Now that the Colts got screwed by the overtime rule will they change it?

[NovaScotiaPatsFan]

I say keep it simple, leave it the same except for each team gets a shot. Maybe give the home team the first shot to give them more of a home advantage or something.

 

[Synovia]

The problem with most OT change proposals is they ...greatly lengthen the game.

...
My proposal is that the team that receives the ball may not kick a FG on their first possession. Af

You don't see how those two things are at odds?

 

[Synovia]

It's simple: stop them, and you get your chance.

Except most teams can't stop the other team, because of the offense happy rules. The ~60% proves that.

Move the kick back to where it was, we go back to 50/50, and everyone is happy.

 

[DaBruinz]

That's stretching it a bit in some cases, seeing as a great deal of every game relies on chance.

However, either way one team has the advantage of getting a chance to win without the other team getting the ball back.

It's simple: stop them, and you get your chance.

Its only "stretching it" because it flies in the face of your argument.

A team can win on the last of of the game in several ways. It could have been winning to start the drive and just be taking kneel downs. Or it could be forced into trying to score a FG or TD. Where as, in OT, the team with the ball HAS to be trying to score. And, as pointed out, this year, in the 15 OT games that occured, 9 of them were won by the team getting the ball first. That's 60%.

Yes, every play in the game relies on "Chance." However, on every play of the game, there are at least 30 factors that can affect the play's outcome. And each play has hundreds, if not thousands of different possible outcomes.

How many outcomes are there on a coin flip? 2.

 

[emoney_33]

Ivars Peterson's MathTrek - Football's Overtime Bias

BTW, I think the Colts should have taken an intentional safety instead of punting when they were up 3 with 2 minutes to go, SD had 0 timeouts and that 30+ yards of field position may have won them the game. Although I may be statistically misguided here, that was my feeling at the time.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

You don't see how those two things are at odds?

It would lengthen the game slightly. But it does solve the "unfairness problem" and when compared to all of the other proposed solutions it would have the least impact on lengthening the game and/or having the game end in a tie at the end of OT.

 

[Deus Irae]

It would lengthen the game slightly. But it does solve the "unfairness problem" and when compared to all of the other proposed solutions it would have the least impact on lengthening the game and/or having the game end in a tie at the end of OT.

Nothing solves the "unfairness problem". It can't be done. Overtime is inherently "unfair".

 

[emoney_33]

Nothing solves the "unfairness problem". It can't be done. Overtime is inherently "unfair".

They COULD implement an extremely shortened 2nd game. Another 2 halves of say 7.5 minutes each or something, each team receives once just like regular time.

This would solve the unfairness problem but would add at least 15 minutes (depending on what you do after a tie in OT in this system).

It's not easy to balance the time/ties with fairness but in the NFL where each game counts so much, I'd rather fairness.

 

[Synovia]

It's not easy to balance the time/ties with fairness but in the NFL where each game counts so much, I'd rather fairness.

My ideal solution is as you proposed, a second shortened game, but only in the playoffs. In the regular season, keep a tie, a tie.


Yes, any solution is inherently unfair, because the game wasn't decided during regulation, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't move towards something that isnt mostly decided by a coin flip. Don't let lack of perfection stop improvement.

 

[Fixit]

My ideal solution is as you proposed, a second shortened game, but only in the playoffs.

And in the event of a tie after the minigame?

 

[DaBruinz]

I've got an idea. The NFL should implement a "shoot out" ala Hockey. Except, for the NFL, it would be FG kicking. Each team would start off kicking from the opposing 20 yard line.. and then move each kick back 5 yards. And they go until they miss..

So, the FGs would be 37, 42, 47,52, 57.

And yes, the opposing team would have their FG blocking unit out there as well.

 

[emoney_33]

And in the event of a tie after the minigame?

In the playoffs you keep going minigame to minigame I'd say. In the NBA you can infinite OTs, but it's fair.

 

[Fixit]

Its only "stretching it" because it flies in the face of your argument.

A team can win on the last of of the game in several ways. It could have been winning to start the drive and just be taking kneel downs. Or it could be forced into trying to score a FG or TD. Where as, in OT, the team with the ball HAS to be trying to score. And, as pointed out, this year, in the 15 OT games that occured, 9 of them were won by the team getting the ball first. That's 60%.

I think that's about the same winning percentage that home teams enjoy year in and year out. Should we just do neutral site games?

Allow me to reiterate, I'd like to see some improvements to overtime, but I have no problem with it staying the way it is. If you deserve to win, you will, regardless of who wins the toss.

 

[Fixit]

I've got an idea. The NFL should implement a "shoot out" ala Hockey. Except, for the NFL, it would be FG kicking. Each team would start off kicking from the opposing 20 yard line.. and then move each kick back 5 yards. And they go until they miss..

So, the FGs would be 37, 42, 47,52, 57.

And yes, the opposing team would have their FG blocking unit out there as well.

Unless you were serious, in which case I'm deducting five Internets from you.

 

[Fixit]

In the playoffs you keep going minigame to minigame I'd say. In the NBA you can infinite OTs, but it's fair.

Wait, that's a better solution than the current one? Here's mine:

I'd rather see each team get the ball, with the second team forced to beat the first team's result. First team punts, FG or better wins it...second team gets nothing, they do it again. First team gets a FG, TD wins it...anything else is a loss. First team gets a TD, second team has to get a TD and go for two. No ties, because they're evil.

Tons of strategy, and, best of all, it remains a normal football game.

 

[Richter]

They should do what the other major sports do - play another period. Yup, 15 more minutes of football. It's fair to both teams, it's a suitable punishment for both teams that they couldn't settle things in regulation, AND it gives us more football. What's not to like? In baseball, they play another whole inning, in basketball, they play a shortened but otherwise unchanged period, hockey... well, hockey's not a major sport anymore. Even soccer plays another period, though a fair amount of leagues use a so-called "golden goal" rule, which is unfortunate. Belichick himself wants to see them just play another, shorter period, so it's likely to be a pretty decent suggestion.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

You really should read what was said. The 60% that was mentioned was how many games were won this year on the 1st posession. Which, btw, directly affects yourr 57/43 ratio since they were kick-offs from the 30.

[snip]

BTW, shortening the half time from 15 minutes to 12 minutes actually reduced the amount of commercial time. It didn't add to it.

Wrong and wrong.

7 of 15 OT games this year (so far) were won on the first possession. Same last year, by the way.

The clock rule changes led to an average of about 7.5 fewer plays per game, and a 7 percent increase in commercials during game time. Among other things, it permitted a number of changes: Television timeouts before and after kick offs after the first two possession of the quarter (unless only 2:00 or left in the quarter); mandatory television time out for the first time out of every half (and increase to 90 seconds); permitted television time out after changes of possession on turnover if drive preceding turnover was over a certain length (amount of time depends on whether it's in the last 2:00 of first half or 5:00 of second half).

Any overtime scenario, over time, should lead to 50/50 results. That's the key. Not how often the team that gets the ball scores first, or perceptions about whether each team getting the ball first would be more "fair." A 20 year history of 50/50 results means the system works, because the 20 years overcomes all other variables like home/away, weather, etc. Before the kick off move, the stats showed about 50.8 percent to 49.2.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

In the playoffs you keep going minigame to minigame I'd say. In the NBA you can infinite OTs, but it's fair.

Problem is football is a much more physical game. The team that won in the 4th overtime period would have almost no chance at winning a game the following week.

 

[Fixit]

They should do what the other major sports do - play another period. Yup, 15 more minutes of football. It's fair to both teams, it's a suitable punishment for both teams that they couldn't settle things in regulation, AND it gives us more football. What's not to like? In baseball, they play another whole inning, in basketball, they play a shortened but otherwise unchanged period, hockey... well, hockey's not a major sport anymore. Even soccer plays another period, though a fair amount of leagues use a so-called "golden goal" rule, which is unfortunate. Belichick himself wants to see them just play another, shorter period, so it's likely to be a pretty decent suggestion.

Then we're still left with the problem of what to do in the event of a tie, only this time we've sandwiched another period in there.

 

[Synovia]

If you deserve to win, you will, regardless of who wins the toss.

So, clearly, 60% of the teams that deserve to win, win the toss. Unfair coin?