OT format thoughts

[PrairiePat]

Yeah well that's dumb.

Both teams get the ball. Nuff said.

No it's not 'nuff said'. The 2nd team has a distinct advantage in knowing how the first team did on their posession. It's no fairer than the current system, and probably much less so.

 

[festy1986]

No it's not 'nuff said'. The 2nd team has a distinct advantage in knowing how the first team did on their posession. It's no fairer than the current system, and probably much less so.

If your original point that if you don't wanna lose the game play defense and don't give up a td than that point remains here.

If the pats lost without ever touching the ball in OT than yea. I'd be pretty upset.

 

[PlanB]

or the game could end in a tie, both teams get Super Bowl participation trophies and no feelings get hurt???? sheesh

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

All 4 "big" sports are destroying their product. Hockey is heading more and more towards figure skating with sticks. Basketball is now almost devoid of low post play. Baseball is looking at starting extra innings with a runner already on second base.

I truly feel bad for the kids who are going to grow up without ever having really seen these sports when they were actually these sports.

 

[XLIX]

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.

Both team did have a chance at the ball. In fact, the Falcons had 11 chances at the ball. If they can't win it with 11 chances they have no right complaining about not getting a 12th.

 

[festy1986]

Both team did have a chance at the ball. In fact, the Falcons had 11 chances at the ball. If they can't win it with 11 chances they have no right complaining about not getting a 12th.

Look. I get it. This is the felger approach. You wanna make the playoffs? Win your division. Upset about the playoff to.win the wild card in baseball? Win your division.

That's just so lame.

The pats would of stopped the Falcons. Even in 4 down territory needing a td to force another possession.

It's pretty ****ing simple people. Did you really want tom ****ing Brady to run off 25 straight points and tie the ****ing game and not have a ****ing chance to.win the ****ing God damn ****ing superbowl because a ****ing coin flip?

Christ

 

[PatsBoy12]

All 4 "big" sports are destroying their product. Hockey is heading more and more towards figure skating with sticks. Basketball is now almost devoid of low post play. Baseball is looking at starting extra innings with a runner already on second base.

I truly feel bad for the kids who are going to grow up without ever having really seen these sports when they were actually these sports.

I agree completely. I grew up playing basketball in the era where the game was more physical. Barkley, Oakley and the Knicks, Pistons, even the Pacers. And the game had already changed somewhat by that point. Basketball is almost unwatchable now. Flopping, flagrant 1's and 2's, suspensions, etc. It's awful.

In the NFL, some changes make sense, like pushing the extra point back, for example. That had an impact on strategy as intended. It's been enjoyable to watch how it has had a direct impact on wins and losses by making the game more competitive. OT needed to change, and they did it correctly. It is still a sudden death scenario, while it still allows for both teams to potentially have a chance to win. Most of the other stuff is making the NFL and, to your point, the various other sports I have loved unrecognizable to me. And don't even get me started on the lack of consistency in enforcing them.

 

[Pats1989]

Go CFL style for OT. Receiving team gets three downs for a first down. If they fail, other team has three downs. After that, go to next score wins.

 

[sb1]

Imagine the outrage if Ghost connected on a game winning fair catch free kick FG. That rule would have been gone already.

 

[LightSkinSmurf]

Almost everyone complaining about the rules now would have no problem with the rules if atlanta won the toss and marched down the field and scored a TD. If you can't stop the other team from getting a TD in OT don't blame the rules, blame your crap defense.

 

[PrairiePat]

Imagine the outrage if Ghost connected on a game winning fair catch free kick FG. That
rule would have been gone already.

It probably should be gone.

 

[XLIX]

Look. I get it. This is the felger approach. You wanna make the playoffs? Win your division. Upset about the playoff to.win the wild card in baseball? Win your division.

That's just so lame.

The pats would of stopped the Falcons. Even in 4 down territory needing a td to force another possession.

It's pretty ****ing simple people. Did you really want tom ****ing Brady to run off 25 straight points and tie the ****ing game and not have a ****ing chance to.win the ****ing God damn ****ing superbowl because a ****ing coin flip?

Christ

If the Falcons won the toss and scored a first drive TD, then the Patriots would have had only themselves to blame.

Blaming a coin flip is lame. Your temper tantrum show how little intellectual maturity your position holds.

 

[sb1]

Nothing gimmicky. Just keep it the way it is.

HATE the college format, btw.

I don't mind it in college but it will not work at the pro level. The games would never end.

 

[festy1986]

Blaming a coin flip is lame. Your temper tantrum show how little intellectual maturity your position holds.

Not blaming a coin flip. There's a reason in the NHL over times rules change.

The importance of the game changes the rules because the players them self should have the opportunity to decide the game. Not chance

 

[patfanken]

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.

Your silent auction concept is intriguing. I'll need time to absorb it better. But until that happens, I'm fine with the new OT rules, and the stats seem to bear it out that the Kicking team has a 50-50 chance of winning the game and that's pretty much what you want.

But I am ALL aboard the idea of narrowing the goal posts. 2 feet on each side will do it, I think. Between all the new rules that make FG blocks virtually impossible, plus the skill of today's kickers make 50 yd FG's around a 70% sure thing. I agree it would be a much better and more interesting game if FG's became more difficult. Think about. Gotskowski made 84.4% of his FG's and there are a lot of people here calling for a new kicker.

UNFORTUNATELY - the current NFL adminstration worships at the feet of the God of Points, so any good idea that might make scoring harder and not easier will likely never see the light of day, no matter how worthy it is.

 

[Deus Irae]

Your silent auction concept is intriguing. I'll need time to absorb it better. But until that happens, I'm fine with the new OT rules, and the stats seem to bear it out that the Kicking team has a 50-50 chance of winning the game and that's pretty much what you want.

But I am ALL aboard the idea of narrowing the goal posts. 2 feet on each side will do it, I think. Between all the new rules that make FG blocks virtually impossible, plus the skill of today's kickers make 50 yd FG's around a 70% sure thing. I agree it would be a much better and more interesting game if FG's became more difficult. Think about. Gotskowski made 84.4% of his FG's and there are a lot of people here calling for a new kicker.

UNFORTUNATELY - the current NFL adminstration worships at the feet of the God of Points, so any good idea that might make scoring harder and not easier will likely never see the light of day, no matter how worthy it is.

People are calling for a new kicker because you can't have a kicker missing 5 PATs.

 

[mosslost]

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.

55 yard uncontested FG shoot out like hockey.

 

[mosslost]

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.

why can't you just keep playing more quarters til we have a winner? Just like more 4th quarters? Too hard on the players?
EDIT: to me this is both fair and exciting.. maybe just in the playoffs?

 

[chasa]

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.

That doesn't seem fair though, because if the first team scores, that means the second team gets the knowledge that every drive is 4 down territory, so while the first team has to decide if they are going to go for it or punt, the second team gets to go for it every time.

Also the second team gets to decide which side of the field they defend, which provides huge benefits in outdoor stadiums.

 

[XLIX]

Not blaming a coin flip. There's a reason in the NHL over times rules change.

The importance of the game changes the rules because the players them self should have the opportunity to decide the game. Not chance

The players *did* decide the game. When NE's offense scored a TD, the players decided the outcome.