-60% of teams who won the toss in the past decade actually won the game. So even with the offense being the driving force, the number isn't overwhelming.

This change just takes us further down that path. One day we'll just have Arena football with scores of 77-63.

Wow, if you say so. I think this reform of requiring a TD from the O is a benefit to the D.

Speedy
03-19-2010, 08:19 PM
They should just change OT to a punt, pass, and kick contest. :fingergun:

Or have a Wonderlic test.

eriadoc
03-20-2010, 05:35 PM
Wow, if you say so. I think this reform of requiring a TD from the O is a benefit to the D.

Well sure. Any change that involves giving the ball back to the offense takes strain off the D.. But that's not why they're doing this. They're doing this because the Great Brett Favre didn't get to touch the ball in OT in the NFC Champ game. And that's what's wrong with this whole thing. People have already come to accept that the offense should get a chance. Why? It's been this way for decades, and it's worked just fine. The answer is because teams can no longer rely on defense the way they could in the past, because of the offensive changes.

Look, I don't hate the change. And if they were going to make a change, the one piece of OT as it currently stands that probably could use a change is the cheapie FG to win the game. However, two thoughts on that:

1.) Get the job done in the first 60 minutes or quityabitchin'.

2.) If 59% of overtime games were won by the team that won the coin toss, how many of those were won by a cheapie FG? A very low percentage of OT games are won by a cheapie FG.

The whole situation is only being addressed because one of the NFL's poster boys didn't win when they wanted him to.

Again, I don't hate the change, and I don't really much care. I just hate the impetus for the change, and the fact that they're reacting on statistics that don't bear out a change. However, one of the things the NFL does pretty well is implement change. They'll put it throough the paces, review it, tweak it, and eventually implement the best possible version. So I'm OK with it.

NitroGSXR
03-20-2010, 05:43 PM
Well sure. Any change that involves giving the ball back to the offense takes strain off the D.. But that's not why they're doing this. They're doing this because the Great Brett Favre didn't get to touch the ball in OT in the NFC Champ game. And that's what's wrong with this whole thing. People have already come to accept that the offense should get a chance. Why? It's been this way for decades, and it's worked just fine. The answer is because teams can no longer rely on defense the way they could in the past, because of the offensive changes.

Look, I don't hate the change. And if they were going to make a change, the one piece of OT as it currently stands that probably could use a change is the cheapie FG to win the game. However, two thoughts on that:

1.) Get the job done in the first 60 minutes or quityabitchin'.

2.) If 59% of overtime games were won by the team that won the coin toss, how many of those were won by a cheapie FG? A very low percentage of OT games are won by a cheapie FG.

The whole situation is only being addressed because one of the NFL's poster boys didn't win when they wanted him to.

Again, I don't hate the change, and I don't really much care. I just hate the impetus for the change, and the fact that they're reacting on statistics that don't bear out a change. However, one of the things the NFL does pretty well is implement change. They'll put it throough the paces, review it, tweak it, and eventually implement the best possible version. So I'm OK with it. Best possible version? I think I enjoyed watching football 20 years ago a little more than I do today. I'm tired of the evergrowing rulebook. It's gotten complex and a bit thick. Let 'em play some hard nosed football.

infantrycak
03-20-2010, 07:49 PM
Well sure. Any change that involves giving the ball back to the offense takes strain off the D.. But that's not why they're doing this. They're doing this because the Great Brett Favre didn't get to touch the ball in OT in the NFC Champ game. And that's what's wrong with this whole thing. People have already come to accept that the offense should get a chance. Why? It's been this way for decades, and it's worked just fine.

It's been this way for decades and people have complained about it for decades. Yes Brett Favre is the catalyst and that is kind of wrong but I have been one for a long time that thought it works but could be better. I think this is better.

El Tejano
03-20-2010, 11:21 PM
Well sure. Any change that involves giving the ball back to the offense takes strain off the D.. But that's not why they're doing this. They're doing this because the Great Brett Favre didn't get to touch the ball in OT in the NFC Champ game. And that's what's wrong with this whole thing. People have already come to accept that the offense should get a chance. Why? It's been this way for decades, and it's worked just fine. The answer is because teams can no longer rely on defense the way they could in the past, because of the offensive changes.

Look, I don't hate the change. And if they were going to make a change, the one piece of OT as it currently stands that probably could use a change is the cheapie FG to win the game. However, two thoughts on that:

1.) Get the job done in the first 60 minutes or quityabitchin'.

2.) If 59% of overtime games were won by the team that won the coin toss, how many of those were won by a cheapie FG? A very low percentage of OT games are won by a cheapie FG.

The whole situation is only being addressed because one of the NFL's poster boys didn't win when they wanted him to.

Again, I don't hate the change, and I don't really much care. I just hate the impetus for the change, and the fact that they're reacting on statistics that don't bear out a change. However, one of the things the NFL does pretty well is implement change. They'll put it throough the paces, review it, tweak it, and eventually implement the best possible version. So I'm OK with it.

Amen!:hurrah: Finally somebody who is seeing what I'm seeing.

You don't think the NFL got ticked off when Brett lossed that game? You are crazy. It was all going according to plan. Brett was going to the Super Bowl to face League Poster Boy Jr. Peyton Manning. Furthermore, Peyton and Indy pissed off the NFL by not going for 16-0 or undefeated season so this would've been perfect. They weren't going to GIVE the Superbowl to Indy because they commited the cardinal sin of taking a loss during an undefeated season and since Peyton wasn't going to win it, they could give it to their ultimate poster child and now have Brett as the face of the league for many years to come. They could really market this guy even after his career like baseball does Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle or NBA does Michael Jordan.

However they got stuck with Brees vs. Manning. Well at least there was the whole hurricane Katrina thing they could rely on to market the Super Bowl better and what the heck, give New Orleans a legitmate chance to win (anyone else notice how well that game was reffed? An Indy game with no pass interference calls?) This way if Peyton still wins, we can talk about him being great or if New Orleans wins we can talk about how that state has had to overcome so much and New Orleans winning is serving as a condolence package from The NFL. Only problem with those two scenarios is that you can only market it for the next year....maybe because those two cities (Indy and New Orleans) are some of our lowest market cities in the league.

So since they couldn't get their main man in the game, now they want to change the rules.

Speedy
03-21-2010, 12:33 PM
It's been this way for decades and people have complained about it for decades. Yes Brett Favre is the catalyst and that is kind of wrong but I have been one for a long time that thought it works but could be better. I think this is better.

And people are going to complain no matter what. That's not a reason to change.

infantrycak
03-21-2010, 06:26 PM
And people are going to complain no matter what. That's not a reason to change.

Missed the point. Favre is the catalyst not the cause.

keyser
03-22-2010, 12:54 AM
So the team that wins the coin toss in the past 16 years has won 60% of the time. Do we really think that 60% 40% is that unfair???

Yes! That's a huge variation. There's no good reason that the coin flip should have any statistical bearing on who wins the game. It makes no sense at all. I mean, I'd rather the winning be based on anything related to the actual game, rather than having the coin flip play such a large factor.

There are all sorts of changes you can imagine, but there really should be something done so that the coin flip is playing a much smaller role in the game. Even something like "whoever has the ball at the 2 minute warnng has to kick off" or something seems better - at least then it is primarily in the players' control (and it would add a more interesting aspect to the game, I suspect), and not just the result of a random flip of the coin.

Speedy
03-22-2010, 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Mario
So the team that wins the coin toss in the past 16 years has won 60% of the time. Do we really think that 60% 40% is that unfair???

Yes! That's a huge variation. There's no good reason that the coin flip should have any statistical bearing on who wins the game. It makes no sense at all. I mean, I'd rather the winning be based on anything related to the actual game, rather than having the coin flip play such a large factor.

There are all sorts of changes you can imagine, but there really should be something done so that the coin flip is playing a much smaller role in the game. Even something like "whoever has the ball at the 2 minute warnng has to kick off" or something seems better - at least then it is primarily in the players' control (and it would add a more interesting aspect to the game, I suspect), and not just the result of a random flip of the coin.


But how many times did the 60%ers win without the other team touching the ball? If team A wins the coin flip, goes 3 and out, team B gets the ball and goes 3 and out and punts, team A then returns the punt for a TD, team A wins the game and it goes down as the team that won the coin toss wins.

And I don't know where the 60/40 is coming from. I've heard it was more like 54%, somewhere in that neighborhood.

I don't know why a team that has a bad defensive series and gives up a score on the first drive of OT gets rewarded by having their offense get a chance. Now that doesn't sound fair to me.

Instead of using a coin flip just give the ball to the team with the most yardage or 1st downs or something. That way it's at least determined by something you've done in the game instead of leaving it to luck of the draw.

Dutchrudder
03-22-2010, 03:31 PM
For those of you asking for the stats, here's a good article on possessions in OT:

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html


Total no. of overtime games (19742003) 365
Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %)

Overtime games in 2002 26
Both teams had at least one possession 15 (58 %)
Team won toss and won game 16 (62 %)
Team lost toss and won game 9 (35 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 10 (38 %)
Games ending in a tie 1 (3 %)

Overtime Games in 2003 23
Both teams had at least one possession 16 (70 %)
Team won toss and won game 12 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 11 (48 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 6 (26 %)
Games ending in a tie 0 (0 %)

Going by these numbers, it really doesn't seem like there is that much of an advantage to getting the ball first. I still like the idea of teams needing a touchdown to win instead of a field goal.

Blake
03-22-2010, 03:42 PM
What about the last 7 years? Do we have those stats anywhere?

Double Barrel
03-22-2010, 03:46 PM
You can't get rid of kickers. They are the last connection we have to the name. It would be stupid to have a sport called "FOOTball" when nobody but a punter can touch the ball with their feet.

Blake
03-22-2010, 03:52 PM
You can't get rid of kickers. They are the last connection we have to the name. It would be stupid to have a sport called "FOOTball" when nobody but a punter can touch the ball with their feet.

Well I dont remember the last time I saw a cricket during a cricket match.

The Pencil Neck
03-22-2010, 04:09 PM
For those of you asking for the stats, here's a good article on possessions in OT:

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html




Going by these numbers, it really doesn't seem like there is that much of an advantage to getting the ball first. I still like the idea of teams needing a touchdown to win instead of a field goal.

I don't see any reason to change this rule.

Dutchrudder
03-22-2010, 04:21 PM
I don't see any reason to change this rule.

Because field goals are boring, and superstars score touchdowns. When was the last time you saw someone wearing a replica kicker's jersey?

Double Barrel
03-22-2010, 04:22 PM
Well I dont remember the last time I saw a cricket during a cricket match.

Perhaps the term "cricket" does not refer to an insect... :thinking:

By golly, that must be it!

A number of other words have been suggested as sources for the term "cricket". In the earliest definite reference to the sport in 1598, it is called creckett. Given the strong medieval trade connections between south-east England and the County of Flanders when the latter belonged to the Duchy of Burgundy, the name may have been derived from the Middle Dutch krick(-e), meaning a stick (crook); or the Old English cricc or cryce meaning a crutch or staff. In Old French, the word criquet seems to have meant a kind of club or stick. In Samuel Johnson's Dictionary, he derived cricket from "cryce, Saxon, a stick". Another possible source is the Middle Dutch word krickstoel, meaning a long low stool used for kneeling in church and which resembled the long low wicket with two stumps used in early cricket. According to Heiner Gillmeister, a European language expert of Bonn University, "cricket" derives from the Middle Dutch phrase for hockey, met de (krik ket)sen (i.e., "with the stick chase"). Dr Gillmeister believes that not only the name but the sport itself is of Flemish origin.

Wikipedia is your friend! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket)

As opposed to football:

The history of American football can be traced to early versions of rugby football and association football. Both games have their origins in varieties of football played in the United Kingdom in the mid-19th century, in which a ball is kicked at a goal and/or run over a line.

Wikipedia is your friend! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football)



:boogereater:

eriadoc
03-22-2010, 04:23 PM
For those of you asking for the stats, here's a good article on possessions in OT:

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html




Going by these numbers, it really doesn't seem like there is that much of an advantage to getting the ball first. I still like the idea of teams needing a touchdown to win instead of a field goal.

That's been my contention all along. The statistical difference is negligible. Although ......

Interestingly, the cumulative data hide the effect of a rule change that occurred in 1994, when kickoffs were moved back 5 yards to the 30-yard line. Since 1994, nearly one-third of overtime games have been won on the first possession by the team that received the ball first. In the first 20 seasons, under the old rule, slightly more than one-quarter of the games were won in this fashion.

A recent analysis by economist Richard E. Hawkins of Pennsylvania State University in DuBois confirms that these differences are statistically significant.

"The analysis finds with 99.99 % certainty that the [coin] flip has made a difference in the outcome of the game over the last 10 years," he concludes. "But for the period prior to those 10 years, the coin flip cannot be shown to be important."

This supports what I was saying earlier in the thread. The league has made rules to favor the offense (better field position in this case), and that has more to do with the argument about Team XYZ not "getting" the ball. The logical change would be to roll back that kickoff change. Instead, we get this plan, which is contrived and convoluted, all in an effort to fix the things they broke along the way, instead of fixing the root problem.

The Pencil Neck
03-22-2010, 04:47 PM
Because field goals are boring, and superstars score touchdowns. When was the last time you saw someone wearing a replica kicker's jersey?

My wife, actually.

Dutchrudder
03-22-2010, 04:50 PM
My wife, actually.

Dude, if your wife actually paid money for a Kris Brown jersey, you got bigger problems than NFL overtime rules.

The Pencil Neck
03-22-2010, 05:04 PM
Dude, if your wife actually paid money for a Kris Brown jersey, you got bigger problems than NFL overtime rules.

She's got a Kris Brown and a Duane Brown jersey.

Luckily, I was able to stop her before she bought the Chris Brown jersey.

NitroGSXR
03-22-2010, 05:05 PM
Because field goals are boring, and superstars score touchdowns. When was the last time you saw someone wearing a replica kicker's jersey?

There are 5 Kris Brown jerseys in my household. Two for my wife, two for my 8 year old, and one for me. We're waiting for my 9 month old to get a little bigger before we complete the family set and we WILL complete it.

We do want him fired but we still love Kris Brown! He has a special place in my family's hearts.

drs23
03-22-2010, 11:17 PM
Well I dont remember the last time I saw a cricket during a cricket match.

Ya gotta look close :kitten:

Dutchrudder
03-23-2010, 08:41 AM
She's got a Kris Brown and a Duane Brown jersey.

Luckily, I was able to stop her before she bought the Chris Brown jersey.

Now that would be grounds for a divorce.

HOU-TEX
03-23-2010, 02:31 PM
Welp, they approved it for the playoffs. They will revisit regular season in May.

The NFL has announced that the owners have approved the modified overtime proposal for the postseason in 2010.

The vote passed at a 28-4 margin for the postseason only, but the issue will be revisited in May with the possibility of including regular season games. Per the new rule, the team that wins the coin toss must score a touchdown to win the game, ensuring that both teams will get the ball in the majority of overtime contests. If the game is tied after both teams' possessions, a sudden death format ensues.

http://www.rotoworld.com/Content/home_NFL.aspx

WWJD
03-23-2010, 03:24 PM
Seems strange to "revisit" the issue in May. Change it for every game. Season and playoffs.

El Tejano
03-24-2010, 09:41 AM
Two things I'd like to bring up about the NFL's new propaga...um...I mean...rule change for OT.

First, big props to the Minnesota Vikings owner. He knows how this rule would've helped his team possibly get to the Super Bowl, had this rule been implemented in last year's playoffs and he was still defending the current OT rule saying that some of the greatest games ever were played under this rule. Either this dude is honorable like this or he knows that the NFL is making exceptions for good ole Brett and he doesn't want any part of his organization being accused of being in kahootz with that also.

Second, I do want to acknowledge before it ever happens, how rule changes like this affect Houston teams. I hate to go down memory lane but I will for the sake of my point. 1978 Houston lost an AFC Championship game to the Pittsburgh Steelers in large part because we were not allowed to tie a game when Mike Renfro was clearly in bounds and we were not awarded the TD. Instant replay would've been great for this game and was in large part put in to the game because of this AFC Championship game. When it was a part of the game everything was fine, then the NFL decides that it shouldn't be a part of the game and lo and behold, there are our Oilers suffering some of the worse no - calls (Don BeeBee running out of bounds, coming back in and catching a TD, Jerry Gray's fumble recovery that would've put the game out of reach, Darrell Talley holding Ernest Givins jersey while making an attempt to catch a pass) that would've been overturned had instant replay been a part of the game. Rule changes always seem to bite us in the butt.

SIDE NOTE: Did anyone else notice that when talking about it on NFL Network, Solomon Wilcox mentioned how you are now saying that special teams does not play a role in football because you aren't allowing them to also determine the outcome of a game. After he said that, the first thing that comes our of Rich Eisens mouth is " Well there are some that would argue that the pass interference call on Ben Leber which was a contreversial call is what determined the outcome of the playoff game against the Saints".
Dude, Rich! Stop blowing the NFLs cover man.

Dutchrudder
03-24-2010, 10:08 AM
Seems strange to "revisit" the issue in May. Change it for every game. Season and playoffs.

As I understand it, it will be revisited in May to determine if the owners want to extend the rule to the regular season. This rule will only effect the playoffs.

gtexan02
03-24-2010, 01:03 PM
Excellent article, imo

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=5022585&sportCat=nfl

NFL outsmarts itself with new OT rule

Double Barrel
03-24-2010, 05:04 PM
Do y'all honestly think that 28 owners voted for this rule because of Brett Favre? :lol:

I'm going to laugh my ass off if this rule helps our Texans finally win an overtime.

El Tejano
03-24-2010, 05:34 PM
Do y'all honestly think that 28 owners voted for this rule because of Brett Favre? :lol:

I'm going to laugh my ass off if this rule helps our Texans finally win an overtime.

So will I because it likely means the NFL will be one ticked off league that we took out one of their prestige players or more marketable teams. I would love to see how the rule gets changed back to the original OT rules if what you say indeed happens.

gtexan02
03-25-2010, 12:50 PM
Do y'all honestly think that 28 owners voted for this rule because of Brett Favre? :lol:

I'm going to laugh my ass off if this rule helps our Texans finally win an overtime.

It only happens in playoff games, which, unfortunately means...

Double Barrel
03-25-2010, 04:11 PM
It only happens in playoff games, which, unfortunately means...

hehe, this is true...but I think they will extend it the regular season at the May owner's meeting. 28-4 is overwhelmingly in favor.

NitroGSXR
03-25-2010, 04:47 PM
hehe, this is true...but I think they will extend it the regular season at the May owner's meeting. 28-4 is overwhelmingly in favor.

I wonder how Bob McNair voted?

ChampionTexan
03-25-2010, 05:15 PM
delete post

Thorn
03-25-2010, 05:27 PM
The team winning the toss can still win the game before the other team can get their offense on the field. Meh.....

Thanks for the ice cream cone, but you seem to have forgotten the ice cream.

Double Barrel
03-25-2010, 06:12 PM
I wonder how Bob McNair voted?

I believe he voted in favor of the change, iirc.

Texan_Bill
03-25-2010, 08:07 PM
Because field goals are boring, and superstars score touchdowns. When was the last time you saw someone wearing a replica kicker's jersey?

My wife, actually.

As a kid, I had an Oilers # 16 jersey. :thinking:





Wait for it...










Wait.....










http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2009/0709/life_g_fritsch_576.jpg

JB
03-25-2010, 09:15 PM
Is that Toni Fritsch?

Wolf
03-26-2010, 12:23 PM
Vilma is kinda ticked


“If you read between the lines, we feel like they’re saying well, if Minnesota would have had a possession who knows what would have happened,” said Vilma, who lives in Miami and was playing in a friendly tennis match with world number two Caroline Wozniacki on Thursday at the Sony Ericsson Open.

“We don’t appreciate that. I don’t appreciate it at all.”

Starting next season, the team with the first possession in overtime would have to score a touchdown to end the game. But if they only manage a field goal then the opposing team will get a chance to end the game by scoring a touchdown.

If both teams score field goals on their first possession, or fail to score, then classic sudden-death rules would come into effect, with the next team to score winning the game.

The rule was passed 28-4 by league owners Tuesday.

Vilma, a six-year NFL veteran who has played the last two seasons in New Orleans, said the Saints beat the Vikings fairly and that the NFL’s rule changes were designed to avoid the situation from occurring again.

“Whoever scores wins,” he said. “It’s up to Minnesota to stop us. They didn’t stop us on fourth downs and that’s their problem. I just feel like they’re slighting us, but it is what it is.”



http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=reu-saintsvilma&prov=reuters&type=lgns

El Tejano
03-29-2010, 02:39 PM
As a kid, I had an Oilers # 16 jersey. :thinking:





Wait for it...










Wait.....










http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2009/0709/life_g_fritsch_576.jpg

Keek a Touchdown!

El Tejano
03-29-2010, 02:41 PM
Vilma is kinda ticked




http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=reu-saintsvilma&prov=reuters&type=lgns

Thanks for that link. Vilma is right. The NFL is basically saying that they really didn't want The Saints to be in the Super Bowl. Only a league that was dissatisfied with the results would make such a change.