Change the Overtime Rules?

[Fugowii]

I think they should have a pistol duel between the coachs for first possesion.
Each head coach lines up at their respective 40 yard line with 9mm double
stacks and spare magazines and whoever is left standing gets the ball.

F

 

[rabthepat]

Keep it the way it is.

Exactly...if you change the rules teams will play for over time instead of trying to win it in regulation.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

Exactly...if you change the rules teams will play for over time instead of trying to win it in regulation.

and you make this assertion based on what?

You think BB would not go for a win, and play for a tie when possible?

First, how often does a team get in a situation that they can score to tie, or score to win? Not very often. Teams will play for the win all the time, as long as they can. Given 2 seconds on the clock, FG to tie, TD to win. Teams take the FG now.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

So you're saying that the popularity and ratings growth of the NFL constitutes an endorsement of the league's overtime system in particular?

I suppose the ratings growth also argues that we should keep the pass interference and roughing the passer rules the same, too.

Actually those have been changed or emphasized, unfortunately. I appreciate the value offense and QB's represent to the league, but I also apprecite good defense and wish we would just let the players play the game as intended. I think the more we try to micro manage it the more we risk decreasing it's popularity. I think on some level NFL owners know this which is why they did the CBA deal they did last season. Anything was prefereble to a lockout or strike.


I'm kinda with Bill where all the rules come in. They don't bother me per say as long as they are enforced and interpreted consistently and correctly. And I think if they allow any call to be reviewed they should allow them all to be reviewed under the same 2 per HC and booth review in the final 2 formula. I also agree with Bill that a major/minor system for PI would just result in more PI calls and confusion when the alternative is a potential game changing play.

 

[Gopats!!!]

The XFL overtime rules were awesome! I would like to see that!:rocker:

 

[MoLewisrocks]

What does marketing have to do with how OT works?...now thats a bad example... And to attribute popularity and ratings to the OT is an amazingly bad conclusion. There is no empirical data that relates OT to those. Perhaps if it gets changed, they go up?

As for your argument that cause its harder to score in football then the NBA being a good reason for leaving it the same..thats pretty weak. Seems in the college game that system works fine, without major injury factors that can be proved, despite your speculation.

I never attribued popularity to OT, nor did I say it was a result of marketing, just said when your product is the most popular of all professional sports there is no need to change it's format to conform with less popular (and in cases struggling) sports OT formats.

And it was PatNasty making those other arguments.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

and you make this assertion based on what?

You think BB would not go for a win, and play for a tie when possible?

First, how often does a team get in a situation that they can score to tie, or score to win? Not very often. Teams will play for the win all the time, as long as they can. Given 2 seconds on the clock, FG to tie, TD to win. Teams take the FG now.

I think we're discussing the impact on not playing for the win when it's already tied in regulation. Depending on field position, personnel availability, conditions, etc. it would be far easier to go conservative if you get the ball back with say 1:21 left on the clock and your rookie QB is pinned inside your own 20 knowing that you would get a shot in OT even if the other team scored first. We went for it in that situation because we only needed a FG, we knew we might never see the ball again because if the Rams won the toss they were now scoring on our defense at will.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

There is an extremely easy solution to the overtime situation, but the NFL doesn't want to admit what it is.

Make the opening kickoff in overtime from the 35 instead of the 30.

When the 35 used to be the starting kickoff spot, over time was nearly a perfect 50/50 between the team that won the toss and the team that didn't. When they changed it gradually started to skew up to the 58/42 thing or whatever it is now.

The problem is that nobody wants to open that can of worms. Moving the kickoff was done for one reason: To increase the number of television time outs without affecting the score. This was accomplished by making changes in the clock rules, with the clock running more and longer (most notably being re-wound after an out of bounds in all but the last 2 minutes of the first half and las 5 minutes of the second half and then also moving to a 40 second play clock). The result of all this was to cut down on the number of plays per game, which increase the amount of commercials that can be had in a 3 hour game. But if you chop 7 to 12 plays off of a standard game, how do you keep scoring the same?

Easy -- move the kickoff back five yards, which had the effect of moving average starting position after kick offs up about 8 yards and also had the effect of ruining sudden death overtime.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

I think we're discussing the impact on not playing for the win when it's already tied in regulation. Depending on field position, personnel availability, conditions, etc. it would be far easier to go conservative if you get the ball back with say 1:21 left on the clock and your rookie QB is pinned inside your own 20 knowing that you would get a shot in OT even if the other team scored first. We went for it in that situation because we only needed a FG, we knew we might never see the ball again because if the Rams won the toss they were now scoring on our defense at will.

This makes no sense to me. Rook QB's are on 2 or 3 teams a year. They are in a tie game with 1:20 to win how many times a season?

1..2 total on all teams?

your example is pretty rare, hardly makes your point.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

I never attribued popularity to OT, nor did I say it was a result of marketing, just said when your product is the most popular of all professional sports there is no need to change it's format to conform with less popular (and in cases struggling) sports OT formats.

And it was PatNasty making those other arguments.

Based on this argument, then we would make NO changes to the game ever. Pretty heavy handed.