Banks and King debate overtime

[SVN]

SI.com's Peter King and Don Banks debate OT rules - NFL - SI.com

banks really gets into it

BANKS: OK, but you want to know something that really drives me crazy? It's when I hear you and others complain that the reigning league MVP didn't even get to touch the ball Saturday night in overtime, as if Peyton Manning somehow deserved a chance to win the game in dramatic fashion. The truth is, he had his chance to win the game and be the hero, and it came late in regulation.

Had the Colts been able to execute on that 3rd and 2 from their own 9 with 2:30 remaining, they would have been able to run out the clock on the trailing Chargers, who had already burned all three of their timeouts. Instead, Manning double-clutched while searching for a receiver, didn't see blitzing Chargers linebacker Tim Dobbins and wound up taking an eight-yard sack to the Indy 1. That forced a Colts punt and set up the Chargers' game-tying field goal drive.

But to act like Manning was deprived of a chance to affect the outcome of the game when it was on the line is pure fantasy. He had his chance. And had he and the Colts made the most of it, overtime would have never even occurred. Sorry, but no special rules should apply just because your last name is Manning.

BANKS: It shouldn't. But if you think the overtime debate would have been just as vocal this week if it were Rivers rather than Manning who never touched the ball in OT, I think you're in the distinct minority. I think because it was Peyton Manning, the league's three-time MVP, who didn't get to step on the field in overtime, that pumped up the volume. Considerably.

KING: Maybe, but I was saying the same thing when Brett Favre and the Jets got the ball in overtime in Week 11 at New England, and the Patriots' Matt Cassel and his 401 yards of passing never saw the field. Same situation. And it needs fixing.

funny i never heard king complain after that overtime win by the jets.

 

[ALP]

SI.com's Peter King and Don Banks debate OT rules - NFL - SI.com

banks really gets into it




funny i never heard king complain after that overtime win by the jets.

neither did I

 

[Mix]

funny i never heard king complain after that overtime win by the jets.

This is what he said the week after the Jets/Pats OT game...

I've never been in favor of the college overtime rule for pro football, but I have been a constant advocate of the rule that each team should have one possession, minimum, in overtime. It's ridiculous that a coin flip should have so much bearing on the outcome of a pro football game

Link

 

[SVN]

This is what he said the week after the Jets/Pats OT game...



Link

my bad. i guess he did .but as banks points out it didnt receive that much noise since favre wasnt at the receiving end of that loss like manning is now.

 

[Watson's IQ]

I've gone back and forth on this one over the years, I can't really decide which side I'm on. Just saying "minimum of one possession per team" seems to be over-simplifying it though.

Wasn't there data a while back that shows the team that won the coin toss isn't that much more likely to win? I mean, it's up to the defense and special teams of the kicking team to stop them, and if they do their job, the offense will get a chance.

 

[SVN]

I've gone back and forth on this one over the years, I can't really decide which side I'm on. Just saying "minimum of one possession per team" seems to be over-simplifying it though.

Wasn't there data a while back that shows the team that won the coin toss isn't that much more likely to win? I mean, it's up to the defense and special teams of the kicking team to stop them, and if they do their job, the offense will get a chance.

BB's idea on WEEI after the jets loss was interesting too. Just play the 15 mins. If some team holds the ball for11 mins so be it. giving 1 possession etc and other alternatives really take the strategy part out of the game regarding timeouts and challenges and when to go for it etc. it thought it was interesting view.He said the NFL doesnt like because the game becomes too long in that case.

 

[Watson's IQ]

BB's idea on WEEI after the jets loss was interesting too. Just play the 15 mins. If some team holds the ball for11 mins so be it. giving 1 possession etc and other alternatives really take the strategy part out of the game regarding timeouts and challenges and when to go for it etc. it thought it was interesting view.He said the NFL doesnt like because the game becomes too long in that case.

You'd also end up with a boatload of ties, which is not something I think the NFL would want either.

 

[Nunchucks]

keep it the way it is, if you can't win a game in 4 quarters, tough luck if you can't win it in the 5th

 

[jmt57]

my bad. i guess he did .but as banks points out it didnt receive that much noise since favre wasnt at the receiving end of that loss like manning is now.

Yeah, I'm guessing there would have been a bit more attention to the OT rule in the national media had the Pats won the coin flip and scored on the first possession.

Personally I like a minimum-one-possession each or first-to-score-six rather than the current setup.

 

[Watson's IQ]

Yeah, I'm guessing there would have been a bit more attention to the OT rule in the national media had the Pats won the coin flip and scored on the first possession.

Personally I like a minimum-one-possession each or first-to-score-six rather than the current setup.

Why? The rule is the rule. Plenty of OT games are decided on the first possession, and not all of them require a full-blown media investigation. The Jets beating the Patriots to take over the division lead without Cassel touching the ball was just as significant as the Pats beating Favre without him touching it would have been.

 

[Dfresh429]

I've gone back and forth on this one over the years, I can't really decide which side I'm on. Just saying "minimum of one possession per team" seems to be over-simplifying it though.

Wasn't there data a while back that shows the team that won the coin toss isn't that much more likely to win? I mean, it's up to the defense and special teams of the kicking team to stop them, and if they do their job, the offense will get a chance.

It's simplified because it IS simple..and I don't know why the league doesn't figure this out...The way OT is currently, the complete game of football isn't even displayed...

The most obvious and logical solution is:
- Coin Flip
- Team A receives:
- IF Team A scores:
- Team A kicks off and Team B has a chance to match or beat the score. If Team B beats the score, the game is over. If Team B matchs Team A, sudden death rules apply.
- IF Team A doesn't score:
- Team A {punts, fumbles, INT, turnover on downs} Team B has a chance to score. If Team B scores, game over. If Team B {punts, fumbles, INT, turnover on downs} sudden death rules apply.

This way, all aspects of the game are included (offense, defense and special teams) and each team is guaranteed 1 possession. It does not elongate the game more than a few minutes and creates a level of drama that is not currently reached in the format we have today.

So simple, yet they do not adopt it.

 

[Synovia]

Wasn't there data a while back that shows the team that won the coin toss isn't that much more likely to win?

Historically, since moving the kickoff, the team winning the toss in OT has won 57% of the time, so no, theres no data that says the team winning the toss isn't that much more likely to win.


57-43 is a huge difference.


Before they moved the kickoff, it was 51-49. Just move the kickoff back 10 yards in OT. Problem solved. 50/50 chance of winning.

 

[Watson's IQ]

Historically, since moving the kickoff, the team winning the toss in OT has won 57% of the time, so no, theres no data that says the team winning the toss isn't that much more likely to win.


57-43 is a huge difference.


Before they moved the kickoff, it was 51-49. Just move the kickoff back 10 yards in OT. Problem solved. 50/50 chance of winning.

I won't disagree that's a huge difference, for some reason I thought it was less. Your solution seems wise.

 

[Metaphors]

Personally I like a minimum-one-possession each or first-to-score-six rather than the current setup.

Can't have a reasonable "minimum-one-possession" rule because it wouldn't address an onside kick or fumble on the kickoff (unless you consider that a 0 play possession).

My suggestion is to have a series of three 5 minute overtime periods. You move to the next period if the score is still tied. After 3 such periods, if you are still tied the game is mercifully ended in a tie. You can manipulate the timeout situation, clock stoppages, time between periods, etc. to fine-tune the overtimes for TV.

While this doesn't ensure that both teams get the ball, it doesn't change the rules and lets a team use its timeouts to stop the clock if the opposing team gets in field goal range.

 

[NENGFAN]

It's simplified because it IS simple..and I don't know why the league doesn't figure this out...The way OT is currently, the complete game of football isn't even displayed...

The most obvious and logical solution is:
- Coin Flip
- Team A receives:
- IF Team A scores:
- Team A kicks off and Team B has a chance to match or beat the score. If Team B beats the score, the game is over. If Team B matchs Team A, sudden death rules apply.
- IF Team A doesn't score:
- Team A {punts, fumbles, INT, turnover on downs} Team B has a chance to score. If Team B scores, game over. If Team B {punts, fumbles, INT, turnover on downs} sudden death rules apply.

This way, all aspects of the game are included (offense, defense and special teams) and each team is guaranteed 1 possession. It does not elongate the game more than a few minutes and creates a level of drama that is not currently reached in the format we have today.

So simple, yet they do not adopt it.

This is the simplest and best idea. Not sure why the NFl can't agree to this.

 

[JSn]

I think the first team to six points would be ideal. The problem with first-to-score is that it shortens the playing field with victory on the line, but 30+ yards.

Either a TD or two FG's to win, no questions asked and teams will try to get to the end zone harder because they know a FG isn't going to make sure they win.

Just my 14 cents (tossing more in to help with the recession).

 

[Pats726]

I would suggest two short periods...5, 6 7 minutes...(originally I thought 5...but nothing magical about that..I think it would depend on the number of time outs allowed for each team per period and their length.) The reason the length an dnumber of time outs is so important is that the league has claimed that they want a quick OT..not long extended..and these factors can be manipulated so that it can be a quick OT situation. (I am thinking in 30 minutes it all would be over..meaning more like 5 minute periods and maybe 1 TO per team per period..(maybe NO 2 min warning)...Just making it quicte fast. Each team would get a kickoff and the ball and make what they can of it. If they wish to drive long fine, but they may ONLY get a field goal. If they drive quick, the other team MAY have an opportunity to get points and THEN the ball in the next period. ALL aspects of the game would be taken care of and with a set limit..the game would be OVER within 30 or so minutes. If they are tied at the end, it's a tie. With FGs, chances for 2 pts, no reason to continue in sudden death; as much as I HATE ties.

 

[Watson's IQ]

I think the first team to six points would be ideal. The problem with first-to-score is that it shortens the playing field with victory on the line, but 30+ yards.

Either a TD or two FG's to win, no questions asked and teams will try to get to the end zone harder because they know a FG isn't going to make sure they win.

Just my 14 cents (tossing more in to help with the recession).

Seems to me that such a rule would have a rather profound effect on overtime strategy. Teams would be much more liable to go for it in situations where a FG is almost always the correct play in the NFL (say 4th and short from the 20 or something in a tie game). A lot of teams would be scared to kick a FG, even from relative gimme distance, if there was a chance their offense wouldn't touch the ball again should the other team score a TD.

To be fair, this might actually make OT much more interesting with all the possible permutations, but I doubt the NFL would want to force such a radical change in strategy. Not to mention, I suspect the team that got the ball first would still win the majority of the time.

 

[dhamz]

Banks point about this suddenly being the most discussed issue of the weekend because it was Manning and not Rivers who never touched the ball was just a knockout punch to King in that back and forth.

The only fair way to do it would be to play another period. That isn't going to happen because they don't want the extra injuries that would result and most importantly they don't want their games going an extra hour. The NFL makes billions based on everything fitting in to a 3 hour-3:15 window on Sunday and will always go with an OT format that keeps it as short as possible.

 

[Watson's IQ]

Banks point about this suddenly being the most discussed issue of the weekend because it was Manning and not Rivers who never touched the ball was just a knockout punch to King in that back and forth.

The only fair way to do it would be to play another period. That isn't going to happen because they don't want the extra injuries that would result and most importantly they don't want their games going an extra hour. The NFL makes billions based on everything fitting in to a 3 hour-3:15 window on Sunday and will always go with an OT format that keeps it as short as possible.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, playing an entire extra period (non sudden-death) would lead to significantly more tie games as well, which you can probably add to the list of things the NFL wouldn't like about it.