Overtime change passes for playoffs, regular season could come in May

[signbabybrady]

I don't like. And I think I can explain it fairly simply.

There are 2 scenarios under the new rules where it will be considered a success.

1) If the recieving team gets the ball and drives down the field and scores a TD. You say yey at least it wasnt a cheap field goal they earned it.

2) Recieving team scores a FG and then the other team goes down and scores a TD. You say good they deserved it more as they were able to get the TD.

All other scenarios are weird and awkward. And the problem trying to be solved still exists.

If both teams score FG on their first OT drives than the team that won the coin flip will be getting the ball back with a chance at a good return, short drive, log field goal. or equally as bad if the team to recieve first has a bad return and or a touchback and is at the 20 or less and they go 3 and out then the other team gets the field position and doesn't have to worry about the freaky rules.

Under the old system the idea was that field position would be equal to getting the ball and while it skewed since 94 when the kickoff was moved back I don't think the numbers were skewed enough to warrent wholesale change.

 

[HarkDawg]

I like it b/c a cheap field goal is less likely to win the game.

here me out.... 1st possesion you have a 4th and 3 and are facing a 53 yd field goal.... (no gimmie)
A. Do you try your shot at the FG?
B.Do you go for the 1st down and get closer to TD range?
C. Or Punt the ball and rely on your "SPECIAL TEAMS"? pin them @ their 10 prefrably.


I know the rule.... 1st FG can't win game..... but a TD means that the game is over.

More strategy is involved and I like it

 

[HarkDawg]

there is no problem if each team gets the ball in OT.

IF You miss out on 1st possession.... it's your job to keep them out of the end zone. You deserve to lose if they march right down and score a TD.

 

[signbabybrady]

I like it b/c a cheap field goal is less likely to win the game.

here me out.... 1st possesion you have a 4th and 3 and are facing a 53 yd field goal.... (no gimmie)
A. Do you try your shot at the FG?
B.Do you go for the 1st down and get closer to TD range?
C. Or Punt the ball and rely on your "SPECIAL TEAMS"? pin them @ their 10 prefrably.


I know the rule.... 1st FG can't win game..... but a TD means that the game is over.

More strategy is involved and I like it

See this is where the new system isn't fair. You put one team under huge pressure in this situation. They can't kick or go for it in this situation because if they fail the other team has a short field and can kick the field goal to actually win it. And when you punt the other team is then put under different rules than you were just under. Sure when the game ends you can argue it was fair they had their chance with the ball but they had their chance under completely different rules than the kicking team.

 

[HarkDawg]

See this is where the new system isn't fair. You put one team under huge pressure in this situation. They can't kick or go for it in this situation because if they fail the other team has a short field and can kick the field goal to actually win it. And when you punt the other team is then put under different rules than you were just under. Sure when the game ends you can argue it was fair they had their chance with the ball but they had their chance under completely different rules than the kicking team.

I see your point and it is valid. I believe it is an improvement and we will see more ppl going for it on short yardage situations. It's not a perfect rule.... but I wouldnt say the other team is put under different rules.

Team 1 failed to score
Team 2 goes down field and knocks in a 42 yarder. and wins

I see balance for the most part..... Defense and O are equally important and need to be strong to accomplish the goal of victory.

 

[Deus Irae]

Public perception and sentiment is that what happened in the NFC Championship is "cheap" and embarrassing, and this move is a direct response. Public sentiment is of course partially driven by the opinions of a couple of vocal mediots (King, Florio), but the simplistic and wrong "coin flip decided the game" is still what too many fans think.

I don't see how this proposal leaves an opening for "embarrassment" nearly as big as the previous system does. The public has been primed by the college system for a potential "kicking team has a chance to respond" scenario. And some fans of the losing team will always complain and feel jobbed, but this change probably removed such a perception by the majority of fans.

The "public" hasn't been primed for any such thing. There hasn't been any overwhelming clamor for changing the overtime rules. This was done purely because the league thought of one 'worst case' scenario and decided to alter the system so that new 'worst case' scenarios would take it's place.

"albeit based upon a coin toss" is a significant understatement of the non-levelness of the situation. I like the fact the new rule screws with the game as little as possible since the vast majority of overtimes will still end with a sudden-death win. I would have disliked "first to 6" or the college system or even a timed extra period much less. Sudden death is exciting, it's a good thing.

Nothing is fairer than a 50/50 shot, which is what the coin toss is. That's as level as it gets. As for your 'exciting' option, that's what they already had. According to what was being said, about 5% of games end up in overtime. Then there's a 60-40 win/loss split based upon the coin toss, meaning that there's a theoretical 10% above optimum issue if you assume all other things play out to give a 50% win rate. So, in other words, this rule change came about in order to fix a 'problem' that's happening for 0.5% of games, or 1 game in 200.

Again, with the new rule, the first team with the ball has to play under the 3 downs scenario (3 downs and then punting if they don't move the ball). That will impact how they play the game, naturally. The first team gets the ball on the 20 yard line for example, and it's got 3 downs to get a first down and keep the ball. Failing that, that team has to punt. The second team, down 3-0, gets the ball and already knows that it's going for it on 4th down from the time it receives the ball until the time when it gets into field goal range. That gives that second team an enormous tactical advantage.

 

[PatsChamp88]

If the team A opts to receive in OT then proceeds to kick a FG on their first possession and then stops the team B from scoring on their possession the game is over correct? So in the end team A wins by that FG because team B couldn't match it (FG) or win with a TD?

 

[Synovia]

IF You miss out on 1st possession.... it's your job to keep them out of the end zone. You deserve to lose if they march right down and score a TD.

That would be true if football didn't have any field position.


As it stands, the team winning the toss was winning 65% of the time.

 

[signbabybrady]

That would be true if football didn't have any field position.


As it stands, the team winning the toss was winning 65% of the time.

First off I never saw 65% of the time anywhere. the highest I saw was 59 point something % so say 60%. Slightly above half.


And I have no idea what your point about Field position is. Under the old system it was my opinion that is was pretty fair because one team would get the ball and unless STs screwed up the other team would get field position. This is why the 1994 rule change in which they moved the kick off back is a key date in the percentages of who won in OT pre 94 I believe the the team that recieved actaully only won 48 or 49% of the time and from 94 to present is the 59 point something percent I mentioned above.

So instead of doing something with the rules to change the field position back in favor of the kicking team they just rewrote overtime. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[signbabybrady]

Oh and one more thing if the NFL is so worried about teams getting extra possesions than why don't they get rid of the second half kick off. There should not be a way for the team that ends the half with the ball to start the next half that gives them an extra possesion.

 

[Synovia]

First off I never saw 65% of the time anywhere. the highest I saw was 59 point something % so say 60%. Slightly above half.


And I have no idea what your point about Field position is. Under the old system it was my opinion that is was pretty fair because one team would get the ball and unless STs screwed up the other team would get field position. This is why the 1994 rule change in which they moved the kick off back is a key date in the percentages of who won in OT pre 94 I believe the the team that recieved actaully only won 48 or 49% of the time and from 94 to present is the 59 point something percent I mentioned above. .

The average drive in the NFL is 27 yards. If you get the ball to start, from the 25 yard line, and have an average drive, then punt, you get to the opposite 48, and the opponent starts their drive at the 5.

IE, you start, from a position of +.5 expected points (25 yard line), and they start from a position of -2 expected points (their own 5 yard line). When they get the ball, you're still more likely to score the next points than they are.


Moving the kickoff forward (back to where it was) is probably the best solution, but the NFL hates touchbacks, and wants increased scoring.

 

[signbabybrady]

The average drive in the NFL is 27 yards. If you get the ball to start, from the 25 yard line, and have an average drive, then punt, you get to the opposite 48, and the opponent starts their drive at the 5.

IE, you start, from a position of +.5 expected points (25 yard line), and they start from a position of -2 expected points (their own 5 yard line). When they get the ball, you're still more likely to score the next points than they are.


Moving the kickoff forward (back to where it was) is probably the best solution, but the NFL hates touchbacks, and wants increased scoring.

I understand how field positon is important I don't get how you are relating it to the new system. Sure it is still important in the new system but what changes as far as field position from one system to the other that makes it worth mentioning?

There is a solution to the touchback thing too...if you move the kick off up five yards than move the touchback back five yards too. Sure more kicks will go thru the end zone but if they don't the returner should take the ball out just as often if not more to avoid being pinned back further. Skewing the field position even more toward the team who is kicking.

 

[condon84]

Agree with this move.

Too many times, teams who win the coin flip only need to go 30/40 yards to get in great position for a game-winning FG. The way rules are now, it's too easy for an offense to march 40 yards against a defense that is not only winded, but also a defense that the offense has probably figured out over the course of 4 quarters. Take into the fact that most FG kickers are now kicking at a very high percentage, then you can see why this rule had to change.

 

[Wolfpack]

They fixed a problem that didn't exist and, in the process, they found a terrible 'fix' to use. If you were to design an overtime system and say "I want only extremely crappy options", you'd come up with this one. It's every bit as stupid as the college overtime, maybe more so, and I didn't think anyone would ever come up with something that stupid moving forward.

+1. They fixed a problem that didn't exist and came up with a crappy fix while they were at it.

I have heard countless references to the Vikes-Saints game as the reason behind this rule. People have completely forgotten there was another playoff game that went to overtime and, in that game, the offenses were going back and forth like a pinball machine. The defenses couldn't make a stop to save their lives. It was the perfect set up for "the coinflip will determine who wins the game." Well the Packers won the coinflip, but it didn't work out terribly well for them, did it?

Oh and BTW, the Packers also won the coin flip in their NFCCG against the Giants 3 years ago. How'd that work out for them?

And yet another Packers playoff game had the coin flip winner end up losing. The famous Hasselbeck "we're going to take the ball and win the game" remark when the Seahawks lost.

Speaking of the Seahawks, they won the coinflip against the Bears in (I believe it was) the divisional round a couple years ago. Then they lost the game.

The Jets played 2 OT games in 2005 and in both cases the team that won the flip lost the game.

So can someone tell me again how the system was broken and the coin flip determines the winner of the game?

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Oh and one more thing if the NFL is so worried about teams getting extra possesions than why don't they get rid of the second half kick off. There should not be a way for the team that ends the half with the ball to start the next half that gives them an extra possesion.

I've always liked this idea. I think I've even advocated it here. Forget all of this stuff. The visiting team can choose to take the ball or fourth quarter direction. After that, you just start the game. The third quarter picks up exactly where the second quarter stopped except change of direction. (Just like from the 1st to 2d or 3d to 4th quarters.) If the game is tied at the end of the fourth quarter, just play a 5th quarter picking up from the 4th quarter until someone scores and then the game is over.

I'd have no problem with that system. I'd also get rid of 4 of the 6 time outs per side in this system.

 

[Wolfpack]

OK I decided to stop relying on memory and I took a few minutes to actually look it up, so here are some facts.

Of the last 10 playoff overtime games, the team that won the coin toss is 4-6. That's not "4 wins on their first possession" - that's 4 total wins and 6 total losses for the team that won the coin toss. So that pretty much blows away the people who complain about how the coin toss decides the winner of the game.

Only twice has a team won the toss and scored without the other team touching the ball, and only once was it a field goal (that being the recent NO-Min game). 2 games actually ended on defensive touchdowns.

Let me say that again: More games actually ended on defensive touchdowns than on the first-possession-FG.

Now could someone tell me why the rule was so broken the way it was that it needed to be changed? Oh yeah, that's right... because Brett Favre didn't get his turn against New Orleans. Even though in 2 of those 10 games he threw interceptions in overtime (not to mention his last-minute-of-regulation interception in the NO game).

 

[signbabybrady]

OK I decided to stop relying on memory and I took a few minutes to actually look it up, so here are some facts.

Of the last 10 playoff overtime games, the team that won the coin toss is 4-6. That's not "4 wins on their first possession" - that's 4 total wins and 6 total losses for the team that won the coin toss. So that pretty much blows away the people who complain about how the coin toss decides the winner of the game.

Only twice has a team won the toss and scored without the other team touching the ball, and only once was it a field goal (that being the recent NO-Min game). 2 games actually ended on defensive touchdowns.

Let me say that again: More games actually ended on defensive touchdowns than on the first-possession-FG.

Now could someone tell me why the rule was so broken the way it was that it needed to be changed? Oh yeah, that's right... because Brett Favre didn't get his turn against New Orleans. Even though in 2 of those 10 games he threw interceptions in overtime (not to mention his last-minute-of-regulation interception in the NO game).

I am against this rule change but why did you only chose playoffs when there is a much larger sample size if you include regular season?

I know for now the rule change only effects postseason but they are making this change based on the outcome of all overtime games and fearing that if the numbers in regular season held true in the postseason than it would be a problem.

I can see where the issue is but I don't like the solution they came up with for many reasons most I have posted in this thread already but I think there is definitely stats to show that a problem was there (you can debate how big the problem was as 60-40 doesn't seem like a big problem to me).

 

[NovaScotiaPatsFan]

Why do people think a FG is less valid than a TD? We won all 3 of our Superbowls by Field Goals, do they count any less than teams who won by 7+ points?

This league is so offense minded, what about the D? If your D can't stop a team in OT and get the ball back I think they deserve to lose.

 

[Wolfpack]

I am against this rule change but why did you only chose playoffs when there is a much larger sample size if you include regular season?

I know for now the rule change only effects postseason but they are making this change based on the outcome of all overtime games and fearing that if the numbers in regular season held true in the postseason than it would be a problem.

You asked me a question and then you went on and gave my answer to it. This rule only affects the post season, so I gave relevant post season statistics.

It cracks me up that in the last 10 post season OT games, we were more likely to see Brett Favre throw an interception than we were to see a first-possession-FG. Maybe they should make a rule that in the interest of fairness, both teams have to have Brett Favre as their QB?

 

[signbabybrady]

You asked me a question and then you went on and gave my answer to it. This rule only affects the post season, so I gave relevant post season statistics.

It cracks me up that in the last 10 post season OT games, we were more likely to see Brett Favre throw an interception than we were to see a first-possession-FG. Maybe they should make a rule that in the interest of fairness, both teams have to have Brett Favre as their QB?

See this is the problem with statistics you can grab any sample size you want and the results can be very different.

Other than the fact that in the Playoffs the game could not end in a tie there are no other differences between the old Regular season rules and the old postseason rules so there is no reason to throw out those samples other than the fact that by using the sample you did it helped make your case. Again I am against the new rule but that doesn't mean I have to agree with a useless gathering of data.