Dan Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 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 No the offense and defense doesn't have an equal chance to score, I agree with you there. However, when you consider that the defense can score or they can stop the offense and get the ball for their team, it becomes much closer to equal. Hence, you see stats along the lines of what I posted - 43.4% of teams that lost the coin toss win the game. So, how unfair or uneven is it when you have a 43.4% chance of winning? Yeah, it's a bit of a disadvantage. I agree and the historical numbers agree. However, do those odds necessitate changing the rules? I'd say no. The biggest problem I have here is this gets wrapped up into the whole notion that everything in our life has to be fair or even. Life isn't fair. You had a chance to win in regulation. You have a chance to win in OT. Is it always fair/even - no. Home teams, teams have better players, some teams cheat, some teams pay off refs, some teams have better coaches - there's all sorts of advantages for teams during a game. It's never even.
reddogblitz Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 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 I'm 100 % dead set against changing the OT rules. They're fine the way they are. It's not decided on the coin toss. It's decided on the field. Offense, defense, kicking teams. You gotta have all 3. Your baseball analogy is totally apples vs. oranges. In baseball it's impossible for the team on defense to score. Not so in football. Interesting baseball fact: In baseball, the offense never touches the ball. If they do, in fact, they are out.
reddogblitz Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 The biggest problem I have here is this gets wrapped up into the whole notion that everything in our life has to be fair or even. Life isn't fair. You had a chance to win in regulation. You have a chance to win in OT. Is it always fair/even - no. Home teams, teams have better players, some teams cheat, some teams pay off refs, some teams have better coaches - there's all sorts of advantages for teams during a game. It's never even. Steelers get to bring their own refs ...
rockpile Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 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 Baseball OT is not "sudden death". Home team gets last bat - standard rule.
PromoTheRobot Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 Baseball OT is not "sudden death". Home team gets last bat - standard rule. I know. That's what I said. I was drawing an analogy on how baseball gives both sides a chance to score, and that football should do the same. PTR
PromoTheRobot Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 No the offense and defense doesn't have an equal chance to score, I agree with you there. However, when you consider that the defense can score or they can stop the offense and get the ball for their team, it becomes much closer to equal. Hence, you see stats along the lines of what I posted - 43.4% of teams that lost the coin toss win the game. So, how unfair or uneven is it when you have a 43.4% chance of winning? Yeah, it's a bit of a disadvantage. I agree and the historical numbers agree. However, do those odds necessitate changing the rules? I'd say no. The biggest problem I have here is this gets wrapped up into the whole notion that everything in our life has to be fair or even. Life isn't fair. You had a chance to win in regulation. You have a chance to win in OT. Is it always fair/even - no. Home teams, teams have better players, some teams cheat, some teams pay off refs, some teams have better coaches - there's all sorts of advantages for teams during a game. It's never even. To answer your question: because both teams are NOT guaranteed a chance to go on offense. As for life being unfair, life doesn't follow rules. Games like football do, and the idea is to make the rules the same for both teams, so I don't understand the resistance. PTR
Recommended Posts