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

[emoney_33]

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?

Well by your argument, as long as they got the ball they deserved it. So if the ref ruled it correctly, that means they deserved it just because Cutler wouldn't have done that if they didn't deserve it.

A team does not necessarily deserve to win because they were able to put 3 points on the board in one drive. Sorry but that's just a gross over simplification to more or less avoid the discussion.

 

[Fixit]

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.

My last retort here.

Which is easier and more likely to result in a win:

Scoring a TD and converting from the 2-yard line for the win?

Or

Kicking the PAT, hoping you win the toss, and driving for a FG attempt?

I know which one I'd go for.

I don't want to do math, but what is 57% of 50%? Because those are the odds of winning the toss and then scoring in OT. I bet the conversion rate for 2-pointers is a lot higher than that.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

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.

I prefer to ask more fundamental questions. Perhaps the following will add some insight.

Why are there only 16 games in an NFL season?
What's the length of the average NFL career?
How many players are on the field at one time in the nfl vs. nba?
How many games does an nfl team play vs. a single opponent in the post season?
Which game does not penalize for purposefully smashing into another player as hard as you possibly can?
Ever play a real game of tackle football?

 

[Fixit]

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

Whew, thank God. On that humorous note, I'm outta here.

 

[Snake Eyes]

I think one option is to get rid of sudden death and just treat it as an additional quarter, the team winning at the end of the 15 minutes wins.

Another option is to give the victory to the first team to score 4pts, then teams couldn't just rely on getting into FG range to win, they could go for the FG if they felt their D was strong enough to stop the other team, or they would need to really go for it and get the TD. This strategic choice would be very interesting as far as how coaches call games.

 

[DaBruinz]

Wrong and wrong.

7 of 15 OT games this year (so far) were won on the first possession. Same last year, by the way.

Before you go telling people they are wrong, you might want to check your facts. 9 of 15 games were won on the first possession. As Peter King brought up. Its not the same as last year.

 

[emoney_33]

I prefer to ask more fundamental questions. Perhaps the following will add some insight.

Why are there only 16 games in an NFL season?
What's the length of the average NFL career?
How many players are on the field at one time in the nfl vs. nba?
How many games does an nfl team play vs. a single opponent in the post season?
Which game does not penalize for purposefully smashing into another player as hard as you possibly can?
Ever play a real game of tackle football?

Which of those questions have anything to do with ONE game lasting an extra 30-60 minutes?

I can see the point that the body being excessively fatigued in an NFL game vastly increases the likelihood of an injury, which I can accept as a valid argument against the proposed rule change. The argument I don't buy is that the NFL body can't recover from an extra 30-60 minutes of play (as long as it's not a consistent thing, and a rarity like OT generally is, and multiple OT definitely would be).

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Do I really have to say it?

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

How can you exclude officiating from the discussion when they factor into every game and every outcome?

No. What is asinine is using circular logic to claim that your theory is valid.

 

[Fixit]

How can you exclude officiating from the discussion when they factor into every game and every outcome?

No. What is asinine is using circular logic to claim that your theory is valid.

Sounds good. Great talk, everybody!

 

[ALP]

the rule needs to be changed

or instead of FG, change it to you HAVE to get a TD

or change the kickoff start

or give each team a position

but this has become a one sided game, favoring the offense, and hence the "defense is half the game" argument holds nothing

the rule needs to be changed

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Before you go telling people they are wrong, you might want to check your facts. 9 of 15 games were won on the first possession. As Peter King brought up. Its not the same as last year.

Actually that 9 of 15 is not really statisticaly significant. Too small a sample size for 3 sigma. See the previous year's 7 of 15 stat for example. Pedantics aside, I would like to see something along the lines of "No FG attempt in your 1st OT posession" in sudden death OT, then revert to normal FG rules if no TDs on 1st OT posessions.

 

[QuinielaBox]

Play a full 10:00 OT period. Give each team two timeouts to manage the clock. Force teams to take risks. If 10:00 cannot produce a desicive winner, then award a tie to both teams. *iss on the Networks.

 

[DaBruinz]

My last retort here.

Which is easier and more likely to result in a win:

Scoring a TD and converting from the 2-yard line for the win?

Or

Kicking the PAT, hoping you win the toss, and driving for a FG attempt?

I know which one I'd go for.

I don't want to do math, but what is 57% of 50%? Because those are the odds of winning the toss and then scoring in OT. I bet the conversion rate for 2-pointers is a lot higher than that.

I so love when people attempt to combine %'s in an attempt to prove their case.

I think you'd be surprised at how many failed 2 point conversions there are in a given year. Otherwise, teams would go for the 2 pt conversion more than they would the PAT. There were only 28 successful 2 pt. conversions this year and 12 teams didn't score a single one. And no team scored more than 2. Why? Because the % for success of a PAT is so much higher than a 2 pt. conversion. There were a total of 3 missed PATs on 1176 chances this year. The conversion rate is between 39 and 44% for 2 Pt. conversions depending on whose stats you use. For the sake of the argument, I'll be fair and use the higher number.

What is better? A 99.997% chance of tying the game via a PAT and going to OT where you'll have a 50% chance to get the ball 1st and thereby a 57% chance of winning or a 56 - 61% chance of losing the game outright by attempting the 2 Pt. conversion?

I can guarantee you that Herm Edwards wishes he had tied the game and taken his chances with OT. Especailly with such a high failure rate of 2 pt. conversions.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Probabilities of that sort are multiplied and soon dwindle.
The only way a HC goes for 2 instead of the point after to tie is if he KNOWS his best defensive players just got injured and his squad of backups will be ineffective in OT. Even with our walking wounded BB chose to kick the PA and go to OT. Hindsight fools us all, me included.

 

[DaBruinz]

Actually that 9 of 15 is not really statisticaly significant. Too small a sample size for 3 sigma. See the previous year's 7 of 15 stat for example. Pedantics aside, I would like to see something along the lines of "No FG attempt in your 1st OT posession" in sudden death OT, then revert to normal FG rules if no TDs on 1st OT posessions.

I believe the 57% presented is much more factual since it covers all the OT games since the change in the OT Kick-off rules up until this year. However being that its only 3% off the 60% from this year, it somewhat more inline than last year's 7/15 (which is only 46.7%).

I don't want to take away the potential for a FG. But I'd rather change the rule to say that a FG on the 1st possession in OT results in the other team automatically getting a possession. That way teams have a choice, they can go for it by going for a TD or they can kick the FG and hope their defense can hold the other team.

 

[kwf]

I just read 75 posts, and I'm still not sure how the Colts got screwed.....

 

[Synovia]

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.

The fact that they got the ball back is irrelevant. 60% of teams that win the toss win the game.

You may get the ball back, but most of the time you get it in such poor field position that you lose the game anyways.

 

[NovaScotiaPatsFan]

I've got an idea. The NFL should implement a "shoot out" ala Hockey. Except, for the NFL, it would be FG kicking. Each team would start off kicking from the opposing 20 yard line.. and then move each kick back 5 yards. And they go until they miss..

So, the FGs would be 37, 42, 47,52, 57.

And yes, the opposing team would have their FG blocking unit out there as well.

Bah, I'm a hockey fan and the shootout is overrated. I've always wished they'd have a goalie duel, where the only 2 players on the ice are the goalies and they play to a pre determined number like 5 goals or something.

 

[Richter]

Then we're still left with the problem of what to do in the event of a tie, only this time we've sandwiched another period in there.

This criticism makes no sense. You do the same thing that's already done, in the regular season, if you can't decide it in the extra period, it's a tie. In the playoffs, you keep playing extra periods until there is a winner. Problem solved.