College OT rules coming to NFL?

[Todd Bradley]

True, but nearer the goal line still have to decide between a FG and going for a TD. That is also an advantage that balances the risk of losing to a first drive TD. The current system gives advantages to each side.

If the entire current system "advantage" is predicated on the small and obscure situation where a team at the 1-yard line has to decide on 4th down to go for it and win or kick a field goal and kickoff, then clearly there's room for improvement.

In fact it highlights the unfair advantage the team who wins the coin toss receives.

You may disagree, but I don't believe a team should have to lose a Super Bowl all because they lost a coin toss and some kick-returner took it to the house for a TD.

If that happened to the Pats, people here would be livid that Brady never even had the chance to possess the ball, all due to a coin toss and the one sided advantage winning the toss brings.

 

[PatsBoy12]

of course, the patriots won the super bowl in OT so naturally the rules will be changed.

And that's simply all there is to it. As much as I feel there are some things posted that are Simply Pats fans being ultra sensitive because of recent years, this isn't one of them. Rules do seem to get changed whenever NE wins dating all the way back to the early 2000's. I watched the 2004 Pats America's Game and Even Bruschi was saying it in the post game while running off the field after holding The Colts to three points. It's annoying and pathetic. The Pats never really make excuses or proclamations when they lose, but it's all the other NFL teams and players do when they lose to the Pats.

 

[bormio]

The 4th down decision occurs on 4th and 2 at the 20. Settle for a FG - you can lose to a FG.

Football is a team sport. You want Brady to have a shot - hold them to a FG or nothing.

 

[Deus Irae]

If the entire current system "advantage" is predicated on the small and obscure situation where a team at the 1-yard line has to decide on 4th down to go for it and win or kick a field goal and kickoff, then clearly there's room for improvement.

In fact it highlights the unfair advantage the team who wins the coin toss receives.

You may disagree, but I don't believe a team should have to lose a Super Bowl all because they lost a coin toss and some kick-returner took it to the house for a TD.

If that happened to the Pats, people here would be livid that Brady never even had the chance to possess the ball, all due to a coin toss and the one sided advantage winning the toss brings.

Teams have an "unfair" advantage when they play at home. Clearly, we need to have all games played at neutral sites, right?

 

[bormio]

In the '58 title game, the Giants had the ball first and had a 4th and less than 1 around their 40. They elected to punt to Unitas - the rest is history.

 

[TB12GoPats]

I would go with 2 periods of 5(or whatever) minutes, each team kicking off at the beggining of each period. Whoever scores more points gets the win. A tie is a tie then.

 

[Deus Irae]

Dark uniforms in the sun lead to more problems with heat than light uniforms in the sun. It's unfair that teams can choose to wear white in southern states, forcing their opponents to wear darker uniforms! All team uniforms should be the exact same color, in order to avoid this sort of problem.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's unfair that a coin flip at the start of the game leads to one team being able to choose whether to receiver or defend a certain end zone. Both teams should be able to make that choice. Football stadiums need to have two fields that are both identical and side-by-side, so that both teams can start the game on offense, or defense, if they so choose. And, as a bonus, fans could watch both at the same time!

 

[Deus Irae]

Playing football as a timed game means that one team may not get a fair number of possessions. The NFL needs to eliminate the clock. An NFL game should consist of both offenses having the same number of offensive possessions, regardless of the time. It's about being fair, after all.

 

[Deus Irae]

• Weighted draft - obviously "unfair" in that it's biased against winning teams
• Weighted schedule - obviously "unfair" in that it's biased against both winning teams and against teams in tougher divisions

Both the above, doubtless, lead to more changes in teams' total wins and losses than the overtime format. Where's the outrage at those?

 

[PlanB]

so a tie IS the fairest outcome because there are no losers?

 

[ivanvamp]

You were,

No I wasn't, as seen in my post here:

The data doesn't show it. And the reason is because each side has an advantage. The offense has the advantage in that it can win the game without the other team touching the ball. The defense has the advantage in that if it can survive the offense's first blow, the defense's team (now on offense) can use ITS advantage - the four downs.

And the data shows that the advantage for the team getting the ball first offsets the advantage the second team would get if they get a crack at it.

What I have said is that this advantage doesn't give the second team an OVERALL advantage in overtime, as supported by the actual data on which team actually wins more in overtime.

and it's not a narrow point, at all. It's a significant issue.

As seen, I have acknowledged the advantage you cite - namely, that they know the score they have to get to, and so they can more take advantage of all four downs. You, of course, worded it in ridiculous fashion here in post #44: "The fact of there being an advantage isn't disputable. Having 4 downs is an inherent advantage over only having 3."

Of course, both teams actually have four downs; it's not like the first team HAS to punt on fourth down. It's just that the advantage for the second team is that if the first team kicks a field goal, then the second team knows that it HAS to use four downs until it gets in field goal territory.

This is, indeed, a very narrow point. Consider the fact that, in 2016, here's how NFL drives ended (see: 2016 NFL Offensive Drive Statistics | The Football Database):

Total NFL drives: 5,847
Touchdowns: 1,222 (20.9%)
Field goals: 850 (14.5%)
Punts: 2,328 (39.8%)
Turnovers: 641 (11.0%)
Turnover on downs: 208 (3.6%)

So in 85.5% of the scenarios, the second team cannot take make use of this possible advantage. In only 14.5% of the time, the second team even has the possibility of making use of this advantage.

And of that 14.5% of the possible scenarios where they could take advantage, a certain number of drives don't even feature a fourth down scenario. Seeing as though 39.8% of drives end in puts, obviously THOSE end in fourth downs, and 3.6% of drives end in failed fourth down conversions...those do as well. And most certainly SOME of the other 56.6% of drives will feature converted fourth downs, but most do not (there are usually only one or two converted fourth downs per game in the NFL). We're talking probably about half of all drives feature a fourth down play. That means that there's only a 7.25% chance that the second team will make use of this advantage in overtime.

I realize you don't like numbers or data, but, well, there it is.

Also, one of the ironies of your argument, and claim of pointing to data, is your decision not to acknowledge the final paragraph of your cited piece:

Except that I *have* acknowledged it. As I said here:

There's no perfect system. This one is fine.

And to wrap this up...

The part in bold is precisely my position.

It is mine as well, that there's no perfect system, and I think the current one is just fine.

 

[Deus Irae]

No I wasn't, as seen in my post here:

You're selectively editing your own responses, now.

Here's my post:

The fact of there being an advantage isn't disputable. Having 4 downs is an inherent advantage over only having 3. If you're not agreeing with something that obvious, you're not worth talking to on the subject, because you're willfully choosing to play the fool, when you certainly know better.

Here's what you wrote in response, in greater context:

Anytime one team possesses the football, it has an advantage in scoring over the other team. So what?

Clearly the data shows that your argument, whatever merits it may have, is wrong. If there was an automatic advantage for the defense that rendered the current NFL overtime rules unfair in their favor, the data would, you know, show it.

The data doesn't show it.

The part in bold is a blatant lie/error. Since you're being dishonest in this thread, and can't just acknowledge that I was correct and you were wrong in your response, but you've chosen instead to continue trying to make it seem as if I'm the one who was in error, I'm done dealing with you here.

 

[ivanvamp]

You're selectively editing your own responses, now.

Here's my post:



Here's what you wrote in response, in greater context:



The part in bold is a blatant lie/error. Since you're being dishonest in this thread, and can't just acknowledge that I was correct and you were wrong in your response, but you've chosen instead to continue trying to make it seem as if I'm the one who was in error, I'm done dealing with you here.

As anyone who can read will attest, your whole point was that this minute advantage that the second team has renders the NFL overtime rules unfair and in need of change, as our initial exchange in this thread demonstrates.

You were talking with another poster about the overtime rules, and my first post in this thread said simply this:

The present overtime rules are just fine in the NFL. I don't know why they need to be changed.

To which you replied:

No, they aren't.

Because they give an inherent advantage, to the second team, that's a direct result of stacking the deck with regards to a first score. As a poster has already pointed out:

Clearly, as any normal human reading English would attest, you were pointing out that the NFL overtime rules are NOT "just fine" (contrary to my claim), because of this advantage the second team has.

And the data I was showing was addressing this larger point of yours, OBVIOUSLY.

I mean, my god Deus, if you're going to call someone out for something, try not to be so obviously wrong and hypocritical please.

 

[scott99]

I like the system the way it is. The Pats have lost games the way the current system is, and nobody was crying to change to rules when they lost, only when they win. Just like the tuck rule way back when, nobody cared when the tuck rule went the Jet's way to beat the Pats in 2001, but when it went in the Pat's favor, there was a huge uproar. I really hate the NFL sometimes.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Can you imagine the uproar if Belichick had called for a Free Kick after the Fair Catch, with 3 seconds left, and Gostkowski was successful from 70+ yards away?

Talk about Anger and Knashing of Teeth created by the Cheetahs!!!

That's why I was rooting so hard for it!

 

[PatsGuy]

If you gave the 2nd team a possession just like the first team, the advantage goes to the 2nd team. If the first team scored a TD, they would have the advantage of knowing to go for all 4th downs. The current system gives the first team the advantage of winning with a TD, the 2nd team the advantage of winning with a FG. It is fair.

Even the college system benefits the team that goes 2nd - they know what they have to do.

The logic of this paragraph is inescapable

 

[XLIX]

I like the system the way it is. The Pats have lost games the way the current system is, and nobody was crying to change to rules when they lost, only when they win. Just like the tuck rule way back when, nobody cared when the tuck rule went the Jet's way to beat the Pats in 2001, but when it went in the Pat's favor, there was a huge uproar. I really hate the NFL sometimes.

In all fairness, one came during the middle of a regular season game, the other directly influenced the outcome of a playoff game. Obviously the playoff game will get more attention. Tough to claim there was any sort of anti-Patriots conspiracy back in the days when Tagliabue was Commish and the Patriots had only won their 1st Super Bowl.

The whole OT rule change was made in the first place because of Saints-Vikings.

 

[Deus Irae]

As anyone who can read will attest, your whole point was that this minute advantage that the second team has renders the NFL overtime rules unfair and in need of change, as our initial exchange in this thread demonstrates.

Only an idiot would think that was my "whole point", since the inability to find fairness is the most consistent part of my position on all aspects of the OT issue. Getting the ball first is unfair. The first team needing to score a TD to win, while the second can win with a FG, is unfair. The down discrepancy (3 v. 4) is unfair. A team coming off a short week would be at a comparative disadvantage, and that would be unfair. It's all unfair, and it can't be made fair, but the old way was the quickest, and was a way where the advantage was based purely on an objective issue (coin flip) that did nothing to change the actual game. THAT'S the point.

So, again, you're doubling down on the dishonesty, which is why we're done.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Despite knowing it'll never happen I still root for the original, pure sudden death but with replacing the kickoff with a simple "name that tune" sequence to set the initial spot and possession:
"I'll take the ball on my own 20."
"Well I'll take the ball on my own 17."
"I'll take it on my own 15."
"You take that ball!"

Bam. No more complaining about being screwed by the coin or "unfairness" or second team that ends up with the ball having to use four downs or whatever. If a coach really wants the ball first he can have it first if he has enough confidence in his offense.