BuffaloWings Posted February 2, 2009 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. But the defense can return an INT or fumble for a touchdown, or at least force a turnover. It's less likely, but it still is giving them a chance to score. Tony Dungy commented on this after he lost to SD in overtime...his defense didn't do their job to stop the Chargers, so they deserved to lose. I don't mind the way things are today and don't think there's really a need for change, IMO. That said, if they *must* make a change, I'd rather see them just play another quarter w/o it being sudden death, like nucci said. It's just like playing another 4th quarter to give both teams a chance. The "extra innings" format you described would be the next preference for me, but there's no need to go further than that.
PromoTheRobot Posted February 2, 2009 Author Posted February 2, 2009 But the defense can return an INT or fumble for a touchdown, or at least force a turnover. It's less likely, but it still is giving them a chance to score. Tony Dungy commented on this after he lost to SD in overtime...his defense didn't do their job to stop the Chargers, so they deserved to lose. I don't mind the way things are today and don't think there's really a need for change, IMO. That said, if they *must* make a change, I'd rather see them just play another quarter w/o it being sudden death, like nucci said. It's just like playing another 4th quarter to give both teams a chance. The "extra innings" format you described would be the next preference for me, but there's no need to go further than that. If you had to score points, would you rather play your offense or defense? PTR
JDG Posted February 2, 2009 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. But why would you want to take special teams out of deciding overtime? Another really interesting proposal is to have both coaches put in bid for what yard line they would be willing to start at - the team that selects the furthest back yard line gets the ball, and you play sudden death, same as now. This proposal does have the flaw of taking kickoff returns out of overtime - but that's not so bad since there can only be one kickoff in overtime anyways. This proposal does leave the punting game in place to play a role in overtime. JDG
JDG Posted February 2, 2009 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. I like Bob Matthews' proposal to make it four points. That would allow a safety and a field goal to win it (or even, if it ever happens, two safeties.) JDG
nucci Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 But why would you want to take special teams out of deciding overtime? Another really interesting proposal is to have both coaches put in bid for what yard line they would be willing to start at - the team that selects the furthest back yard line gets the ball, and you play sudden death, same as now. This proposal does have the flaw of taking kickoff returns out of overtime - but that's not so bad since there can only be one kickoff in overtime anyways. This proposal does leave the punting game in place to play a role in overtime. JDG Interesting? I have a much different word!
1billsfan Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 The best and only change I would be in favor of is that the winner of the coin toss has the choice to take the ball placed on their own 20 yard line or let the other team have the ball placed at the far 20 yard line. Then play it like a regular game. Driving the ball 50 yards (for a field goal attempt) is no easy proposition and gives the team that loses the coin toss and doesn't get the ball first a more than fair shot to stop the team that won the toss and elected to receive.
AdamK Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 My solution for the NFL OT, the 2-minute drill (How all good games should end.): 1. Coin toss. Winner of the coin toss can elect to go first or second. 2. 2:00 minutes placed on the clock and 2 timeouts given to Team A. 3. Kickoff. (1st OT session can only be ended by a score or time running out. *No 2-point conversions allowed. If a turnover occurs, the team that caused the TO can use the remaining time to score and win the game.) 4. 2:00 minutes placed on the clock and 2 timeouts given to Team B. 5. Kickoff. (2nd OT session – Team B MUST go for the win. No tying FG will be allowed. A tying TD must be followed by a 2 point conversion. ) 6. Repeat if neither team scores. I think this employs strategy and excitement for the overtime period, both of which are currently absent in the current format.
Ramius Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 My solution for the NFL OT, the 2-minute drill (How all good games should end.): 1. Coin toss. Winner of the coin toss can elect to go first or second. 2. 2:00 minutes placed on the clock and 2 timeouts given to Team A. 3. Kickoff. (1st OT session can only be ended by a score or time running out. *No 2-point conversions allowed. If a turnover occurs, the team that caused the TO can use the remaining time to score and win the game.) 4. 2:00 minutes placed on the clock and 2 timeouts given to Team B. 5. Kickoff. (2nd OT session – Team B MUST go for the win. No tying FG will be allowed. A tying TD must be followed by a 2 point conversion. ) 6. Repeat if neither team scores. I think this employs strategy and excitement for the overtime period, both of which are currently absent in the current format. Congrats. You have managed to devise a system that is somehow exponentially worse that the current system.
AdamK Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 Congrats. You have managed to devise a system that is somehow exponentially worse that the current system. Please elaborate.
Realist Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 I haven't read the whole thread, but there are 3 phases to football, offense, defense, Special teams. You have to play well in all three phases if you want to win in OT. There's no need to change anything.
KD in CA Posted February 2, 2009 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? It wouldn't have been awful at all if it was the Cards. But it would have been awful if they had some stupid 6 OT gimmick like they do in college. I really hate all the whining about this issue. You want to win, you play defense and stop the other team like you've had to all game. Some of you guys sound like you'd be happy if they had a 'throw the football through the tire' contest to decide it. Waah --- it's not fair!
bladiebla Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 NFL Europe featured these OT rules; toss for first possession then team to score would win if the number of possesions had been equal else the opponent would get another possession. This worked great and led to extremly exiting OTs (just a fg was often not enoug for a win). Edit: NFL vote on incorperating the NFL Europe rule didnt make it btw.
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 My solution for the NFL OT, the 2-minute drill (How all good games should end.): 1. Coin toss. Winner of the coin toss can elect to go first or second. 2. 2:00 minutes placed on the clock and 2 timeouts given to Team A. 3. Kickoff. (1st OT session can only be ended by a score or time running out. *No 2-point conversions allowed. If a turnover occurs, the team that caused the TO can use the remaining time to score and win the game.) 4. 2:00 minutes placed on the clock and 2 timeouts given to Team B. 5. Kickoff. (2nd OT session – Team B MUST go for the win. No tying FG will be allowed. A tying TD must be followed by a 2 point conversion. ) 6. Repeat if neither team scores. I think this employs strategy and excitement for the overtime period, both of which are currently absent in the current format. Can you imagine McNabb trying to follow this?
BuffaloWings Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 Please elaborate. Way too gimmicky for me and hard to follow for the average fan. Jim in Anchorage jests that we imagine McNabb trying to follow this, but if there are fans & players who don't realize there can be a tie in the NFL, how do you think we'll all be able to follow this complex scheme? I still say go with a full quarter and play it like it's the 4th quarter. Do the coin toss and play. Not hard at all to me.
silvermike Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 I think the goal for overtime is to have it the most like normal football as possible. The more gimmicky it gets (see the college system), the more pointless it is, I think. You want the winner to be the team that has played the best football, not won a post-game contest. You might as well just have the field goal kickers play a game of Horse at that point. So I'd suggest one of these: a.) Sudden death doesn't kick in until the second possession of the game. Each team gets at least one shot, if it's still tied, it's sudden death. b.) The team with the ball at the end of the game either receives the kickoff after overtime, or just continues their drive from regulation.
KD in CA Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 I still say go with a full quarter and play it like it's the 4th quarter. Do the coin toss and play. Not hard at all to me. This is the only acceptable alternative to the current sudden death.
BuffaloWings Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 If you had to score points, would you rather play your offense or defense? PTR Of course, I'd rather play offense. But you can't assume that just because you lose the coin toss and don't get the ball first that you have no chance to win. You have a defense for a reason....to stop the opponent's offense and get the ball back. Yes, they have been rare, but there have been games won in OT by a team's defense. If Nate Odomes didn't pick off a Warren Moon pass, would the Bills have won the Comeback Game? Matt Hasselbeck opened his mouth against Green Bay and then threw a pick-6 to lose in the playoffs. I think we're all too focused on how OT games have ended on the first possession and we're way too "politically correct" (I don't have a better word/phrase) in thinking that it's not fair to the other team. It's not as if the loser of the coin toss gives up.
PromoTheRobot Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 Of course, I'd rather play offense. But you can't assume that just because you lose the coin toss and don't get the ball first that you have no chance to win. You have a defense for a reason....to stop the opponent's offense and get the ball back. Yes, they have been rare, but there have been games won in OT by a team's defense. If Nate Odomes didn't pick off a Warren Moon pass, would the Bills have won the Comeback Game? Matt Hasselbeck opened his mouth against Green Bay and then threw a pick-6 to lose in the playoffs. I think we're all too focused on how OT games have ended on the first possession and we're way too "politically correct" (I don't have a better word/phrase) in thinking that it's not fair to the other team. It's not as if the loser of the coin toss gives up. Look, the only point I'm making is that OT should be fair and equal to both teams. You can quote stats all day long but you can't say offense and defense have an equal chance at scoring. That alone makes NFL OT uneven. Football is not like basketball, hockey or soccer where teams play both offense and defense and possession changes quickly. It's bad enough when a playoff game OT ends on one possession. You want the Super Bowl to end that way? Just find a way to give the ball to both teams at least once. PTR
PromoTheRobot Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 NFL Europe featured these OT rules; toss for first possession then team to score would win if the number of possesions had been equal else the opponent would get another possession. This worked great and led to extremly exiting OTs (just a fg was often not enoug for a win). Edit: NFL vote on incorperating the NFL Europe rule didnt make it btw. Read my starting post. That is essentially what I was proposing. PTR
Ramius Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 Please elaborate. It too complicated and you are holding each team to a different set of rules. What is the point of forcing the second team to go for the win? That would make likelihood of victory for the coin toss winner even greater. The winner only had to drive to the opposition 30 to kick a FG, but the next team is forced to try and win? its much easier to stop a team from scoring a TD than a FG.
Recommended Posts