OT format thoughts

[QuantumMechanic]

I've seen people (not necessarily here) complaining about Atlanta not getting a possession. To which I say, too bad.

In fact, I'd prefer to go back to the original, true sudden death rules, with one important change:
Instead of the OT starting with a coin toss and then a kickoff, first possession would go to whichever team is willing to start the drive closest to their own endzone.

Then there's no more luck. It will be determined by the coaches' estimate of the capability of their teams at that moment in team. If team wants first possession badly enough they can have it -- at the cost of it being a long drive.

Separately, though a bit relatedly, I'd also like to see the uprights narrowed until FG percentage drops back to where it was in the 1970s. Way less automatic than it is now. That'll make regulation more interesting because teams will likely be more aggressive once they cross the other team's 45. And it'll make OT more interesting because FGs will be less likely to be made and teams will want to drive further before they try them.

 

[farn]

Your "silent auction" proposal is interesting.

But I am fine w the way they do it now. Let's put it this way : if NE moves the ball a few first downs &
Kicks a game winner (under old rules) people would be insufferable. But a TD : they tried (and failed) to stop NE so it's fair. And over.

 

[PatsBoy12]

OT in the NFL is just fine to me. The league is becoming complicit in its own demise in more ways than one. The need to change rules after every huge game or decision is impacting the record books, among many other things. I liked that they changed the format to what it is now. It's up to the D to make a play. If they can't, then too bad. The Pats were on the other side of it against the Jets in 2015, but I never once blamed the OT rules for why they lost.

 

[festy1986]

Honestly.

I think both teams should have a chance at the ball. Regardless.

I know I wouldn't be able to sleep if we had come back and lost thst damn game over a coin flip.

 

[IcyPatriot]

I like the format except for the coin toss ...
I would have the team who won a statistical category ...

most 4th down attempts or most 2pt attempts ... gets the ball first.

 

[RedSleevesPinkStripes]

Can't win it in regulation, don't ***** about how overtime is setup. I think it's fine as is.

 

[FrodoBagginz]

Yet again the Pats win and the push for rule changes begin.

Format is fine as is. Don't want to lose in OT due to bad coin flip? Don't give up 31 points while scoring just 7 in the second half.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Last time I saw numbers was in 2015, and the new OT rules resulted in 33 wins for the receiving team, 32 for the kicking team. Before, 60% of teams that won the coin flip had won games, so it really helped take a lot of the unfairness out of it.

I can promise you this though. If we had lost the flip and lost the game on a TD, nobody in this organization would be blaming or complaining about the OT rules. Just more sour ****ing grapes.

As BB said, "Our program is built on competition and working hard and not built on excuses."

 

[ausbacker]

I like the current format mainly because there's nothing precluding the team kicking the football away to execute a surprise onside kick and as we saw in the Ravens game, things can go south very quickly on a KOR.

 

[sb1]

I didn't like the idea of winning a coin toss and kicking a cheap FG without the other team getting a chance.

They fixed that and I got no problem with it now.

This is only a "controversy" of course because the Pats won.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

I've seen people (not necessarily here) complaining about Atlanta not getting a possession. To which I say, too bad.

In fact, I'd prefer to go back to the original, true sudden death rules, with one important change:
Instead of the OT starting with a coin toss and then a kickoff, first possession would go to whichever team is willing to start the drive closest to their own endzone.

Then there's no more luck. It will be determined by the coaches' estimate of the capability of their teams at that moment in team. If team wants first possession badly enough they can have it -- at the cost of it being a long drive.

I've suggested something along the same lines, with one coach setting the spot and the other coach deciding whether to take the ball or not.

 

[jah]

I'd say the current rules are unfair if and only if the probability of scoring a TD is greater than 50%. Wonder if anyone's done analysis like that, I'm sure they have.

I think the "auction" idea is cool though.

 

[aluminum seats]

Nothing gimmicky. Just keep it the way it is.

HATE the college format, btw.

 

[deroc5050]

Can't win it in regulation, don't ***** about how overtime is setup. I think it's fine as is.

Yeah I think its probably fine as is. However if they changed it so each team gets 1 possession no matter what.. I wouldn't be against that. But if the team gets the ball first and scores a TD.. then the opposing team will be going for it on 4th down every play until they fail to convert or score a TD to match.


The more I think about it I kinda like the rules as they are.

 

[Pessimistic Pete]

Off the main topic but on the topic of change


I HATE that they stopped having a unique Super Bowl logo for each SB, they're just soulless now.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

I'd say the current rules are unfair if and only if the probability of scoring a TD is greater than 50%. Wonder if anyone's done analysis like that, I'm sure they have.

I think the site that shows the winning probability at each point in the game had the Patriot's win percentage at something like 58% (speaking from memory here) after winning the coin toss and electing to take the ball, up from 50% before the toss.

 

[Froob]

Not sure how you could think the old way was better, Pats get down the field and kick a field goal at the ten. OT is wwwaaaaaaaaayy better now. I could only imagine if we had gotten fourth and inches at the goal line. That used to suck when the team would win the toss get a big play and then just stop driving and just kick the field goal.

 

[GaryfromTO]

Honestly.

I think both teams should have a chance at the ball. Regardless.

I know I wouldn't be able to sleep if we had come back and lost thst damn game over a coin flip.

you wouldn't lose because of coin flip, you'd lose because your defense couldn't stop them from scoring a TD. Exactly what happened to the Falcons

 

[festy1986]

you wouldn't lose because of coin flip, you'd lose because your defense couldn't stop them from scoring a TD. Exactly what happened to the Falcons

Yeah well that's dumb.

Both teams get the ball. Nuff said.

 

[p8ryts]

OT in the NFL is just fine to me. The league is becoming complicit in its own demise in more ways than one. The need to change rules after every huge game or decision is impacting the record books, among many other things. I liked that they changed the format to what it is now. It's up to the D to make a play. If they can't, then too bad. The Pats were on the other side of it against the Jets in 2015, but I never once blamed the OT rules for why they lost.

Jeez someone always wants to change the rules. There are to many rules now. It's much better in the post season when they let them play.