Now that the Colts got screwed by the overtime rule will they change it?

[Fixit]

So, clearly, 60% of the teams that deserve to win, win the toss. Unfair coin?

That makes no sense. The team that deserves to win in OT wins 100% of the time.

I still wonder why so many teams play for overtime, by the way. That's one reason I like sudden death: it should force a lot of coaches to go for the win rather than pin their hopes on their defense and a coin. Should, anyway.

 

[Synovia]

That makes no sense. The team that deserves to win in OT wins 100% of the time.

I still wonder why so many teams play for overtime, by the way. That's one reason I like sudden death: it should force a lot of coaches to go for the win rather than pin their hopes on their defense and a coin. Should, anyway.

So, you're saying that the coin flip is correctly picking the team that deserves to win 60% of the time?



The reason teams play so conservatively, is that no one ever gets fired for kicking a field goal down 3 with 30 seconds left. Coaches do get fired for going for it, and losing the game, when they could have just "taken 3"

 

[emoney_33]

Problem is football is a much more physical game. The team that won in the 4th overtime period would have almost no chance at winning a game the following week.

Not all that much different from an NBA team playing 4 OTs and playing the next night.

Anyhow teams can give players an extra day rest or lightened practice load as they do anyway at times during the season especially after extremely physical games.

I disagree with the "almost no chance" at winning a game the following week statement.

 

[emoney_33]

That makes no sense. The team that deserves to win in OT wins 100% of the time.

I still wonder why so many teams play for overtime, by the way. That's one reason I like sudden death: it should force a lot of coaches to go for the win rather than pin their hopes on their defense and a coin. Should, anyway.

You can't say that just because a team won they deserved to win. Sorry, but the NFL, like the world, is not perfect like that. It's just a way to avoid fairness questions when you claim "you'll win if you deserve to".

 

[Fixit]

So, you're saying that the coin flip is correctly picking the team that deserves to win 60% of the time?

Not even a little bit. That's a horrible attempt at logic. I'm saying that, regardless of who gets the ball first, if you deserve to win you'll stop the other team and then score. If you don't, you don't deserve to win.

I'm curious as to the winning percentages of teams who win the opening coin toss. We may have to reevaluate that for fairness, too.

 

[Fixit]

You can't say that just because a team won they deserved to win. Sorry, but the NFL, like the world, is not perfect like that. It's just a way to avoid fairness questions when you claim "you'll win if you deserve to".

How can a team win if they don't deserve to? This isn't a promotion at work that can be arbitrarily handed out regardless of merit. To win a football game, you have to make more crucial plays than the other team. If you do, you win. If you don't, you won't, and you don't deserve to.

 

[Synovia]

Not even a little bit. That's a horrible attempt at logic. I'm saying that, regardless of who gets the ball first, if you deserve to win you'll stop the other team and then score. If you don't, you don't deserve to win..

Then why does the team that wins the toss win 60% of the time? Either the coin is correctly picking the team that "deserves to win" 60% of the time, or you're not speaking logically.

 

[Synovia]

How can a team win if they don't deserve to?

When an arbitrary, random, event decides the winner a significant amount of the time.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Not all that much different from an NBA team playing 4 OTs and playing the next night.

Do you honestly believe this?

.... I thought about listing a few of the fundamental reasons why this comparison is absurd, but tbh, some of them are so obvious, I'd feel pretty silly doing so.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Not all that much different from an NBA team playing 4 OTs and playing the next night.

Anyhow teams can give players an extra day rest or lightened practice load as they do anyway at times during the season especially after extremely physical games.

I disagree with the "almost no chance" at winning a game the following week statement.

Most of the time when the NBA plays two nights in a row (particularly in the playoffs) they are playing the same team. So if both teams are equally tired one doesn't have an adv.

And basketball is not nearly as physical as football.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

How can a team win if they don't deserve to?

Face guarding.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Coaches do get fired for going for it, and losing the game, when they could have just "taken 3"

It could happen, I guess, but I recall no examples of coaches being fired for something like that. Usually when a coach goes for the win, he is complimented for his guts and confidence, even if somehow it doesn't work out.

The example from the college game I'm thinking of is the 1983 Orange Bowl, when Tom Osbourne and Nebraska could have gone for the tie (this was before OT) but they tried a 2-point conversion. They failed and they lost the championsip to Miami. A tie and the voters probably would have voted Nebraska the National Champs (they were #1 and undefeated).

"This was a championship game and (Osborne) went after it like a champion," Miami Coach Howard Schnellenberger said.

Even the Nebraska fans applauded him for guts.

Has any coach ever been fired for going for the win instead of trying for OT??

 

[emoney_33]

How can a team win if they don't deserve to? This isn't a promotion at work that can be arbitrarily handed out regardless of merit. To win a football game, you have to make more crucial plays than the other team. If you do, you win. If you don't, you won't, and you don't deserve to.

You are claiming that since they won it proves that they deserved to win... because they won. That's an invalid proof.

BTW see the SD/DEN game for the most obvious case of a team not deserving to win being the victor. Sure other things COULD have happened, but if the right call was made by the ref, the result is reversed based 100% and solely on a call by the ref.

 

[Fixit]

Then why does the team that wins the toss win 60% of the time? Either the coin is correctly picking the team that "deserves to win" 60% of the time, or you're not speaking logically.

Oh for , that's stupid. The teams decide which one should win. If you can't overcome the horror of losing a coin toss and having to play defense, you shouldn't win.

From 2000-2007, only 30% of the teams that won the toss marched down and scored on the first possession. In other words, 70% of teams who lost the toss got the ball back. Some of them losing on the second possession is irrelevant.

 

[Fixit]

You are claiming that since they won it proves that they deserved to win... because they won. That's an invalid proof.

BTW see the SD/DEN game for the most obvious case of a team not deserving to win being the victor. Sure other things COULD have happened, but if the right call was made by the ref, the result is reversed based 100% and solely on a call by the ref.

I thought we could safely exclude officiating from the discussion. I will agree that refs can greatly affect the outcome, but I could just argue this for the SD/Denver game: SD did nothing to force Cutler's fumble (he just chumped it, like he does), so did they really deserve the ball?

Also, this isn't math class, so using concepts like "invalid proofs" is asinine.

 

[emoney_33]

Do you honestly believe this?

.... I thought about listing a few of the fundamental reasons why this comparison is absurd, but tbh, some of them are so obvious, I'd feel pretty silly doing so.

Actually, the human body is an amazing thing.

There have been NFL games that ended in ties, what are the statistics of those teams the following week?

What do you believe the effect on the human body would be of playing an extra 30-60 minutes of football with the appropriate extra rest?

I would also argue that some games (playing against a soft team vs. physical team) have as much difference as playing an extra 30 minutes might have.

 

[billdog3484]

like i've been telling my friends...its only unfair if you lose the coin-toss...haha, im glad we lost ours in the regular season

 

[DaBruinz]

That makes no sense. The team that deserves to win in OT wins 100% of the time.

I still wonder why so many teams play for overtime, by the way. That's one reason I like sudden death: it should force a lot of coaches to go for the win rather than pin their hopes on their defense and a coin. Should, anyway.

The team that "deserves to win" wins 100% of the time? So, you're saying that the teams that win the coins toss 60% of the time are WORTHY of the win? What makes them worthy and the other team unworthy?

Do you know why teams "play for OT"? First off, a team "plays for OT" because it losing the game by 3-8 points and there is very little time left on the clock. Its easier to kick a FG than it is to score a TD in most cases. And easier to score a TD and kick the PAT than it is to score a TD and get the 2 point conversion. Also, if you go for the 2 point conversion and fail, you generally lose the game. Because they know that they have a 50/50 chance of getting the ball first and that, upon getting the ball, their chances of winning the game go up to 57% if they win the coin toss.

 

[Fixit]

Anyway, Colts are out, and it's a damn shame that they were conspired against yet again.

 

[DaBruinz]

Unless you were serious, in which case I'm deducting five Internets from you.

Fixit - you might want to look at my EDIT comments for that post...