Belichick: "Let's make NFL OT like college basketball OT.."

[oldrover]

From the following article by Albert Breer:

Roger Goodell’s Mission to Mend Fences With NFL Players | The MMQB with Peter King

"The upshot of new overtime. Bill Belichick used to bring up a pretty interesting idea for modifying overtime—and it was to take sudden death, and go the other way entirely by setting a finite time and playing a whole period out. He’d raise the idea when college OT came up. He didn’t like the college overtime because it didn’t closely enough resemble regulation, by marginalizing special teams. Similarly, sudden death would marginalize the element of the clock.

“When it’s first team to score, or however the rules are set, or the way it is in college, that’s not the end of the game,” Belichick told WEEI in 2012. “It’s like basketball, you go and play basketball it comes down to the end of regulation, you’re making three-point shots, you’re fouling to get the ball back. OK, great, so now you’re in overtime. It’s the same thing (with a set clock). You get that same strategic element at the end of the basketball game. In football, we’ve lost that with the rules that we have now.” Asked what he wants, Belichick shot back, “Put some time on the clock and play. ... Play to the end of the game. Put 10 minutes, eight minutes (on the clock), whatever we decide.”

So the NFL isn’t there yet, but cutting the OT to 10 minutes is certainly a step in that direction. Is health and safety an element here? Sure. Is keeping games in a manageable timeframe also part of it? Absolutely. But as I’ve heard, what Belichick has wanted forever—to make the clock a factor in OT—is in play as well. If you’re asking me, I like it, because it adds another layer of strategy to the drama of the extra period."

--------

Plus... you're not starting a weird new mini-game. It's a true extension. Belichick... dang... you are the best.

 

[Sicilian]

I don't disagree, and obviously he knows the game far better than I do, but playing a set amount of extra football is a different physical toll than playing a set amount of extra basketball. There's a reason an NBA player can play 90% of the game time over 82 games playing every other night, while NFL players need a week between games. After 60 minutes, the sooner you get the game done the better (physically) it is for the players.

 

[jah]

Undoubtedly the best choice for competition in theory. However, I don't think the players or their union would at all go for the idea of a minimum length OT. The "advantage" to sudden death is it decides the game as fast as possible to avoid further injury.

 

[Trycked]

The only potential downside of this is, if there were less time in OT, teams may end up trying to run the ball and slowing down the pace so that the other team never gets possession back. A way to get around this is maybe to decrease the 40-25 second play clock to something like 30-15 seconds during OT. But heck, if a defense can't stop the run I guess they don't deserve to win.

 

[Tony2046]

My first thought is that if a team can't win a game in 4 quarters whatever happens or whatever the rules are in OT will be to simply to attempt to determine a winner. They changed the rules from first to score to first to score a TD or any score after both teams have had a possession. That's fair enough.

If they are worried about a player's health then they need to consider many other things that would have a far greater impact than a few OT's a year. A bye week before a Thursday night football game to ensure players had at least 9 days of rest rather than 4 before the game. Give each team two or three bye weeks per season and reduce the preseason games from 4 to 3. Expand the roster and cap proportionately so that a team can build greater depth.

It's fine the way it is now and they could protect a player's health with numerous other changes.

 

[fgssand]

I don't disagree, and obviously he knows the game far better than I do, but playing a set amount of extra football is a different physical toll than playing a set amount of extra basketball. There's a reason an NBA player can play 90% of the game time over 82 games playing every other night, while NFL players need a week between games. After 60 minutes, the sooner you get the game done the better (physically) it is for the players.

So go with a five minute extension and then a second one if need be -- point is dead nuts on, let's play football the same way in OT as,played towards the end of regulation.

 

[pdangle]

So go with a five minute extension and then a second one if need be -- point is dead nuts on, let's play football the same way in OT as,played towards the end of regulation.

This could work. But I'd reduce the time allowed between snaps from 40 to 32 or something similar. Basically play real football, but at a slightly faster pace.

 

[Sicilian]

This could work. But I'd reduce the time allowed between snaps from 40 to 32 or something similar. Basically play real football, but at a slightly faster pace.

Well, the amount of TIME they play isn't really a problem, it's the number of extra PLAYS. So if you're going to do that, you might as well make it 7 minutes and keep the play clock the same. Either way, you're getting roughly the same number of extra hits in.

So go with a five minute extension and then a second one if need be -- point is dead nuts on, let's play football the same way in OT as,played towards the end of regulation.

Problem here is you're back to the idea that the first team with the ball can go 40 yards and kick a field goal to win it, because it's not that hard to eat up 5 minutes in a drive. Basically, whatever you decide to do, we shouldn't try to make OT 100% fair and balanced. If you can't win in 60 minutes you leave yourself exposed to a little bit of luck. That's just how it goes.

 

[Froob]

How is college basketball OT different than the NBA? Aren't they the same...?

 

[neuronet]

I bet around 10PM February 6, 2017 Belichick was feeling a little differently about overtime rules.

 

[farn]

I understand the risk - but let's keep it real. Football is dangerous regardless. I like BB's idea. They could decide the length of the OT by finding the average length of a drive & using that as a way to somewhat insure both teams get a shot at it.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Not sure I agree with the GHCOAT here.

I'd rather see each team get the ball at the 50 and give them 2min each to do something.

 

[lurker1965]

My opinion on this, ties in the regular season are not to be feared. Hockey players and <gasp> chess players know their sport takes a physical strain and have embraced that ties do really exist. BTW, football fans, do you want to talk about Santa Claus? (He was booed in Philly. but I digress.)

 

[borg]

Cheerleaders, baby oil, and a Slip and Slide. This shouldn't be complicated

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

I bet around 10PM February 6, 2017 Belichick was feeling a little differently about overtime rules.

Yeah it'd be frustrating answering questions about running up the score in ot.

 

[Doctor DDS]

I prefer sudden death but I would add a slight twist. Have the coin toss as usual. The losing team would then "set the yard line" and the team that won the toss could either choose the ball or play defense. (ie: Atlanta loses the toss and could select the 15 yard line. The Pats would then choose to play offense or defense) Would add a little strategy and brings back the first score wins element.

 

[Deus Irae]

My opinion on this, ties in the regular season are not to be feared. Hockey players and <gasp> chess players know their sport takes a physical strain and have embraced that ties do really exist. BTW, football fans, do you want to talk about Santa Claus? (He was booed in Philly. but I digress.)

Hockey no longer has ties, because hockey decided that, on those occasions when 60 minutes of hockey aren't enough to get a winner, they'd start playing another sport and call it "overtime". Hockey's OT setup has now become such a joke that they play five minutes of 3-on-3 pseudo-hockey, and then it becomes soccer with penalty shots.

The solution for both hockey and football is easy:

1. No overtime during the regular season (for hockey, you just go back to 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for a loss)
   
2. Sudden death overtime in the playoffs
3. Quit crying about ties

 

[RDS11]

Hockey no longer has ties, because hockey decided that, on those occasions when 60 minutes of hockey aren't enough to get a winner, they'd start playing another sport and call it "overtime". Hockey's OT setup has now become such a joke that they play five minutes of 3-on-3 pseudo-hockey, and then it becomes soccer with penalty shots.

The solution for both hockey and football is easy:

1. No overtime during the regular season (for hockey, you just go back to 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for a loss)
   
2. Sudden death overtime in the playoffs
3. Quit crying about ties

Sports is all about entertainment. Hockey's 3 on 3 is great entertainment. Back in the 80s and 90s, even with the 5 minutes OT, close to 20% of all games ended up in ties (in the last season before shootouts, 14% of all games ended up in ties). I'd rather much have 5 minutes of 'pseudo hockey' than sitting through (or worse, paying good money to watch live) a 150 minutes game that will end up in a tie 20% of the time.

 

[fxmallon]

I say a 12 minute overtime. There will be more ties, but so be it.

Keep the present rules in the playoffs with, of course, no ties.

 

[lurker1965]

Sports is all about entertainment. Hockey's 3 on 3 is great entertainment. Back in the 80s and 90s, even with the 5 minutes OT, close to 20% of all games ended up in ties (in the last season before shootouts, 14% of all games ended up in ties). I'd rather much have 5 minutes of 'pseudo hockey' than sitting through (or worse, paying good money to watch live) a 150 minutes game that will end up in a tie 20% of the time.

I'm not a hockey fan, but if I had paid to see a hockey game and they did something else I'd be upset. Were the ticket buyers aware that ties exist or were they reality-challenged.
The easily entertained apparently are more forgiving of false advertising than I am.