BillsWatch Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9369852...tiating-tactics The league does not want games decided by a coin toss, but the competition committee, which proposes rules changes, said the players were strong in their opposition to any change. The NFL never would adopt the goofy college rule, which is more of a shoot-out than a football game. But it also has resisted a simple fix of just moving the overtime kickoff back to the 35-yard line to restore the offense/defense balance that used to exist. I have read other articles on WHY they do not want the change is because they believe that their is an increased risk in changing the rules such as proposed for at least one TD score, if team receiving kick team scores a FG opposing team has chance to score a TD, etc. Do not let players say their first concern is winning in NFL - their first concern is not getting paid; there is nothing wrong with that but their is something wrong with being hypocritical saying such cliches as 'Anything we can do to give us a chance to win more I am in favor of' like we hear from speaking to press.
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9369852...tiating-tacticsThe league does not want games decided by a coin toss, but the competition committee, which proposes rules changes, said the players were strong in their opposition to any change. The NFL never would adopt the goofy college rule, which is more of a shoot-out than a football game. But it also has resisted a simple fix of just moving the overtime kickoff back to the 35-yard line to restore the offense/defense balance that used to exist. I have read other articles on WHY they do not want the change is because they believe that their is an increased risk in changing the rules such as proposed for at least one TD score, if team receiving kick team scores a FG opposing team has chance to score a TD, etc. Do not let players say their first concern is winning in NFL - their first concern is not getting paid; there is nothing wrong with that but their is something wrong with being hypocritical saying such cliches as 'Anything we can do to give us a chance to win more I am in favor of' like we hear from speaking to press. I'm no fan of the college OT in the pros. I agree it is much to close to a shootout. But, there is something flawed in the system, when the team that wins the coin toss also wins a disproportional number of the games. One way to try to close the gap (but still not subject the players to long, drawn out OTs) is: If the team who takes the first kickoff scores, the other team gets a chance...but they have to score more points than the other team. That is, if the first team got a FG, the team that gets one last chance has to score a TD. TD and extra point/TD and a deuce. The team that takes the first kickoff of OT can't go for a two-point conversion on their TD, even if they wanted to. After each team has had one possession...sudden death. If the D scores on the first possession, game over.
Spiderweb Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 I'm no fan of the college OT in the pros. I agree it is much to close to a shootout. But, there is something flawed in the system, when the team that wins the coin toss also wins a disproportional number of the games. One way to try to close the gap (but still not subject the players to long, drawn out OTs) is: If the team who takes the first kickoff scores, the other team gets a chance...but they have to score more points than the other team. That is, if the first team got a FG, the team that gets one last chance has to score a TD. TD and extra point/TD and a deuce. The team that takes the first kickoff of OT can't go for a two-point conversion on their TD, even if they wanted to. After each team has had one possession...sudden death. If the D scores on the first possession, game over. Nice, I like that. With that said, it makes way too much sense and will never happen (I guess that makes me a pessimist).
Yasin's BILLS Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 yeah too bad its old news. they reported it like last week.
Haven Moses Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 The college OT is growing on me. I kinda like it now. If it were up to me, the team that gets the ball first has to score a TD to win. If they get a FG, the other team shoud get one chance with the ball.
Cugalabanza Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 I'm glad they are not changing it. I like it the way it is. Two reasons: 1. Simplicity 2. Sudden death is cool I don't feel bad for a team that loses in OT on the first possession. They should have either (a) won it in regulation or (b) played better defense in OT.
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 I'm glad they are not changing it. I like it the way it is. Two reasons:1. Simplicity 2. Sudden death is cool I don't feel bad for a team that loses in OT on the first possession. They should have either (a) won it in regulation or (b) played better defense in OT. ...© done a better job of calling the coin toss!
Dan Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 I'm no fan of the college OT in the pros. I agree it is much to close to a shootout. But, there is something flawed in the system, when the team that wins the coin toss also wins a disproportional number of the games. One way to try to close the gap (but still not subject the players to long, drawn out OTs) is: If the team who takes the first kickoff scores, the other team gets a chance...but they have to score more points than the other team. That is, if the first team got a FG, the team that gets one last chance has to score a TD. TD and extra point/TD and a deuce. The team that takes the first kickoff of OT can't go for a two-point conversion on their TD, even if they wanted to. After each team has had one possession...sudden death. If the D scores on the first possession, game over. Actually, that's a misconception. According to a USA Today article, the team that has won the toss has won 169 times (52.0%). And both teams have had possession 235 times (72.3%). Based on those umbers, I would argue that history has shown that in the majority of overtimes, both teams do get the ball and therefore a chance to win the game. So, IMO, no reason to fix what's not broken.
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Actually, that's a misconception. According to a USA Today article, the team that has won the toss has won 169 times (52.0%). And both teams have had possession 235 times (72.3%). Based on those umbers, I would argue that history has shown that in the majority of overtimes, both teams do get the ball and therefore a chance to win the game. So, IMO, no reason to fix what's not broken. Well that is interesting. While I think that article is from 2003, I can't believe much has occurred to change the overall numbers by very much. I swear I have heard, a number of time, on NFL broadcasts, and ESPN roundtable discussions, that the coin toss winner accounted for over 60% of OT wins. I wonder where they have been getting their numbers? As a research guy, my response is "show me the data!", but if we assume McPaper is correct, then I agree, no change is necessary.
Dan Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Well that is interesting. While I think that article is from 2003, I can't believe much has occurred to change the overall numbers by very much. I swear I have heard, a number of time, on NFL broadcasts, and ESPN roundtable discussions, that the coin toss winner accounted for over 60% of OT wins. I wonder where they have been getting their numbers? As a research guy, my response is "show me the data!", but if we assume McPaper is correct, then I agree, no change is necessary. You got me to thinking.. .so here's more from a 2009 NPR Article: During the first five years of overtime, the team that won the coin flip, and therefore received the ball first, was 15-16-1. This was in an era of 62 percent field-goal accuracy, when kickoffs were from a team's 40-yard line. But in the past five years, field-goal accuracy has increased by 20 percent and the kickoff has been moved back 10 yards. So over the five years that ended in 2008, the team that received the ball first won the game 62 percent of the time. That's statistically significant. In 2008, the coin flip winners were 11-4-1. Perhaps we're both right? Interesting point in that snippet for me was the idea that field goal kickers were having a big impact in the overtime results. Makes sense, when you think about it. I just hadn't thought about it.
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 You got me to thinking.. .so here's more from a 2009 NPR Article: Perhaps we're both right? Interesting point in that snippet for me was the idea that field goal kickers were having a big impact in the overtime results. Makes sense, when you think about it. I just hadn't thought about it. Excellent work, Dan.
Alphadawg7 Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Based on the affect of the FG to the increase in wins for the team winning the coin toss, seems like a simple fix would be this: 1. Rules are the same, except, if the team winning a coin toss kicks a FG then the opposing team gets the ball once. 2. Any TD ends the game at any point. 3. If no team scores on either first possession, game goes to first score wins, including a FG. 4. If both teams score a FG on first possesion, then game goes to first score wins.
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Based on the affect of the FG to the increase in wins for the team winning the coin toss, seems like a simple fix would be this: 1. Rules are the same, except, if the team winning a coin toss kicks a FG then the opposing team gets the ball once. 2. Any TD ends the game at any point. 3. If no team scores on either first possession, game goes to first score wins, including a FG. 4. If both teams score a FG on first possesion, then game goes to first score wins. I don't think the players go for that, but who knows. Under your scenario, I think if the 1st team kicks a FG, the other team should have to go for a TD...but, of course, that's JMO.
Cugalabanza Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Based on the affect of the FG to the increase in wins for the team winning the coin toss, seems like a simple fix would be this: 1. Rules are the same, except, if the team winning a coin toss kicks a FG then the opposing team gets the ball once. 2. Any TD ends the game at any point. 3. If no team scores on either first possession, game goes to first score wins, including a FG. 4. If both teams score a FG on first possesion, then game goes to first score wins. Convoluted. Inelegant. Awkward. Ugly.
stuckincincy Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 They should break the tie by playing a round of 43-Man Squamish... http://www.collectmad.com/madcoversite/ind...z_olympics.html
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Why don't they just have it that the other team has to match the score if the team that wins the toss scores right after the coin toss? If the the team trying to match throws a pick or fumble, lose... It becomes sudden death after the second score. EDIT: Oh... If the team that wins the toss kicks a FG, then the team going to match gets more points, that team wins. This would stop teams from maybe going for FG's off the bat. ??
Alphadawg7 Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 I don't think the players go for that, but who knows. Under your scenario, I think if the 1st team kicks a FG, the other team should have to go for a TD...but, of course, that's JMO. I thought about that, but the problem is this. The coin toss winner has a big advantage and a shorter field under your suggestion. So, not only do they have the advantage of having the ball first, but now they have to do less with it. Someone posted stats that show a dramatic advantage in the last 5 years for teams winning the coint toss and then winning the game becuase of the impact of the FG and its accuracy increasing. So, my suggestion would neutralize that by allowing the opposing team to either match the FG or win outright by scoring a TD. If both score a FG, then both had equal chance to win and didn't, so the next team to score (even if it’s a FG) wins.
Alphadawg7 Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Why don't they just have it that the other team has to match the score if the team that wins the toss scores right after the coin toss? Throw a pick or fumble, lose... It becomes sudden death after the second score. That is essentially what I am suggesting, however, if the opening drive results in a TD, game over.
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 They should break the tie by playing a round of 43-Man Squamish... http://www.collectmad.com/madcoversite/ind...z_olympics.html Holy crap, Cincy, I remember that one.
Recommended Posts