billsfan89 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Posted September 11, 2009 Where did the other half go? The Steelers D and Titians O never stepped on the field during OT now excluding Special Teams that's half the team.
GripnRip Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 If that were the compromise than I would take it. But it would still be a little unsettling to never having seen a teams offense out on the field but I could live with it better if the teams D gave up a TD. There always needs to be the chance for a game to end on 1 play, regardless of the situation. Guaranteeing possessions creates some situations like this but it is not a 100% constant. That fragility is what makes NFL OT especially exciting.
Dylanme8 Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Don't these teams know that "tails never fails"
billsfan89 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Posted September 11, 2009 There always needs to be the chance for a game to end on 1 play, regardless of the situation. Guaranteeing possessions creates some situations like this but it is not a 100% constant. That fragility is what makes NFL OT especially exciting. Like I said I get that and honestly if that were the system I wouldn't be mad at all. I would just prefer a each offense gets one touch kind of rule. No sport is ever going to have NHL playoff overtime excitement IMO.
Pneumonic Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 I would just eliminate OT altogether and allow ties. This way if teams don't wish a tie they'll either go for TD's instead of FG's late or they'll try for 2 points instead of 1.
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 The problem is that too many people think that life is supposed to be fair and everyone is supposed to give you a chance. Well guess what... if you want the ball in overtime go out there and get it. Don't stand around whining that its not fair you want the ref to give you the ball too. The Titans had plenty of chances to get the ball and score. They didn't. Now you want to just give them the ball because they somehow deserve it? Why not change the playoffs and the Superbowl to a series? Ya know it's not really fair if some team just has a bad day. I'll tell ya why because football is do or die, not do or try again. I half agree... Football would be a real fun game if you can get a kicker that can kick 70 yard field goals. Nothing should come down to a coin toss and it is proven that the coin toss is the most important thing in determining who will win OT. In this case... At least give the other team a chance to match... There should be no clock in OT, except an individual play clock.
billsfan89 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Posted September 11, 2009 I would just eliminate OT altogether and allow ties. This way if teams don't wish a tie they'll either go for TD's instead of FG's late or they'll try for 2 points instead of 1. No one likes ties. The NHL got rid of them in favor of a gimmick shoot out. The NFL still has ties but they happen so few and far between that no one gets too mad that there is a tie every 5-7 years or so. You need some sort of OT system just make it better and give teams some incentive to go for a TD and I would like for each offense to touch the ball at least once.
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Don't these teams know that "tails never fails" That is why TENN said "Tails." And it was "Heads."
Cru Jones Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 FIRST TEAM TO SIX!!!!.............If its 3-0 at the end of OT, the team with 3 points wins, if theres no score then end it in a tie. If you let a team walk it down the field and score a TD on the first series then you dont deserve an offensive series because defense is a part of winning in OT too.
GripnRip Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Another option is to just to extend the 4th quarter without resetting possession. Letting them play on in sudden death format would probably be the most "natural" finish to a tied game, as it would give advantage to the team not playing catchup.
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 FIRST TEAM TO SIX!!!!.............If its 3-0 at the end of OT, the team with 3 points wins, if theres no score then end it in a tie. If you let a team walk it down the field and score a TD on the first series then you dont deserve an offensive series because defense is a part of winning in OT too. I like the "match" rule. With PITT scoring the 3, Tenn has to "match" or win... Almost like "advantage" in tennis... If TENN couldn't "match"... That is good as a score by PITT and then PITT wins.
billsfan89 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Posted September 11, 2009 Another option is to just to extend the 4th quarter without resetting possession. Letting them play on in sudden death format would probably be the most accurate finish to a tied game, as it would give advantage to the team not playing catchup. Than that eliminates the need for a hurry up if the game is tied. I like your thinking but it too many times can lead to bad things as far as clock management in certain situations.
Pneumonic Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 No one likes ties. The NHL got rid of them in favor of a gimmick shoot out. The NFL still has ties but they happen so few and far between that no one gets too mad that there is a tie every 5-7 years or so. You need some sort of OT system just make it better and give teams some incentive to go for a TD and I would like for each offense to touch the ball at least once. It's exactly because few people like ties that a no OT approach will work. Teams will try for wins instead of ties. Tonight Pitt would likely have not gone for the game tying FG, tried for a TD instead, and either won it or lost it outright. You'd get teams trying 2 pointers all the time. Much more exciting.
GripnRip Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Than that eliminates the need for a hurry up if the game is tied. I like your thinking but it too many times can lead to bad things as far as clock management in certain situations. Can you come up with an example of the bad things? (not being a dick, just exploring the idea)
billsfan89 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Posted September 11, 2009 It's exactly because few people like ties that a no OT approach will work. Teams will try for wins instead of ties. Tonight Pitt would likely have not gone for the game tying FG, tried for a TD instead, and either won it or lost it outright. You'd get teams trying 2 pointers all the time. Much more exciting. A tie got Philly into the playoffs last year. Most coaches play it safe and don't want to loose a game (DJ) so if there were more ties available due to no OT than more coaches would play for them its the intrinsic nature of a coach you don't want to loose a game in week 1 avoiding a tie when 16 weeks later you find out that that tie would have gotten you to the playoffs.
billsfan89 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Posted September 11, 2009 Can you come up with an example of the bad things? (not being a dick, just exploring the idea) INT at the last play of the 4th quarter player takes it down to the 20 with no time left team kicks a field goal game over. I just don't like the fact that at the end of the half that INT to the 20 on the last play wouldn't mean squat yet if it happened at the end of the fourth it would decide a game. I would have to think about it further but with half time the element of resetting is already accepted in football. I don't know if you would consider that a bad thing.
GripnRip Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 INT at the last play of the 4th quarter player takes it down to the 20 with no time left team kicks a field goal game over. I just don't like the fact that at the end of the half that INT to the 20 on the last play wouldn't mean squat yet if it happened at the end of the fourth it would decide a game. I would have to think about it further but with half time the element of resetting is already accepted in football. I don't know if you would consider that a bad thing. .....so you don't think an INT at the end of a tied game should have an affect on the outcome.....hmmm
PromoTheRobot Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 I have a better idea...just do Rock Paper Scissors to decide the Super Bowl...best of 3. PTR
Pneumonic Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 A tie got Philly into the playoffs last year. Most coaches play it safe and don't want to loose a game (DJ) so if there were more ties available due to no OT than more coaches would play for them its the intrinsic nature of a coach you don't want to loose a game in week 1 avoiding a tie when 16 weeks later you find out that that tie would have gotten you to the playoffs. The teams coached by passive coaches can still play for ties if they wish. The more aggressive types can strategize around knowing that they won't have any tie possibility to worry about.
kota Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Why change somethign that isn't broke? they looked into changing it last year and they asked the players. The players didn't want it changed. If the players don't care why should we?
Recommended Posts