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

[bormio]

NFL Overtime Rules Are Fair To Both Teams, Despite Incessant Whining Online

Hurley is correct - the Chiefs had good chances to stop them. But Slater said “We want the ball” for a reason - it increased their chances of winning. But there is no ideal system.

 

[bormio]

Even elections in this country are sometimes decided by a coin flip (and not another election).

 

[Casanova Frankenstein]

A rule only needs changing if somehow the Patriots have benefited from said rule.

Integrity

 

[Koma]

College OT rules are an abomination.

And if you still feel the inexplicable feel the need to import that abomination to the NFL, have the offense start on its own 25 instead of the defense's 25.

I don't have anything to base this on, but I think people are not considering how long NFL OT games would last if each team had to go only 25 yards to score a TD. In college, there's a 6 or 7 OT game with a final score like 70-68 every few years. In the NFL, I think that would be a common OT score. You give 2 good NFL QBs a short field and tell them they need to score TDs, they will, repeatedly. If they enact the college OT rules, people will be complaining that the games are too long and that it threw their fantasy football league out of whack.

This isn't directed at you, but I'm tired of the "But Mahomes didn't get a chance in OT" argument. Mahomes had a chance, during the 60 minutes of regulation. Maybe KC should have generated at least 3 points in the first half and they wouldn't have had to worry about OT. And when does getting chances end? Take the Saints-Rams, for example. The Saints had the ball in OT, then the Rams did and they scored. The game was over, but should it have been? Shouldn't the Saints get another chance? And if they scored, shouldn't the Rams get a chance to answer? At some point, people have to realize that there are no more chances, the game is over and they didn't win.

 

[bormio]

A rule only needs changing if somehow the Patriots have benefited from said rule.

Integrity

If the Chiefs had won by getting the ball first - nary a whine would have been heard.

 

[Deus Irae]

Hurley is correct - the Chiefs had good chances to stop them. But Slater said “We want the ball” for a reason - it increased their chances of winning.

Statistically, any increase in chances is minimal. And people seem to be ignoring the 50/50 aspect of the coin toss.

But there is no ideal system.

No, there isn't.


But, as I've pointed out multiple times, there were two NFL conference championship games that went to overtime yesterday. And the teams winning the coin flip went 1-1.

 

[bormio]

I don't have anything to base this on, but I think people are not considering how long NFL OT games would last if each team had to go only 25 yards to score a TD. In college, there's a 6 or 7 OT game with a final score like 70-68 every few years. In the NFL, I think that would be a common OT score. You give 2 good NFL QBs a short field and tell them they need to score TDs, they will, repeatedly. If they enact the college OT rules, people will be complaining that the games are too long and that it threw their fantasy football league out of whack.

This isn't directed at you, but I'm tired of the "But Mahomes didn't get a chance in OT" argument. Mahomes had a chance, during the 60 minutes of regulation. Maybe KC should have generated at least 3 points in the first half and they wouldn't have had to worry about OT. And when does getting chances end? Take the Saints-Rams, for example. The Saints had the ball in OT, then the Rams did and they scored. The game was over, but should it have been? Shouldn't the Saints get another chance? And if they scored, shouldn't the Rams get a chance to answer? At some point, people have to realize that there are no more chances, the game is over and they didn't win.

If the Chiefs did not call TO with 1:11 left in the first half, they would have trailed 7-0 at half.

 

[bormio]

Statistically, any increase in chances is minimal. And people seem to be ignoring the 50/50 aspect of the coin toss.



No, there isn't.

I doubt it is minimal. With tired defenses, the chances of NE or KC getting a TD on the opening drive was over 60% I bet. And a coin flip involves no skill. But life ain’t always fair.

 

[Deus Irae]

I doubt it is minimal.

Your doubt is misplaced. I've already given you a link to the winning percentage.

With tired defenses, the chances of NE or KC getting a TD on the opening drive was over 60% I bet.

Single game specific percentages are irrelevant. Yes, Brady and Mahomes were carving up the opposing defenses, but that's one matchup. As I have noted repeatedly, apparently in invisible electrons, THE SAINTS HAD THE BALL FIRST IN OVERTIME AND LOST, AND THE TEAMS WINNING THE COIN TOSS FOR OVERTIME LOST AS MANY GAMES AS THEY WON THIS SUNDAY. Hell, in a game between, say, the 2018 Bears and 2018 Ravens, the team going defense first is probably the team to bet on to win.

 

[bormio]

Your doubt is misplaced. I've already given you a link to the winning percentage.

The win percentage chart should answer the question. You are just making an assertion.

 

[Delicate Genius]

The Patriots would have won 44-31 if Kansas City had gotten a possession in OT.

 

[bormio]

Historical win percentages are meaningless in a game where teams spent the last quarter trading touchdowns.

 

[Deus Irae]

The win percentage chart should answer the question. You are just making an assertion.

No, you're just making piss poor arguments.

 

[bormio]

I agree about the Bears and the Ravens - I made this point earlier today. But the Pats and Chiefs are not the Bears and Ravens - and winning the coin toss helped the Pats a lot.

 

[bormio]

No, you're just making piss poor arguments.

What do you think the Pats chance of winning was yesterday AFTER the coin toss?

 

[Deus Irae]

What do you think the Pats chance of winning was yesterday AFTER the coin toss?

What I think it was is irrelevant. What you think it was is irrelevant. What anyone thinks it was is irrelevant.

You continue to try arguing about one specific matchup, when that is absolutely not the point of designing an overtime rule for an entire league.

 

[bormio]

What I think it was is irrelevant. What you think it was is irrelevant. What anyone thinks it was is irrelevant.

You continue to try arguing about one specific matchup, when that is absolutely not the point of designing an overtime rule for an entire league.

I agree - on average the current system IS close to fair. But with 2 high- powered offenses and tired defenses, the advantage swings to the team going first. So the Pats got a big break by winning the flip, just as KC would have if they did. I don’t think we really disagree.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

Another rule change because of the Patriots? Stop the presses.

1000x winner

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree - on average the current system IS close to fair. But with 2 high- powered offenses and tired defenses, the advantage swings to the team going first. So the Pats got a big break by winning the flip, just as KC would have if they did. I don’t think we really disagree.

Were we disagree is when you make the argument about "fair" in one specific game. And we disagree because your argument is meaningless and irrelevant, since "fair" overtime for a league is not about one specific game, its unfolding, and its matchups.

So, you can keep arguing the "But Brady/Mahomes against those poor, tired defenses" angle, but I won't be responding to it any further. If you've got something else, I'll address that. Otherwise, I'll just assume that your first sentence above is your default position, and leave it at that.

 

[bormio]

Were we disagree is when you make the argument about "fair" in one specific game. And we disagree because your argument is meaningless and irrelevant, since "fair" overtime for a league is not about one specific game, its unfolding, and its matchups.

So, you can keep arguing the "But Brady/Mahomes against those poor, tired defenses" angle, but I won't be responding to it any further. If you've got something else, I'll address that. Otherwise, I'll just assume that your first sentence above is your default position, and leave it at that.

The system is fair. And it helped the Pats a lot. And those statements are not inconsistent.