PromoTheRobot Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 If Pittsburgh kicked a FG and sent the game into OT, how awful would it have been if the team that won the toss scored and won the game? The Super Bowl is no place to decide the game on a toss of a coin. It's like letting a baseball team win in extra innings without giving the home team their at bat. The NFL must modify the OT rules to give each team one possession. I would like to propose such a modification. Tell me what you think: I propose the NFL model OT after baseball extra innings, with the home team always getting the last possession. Start with the road team getting the ball first. The home team would always get a possession after the road team scores. That guarantees an equal number of possessions. There would be no sudden death. The home team would always get the last possession. Examples: 1) Road team gets ball and punts. Home team scores. Game over. 2) Road team gets FG. Home team gets TD. Game over. 3) Road team gets FG. Home team fails to score. Game over. 4) Road team gets TD. Home team gets TD. Keep playing. 5) Road gets FG. Home team gets FG. Both teams get ball but fail to score. Then road team gets FG. Home team gets one more possession. FG, they keep playing. TD, home team wins. Just as it is now, OT lasts only 15 minutes in the regular season, but play till there's a winner in the playoffs. Hockey and soccer are the only sports where sudden death makes sense. Football OT is closer to extra innings in baseball. Both teams must have their offense on the field an equal number of times to be fair. Discuss. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 If Pittsburgh kicked a FG and sent the game into OT, how awful would it have been if the team that won the toss scored and won the game? The Super Bowl is no place to decide the game on a toss of a coin. It's like letting a baseball team win in extra innings without giving the home team their at bat. The NFL must modify the OT rules to give each team one possession. I would like to propose such a modification. Tell me what you think: I propose the NFL give each team an equal number of possessions in OT. Start with the road team getting the ball first. The home team would always get a possession after the road team scores. That guarantees an equal number of possessions. There would be no sudden death. The home team would always get the last possession. Examples: 1) Road team gets ball and punts. Home team scores. Game over. 2) Road team gets FG. Home team gets TD. Game over. 3) Road team gets FG. Home team fails to score. Game over. 4) Road team gets TD. Home team gets TD. Keep playing. 5) Road gets FG. Home team gets FG. Both teams get ball but fail to score. Then road team gets FG. Home team gets one more possession. FG, they keep playing. TD, home team wins. Just as it is now, OT lasts only 15 minutes in the regular season, but play till there's a winner in the playoffs. Hockey and soccer are the only sports where sudden death makes sense. Football OT is closer to extra innings in baseball. Both teams must have their offense on the field an equal number of times to be fair. Discuss. PTR I'd like to see a carbon copy of the college overtime. I would just change it so that you start at your own 40 on each drive instead of the opposition's 25. The kickers are too good to just start at the 25 every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share Posted February 2, 2009 I'd like to see a carbon copy of the college overtime. I would just change it so that you start at your own 40 on each drive instead of the opposition's 25. The kickers are too good to just start at the 25 every time. Or the 50. or their own 20. That would be more fair than what they have now. Really you can just kick the ball off. That way special teams still plays a role in the game. Just do something to make sure each team gets their offense on the field, preferably with an equal number of chances. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Why fix it if it ain't broke? If a team loses the toss, their D has to D-liver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Why fix it if it ain't broke? If a team loses the toss, their D has to D-liver. Thank you. In overtime, the game is not at all won/lost on the flip of a coin. It's called playing the game. All three phases must perform. Look it up, plenty of overtime games result in one or more offensive possessions for both teams. So, how can you say the winner of the coin toss wins the game? Overtime is fine. If you want to fix something.... fix all this stupid over-officiating that puts the game in the hand of the ref all too often. My sister summed it up good yesterday after the game, "Perfect Super Bowl for the year of the referee." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LenSYR Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Bob Costas suggested in the pregame, to make it so 6 points were required to win the game. Two field goals, or one touchdown. It would require a lot of thought, and risk to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Flanders Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Why fix it if it ain't broke? If a team loses the toss, their D has to D-liver. Agree. Team A wins toss, gets ball. Team B plays defense, which last time I checked is a huge part of the game, and forces a punt, gets ball and scores. Game over. To those who say, "what if the team that wins the toss runs back the KO for a TD, it isn't FAIR!" To those I say, Special Teams are part of the game as well. Tackle the freakin' kick returner...or stay in your lanes. Please, not the college abortion. As far as a baseball-type approach, still wouldn't buy it. See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizell Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 boo to college overtime rules. for one thing, it's going to skew the statistics. for another thing, like someone said earlier, "if it aint broke, then don't fix it". you lose the coin toss in OT? Then stop the other team with your defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share Posted February 2, 2009 Why fix it if it ain't broke? If a team loses the toss, their D has to D-liver. Thank you. In overtime, the game is not at all won/lost on the flip of a coin. It's called playing the game. All three phases must perform. Look it up, plenty of overtime games result in one or more offensive possessions for both teams. So, how can you say the winner of the coin toss wins the game? Overtime is fine. If you want to fix something.... fix all this stupid over-officiating that puts the game in the hand of the ref all too often. My sister summed it up good yesterday after the game, "Perfect Super Bowl for the year of the referee." Agree. Team A wins toss, gets ball. Team B plays defense, which last time I checked is a huge part of the game, and forces a punt, gets ball and scores. Game over. To those who say, "what if the team that wins the toss runs back the KO for a TD, it isn't FAIR!" To those I say, Special Teams are part of the game as well. Tackle the freakin' kick returner...or stay in your lanes. Please, not the college abortion. As far as a baseball-type approach, still wouldn't buy it. See above. Okay, so why give the home team in baseball an at bat in extra innings if the other team scores first? Are they not playing defense too? Offense and defense are not equal. Defense can't score a FG. The point is if you are going to be fair to both teams you have to give both teams the same chances to score. Otherwise you might as well decide the game with Rock, Paper, Scissors. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Yeah, but what if team A has a decent offense and a weak defense. Team B has a great offense but a weak defense. Team B all around is stronger. However Team A wins the toss goes and scores a field goal against Team B's weakest part of team. If team B had the chance to get their offense on the field they would have very likely scored a TD. But they never were given the change. I agree all three parts are requally important, but each team should be given a chance to uitlize all three parts of their game. I did think Roger Godell had an interesting rebuttal though somewhat of a cop out to Costas comments about changing OT. His defense was the present system makes teams try harder to score in regulation rather than risk outcome of game on a coin toss. Agree. Team A wins toss, gets ball. Team B plays defense, which last time I checked is a huge part of the game, and forces a punt, gets ball and scores. Game over. To those who say, "what if the team that wins the toss runs back the KO for a TD, it isn't FAIR!" To those I say, Special Teams are part of the game as well. Tackle the freakin' kick returner...or stay in your lanes. Please, not the college abortion. As far as a baseball-type approach, still wouldn't buy it. See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share Posted February 2, 2009 Yeah, but what if team A has a decent offense and a weak defense. Team B has a great offense but a weak defense. Team B all around is stronger. However Team A wins the toss goes and scores a field goal against Team B's weakest part of team. If team B had the chance to get their offense on the field they would have very likely scored a TD. But they never were given the change. I agree all three parts are equally important, but each team should be given a chance to utilize all three parts of their game. I did think Roger Godell had an interesting rebuttal though somewhat of a cop out to Costas comments about changing OT. His defense was the present system makes teams try harder to score in regulation rather than risk outcome of game on a coin toss. What a lame comment by Goodell, as if teams aren't "trying hard enough" to score. You have to give each team at least one offensive possession to even come close to being fair. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Okay, so why give the home team in baseball an at bat in extra innings if the other team scores first? Are they not playing defense too? Offense and defense are not equal. Defense can't score a FG. The point is if you are going to be fair to both teams you have to give both teams the same chances to score. Otherwise you might as well decide the game with Rock, Paper, Scissors. PTR Well, for one, you can't score on defense in baseball. In football, the defense can score points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Jim Nance of all people swayed me to the side of changing the rule. Reason being that kickers are so much better, rules favor the offense more than ever, and teams kick off from further back. Clearly 1st possession is a bigger advantage than it was 20 years ago. College is a stupid gimmick and I can't be convinced otherwise. Bob Costas suggested in the pregame, to make it so 6 points were required to win the game. Two field goals, or one touchdown. It would require a lot of thought, and risk to win. I love that idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Flanders Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Yeah, but what if team A has a decent offense and a weak defense. Team B has a great offense but a weak defense. Team B all around is stronger. However Team A wins the toss goes and scores a field goal against Team B's weakest part of team. If team B had the chance to get their offense on the field they would have very likely scored a TD. But they never were given the change. So what? What constitutes a good/weak offense or defense? The weekly stats? Is it a given that the decent offense scores on the weak defense every time? The point is, yes, you want the ball first in OT for obvious reasons. But the defense or ST can't B word and moan that they never got their hands on the ball in OT if the opposing team scores. The defense has a job to do, just as the offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Play a full 15 minutes with no sudden death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 College OT is gimmicky. I think OT should be like PTRs suggestion, with equal possessions. Whoever wins the toss can take the ball of the wind, knowing they will get equal possessions. If you hold the other team to a FG, then you can win it with a TD. I think both teams should get a shot with the ball in OT. If you kick a FG first and then the opposition fumbles the kickoff, game over. But, rules should stay NFL rules. If you score a FG, then you kickoff like normal. None of this "start at the 25/30/40" BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Flanders Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Well, for one, you can't score on defense in baseball. What he said. The baseball analogy is moot...if you're going to use another sport analogy why not basketball? Why not a 15 minute overtime period, regardless...no sudden death. If there's still a tie after one OT period, play another. But I wouldn't go for that, and I doubt the players would either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share Posted February 2, 2009 What he said. The baseball analogy is moot...if you're going to use another sport analogy why not basketball? Why not a 15 minute overtime period, regardless...no sudden death. If there's still a tie after one OT period, play another. But I wouldn't go for that, and I doubt the players would either. It's not exactly like baseball of course. But to say the defense has as much chance of scoring as the offense is silly. Therefore it's not equal. Any rule change that gives both offenses a possession is needed. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 It's not exactly like baseball of course. But to say the defense has as much chance of scoring as the offense is silly. Therefore it's not equal. Any rule change that gives both offenses a possession is needed. PTR In your opinion. In the opinion of The Commish it's fine just the way it is. Unless the rules committee can change his mind it is what it is. BTW...said Commish feels that the current rules force teams to play regulation with more intensity so as not to get to OT. A pretty round about endorsement of the current process, but that's what the guy said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 It's not exactly like baseball of course. But to say the defense has as much chance of scoring as the offense is silly. Therefore it's not equal. Any rule change that gives both offenses a possession is needed. PTR Why is it so unfair? History disagrees with you. The NFL has had 325 overtime games since the rule was adopted in 1974. The results: Both teams have had possession 235 times (72.3%). The team that has won the toss has won 169 times (52.0%). The team that has lost the toss has won 141 times (43.4%). 223 games were decided by a field goal (68.6%). 86 games were decided by a TD (26.5%). One game was decided by a safety (0.3%). There have been 15 ties (4.6%). US Today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts