Welcome to PatsFans.com

An idea about overtime

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Pats726, Nov 22, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Just thought I'd give my thoughts about what could be done about it. I hate ties and I wouldn't ever allow one..you just play till it's over..like in baseball. I know that could extend games a bit, but more likely than not some team will get tired quicker and one tean will win.
    I don't like the college system for the pros...runs scores up and gives away touchdowns too quickly. SO a few TDs in OT is teh same as one earned in long drives?? Just don't like it and even worse when looking at stats.
    I would have an OT period that would be played till the end. 10 minutes (nothing scared about this except it's not 15 which is too long and would allow BOTH teams to get the ball. OK..maybe a team COULD keep it for the alloted time, but rare...and if they did, I THINK they would deserve to win.) Since it's played to the full, a team could go for 2 or not, all depending on what they think would happen in the 2nd OT period..but most likely at the end of this 10 minutes, someone would win.
    If it's tied, the team that did not get the ball in the first OT would get it then. And in this period, it's sudden death, so that any score wins.
    Just an idea and not sure it's all good or bad, but it's a thought.
  2. Sivy

    Sivy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,060
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    any idea is better than a coin toss...unless its like the roll of a dice or something, then thatd be just as bad.
  3. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    first team to 6 points wins
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2008
  4. Sicilian

    Sicilian On the Roster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    5,035
    Likes Received:
    167
    Ratings:
    +409 / 1 / -2

    This actually sounds great the more I think about it.
  5. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Why not winner is the team leading after 5 minutes of overtime, and then sudden death after that if it is tied at 5 minutes.
  6. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    A great idea. Scratch mine, I like this one better. Keep it sudden death, first to 6 wins.
  7. 102 Pat

    102 Pat Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,893
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +41 / 3 / -2

    #85 Jersey

    I like the college way of doing things, start on your own 20, have your drive then your opponent gets it back on there 20. It's a bit contradicting that the NFL doesn't want to have a full quarter of OT, but are thinking about adding another regular season game...:confused:
  8. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Again..the problem with that is that one team might never see the ball...what about the first team to hit 8?? I would grant a team that goes for the TD and the 2 should win..and THAT would be the only exception that a team would NOT see the ball in OT. But if it's a real defensive game...getting to even 6 might be hard...let alone 8. But these thoughts are a LOT better than a coin toss..
  9. Sicilian

    Sicilian On the Roster

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    5,035
    Likes Received:
    167
    Ratings:
    +409 / 1 / -2

    That's my thought: ANYTHING is better than a coin toss sudden death. One bad PI call and the game is over after that.

    My first preference would be the college format, except let the teams kick off. Each team gets one possession, after that it's sudden death. A possession would be defined by an offensive snap or a score. This would exclude things like a team throwing an interception, the interceptor fumbles it right back, and thus the defending team had their "possession". It also means an INT returned for a TD would end the game.
  10. Ciara's Dad

    Ciara's Dad Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Personally speaking, I don't see anything wrong with a tied game, but if you are going to have o/t, then the team which receives the kick off, shouldn't be allowed the chance to run it back. Give them the ball on the 20yd line and make them work for anything they get.
  11. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    there is no problems with that. if you can't stop a td and a team from going 100 yards then you deserve to lose.

    the current way of just a field goal winning gives little margin of error for a defense
  12. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    For me the biggest problem is a team winning a random coin toss, getting some crap PI call or making one good throw, and then kicking a FG to win.

    First to 6 is a great idea because it primarily prevents that one scenario from happening.

    If a team that lost the coin toss gives up the TD, they deserve to lose.
  13. Disco Volante

    Disco Volante Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,216
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    Why does no one ever mention the easiest solution?

    Just allow the other team to match! Once one of the teams isn't able to match the other, the game is over.
  14. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    So suddenly in OT ST isn't a third of your game???

    I think it's fine the way it is. If you don't want to face the coin toss, do something about it before regulation runs out...as we did in XXXVI.

    If teams have a fixed time OT or a guaranteed posession they will be even less inclined to go for the win. If you don't want to leave first posession to luck of the draw then have the OT commence with an extension of the rotation that the game began with 60 minutes earlier. Teams who want to hedge their bets against losing out on any OT posession can elect to receive to open the game rather than opting to receive the second half kickoff.
  15. PatsFan37

    PatsFan37 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    #37 Jersey

    Tom Curran suggested exactly that. The main objection is that two strong offenses could keep putting up field goals. The coaches and owners are opposed, as mentioned above, to the extra wear and tear.

    So I'd make this change -- allow the other team exactly one matching possession. If the first team scores and the second team scores and the first team scores again, OT is over. If you can't generate a stop in two series, you don't deserve to win.
  16. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    I am not sure teams would be less inclined to go for a win if teams knew it would be a fixed 10 minutes. Why would they wish to extend a game when they could end in regulation? Gee...more plays on the field, more chance of injuries, more wear and tear? Maybe teams would NOT want that and try to win in regulation..not wanting a guaranteed 10 minutes MORE of play.
    Continuing with the rotation might be better than a coin toss, but that still doesn't guuarantee a possession each.
    I agree eliminating ST is not good for the game in OT..it's PART of it and always should be.
    What about one possession each and if it's tied the from that point sudden death??
    I really think there must be a way that is better and fairer.
  17. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    So...the first team to get the ball in OT always has the advantage? The first team's D might be just as bad...so?? That doesn't matter? Basically it would be one possession each and then sudden death..correct??
  18. godef

    godef Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    No kidding. It'll stop those first-possession-40-yards-and-kick-a-field-goal-for-a-cheap-win overtime drives and make that team really try for a TD before settling for the field goal, knowing the other team could come back and score a TD.
  19. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    42,022
    Likes Received:
    440
    Ratings:
    +1,318 / 59 / -71

    Disable Jersey

    Football's not a back and forth sport the way hockey is, so any time a "sudden death" enters into it, any concept of fairness is out the door. The only way to be fair about an overtime is not to have one. Since abandoning overtime is not likely to happen, the current system is as good as any other I've seen proposed.
  20. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    I agree it's not at all like BB or hockey...I like my original suggestion better than what is there now..did you read that? What you were responding to was my response to another proposal of OT.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>