KD in CA Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Two things... 1. No Sudden Death ruins the sense of urgency and suspense at the end of a game which thrives on those two things. 2. These men had 60 minutes to decide who was the best team that day. It's a politically correct "feel good" solution in game that's supposed to be the toughest on the planet. Win it in 60 or live with the consequences. That's life, life is not always "fair" and it's not supposed to be always "fair". If you are advocating for leaving it the way it is, that is fine with me. IMO, the 'coinflip' whining we hear every time a game goes into OT is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 That's BS......life is not fair.....keep it the same I believe a lot of people here say that, but when the Bills lose a coin flip in a playoff game thoughts will change. JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 If you are advocating for leaving it the way it is, that is fine with me. IMO, the 'coinflip' whining we hear every time a game goes into OT is ridiculous. I thought you were advocating the addition 15 minute quarter. This society has become a bunch of whiners in general. I love the perceived "unfairness" of the rule. Life isn't fair, grow a pair and if you don't like it you should have tried a little harder during those first 60 minutes. I hate hate hate the college overtime, it's a bastardized version of the game to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 I believe a lot of people here say that, but when the Bills lose a coin flip in a playoff game thoughts will change. JMO Wrong. We've lost first possession overtime games before and never whined about the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 I see they are thinking of changing it for the playoffs only. That would be a nice start. Each team gets a possession and I am happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 I thought you were advocating the addition 15 minute quarter. This society has become a bunch of whiners in general. I love the perceived "unfairness" of the rule. Life isn't fair, grow a pair and if you don't like it you should have tried a little harder during those first 60 minutes. I hate hate hate the college overtime, it's a bastardized version of the game to me. My first choice is to leave it as is. If they insist on a change, I would be ok with a full 15 minute quarter, though I'm guessing that would not be a popular option for the players. I agree that the college system is a joke and that is what the NFL becomes once they start with 'each team gets a possession' or other idioic ideas like 'no FGs in OT'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 If it's not broke, don't fix it. It's not broke. Everybody knows the rules going in. Well, except Donovan McNabb. If you don't win the toss, you gotta stop 'em. Last time I checked defense was part of the game. It's not like they're shooting free throws or something. You'll never convince me otherwise. Ok, say it is you gotta score 6. What happens in the first over time game and Leodis runs the opening kick back for a TD? That's 6, right? Or, just do like one of the commenters for the article said, just ban FGs in OT. That would work too, wouldn't it? I wouldn't be opposed to that. Duh...it IS broke! The Saints won the NFC crown on a coin flip. That's bull crap. I can see leaving it as is for the regular season but for pete's sake give each team a possession in the playoffs. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 I thought you were advocating the addition 15 minute quarter. This society has become a bunch of whiners in general. I love the perceived "unfairness" of the rule. Life isn't fair, grow a pair and if you don't like it you should have tried a little harder during those first 60 minutes. I hate hate hate the college overtime, it's a bastardized version of the game to me. Why do people keep saying this? What does a football game full of rules and regulations have to do with life? The whole point of sports is that the rules are set up to be fair to all sides (with the exception of the pats*). That's why one team gets the ball to start the game and the other team gets it to start the half. The whole idea is to even out the playing field. Admitting that the current rules aren't fair and blaming it on life is pretty ridiculous. If someone wants to use the "defense is part of the game" argument, okay. I don't agree with that as a reason not to let each team have time with the ball, but at least it's a reasonable argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Why do people keep saying this? What does a football game full of rules and regulations have to do with life? The whole point of sports is that the rules are set up to be fair to all sides (with the exception of the pats*). That's why one team gets the ball to start the game and the other team gets it to start the half. The whole idea is to even out the playing field. Admitting that the current rules aren't fair and blaming it on life is pretty ridiculous. If someone wants to use the "defense is part of the game" argument, okay. I don't agree with that as a reason not to let each team have time with the ball, but at least it's a reasonable argument. I was being facetious, it was meant to mock the fans that feel cheated by the current Sudden Death rules. The current rules are very fair, there are 60 minutes to win the game or be prepared to lose a coin toss in OT with a statistical <GASP!!!!> 40% chance of winning. No need to sissy-fy the game and water down the 4th quarter drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 The Saints won the NFC crown on a coin flip field goal. Fixed. It sounds like you turned off the TV about five minutes too early. Minnesota actually kicked off and both teams continued playing after the coin flip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 When in a tie game situation, both teams know that they'll get a possession, the NFL would lose ALL of it's 4th quarter drama. Why would a team want to risk trying to force the ball down a long field with only two minutes to play? Maybe they'd want to win it in regulation instead of having to go to overtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Angel Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Here's a novel idea: Why not allow ties after 4 quarters? Why is a tie such a bad thing? It would encourage teams to go for two and not kick field goals during regulation. In the case of the playoffs, why not just keep playing full 15:00 quarters until the game is NOT tied at the end of one? Because you "play to win the game" Herm would not be happy with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Maybe they'd want to win it in regulation instead of having to go to overtime. That was my point. It was a rhetorical question. If there was a "both teams would get the ball in overtime system" then there would be no incentive to attempt a long drive to win the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 That was my point. It was a rhetorical question. If there was a "both teams would get the ball in overtime system" then there would be no incentive to attempt a long drive to win the game. Which I see your point, there would be teams that would kneel down 3-4 times, knowing they would go to overtime. But I hope and believe there would be teams that would try to win before the 4th finishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 +100000 This is how it used to be and is the best solution. Why everyone got so horrified at the thought of a tie is beyond me. Doing anything based on # of possessions is just a horrible idea. This is referring to going to a 15:00 quarter and whoever is ahead then wins. When has it eve been like this in the NFL? I;ve been watching NFL football for 50 years and don't ever recall seeing this. The WFL or USFL or one of those leagues did this, but I don't think the NFL ever has. I don't like the idea of changing the rules up for OT. Just keep playing until someone gets ahead and thats it. Works for me. What if hey didn't have kickoff and just kept playing from where they were? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts