Belichick: "Let's make NFL OT like college basketball OT.."

[PatsFanSince74]

I don't have a problem with ties during the Regular Season, but I guess I'm in a minority.

In the playoffs, I prefer what we have now, effectively Sudden Death with each team getting a chance to possess the ball if one team gets a FG. I'm not sure how an eight minute OT would improve things in the Playoffs. One team could get into scoring position and then milk the clock, kick a FG or score a TD and leave the other team only two minutes or so to score.

 

[mikey m]

I don't have a problem with ties during the Regular Season, but I guess I'm in a minority.

In the playoffs, I prefer what we have now, effectively Sudden Death with each team getting a chance to possess the ball if one team gets a FG. I'm not sure how an eight minute OT would improve things in the Playoffs. One team could get into scoring position and then milk the clock, kick a FG or score a TD and leave the other team only two minutes or so to score.

Which is exactly the same as regulation = situational football for both sides which is what BB wants. Me too. I agree it should only be in the postseason though.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sports is all about entertainment.

No, it's not.

Hockey's 3 on 3 is great entertainment.

No, it's not. Not when it's a gimmick instead of part of the flow of the game. It's as stupid as making NBA overtime a 3-on-3 halfcourt affair.

Back in the 80s and 90s, even with the 5 minutes OT, close to 20% of all games ended up in ties (in the last season before shootouts, 14% of all games ended up in ties). I'd rather much have 5 minutes of 'pseudo hockey' than sitting through (or worse, paying good money to watch live) a 150 minutes game that will end up in a tie 20% of the time.

Then you don't actually like hockey, because that's not hockey.

 

[RDS11]

No, it's not.



No, it's not. Not when it's a gimmick instead of part of the flow of the game. It's as stupid as making NBA overtime a 3-on-3 halfcourt affair.



Then you don't actually like hockey, because that's not hockey.

Really ? Sports isn't entertainment ? That's absurd.
So what's the purpose then ? We have to watch sports because it's the law ? If people are not entertained, they won't watch, period.
Given how the NFL freaked out about the TV ratings going down this year, don't take my word, take theirs; they tweaked a few things during the season in order to have more entertaining games, get the ratings up, and save the previous TV dollars.

People don't remember what the game looked like before shootouts. Major league owners are the most conservative people there is, they won't do a change unless they absolutely need to. In the 90s, with the scoring down from the 80s, with a tie in the 3rd period teams would be playing for the tie in order to keep their point. That made 1/3 of the game unwatchable. And the 5 minutes OT was dreadful as well; I'm sure if the coaches were given the chance to shake hands on a tie before playing the 5 minutes, they would have done so, just to make sure they would get the point.

You don't like 3 on 3, I do. I don't mind some changes upping the entertainment value of the game. Changes-on-the-fly used to be a gimmicky thing too, and in the 30s people within the game used to say it was breaking the flow of the game too. It's been part of the game for close to 90 years and nobody would go back to having the same players on the ice at all time.

 

[RDS11]

I'm not a hockey fan, but if I had paid to see a hockey game and they did something else I'd be upset. Were the ticket buyers aware that ties exist or were they reality-challenged.
The easily entertained apparently are more forgiving of false advertising than I am.

For the record, I think sudden death NHL playoff hockey is one of the most fun thing to watch. But with an 82-games schedule, going into a 2nd OT period on a Thursday night with the team having to fly across the continent for a Saturday night game, this is not going to happen for the regular season. So, if sudden death is not possible, then what's the next best alternative ?

And as I said in my other post, the old regular season tie system wasn't working. Nothing more boring that 2 teams playing ultra-conservative hockey for 25 minutes in order to 'not lose' 1 point. It has been tried, it wasn't working. Nowadays, we still have teams who are playing to get to OT in order to get a point, so some 3rd periods remain unwatchable, but now with the high-tempo 3-on-3 OT, people leave the arena with a much better feeling than if they had seen 2 teams playing not to lose for the final 25 minutes.

Btw, international hockey has a shootout in place even in medal games. I don't like that, but to say it's not part of the game because it's not what the NHL does would be mistaken.

 

[Bill Lee]

No OT in regular season. Games can end in a tie. Deal with it.

Going from 15 to 10 minutes makes no sense. It doesn't serve the goal of player safety much and doesn't serve the goal of eliminating ties much. Regular season OT really isn't dramatic. It's like watching punch-drunk boxers stagger around the ring. Get rid of it, says I.

 

[Thelonious]

I'm with BB on this. Extend the game to get a winner. After fifteen minutes of real, full-featured football, if you still don't have a winner, shrug, call it a tie, and head for the tub.

 

[captain stone]

Isn't Bill advocating just a 10-minute OT, not 15?

 

[Deus Irae]

Really ? Sports isn't entertainment ? That's absurd.
So what's the purpose then ? We have to watch sports because it's the law ? If people are not entertained, they won't watch, period.

Don't go moving the goalposts. This is what you wrote:

Sports is all about entertainment.

That's clearly wrong.

People don't remember what the game looked like before shootouts.

If you mean "some people", you're right. If you mean "people" in the general sense, you're way off the mark.

Major league owners are the most conservative people there is, they won't do a change unless they absolutely need to. In the 90s, with the scoring down from the 80s, with a tie in the 3rd period teams would be playing for the tie in order to keep their point. That made 1/3 of the game unwatchable. And the 5 minutes OT was dreadful as well; I'm sure if the coaches were given the chance to shake hands on a tie before playing the 5 minutes, they would have done so, just to make sure they would get the point.

The games were more watchable then than they are now.

You don't like 3 on 3, I do. I don't mind some changes upping the entertainment value of the game. Changes-on-the-fly used to be a gimmicky thing too, and in the 30s people within the game used to say it was breaking the flow of the game too. It's been part of the game for close to 90 years and nobody would go back to having the same players on the ice at all time.

You're not a fan of hockey. I am. This is a simple dichotomy. And the 3-on-3 overtime doesn't up the entertainment value of the game. It's not even designed to do that. It's designed to increase the percentage chance that a goal will be scored quickly.

 

[TommyD4207]

The only potential downside of this is, if there were less time in OT, teams may end up trying to run the ball and slowing down the pace so that the other team never gets possession back. A way to get around this is maybe to decrease the 40-25 second play clock to something like 30-15 seconds during OT. But heck, if a defense can't stop the run I guess they don't deserve to win.

I mean, that's just strategy.

You don't want the other team to run the ball the entire overtime? You know, you could tackle them. I think that's allowed.