Be honest: Do the OT rules to end games need changing?

[BobDigital]

I said no they shouldn't change. but I just got an interesting idea. Instead of a coin flip let the teams decide who gets the ball first.

You do that by the visiting team getting to decide where they want to take it. They could say "we'll take the ball at the 20". The home team could then counter 'we'll take the ball at the 15". Then you go back and forth going lower and lower until one team lets the other have the ball OR the first team to agree to take the ball at the one yard line gets it.

I think that would be fair and stop all the complaining. Cause no one is going to complain about one team not getting a chance to posses the ball if both teams have a chance to 'bid' on the ball. Even if the visiting team's first bid is to take it at the one yard line and the home team gets no chance to have it can you really complain if you let a team drive 99 yards for a TD?

 

[Kontradiction]

No. If anything, it needs to go back to being sudden death. There's nothing wrong with the coin flip, either. The winner of the coin flip only wins 52% of the time.

 

[masterbouncer]

I said no they shouldn't change. but I just got an interesting idea. Instead of a coin flip let the teams decide who gets the ball first.

You do that by the visiting team getting to decide where they want to take it. They could say "we'll take the ball at the 20". The home team could then counter 'we'll take the ball at the 15". Then you go back and forth going lower and lower until one team lets you have the ball OR the first team to agree to take the ball at the one yard line gets it.

I think that would be fair and stop all the complaining. Cause no one is going to complain about one team not getting a chance to posses the ball if both teams have a chance to 'bid' on the ball. Even if the visiting team's first bid is to take it at the one yard line and the home team gets no chance to have it can you really complain if you let a team drive 99 yards for a TD?

Well, if the winning team is the Patriots they will complain anyway no matter what

 

[tobias funke]

The problem with the "winner of the coin flip only wins 52% of the time" is that it takes into account every single overtime game played.

However I see a big difference between an overtime game in the playoffs and an overtime game in the regular season.

The priority in the regular season is to get to the end of the season with the majority of players intact, so the impetus to find out the "very best team" isn't as important as keeping them from playing 5 hour games.

You also have a number of regular season games between bad teams that end in bad ties or field goals because neither team has a potent offense.

In the playoffs, the chances of having a team that can drive the length of the field and score a touchdown (especially against a tired defense) goes way up vs. the regular season.

AND we need to figure out who the best team is.

So I don't think it's as simple as "52% everything is fine". It definitely should be looked at.

 

[Uptown]

No. It is what it is.

 

[Chevy]

No changes needed. After the coin toss, there is only one outcome out of three that can end the game on the first drive. Defense is just as important as Offense. The receiving team can score a TD (end the game), score a field goal (other team gets a shot), turn the ball over (turnover, on downs, punt).

Can't stop the first drive? Oh, well.

 

[Joker]

The only change that would have an immediate postive and quantum effect on the NFL would be the firing of Roger Stokoe Goodell and the installation of a qualified, intelligent commissioner.

 

[PatsDeb]

No

I couldn’t help but laugh listening to local sports radio this morning (Pittsburgh area) and the next segment was going to be whether ot rules need changed. Id be willing to bet my life savings that if the chiefs won the toss and scored a td to win nobody would be saying a damn thing about the rule.

Except us, LOL...

 

[LightSkinSmurf]

The rules are fine the way they are. How are you gonna blame the rules because your team couldn't get a stop? You want the rules changed because your defense sucks? Laughable. Get good.

 

[EddardSnow67]

The problem with the "winner of the coin flip only wins 52% of the time" is that it takes into account every single overtime game played.

However I see a big difference between an overtime game in the playoffs and an overtime game in the regular season.

The priority in the regular season is to get to the end of the season with the majority of players intact, so the impetus to find out the "very best team" isn't as important as keeping them from playing 5 hour games.

You also have a number of regular season games between bad teams that end in bad ties or field goals because neither team has a potent offense.

In the playoffs, the chances of having a team that can drive the length of the field and score a touchdown (especially against a tired defense) goes way up vs. the regular season.

AND we need to figure out who the best team is.

So I don't think it's as simple as "52% everything is fine". It definitely should be looked at.

Maybe KC should have run the ball more than twelve times and possessed the ball more so that their defense wasn't tired at the end of the game. The whole point of the Patriots' strategy was to keep KC's offense off the field and gas their defense in what they knew was likely to be a game that came down to the wire.

I mean, they were tired the entire 4th quarter. When in the game do we start worrying about how tired one team is? Maybe the rules need to change - you make good points about the 52% figure being somewhat misleading - but fatigue isn't one of the reasons. Teams have responsibility for managing their own fatigue.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

There is a procedure to follow, folks!

 

[tobias funke]

Maybe KC should have run the ball more than twelve times and possessed the ball more so that their defense wasn't tired at the end of the game. The whole point of the Patriots' strategy was to keep KC's offense off the field and gas their defense in what they knew was likely to be a game that came down to the wire.

I mean, they were tired the entire 4th quarter. When in the game do we start worrying about how tired one team is? Maybe the rules need to change - you make good points about the 52% figure being somewhat misleading - but fatigue isn't one of the reasons. Teams have responsibility for managing their own fatigue.

I'm not speaking as a Pats fan or a fan of any team in particular. I don't care about the game from yesterday. I care about what I want to see as a football fan going forward.

I jumped off my couch like everyone else when they won on Sunday. But I can also admit that I had the same little feeling I did after the 2016 Super Bowl, that something about it just doesn't feel fair.

What's funny is that if the Chiefs had won the toss and marched down the field and scored a TD, I guarantee you there'd be a lot more of you in this thread taking my position. There was no stopping either of those offenses at that point of the game.

 

[EddardSnow67]

I'm not speaking as a Pats fan or a fan of any team in particular. I don't care about the game from yesterday. I care about what I want to see as a football fan going forward.

I jumped off my couch like everyone else when they won on Sunday. But I can also admit that I had the same little feeling I did after the 2016 Super Bowl, that something about it just doesn't feel fair.

What's funny is that if the Chiefs had won the toss and marched down the field and scored a TD, I guarantee you there'd be a lot more of you in this thread taking my position. There was no stopping either of those offenses at that point of the game.

As I said, I don't know if the rules need to change. I just don't think fatigue is a good reason for change. I actually didn't dispute your general opinion that the rules should change at all.

I also wouldn't be calling for overtime rule changes if the opposite had happened, though I'm sure many would. I don't think rules should be changed due to situational factors such as a given team being tired at the end of the game. The Patriots defense wasn't tired, they had only been on the field for 21 minutes, so they set themselves up to have an advantage whether they won the toss or not. They had a much better chance of stopping the Chiefs with a relatively fresh defense than the Chiefs had of stopping the Patriots.

But, the main thing is that I didn't disagree with your opinion, just one aspect of your reasoning.

 

[tobias funke]

As I said, I don't know if the rules need to change. I just don't think fatigue is a good reason for change. I actually didn't dispute your general opinion that the rules should change at all.

I also wouldn't be calling for overtime rule changes if the opposite had happened, though I'm sure many would. I don't think rules should be changed due to situational factors such as a given team being tired at the end of the game. The Patriots defense wasn't tired, they had only been on the field for 21 minutes, so they set themselves up to have an advantage whether they won the toss or not. They had a much better chance of stopping the Chiefs with a relatively fresh defense than the Chiefs had of stopping the Patriots.

But, the main thing is that I didn't disagree with your opinion, just one aspect of your reasoning.

You're right, I don't disagree with your logic. I wasn't specifically replying to you when I quoted you, just touching on the reference to the game. Even at the beginning of the game I'm sure we all knew that with the Falcons game in the back of our minds, the Pats were probably going to play ball-control and try to run a lot of plays. It's surprising that the Chiefs really played right into their hands with a lot of low-percentage plays for the first 2-3 quarters.

Fatigue is probably not the only answer here, either. Adjustments by teams figuring out how they're being played, etc, changing strategies based on the score, etc. It always seems like it's a lot easier for teams to trade scores at the end of a game vs. the middle, although that could be anecdotal.

 

[Joker]

I'm not speaking as a Pats fan or a fan of any team in particular. I don't care about the game from yesterday. I care about what I want to see as a football fan going forward.

I jumped off my couch like everyone else when they won on Sunday. But I can also admit that I had the same little feeling I did after the 2016 Super Bowl, that something about it just doesn't feel fair.

What's funny is that if the Chiefs had won the toss and marched down the field and scored a TD, I guarantee you there'd be a lot more of you in this thread taking my position. There was no stopping either of those offenses at that point of the game.

Don't include me in this blanket supposition. I have been an AVID NFL fan since Ro, Mo, Ko and Lo manned the defensive line of the NY Giants. The OT rules are good enough to have stood the test of time until NOW, the age of "blame everyone else but yourself for YOUR shortcomings". The OT displays which team has the HEART of a champion. If the Chiefs had that heart they'd have made a stop and then scored. Period.Don't "participation trophy' this like people are doing to everything else in our lives. Sick of this crybaby crap. This is an issue SOLELY because the Patriots won and YOU KNOW IT! The national media narrative started DURING the goddyamed OT itself.

 

[tobias funke]

"The OT displays which team has the HEART of a champion. If the Chiefs had that heart they'd have made a stop and then scored."

Sorry but this is gobbledygook to me. I don't buy into this crap. Offense is easier than defense in this league, especially late in games. Our defense has collapsed at the end of games many times. Does that mean they don't have the "heart of a champion". They probably did the week before, when they won and everyone was sucking them off, then they lose and they don't have heart... it's a game with rules that change every year. Get used to it.

 

[Joker]

it's gobbledegook because you are obviously in love with "a game with rules that change every year". I'm not. I like consistency in my life. To each his own. I'm sure you'll be ecstatic when they outlaw the coin flip and just give the home team the ball on the five yard line...until the next season when they just outlaw OT for good. "Home team wins!!! For fairness!!"

 

[obgod3]

I just think no matter what you do that at some point a game will be decided that the general populous will hate and want yet another change.....

There is no real answer, I think what we have now is pretty good...as I mentionned before to win a playoff game offense, defense and St have to play well....defense counts...all these talking heads say defense wins championships....well then....

 

[Bella*chick]

Don't include me in this blanket supposition. I have been an AVID NFL fan since Ro, Mo, Ko and Lo manned the defensive line of the NY Giants. The OT rules are good enough to have stood the test of time until NOW, the age of "blame everyone else but yourself for YOUR shortcomings". The OT displays which team has the HEART of a champion. If the Chiefs had that heart they'd have made a stop and then scored. Period.Don't "participation trophy' this like people are doing to everything else in our lives. Sick of this crybaby crap. This is an issue SOLELY because the Patriots won and YOU KNOW IT! The national media narrative started DURING the goddyamed OT itself.

I thought the act same thing about the “participation trophy” aspect of this rule change whining. Oh boo boo, we didn’t get a chance! No fair! Like they weren’t fielding a defense that had already picked Brady off a couple times.

I can also guarantee I would not have whined about the rules needing to change if we had lost because I assumed the refs would guarantee a loss for us anyway.

 

[sb1]

Having both teams get a “turn” is a tremendous advantage to the team that goes second. For one thing they can play 4 down football where the first team can’t.

That is in no way more “fair” than sudden death as it is.

The college rules are trash so let’s not go there either.