ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 That is essentially what I am suggesting, however, if the opening drive results in a TD, game over. I don't like that because you have to give the other team a chance to "match" or die. Then, there is the choice of two to win or one PAT to force the game into sudden death.
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 I don't like that because you have to give the other team a chance to "match" or die. Then, there is the choice of two to win or one PAT to force the game into sudden death. As long as we're getting crazy here, proposing rules that will never be adopted, here's another one I like: If a team decides to kick the extra point, to tie a game in the last minute of regulation, the other team gets to receive in OT. Go for two, pu$$ies!
May Day 10 Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 I like the college OT and it would work in the NFL if each team started at the 50 . With that said, they need to allow for another possession to 'match'. The fact that any tie game can be decided on a combination between a coin toss and a questionable penalty should scream change.
KD in CA 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. Exactly. The coin toss myth is complete bullsh-- and no one has come up with a better way to handle OT than the current format (the college OT rules are a complete joke). Thank goodness for a rare victory for common sense.
Dan Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Why not keep the rules the exact same with one minor exception... The initial coin toss of the game determines who receives. Why not make whoever receives the opening kick also receives the overtime kickoff. It would give more potential importance to the decision to defer the opening kickoff if you win the coin toss. So Team A receives opening kick. Team B gets 2nd half kickoff. Team A then gets the overtime kickoff, if needed. Right now the vast majority of coaches are deferring the opening kickoff, make them think about that decision.
Cugalabanza Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 I think the team that loses the coin toss should be given a chance to make it 2 out of 3, if they can answer a series of pop trivia questions. Then 3 out of 5, etc… with gradually more difficult questions. Of course, the home team would have the advantage of fans shouting answers. Seriously though, you know what would be kind of fun? No punts in overtime!
May Day 10 Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 ^^^^ Thats a good idea. I could live with that for now. (the opening kickoff idea)
Cugalabanza Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 How 'bout a giant spinning wheel that they bring out at the start of overtime and each team spins it so see how many points they need to win the game? The values range from 2 to 11. The hard part? You can't go over.
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Exactly. The coin toss myth is complete bullsh-- and no one has come up with a better way to handle OT than the current format (the college OT rules are a complete joke). Thank goodness for a rare victory for common sense. Did you miss his follow-up post showing that, now the team that wins the coin toss wins 62% of the games, and last year "the coin flip winners were 11-4-1"? So, it's really not a myth. The data in Dan's original post was older, and not reflective of the current OT situation. Whether the rule should be changed, or not, is another matter entirely, though.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 I like the college OT and it would work in the NFL if each team started at the 50 . With that said, they need to allow for another possession to 'match'. The fact that any tie game can be decided on a combination between a coin toss and a questionable penalty should scream change. Exactly... That is all I am saying... Until Deano had to get snarky. Dean
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Exactly. The coin toss myth is complete bullsh-- and no one has come up with a better way to handle OT than the current format (the college OT rules are a complete joke). Thank goodness for a rare victory for common sense. You know with the original rules to basketball, inventor of the game, James Naismith wanted to have a jump ball after every basket made... Kinda like a face-off at center ice. You probably say: "What does that have to do with anything?" It doesn't, except that there are two distinct sides of the ball (O and D) in American football and letting a coin decide may handicap one team over the other... Just as shear player height USUALLY dictates in basketball. The only thing hockey has over the other sports is with the face off where skill dictates winning the draw is an inherent not dependent on luck or physical attributes. It is almost as equal as you can get. Maybe they can have a scrum, rugby style instead of the coin-toss...
Alphadawg7 Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 I don't like that because you have to give the other team a chance to "match" or die. Then, there is the choice of two to win or one PAT to force the game into sudden death. I think you misread what I wrote...any TD wins at all times, even on opening drive. There will be no extra point attempt on any TD scored. If the team wins the coin toss comes out and kicks a FG, the defending team gets the ball one time to either tie with their own FG and force sudden death (first to score wins, even on a FG) or win outright with a TD. If the opening drive by the team winning the coin toss scores a TD, game over...the other does not get a chance to match. I will say though, I also like someone elses idea mentioned in this thread about making the decision tied to the opening coin toss to start the game... I would make the coin toss chocies this: If you recieve the ball to start the game, then you kick to start overtime. If you kick the ball to start the game, you recieve in OT. Kicking team in OT gets to choose which direction (wind).
KD in CA Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Did you miss his follow-up post showing that, now the team that wins the coin toss wins 62% of the games, and last year "the coin flip winners were 11-4-1"? One year's stats are almost meaningless. As for the recent five year trend, that's not necessarily the new standard, just the recent data. Are FG kickers really that much better in the last five years? That doesn't quite seem right to me. I'd guess that eliminating the statistical anomalies would leave a true advantage somewhere in the 55%-59% range, which is acceptable compared to the awful alternatives. Hell, if you're playing the Pats* or Steelers, you have a much worse chance than that just from the officiating and no one seems to be in a hurry to change that. Maybe they can have a scrum, rugby style instead of the coin-toss... Now that I would support! But your point about basketball is a good one. Basketball teams don't necessarily get an equal # of possessions during the OT. Actually, amid all the horrible ideas in this thread, I think Dan had an interesting one. The coin flip at the start of the game determines the rights for the rest of the game, including OT. The team that take the option at the start of the first half also has it for the start of the OT (the '3d half'). Thus there is a cost to deferring.
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 One year's stats are almost meaningless. As for the recent five year trend, that's not necessarily the new standard, just the recent data. Are FG kickers really that much better in the last five years? That doesn't quite seem right to me. I'd guess that eliminating the statistical anomalies would leave a true advantage somewhere in the 55%-59% range, which is acceptable compared to the awful alternatives. Hell, if you're playing the Pats* or Steelers, you have a much worse chance than that just from the officiating and no one seems to be in a hurry to change that. FG accuracy has increased, but the biggest difference is the movement of the kickoff LOS.
Alphadawg7 Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 They could also do it like the XFL where they let 2 guys go get the ball...who ever gets has first choice...it actually wasnt a bad idea...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 NFL overtime makes as much sense as having an NHL shootout where the first shooter scores and that's it. PTR
ofiba Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 They could also do it like the XFL where they let 2 guys go get the ball...who ever gets has first choice...it actually wasnt a bad idea... Perhaps you missed the first ever XFL game when one of the guys separated his shoulder going for the ball and missed the rest of the season...
ofiba Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 NFL overtime makes as much sense as having an NHL shootout where the first shooter scores and that's it. PTR Or if baseball had a sudden death overtime where the game could end on a run in the top of the 10th.
Alphadawg7 Posted March 24, 2009 Posted March 24, 2009 Perhaps you missed the first ever XFL game when one of the guys separated his shoulder going for the ball and missed the rest of the season... Injuries are part of the sport...lol Ok, how about each team picks one guy and they have a sumo style match at mid field. When they paint the field they can put a cirlce at mid field. First person to push the other guy out of the circle essentially wins the coin toss...LMAO
Recommended Posts