NFL Competition Committee not changing overtime

[Deus Irae]

The only fair overtime is no overtime. There is no other way to do it. Since that's not going to happen, the rest is just shifting the deckchairs of the Titanic.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The only fair overtime is no overtime. There is no other way to do it. Since that's not going to happen, the rest is just shifting the deckchairs of the Titanic.

I take your point. In a sense, if an NFL game is defined as two 30 minute halves with three time outs each, two (up to three) Coaches' Challenges and various rule adjustments in the last two minutes, then the only fair way to do OT is to play another full half, same rules. Otherwise, if a game ended in a tie after 60 minutes and there's no "elimination" factor to compel a definitive resolution, the game should be declared a "Tie." The problem is, of course, that this flies in the face of a common need/desire for "resolution" of a game with a clear "winner/loser," is impractical from a TV perspective and exposes players to greater risk.

I think the current system is as close as we'll come to a fair system, acknowledging its flaws.

 

[Rossmci90]

Personally i don't have any problem with ties, why does there have to be a winner/loser?

 

[neuronet]

I almost wish they'd change the rule so people here wouldn't whine about the rules beating the Pats in OT (seriously, that's what it's probably like at a Chargers board).

Note "In 2008, the team that won the coin toss had a 43.4 percent success rate in winning the game on the series following the toss." In other words, in 56.6 percent of games, the team that loses the toss gets the ball. So quit whining, we don't want more injuries, and hope that the Pats D doesn't give up a third and 15 again.

Sudden death is fun, and necessitates its own strategy for approaching the end of the game, and a new coaching strategy for defense (something our D coordinator somehow overlooked this year). The players don't want the rules changed, and that should count for something. God knows we don't need any more injuries, which increase in likelihood near the end of a game when they are tired.

 

[neuronet]

Personally i don't have any problem with ties, why does there have to be a winner/loser?

Broken in by soccer. Ties are unamerican.

 

[godef]

I'm saying it should. Divisions are outdated, from a time when traveling outside of your region constantly wasn't practical, so they weighted schedules to favor local teams.

Some say rivalries are born from divisions, and that's true. But sometimes the best rivalries come from non-divisional opponents. Look at Celtics-Lakers, or Pats-Colts.

I think they should split each conference into 2 8-team divisions. No more home-and-away within the division; you play division foes once a season, home one year, away the next. That's 7 games; the 8th game would be against the team in the other division in the same position, ie 1st vs 1st, etc. 4 more games vs the other division in a formula that's equitable to all teams, and then the final 4 games vs half of the other teams in the other conference (this last part would be more muckity-muck trying to weight the SOS and assure you play all teams over a 4 year period).

This would be the alignment:

AFC East: Pats, Buff, Jets, Miam, Balt, Pitt, Jack, Tenn
AFC West: SanD, Oakl, Denv, Hous, Indy, Clev, Cinc, KanC

NFC East: Dall, Giants, Phil, Wash, TBay, Atla, Caro, NOrl
NFC West: SanF, Seat, Ariz, Chic, Detr, GBay, Minn, SLou

 

[godef]

The only fair overtime is no overtime. There is no other way to do it. Since that's not going to happen, the rest is just shifting the deckchairs of the Titanic.

So what if the Pats and Indy tie in the AFCC?

 

[Deus Irae]

The only fair overtime is no overtime. There is no other way to do it. Since that's not going to happen, the rest is just shifting the deckchairs of the Titanic.

So what if the Pats and Indy tie in the AFCC?

It gets resolved by an inherently unfair system. There's nothing that can be done, because they can't wait another week and play again. The closest thing to a 'fair' solution is to keep ties during the regular season and only use an overtime in the playoffs. Since that's not going to happen, let them make any little tweaks they want, but don't expect that you'll ever completely eliminate the unfairness.

Sudden death favors the winner of the coin toss. First to 6 points would still favor the winner of the coin toss, especially when the better offensive team wins the toss. Half a full period would favor both the coin toss winner and a grind-it-out sort of team. A full overtime period would favor the team which plays a style that doesn't tire out its players as much, etc.... There's no way to make a truly outcome-neutral overtime.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

The current overtime rule isn't perfect, but it's better than any alternative that I've heard.

Taking away divisions would suck. Divisions build rivalries, and even though we missed it with 11-5, I still wouldn't change it.

 

[DW Toys]

There's only one way it will change. When the Patriots win the toss in the Super Bowl and win on a Gostkowski field goal on the opening drive of OT.

If Polian survives the stroke he'll have, it'll be changed on the first day of the offseason.

Great but true.
DW Toys

 

[DW Toys]

It gets resolved by an inherently unfair system. There's nothing that can be done, because they can't wait another week and play again. The closest thing to a 'fair' solution is to keep ties during the regular season and only use an overtime in the playoffs. Since that's not going to happen, let them make any little tweaks they want, but don't expect that you'll ever completely eliminate the unfairness.

Sudden death favors the winner of the coin toss. First to 6 points would still favor the winner of the coin toss, especially when the better offensive team wins the toss. Half a full period would favor both the coin toss winner and a grind-it-out sort of team. A full overtime period would favor the team which plays a style that doesn't tire out its players as much, etc.... There's no way to make a truly outcome-neutral overtime.

How about this idea cousin? It is so simple that they have not thought of it. The fans would go wild for it and it would be fair. The team has to score a TD in OT to win. No field goals! This would involve punting even on the thirty yard line. Or even going for it on fourth down. A whole new dynamic. They change nothing but eliminate the chinzy field goal. They can keep their rules that cost millions to have advisers figure out. Just eliminate some 160 pound, crazy as a "out"house rat, field goal kicker trotting on to the field with an untouched, unsoiled squeaky clean uniform, to decide a contest that men have been fighting to decide for three hours. More than likely that cousin doesn't even know the score anyway.
This way if you stop someone on your one, you still have a chance to go 99 to win.

DW Toys

 

[Deus Irae]

How about this idea cousin? It is so simple that they have not thought of it. The fans would go wild for it and it would be fair. The team has to score a TD in OT to win. No field goals! This would involve punting even on the thirty yard line. Or even going for it on fourth down. A whole new dynamic. They change nothing but eliminate the chinzy field goal. They can keep their rules that cost millions to have advisers figure out. Just eliminate some 160 pound, crazy as a "out"house rat, field goal kicker trotting on to the field with an untouched, unsoiled squeaky clean uniform, to decide a contest that men have been fighting to decide for three hours. More than likely that cousin doesn't even know the score anyway.
This way if you stop someone on your one, you still have a chance to go 99 to win.

DW Toys

Don't take this personally, because you're certainly not the only person to advocate that sort of thing, but... that's a terrible idea. It's like winning by shootouts in soccer and hockey where you're not actually winning the game you were playing, you're winning a skills competition. You are doing the same thing in a lot of ways. You're essentially taking away the special teams aspect of the game and removing a scoring avenue that's previously been available for the entire game.

 

[Rossmci90]

Broken in by soccer. Ties are unamerican.

Most likely.

I would prefer it if it was each team getting a possession. It just seems daft after a long hard game, to decide it essentially on a coin toss.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Most likely.

I would prefer it if it was each team getting a possession. It just seems daft after a long hard game, to decide it essentially on a coin toss.

It would only be decided by a coin toss if the team that lost the toss wasn't allowed to try to stop the opposing offense.

 

[unoriginal]

"In 2008, the team that won the coin toss had a 43.4 percent success rate in winning the game on the series following the toss."

That doesn't seem like a high percentage to you? I would guess the normal percentage of drives ending in points to be around 33%.

 

[Rossmci90]

It would only be decided by a coin toss if the team that lost the toss wasn't allowed to try to stop the opposing offense.

As posted earlier in the thread 40%+ of OT games are decided by the opening drive by the team who wins the toss. 60%+ are won by the team who wins the toss.

Doesn't that seem to you like an unfair advantage for winning a 50:50 coin toss?

 

[NEGoldenAge]

That doesn't seem like a high percentage to you? I would guess the normal percentage of drives ending in points to be around 33%.

When you have such a small sample, % loses it's meaning. Either way, I was simply commenting on the statement that the coin toss decides the winner. It does not. That is not to say that it does not favor the coin toss winner.... in most cases, it probably does.

The current system isn't perfect, but I have yet to hear about a better alternative.

 

[Raymond]

I've always felt that the extra point kicks after a TD are a waste. I mean, whats the percentage of misses there? It's nothing more than in game practice for Fg kickers to loosen up. You might just as well give them 7 points for the TD and don't bother wasting anyones time there. If these were eliminated, we'd have either 6 points for a TD or 8 if you were successful on the 2pt conversion.

IMO, it would add excitement to the game and there would be far fewer ties.

 

[Sicilian]

Don't take this personally, because you're certainly not the only person to advocate that sort of thing, but... that's a terrible idea. It's like winning by shootouts in soccer and hockey where you're not actually winning the game you were playing, you're winning a skills competition. You are doing the same thing in a lot of ways. You're essentially taking away the special teams aspect of the game and removing a scoring avenue that's previously been available for the entire game.

The other problem is, what happens with a safety? Do the two points not count? Are they not enough? It's a simpler solution sure, but not really a better one.

 

[unoriginal]

When you have such a small sample, % loses it's meaning. Either way, I was simply commenting on the statement that the coin toss decides the winner. It does not. That is not to say that it does not favor the coin toss winner.... in most cases, it probably does.

The current system isn't perfect, but I have yet to hear about a better alternative.

I disagreed with neuronet on a different issue. And I don't agree with this kind of "here is the percentage I believe supports our position, oh wait it doesn't? well the sample size was too small then" method of arguing.

We have heard many better alternatives: just about anything that is not sudden death based. MLB manages to survive just fine with full extra innings instead of "golden runs" that reward the first team up to bat. FIFA no longer uses the "golden goal" system, the NBA has always played an extra period which doesn't end on the first basket. Only the NHL uses a sudden death format, but hockey is a continuous game where posession changes quickly, and the face-off is not a simple coin-flip.

It seems the reasons for sudden death, as advocated, are TV schedules and NFL fantasy players. Yet both seem to manage just fine with MLB. Also as a fan I couldn't care less about their problems.