Playoff overtime rules would help the Patriots

[Wolfpack]

I agree 100% -- can't stand it when people say the existing system was unfair. It's fair -- play defense.

Amen, brother!! :rocker:

 

[Wolfpack]

You are technically correct, but a long return and 1 play can end it. I personnally like it because it could add more excitement to the game.

Yes, a big play can decide the outcome of a game. So can a Hail Mary. Or a helmet catch. Or an Immaculate Reception. Or the tuck rule.

 

[Fahrenhype]

This is true, but let's see what people say if a playoff hopeful loses in OT in Week 17.

I once again managed to forget something obvious (going to enjoy the bye week, I think my brain is fried from NFL overload) - ties CAN occur in regular season games and are a very legitimate part of a team earning or failing to achieve a particular win record. I think it was the Eagles a few years ago who kinda screwed themselves by not winning a game against the Bengals and getting a tie instead. Somebody has to win in the playoffs.

Off-topic but it's also quite possible that the horrible NFC West is going to ruin playoff seeding for everyone next year when Mr. Kneejerk Reaction Commish freaks out and changes the rules again.

I don't know that it would necessarily be a knee jerk reaction. Divisions within each conference have been incredibly lopsided for a few years now in ways that the league could not have predicted. The incompetence being exhibited in the NFC West is truly appalling this season. I get the "win your division" argument but it is crazy when somebody like the Rams will have had six games against teams with a losing record (ignoring any losing teams they played outside of their division) and still won't be over .500. Then you throw in losing teams they played from elsewhere in the league and their threshold to get even nine wins would have been incredibly low... and they still didn't do it!

Not saying they shouldn't be in the playoffs as a division winner but it sure does make a mess of the seeding when you potentially have the second best team in the conference at the five seed.

 

[Wolfpack]

Not if I am routing for the opposing team who maybe just clawed their way back into a game to tie it up and get to OT and let's say a special teams player slips and the result is the KO return for a TD.

I find it anticlimatic when a team makes 2 plays and kicks a FG and the other team never gets a shot.

I just don't see how the new rule would make OT worse.

Just like the coin flip, no team has ever won a game by "making 2 plays." Except maybe the Pats-Phins snowplow game.

 

[ewg_gestalt]

I think the primary issue here is that overtime should reflect the principles of the regulation game as much as possible.

In regulation, each side has to kickoff to the other team at least once per game. I don't understand why a similar principle shouldn't be in effect for overtime. Each side should have at least one chance to gain possession (which in practice could be taken away by a recovered onside kick or fumble). If both sides have their chance at a possession, then it's reasonable to make things sudden death after that. But until then, order of possession effectively matters. (Brady's only OT loss occurred when he never had a chance to play.)

If both teams don't have the right to a kickoff in overtime, then perhaps the NFL should consider removing the second-half kickoff, and allow drives to continue between the first and second half.

 

[chicowalker]

Not if I am routing for the opposing team who maybe just clawed their way back into a game to tie it up and get to OT and let's say a special teams player slips and the result is the KO return for a TD.

I find it anticlimatic when a team makes 2 plays and kicks a FG and the other team never gets a shot.

I just don't see how the new rule would make OT worse.

Who you're rooting for is irrelevant.

I don't know how each team getting a shot figures into this at all, particularly if you're talking about excitement. Sounds more like you're going back to an argument over fairness (which I also happen to disagree with).

I know I was pretty excited each time Viniateri kicked a game-winning FG. Seemed pretty exciting to me. And when some opposing teams have missed gamewinners, that's been exciting, too.

As for players slipping, it again sounds like you're getting at a somewhat different argument, but it takes more than 1 player slipping for a player to take a kick back. And even if that's how it did happen -- I don't think it lessens the excitement.

Is it unexciting if a team completes a deep pass for a TD because a cornerback or safety slipped?

 

[Warren1985]

i like the new rules, I think it makes it even more exciting if we have a game go to OT. Putting it down to a coin toss isnt always the fairest way to decide things.

 

[Froob]

I love the new OT rules(Although I'd prefer college) it was a really stupid move to not have it in regular season too. There should be no ties either in the regular season.

 

[Wolfpack]

I once again managed to forget something obvious (going to enjoy the bye week, I think my brain is fried from NFL overload) - ties CAN occur in regular season games and are a very legitimate part of a team earning or failing to achieve a particular win record. I think it was the Eagles a few years ago who kinda screwed themselves by not winning a game against the Bengals and getting a tie instead. Somebody has to win in the playoffs.



I don't know that it would necessarily be a knee jerk reaction. Divisions within each conference have been incredibly lopsided for a few years now in ways that the league could not have predicted. The incompetence being exhibited in the NFC West is truly appalling this season. I get the "win your division" argument but it is crazy when somebody like the Rams will have had six games against teams with a losing record (ignoring any losing teams they played outside of their division) and still won't be over .500. Then you throw in losing teams they played from elsewhere in the league and their threshold to get even nine wins would have been incredibly low... and they still didn't do it!

Not saying they shouldn't be in the playoffs as a division winner but it sure does make a mess of the seeding when you potentially have the second best team in the conference at the five seed.

I have mixed emotions on this potential change. I do think it's pretty sad that the 6-9 Seahawks still control their own destiny for a home playoff game.

 

[Brsox04]

The reason I didnt like the old rule was because it put teams with bad defenses at a disadvantage. If they were to lose the toss, there was an 80% (completely made up number for effect) chance they would lose.

I like the new rule. Because now, when the team who wins the toss gets to the 25 yard line its not over.

 

[chicowalker]

I think the primary issue here is that overtime should reflect the principles of the regulation game as much as possible.

In regulation, each side has to kickoff to the other team at least once per game. I don't understand why a similar principle shouldn't be in effect for overtime....

Personally, I find this a more valid argument for the new rule than any other I've heard, perhaps because that's how I view OT in any sport. I hate OT formats that bastardize the game.

To this end, I'd prefer to have the OT be a whole quarter, at least to start, rather than sudden death. Once you introduce sudden death, you've gone away from the principles of the game. And that's fine, I suppose, w/regard to more than 1 OT, but I don't buy the argument about injuries if it's just 1 additional OT period for 15 minutes, then a sudden death.

 

[asfpnepRefugee]

You are technically correct, but a long return and 1 play can end it. I personnally like it because it could add more excitement to the game.

The one key that a lot of people don't take into account is how many times the coin flip winner won on the first possession. usually they just trot out the statistics for how often the team that won the coin flip won overall - that's not the same thing. IIRC the former was slightly skewed, but not tremendously so.

 

[chicowalker]

The reason I didnt like the old rule was because it put teams with bad defenses at a disadvantage. If they were to lose the toss, there was an 80% (completely made up number for effect) chance they would lose.

I like the new rule. Because now, when the team who wins the toss gets to the 25 yard line its not over.

Teams w/bad defenses are at a disadvantage because they're flawed, not because of the rule. If you can't play defense, just maybe you deserve to lose.

btw, probabilities don't really come into effect here. This isn't random chance. The teams playing the game control their destinies, not a coin flip, not chance, not a rule. Lose the flip, and you can have the worst defense in the world, but cause a fumble on the kickoff or just step up and play defense on 1 possession and still win.

I really don't understand thinking it's unfair that a team loses because they can't stop their opponent one time.

 

[Froob]

How is it fair that only one team has to play defense? In a shootout say 41-41 game, why is it fair to make one team play defense? This rule is nice because the game can still end on any play(again I still would prefer college rules but some people do like this part of it).
I think this will make for some exciting games. Would love to see a situation where its 4th down on the 2 yard line. I really don't understand the logic behide not putting it in regular season unless it's just a time saver which is lame. Regular season should be just as important and have the same rules. PLUS I freakin hate losing in madden after the coin toss .

 

[Wolfpack]

The reason I didnt like the old rule was because it put teams with bad defenses at a disadvantage. If they were to lose the toss, there was an 80% (completely made up number for effect) chance they would lose.

If you have to completely make up a stat to support your point, then it is not a strong point. If the actual number was 80%, I'd support the idea. But the real number is nowhere near that.

 

[KoolAid]

Who you're rooting for is irrelevant.

I don't know how each team getting a shot figures into this at all, particularly if you're talking about excitement. Sounds more like you're going back to an argument over fairness (which I also happen to disagree with).

I know I was pretty excited each time Viniateri kicked a game-winning FG. Seemed pretty exciting to me. And when some opposing teams have missed gamewinners, that's been exciting, too.

As for players slipping, it again sounds like you're getting at a somewhat different argument, but it takes more than 1 player slipping for a player to take a kick back. And even if that's how it did happen -- I don't think it lessens the excitement.

Is it unexciting if a team completes a deep pass for a TD because a cornerback or safety slipped?

I happen to think that the current system is fair, but I also think because something works, it doesn't mean it can't be improved.

 

[Deus Irae]

How is it fair that only one team has to play defense? In a shootout say 41-41 game, why is it fair to make one team play defense? This rule is nice because the game can still end on any play(again I still would prefer college rules but some people do like this part of it).
I think this will make for some exciting games. Would love to see a situation where its 4th down on the 2 yard line. I really don't understand the logic behide not putting it in regular season unless it's just a time saver which is lame. Regular season should be just as important and have the same rules. PLUS I freakin hate losing in madden after the coin toss .

There is no way to make overtime objectively "fair", so everyone is just stating their preference and pretending to be beyond personal choice in the matter. The new rule might just be the stupidest of all the possibilities that were being mentioned. The league has now set a precedent that one form of scoring is different from another not just in value (1, 2, 3, 6 points), but also in kind.

 

[Wolfpack]

The reason I didnt like the old rule was because it put teams with bad defenses at a disadvantage. If they were to lose the toss, there was an 80% (completely made up number for effect) chance they would lose.

I like the new rule. Because now, when the team who wins the toss gets to the 25 yard line its not over.

No team in the history of the NFL has ever won a game by advancing the ball to the 25 yard line.

Are we all talking about the same sport here? We're all talking about American football, right? Because I am seeing people reference all sorts of rules and strategies that simply don't exist.

 

[*ChungFu*]

I think the rule OK, I guess. Either way, new or old, the winner has to impose his wishes on the opponent. I will be interested in seeing how coaching staffs approach it. Will a different mind-set or order of priorities change in O.T. and how will they be carried out.
Brings a new element certainly a topic for deeper discussion.

 

[Froob]

There is no way to make overtime objectively "fair", so everyone is just stating their preference and pretending to be beyond personal choice in the matter. The new rule might just be the stupidest of all the possibilities that were being mentioned. The league has now set a precedent that one form of scoring is different from another not just in value (1, 2, 3, 6 points), but also in kind.

It's closer though. The one game that really got me was the jets in 08. If pats win the coin toss they win that game and go to the playoffs. I didn't think they would change overtime rules until a team won a superbowl on the 1st drive of overtime. Can't believe after all these years still no overtime superbowl.