Best overtime solution

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from jam757. Show jam757's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    Just a tie is NOT an option. A ten minute period solves the problem...These guys get paid millions of dollars. I don't care if injuries might go up. People want to see MORE FOOTBALL!!! I'm also in favor of an 18 game season (and only 2 preseason games)
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from NEMike. Show NEMike's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    The main reason why the opvertime rule as it now stands needs to be changed is the huge improvement, and strength of the kicking game, by today's placekickers in the NFL.  

    There was a time when a rarity in football was a 50 yard field goal, in fact, a 45 yarder was considered a major accomplishment.

    Today, kickers are stronger, the game is much more refined, and indorr stadiums offer kickers a far better chance at kicking a deep field goal than those they might have to face kicking into a wind.

    And, on the other side of the coin, a 30-40 mile an hour wind at a kickers back could have a huge positive effect, also, thereby the toss of the coin again becomes a major factor, more so than the players on the field.

    The NFL football schedule consits of only 16 games, and each one is vital to a team's success, or failure.

    To put an overtime contest into the hands of a coin toss which might not give one of the teams an equal opportunity to score is dead wrong.

    The obvious answer is to allow each team one posession, no different than posessions that occure in the first four quarters.

    If the score is still tied after those posessions, then the game goes to sudden death.

    The extra time played is the same for both teams, offensive and defensive.

    Thus, the matter is decided by the players, not the coin toss.

    It is the only fair way, and if the players union balks at it, saying it takes too much time, or the networks say the same thing, then The heck with them.  They are reaping their fortunes off of the NFL, the fans deserve a fair shake too, a game decided by players, not a round piece of metal.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    Well, I read all of the posts so far.  Looks like some of you didn't even read my suggestion.

    In order for the rule to change it has to be agreeable to the owners, the coaches and the players. So toss out all the college-like suggestions.  They will not be accepted. They make the game too long. And to the guy who doesn't believe extending the game leads to more injuires, you defy logic.  More minutes = more plays = more potential for injuries.  And as any skill athlete knows, you are most likely to get hurt when you are tired.  Otherwise, lets make boxing matches 30 rounds, if the length of the competition has no relation to the chances of getting hurt. But it does.

    Ten-minute OT? Again, that makes the game longer than the average OT lasts. Nobody with a say will go along.  Toss that.

    Initial coin toss doesn't affect outcome? Oh yeah? How about in bad weather, when a team may only hope to get 10 or so points.  Every possession has a scoring potential.  In many games, a team may only possess the ball eight times. One extra possession gives greater than a 10% boost to its chances of winning. Two extra possesions because the team one both tosses gives a team greater than 25% advantage.  That is enormous.  And if you can score first with seven, and you are known as a team that scores on nearly every drive (Colts, Saints), you force your opponent to take more risks, like fourth down plays, which can take them out of their game plan.  Total game changer.

    "No overtime" is the best suggestion I have read beside mine.  But mine still neautralizes the undeserved advantage of the opening coin toss.  Besides that, ties cause problems with play-offs. You would have to have a different rule for the play-offs. That puts you at square one: What to do about overtime? So you might as well have a consistent rule, like mine.

    As for the guys that said this topic would not arise had the Pats won in OT, I disagree.  I made this suggestion last year and it fell on deaf ears (and blind eyes).  Win or lose, the current OT is not good for football. On Sunday it worked out.  I missed the kick-off, but was told the Pats won the opening toss and deferred.  That means they still got their choice, which became field direction. And the Broncos won the OT toss and they won the game, as they should have, since they played better. But more often than not, a toss-winner does not defer. And more often than not, the toss winner for OT wins, even if it is only by 10 percentage points.  In pro competition, a 10 % point adavantage is huge.  Seems stupid to me to let a coin toss assign the advantage. 


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    In Response to Re: Best overtime solution:
    [QUOTE]Just a tie is NOT an option. A ten minute period solves the problem...These guys get paid millions of dollars. I don't care if injuries might go up. People want to see MORE FOOTBALL!!! I'm also in favor of an 18 game season (and only 2 preseason games)
    Posted by jam757[/QUOTE]

    Great plan. Dilute the talent pool by roster expansion and injury. Decrease product value. 

    And for what? Gate revenue is offset with roster expansion and increased salaries. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    In Response to Re: Best overtime solution:
    [QUOTE]The main reason why the opvertime rule as it now stands needs to be changed is the huge improvement, and strength of the kicking game, by today's placekickers in the NFL.   There was a time when a rarity in football was a 50 yard field goal, in fact, a 45 yarder was considered a major accomplishment. Today, kickers are stronger, the game is much more refined, and indorr stadiums offer kickers a far better chance at kicking a deep field goal than those they might have to face kicking into a wind. And, on the other side of the coin, a 30-40 mile an hour wind at a kickers back could have a huge positive effect, also, thereby the toss of the coin again becomes a major factor, more so than the players on the field. The NFL football schedule consits of only 16 games, and each one is vital to a team's success, or failure. To put an overtime contest into the hands of a coin toss which might not give one of the teams an equal opportunity to score is dead wrong. The obvious answer is to allow each team one posession, no different than posessions that occure in the first four quarters. If the score is still tied after those posessions, then the game goes to sudden death. The extra time played is the same for both teams, offensive and defensive. Thus, the matter is decided by the players, not the coin toss. It is the only fair way, and if the players union balks at it, saying it takes too much time, or the networks say the same thing, then The heck with them.  They are reaping their fortunes off of the NFL, the fans deserve a fair shake too, a game decided by players, not a round piece of metal.
    Posted by NEMike[/QUOTE]

    Problem: If they both score six, then who gets  possession first in sudden-death?  It does not solve the problem. It only changes it. And it will never get passed.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    In Response to Re: Best overtime solution:
    [QUOTE]Initial coin toss doesn't affect outcome? Oh yeah? How about in bad weather, when a team may only hope to get 10 or so points.  Every possession has a scoring potential.  In many games, a team may only possess the ball eight times. One extra possession gives greater than a 10% boost to its chances of winning. Two extra possesions because the team one both tosses gives a team greater than 25% advantage.  That is enormous.  And if you can score first with seven, and you are known as a team that scores on nearly every drive (Colts, Saints), you force your opponent to take more risks, like fourth down plays, which can take them out of their game plan.  Total game changer.
    Posted by chrisakawoody[/QUOTE]

    I didn't say that the initial coin toss didn't affect the outcome. I said the effect was minimal especially when compared to the current outcome of the second coin toss. 

    Aside from that, you seem to forget that as it stands now, each team gets the ball at the beginning of a half negating a potential lopsided number of possessions. And, you even have the situation where "if you score first with 7". Seriously? It is an advantage, but it isn't a predetermined event - it won't happen every time - and in fact, I bet it happens less than 10% of the time maybe even less than 5%. So both advantages are very much minimized. 

    Again, while there are advantages to winning the coin toss, they are now more based on which half you elect to receive vice anything else. Have you noticed that teams on the road tend to elect to receive the ball in the second half? Why, with such an advantage of receiving it in the first half, would they do that unless they perceive a greater advantage by deferring.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    I don't think people would disagree with a 10-minute OT.  Seems reasonable enough.  Not quite a full quarter, but long enough to almost guarantee that both teams see the ball.  Enough to change the dynamic of the game.  Otherwise, I'd say 7min, 30sec OT.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from thejoshuatree28. Show thejoshuatree28's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    In Response to Re: Best overtime solution:

    I think as many have suggested that in the regular season if you tie than you tie, The biggest gripe I have with overtime is in the playoffs, I think that sudden death in a Playoff game is just a bad idea. I don't think that it is fair to a team to not have there offense take the field.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    In Response to Re: Best overtime solution:
    [QUOTE]Interesting how the tune changes when the shoe is on the other foot.  After the colts loss to SD in last year's playoffs no one here was saying Manning deserved a chance with the ball.  I guess that "walk a mile in my shoes" cliche really does have merit.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    ud, stop being so sensitive. The Pats lost to the Jets last year in OT, remember? I am very sure that you were here espousing how they should've stopped them on third and 15 and so the Pats didn't deserve a chance. If you don't like what people said to you after the playoffs, then don't put it out during the regular season.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    In Response to Re: Best overtime solution:
    [QUOTE]Interesting how the tune changes when the shoe is on the other foot.  After the colts loss to SD in last year's playoffs no one here was saying Manning deserved a chance with the ball.  I guess that "walk a mile in my shoes" cliche really does have merit.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    UnderDogg, Gregg Estabrook cries about it in each week's edition of Tuesday Morning Quarterback.  (Colts have won 12 of last 13 and never touched the ball in their loss...).  Every week.  And I'll be you any money that John Clayton (who also loves the Colts) also made noise about it.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    First, those stats don't tell the story. Those are two small slices, and one overly large slice. OT used to be 50/50 before they moved the kickoff back to the 30.

    Since then, i think the early 1990's, the team that wins the toss wins about 60% of the time. That is a huge 20% imbalance.

    The remedey is easy. College rules stink, because they remove kicking and punting from the equation, and for some teams that is a legit facet of their advantage.

    I think the "Cut and Choose" method is the best way. I think it was adapted from conflict resolution models.

    Really simple.

    The winner of the toss decides on whether they kick or recieve, and the losing team decides where the ball is kicked from.

    So a coach who chooses to recieve might be receiving the ball deep in their own territory. And vice versa.

    I think it puts the onus on coaching strategy, rather than blind luck.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    In Response to Re: Best overtime solution:
    [QUOTE]Interesting how the tune changes when the shoe is on the other foot.  After the colts loss to SD in last year's playoffs no one here was saying Manning deserved a chance with the ball.  I guess that "walk a mile in my shoes" cliche really does have merit.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]

    Dogg... in my corner, them's the rules.  Either way, your D or O have to perform in OT.  Why couldn't the Pats D put up the same effort they did after Brady was stripped of the ball with 2 minutes to go?  It's like they mailed in their effort in OT.  As for rules, it is what it is.  Seems no one complained until, what was it, the Charger/Colts game ?  Seems it survived all these years and now people want to tweek it?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    In Response to Re: Best overtime solution:
    [QUOTE]First, those stats don't tell the story. Those are two small slices, and one overly large slice. OT used to be 50/50 before they moved the kickoff back to the 30. Since then, i think the early 1990's, the team that wins the toss wins about 60% of the time. That is a huge 20% imbalance. The remedey is easy. College rules stink, because they remove kicking and punting from the equation, and for some teams that is a legit facet of their advantage. I think the "Cut and Choose" method is the best way. I think it was adapted from conflict resolution models. Really simple. The winner of the toss decides on whether they kick or recieve, and the losing team decides where the ball is kicked from. So a coach who chooses to recieve might be receiving the ball deep in their own territory. And vice versa. I think it puts the onus on coaching strategy, rather than blind luck.
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    That' one I had not read. 

    Still, wence the ball is kicked would not off-set the possession advantage by much.  Guys like Gostowski can kick it so far already that he gets touchbacks routinely.  Unless the ball can be downed within the 5-yd ln.  I don't see enough advantage.  I don't have stats, but wouldn't the average field position on run-backs only be a few yards shorter field thatn a touchbakc to the 20? Does 3-8 yards extra field position help you prevent a field goal in OT by that much and off-set the possession advantage? In almost any case, i would still prefer possession first.

    I still think my way solves the most problems, but keep them coming.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    In Response to Re: Best overtime solution:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Best overtime solution : That' one I had not read.  Still, wence the ball is kicked would not off-set the possession advantage by much.  Guys like Gostowski can kick it so far already that he gets touchbacks routinely.  Unless the ball can be downed within the 5-yd ln.  I don't see enough advantage.  I don't have stats, but wouldn't the average field position on run-backs only be a few yards shorter field thatn a touchbakc to the 20? Does 3-8 yards extra field position help you prevent a field goal in OT by that much and off-set the possession advantage? In almost any case, i would still prefer possession first. I still think my way solves the most problems, but keep them coming.
    Posted by chrisakawoody[/QUOTE]

    Maybe we ignored your idea in the same you dismissed the 10-minute overtime suggestion so subjectively, despite four of us agreeing on it.  If people with a say won't agree to a 10-minute overtime, why would they agree to your Byzantine idea?

    Your recommendation gives two possessions to the team that LOST the opening toss.  As constituted, a coin toss to determine who gets possession in the new "quarter" is the fairest way because each team got a possession to start each half of regulation.

    I still stand by my proposal.  7.5-10 minutes, run like a normal quarter, still with two timeouts, and with one challenge.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    In Response to Re: Best overtime solution:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Best overtime solution : That' one I had not read.  Still, wence the ball is kicked would not off-set the possession advantage by much.  Guys like Gostowski can kick it so far already that he gets touchbacks routinely.  Unless the ball can be downed within the 5-yd ln.  I don't see enough advantage.  I don't have stats, but wouldn't the average field position on run-backs only be a few yards shorter field thatn a touchbakc to the 20? Does 3-8 yards extra field position help you prevent a field goal in OT by that much and off-set the possession advantage? In almost any case, i would still prefer possession first. I still think my way solves the most problems, but keep them coming.
    Posted by chrisakawoody[/QUOTE]


    I don't think so. If it is a free-kick from your choice, you could pooch kick from the opposing 20. That guarantees (almost) possesion within the ten yard line.

    Another option is to simple have the loser of the toss choose where to spot the ball. I think the original time I read this, it was voiced this way. It takes special teams partly out of the equation, but it can be chance to use lethal strategy.

    In any case the team loosing the toss decides prior to the team winning, or vie versa. I think that becomes a major issue.

    All told, it is inventive.

    Although, for the regular season, PM's suggestion that we simply eliminate OT actually isn't half bad. Ending with a few ties per season is better than gifting one team a 20% advantage based on the toss of a coin. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    How come nowhere in any of this very logical and civil discussion has it been mentioned that the two-point conversion is already in place to give coaches the option, in many cases, of playing to win or to tie in regulation? I like playing devil's advocate as much as the next guy (unless the next guy is mighty), but I honestly believe that eliminating overtime altogether would make the end of games much more exciting. I would certainly be more interested in watching teams gamble on touchdowns versus field goals, as opposed to gambling on the outcome of a coin toss. And I agree with the guy who said that a few ties scattered throughout the standings would even f*ck up the playoff chase to an entertaining degree.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tjl22. Show tjl22's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    BEST SOLUTION
    The problem is that the current rule and every suggestion made on this page leads to one team having a slight advantage.  Allowing each team a chance to score gives an advatage to the team that gets the ball second. 
    My solution is simple, minor change that can be tweaked (in future years) to get exactly a 50/50 chance to win.  Instead of kicking off at the 30 allow the kicking team to kick closer to the 50.  According to the stats  - kicking off at the 30 gives the receiving team a 6% better chance of winning.  If the kick is made from the 40 maybe the difference is cut to 2%.  The NFL could make an educated guess the first year then tweak in later years it if the stats do not work out.  Somewhere betwen the 35 and the 50 there is a kick off spot that will lead to a 50/50 chance.  
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jam757. Show jam757's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    10 minute OT period is the way to go. I can't even believe they haven't changed it to this yet. For all those that gripe about more injuries, just a few weeks ago a game went down to the last minute in OT. This would be shorter than that. I would even be in favor of a 8 minute OT. If a team puts together a long 8 minute drive they deserve to win. I don't like the other idesa i've seen on here. The college rules are rediculous, i have a big problem with them...
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    In Response to Re: Best overtime solution:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Best overtime solution : Maybe we ignored your idea in the same you dismissed the 10-minute overtime suggestion so subjectively, despite four of us agreeing on it.  If people with a say won't agree to a 10-minute overtime, why would they agree to your Byzantine idea? Your recommendation gives two possessions to the team that LOST the opening toss.  As constituted, a coin toss to determine who gets possession in the new "quarter" is the fairest way because each team got a possession to start each half of regulation. I still stand by my proposal.  7.5-10 minutes, run like a normal quarter, still with two timeouts, and with one challenge.
    Posted by NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    I think you missed something in my suggestion. I never suggested such a thing. I suggested that the team that lost the opening toss assumes the position of the team that wins a toss for OT sake.  Kick? Receive? Now they get to choose. Just like with the opening toss winner, they are guaranteed a chance to choose.  Flipping a coin is not unfair, but it is undeserved.  What if one team wins both tosses the current way?  That is double the advantage.

    And like I wrote twice, the 10-minute idea may be OK for posters here, but the players' union, the owners and the networks would never agree to it, it would make games longer than they are now.  AND SOMEBODY STILL HAS TO WIN A COIN TOSS TO WIN THE CHOICE, WHICH IS UNDESERVED.  You put that rule in place and you will have people here complaining that one team may get two possessions while the other gets one. Problem not solved.  And why debate things that will never be able to happen?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from capps. Show capps's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    How about this:

    1. First team to score 4 points or more wins and game ends.

    2. If after 15 minutes and no team meets criteria #1, then whichever team is leading.

    3. If #1 and #2 are still not met, then Tie.

    SO here are the ways a team could win via sudden-death:
    - touchdown
    - 2 field goals and holding other team scoreless
    - 1 field goal + 1 safety and holding other team scoreless
    - 2 safeties and holding other team scoreless
    - and probably some other scoring scenarios

    But the point is unless a touchdown is scored outright (due to shameful defense/special teams/offensive turnover), each team should have 1 offensive possession.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    In Response to Re: Best overtime solution:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Best overtime solution : I think you missed something in my suggestion. I never suggested such a thing. I suggested that the team that lost the opening toss assumes the position of the team that wins a toss for OT sake.  Kick? Receive? Now they get to choose. Just like with the opening toss winner, they are guaranteed a chance to choose.  Flipping a coin is not unfair, but it is undeserved.  What if one team wins both tosses the current way?  That is double the advantage. And like I wrote twice, the 10-minute idea may be OK for posters here, but the players' union, the owners and the networks would never agree to it, it would make games longer than they are now.  AND SOMEBODY STILL HAS TO WIN A COIN TOSS TO WIN THE CHOICE, WHICH IS UNDESERVED.  You put that rule in place and you will have people here complaining that one team may get two possessions while the other gets one. Problem not solved.  And why debate things that will never be able to happen?
    Posted by chrisakawoody[/QUOTE]

    You missed my point again.

    What I said was true.  According to your format of awarding the ball to the team that lost the opening coin toss:  
    -Team CoinTossWinner wins the toss over Team CoinTossLoser, chooses to receive
    -Team CoinTossLoser receives to start the second half
    -Team CoinTossLoser then gets to receive again to start overtime
    (or flip it so Team 2 loses, Team 1 defers to the second half - doesn't matter)

    Team CoinTossLoser gets the ball TWICE.  It's not up for argument.  Your "solution" replaces a coin toss that would give each team an equitable chance to receive the ball to start overtime with guaranteeing one team gets the ball in overtime... which is why I think it's a terrible idea.

    And the sentiment now is that it's unfair that only one team might get the ball.  A 7.5-10 minute overtime would virtually guarantee that both teams got the ball.  If the format would virtually guarantee that both teams would get the ball, then there'd undoubtedly be support for it.

    Quite frankly, I think that the players' union would be much more apt to solve overtime in a manner that would help ensure that both teams got the ball than add 2 more games to the regular season.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    In Response to Re: Best overtime solution:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Best overtime solution : You missed my point again. What I said was true.  According to your format of awarding the ball to the team that lost the opening coin toss:   -Team CoinTossWinner wins the toss over Team CoinTossLoser, chooses to receive -Team CoinTossLoser receives to start the second half -Team CoinTossLoser then gets to receive again to start overtime (or flip it so Team 2 loses, Team 1 defers to the second half - doesn't matter) Team CoinTossLoser gets the ball TWICE.  It's not up for argument.  Your "solution" replaces a coin toss that would give each team an equitable chance to receive the ball to start overtime with guaranteeing one team gets the ball in overtime... which is why I think it's a terrible idea. And the sentiment now is that it's unfair that only one team might get the ball.  A 7.5-10 minute overtime would virtually guarantee that both teams got the ball.  If the format would virtually guarantee that both teams would get the ball, then there'd undoubtedly be support for it. Quite frankly, I think that the players' union would be much more apt to solve overtime in a manner that would help ensure that both teams got the ball than add 2 more games to the regular season.
    Posted by NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    Again, I have considered that.  The team with the opening toss win is getting a very real advantage to start the game receiving the ball.  By the time the second team gets the ball to start the second half, they have had to overcome posssibly playing from behind.  That is a real disadvantage.  So having the other team get choice in the OT counterblances that advantage. In addtion, you still have two problems with your way, first that it would be rejected by all interested parties, amking your proposal moot.  Second, that you would still have to flip a coin to determine who get the ball first in OT. Which puts us back at square one.  Your proposal doesn't solve anything.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    In Response to Re: Best overtime solution:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Best overtime solution : Again, I have considered that.  The team with the opening toss win is getting a very real advantage to start the game receiving the ball.  By the time the second team gets the ball to start the second half, they have had to overcome posssibly playing from behind.  That is a real disadvantage.  So having the other team get choice in the OT counterblances that advantage. In addtion, you still have two problems with your way, first that it would be rejected by all interested parties, amking your proposal moot.  Second, that you would still have to flip a coin to determine who get the ball first in OT. Which puts us back at square one.  Your proposal doesn't solve anything.
    Posted by chrisakawoody[/QUOTE]

    So what you're saying is that most teams execute 7.5-10 minute drives, and the other team would never see the ball?
     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Best overtime solution

    Also, check the stat out on Belichick's overtime proposal:

    Average overtime is about 6-7 minutes, anyway.  The game wouldn't be any longer.
     

Share