T1B

Van wrote:

mvscal wrote:Lose the toss? Cover the kick and play defense.

Then what? The game still isn't over. You've already succeeded, yet the game isn't over.

Bingo.

The truth the proponents of the current format fail to acknowledge is that the mere flip of a coin decides which team gets a VERY significant advantage.

Why should either team be given any advantage as an O.T. begins?

Oh, there is no reason, that's right.

In nearly two-thirds of the games the coin toss doesn't matter as the team that lost the toss gets the ball. Van, you tried to run before that the fact that the team that wins the coin toss wins most of the time every year is quite irrelevant to your point that there must be equal opportunity. And what we see here is that in nearly two-thirds of OT games both teams play offense and defense. So your argument is to address that thirty-seven percent and Favre not getting the SB again. That's it and it's not persuasive.

I don't get what's not exciting about sudden death overtime. With cfb you know both teams get the ball over and over and over again. It's wholly contrived and completely changes the game much like shootouts in hockey and soccer.

Poptart, neither team is being given an advantage. It's a completely neutral action that precipitates the start of OT.

Why are you not arguing to change the start of regulation via coin toss?

JMak wrote:Poptart, neither team is being given an advantage. It's a completely neutral action that precipitates the start of OT.

Why are you not arguing to change the start of regulation via coin toss?

You do realize that the teams switch roles in the second half? Therefore no team is given an undue advantage via the coin toss.

Van, you tried to run before that the fact that the team that wins the coin toss wins most of the time every year is quite irrelevant to your point that there must be equal opportunity.

Quite to the contrary, the fact that the team which wins the coin toss has won the majority of the games in every season of the existence of the NFL's O.T. is all the proof you ought to need that there exists unequal opportunity, and that that unequal opportunity bears predictable fruit.

It isn't the least bit irrelevant. It's the hammer hitting the nail on the head. It's irrefutable proof of a broken system.

Oh, and for the record, I was rooting for the Saints. I had no interest in seeing Favre going to another Super Bowl. I couldn't have cared less about that. I was just put off by yet another great NFL game marred by another somnolent, anti-climactic O.T. which ended before the other team even received an equal opportunity to win the game.

What is this equal opportunity fetish? There is no equal opportunity. Teams don't spend the same amt of money. Teams don't play with the same personnel. There are all sorts of variabilities and here you are whining abouit equal opportunity.

Despite the fact that the team winning the toss wins the majority of games...who wouldn't expect that?...the league hasn't changed it's policy. Teams have played by the rule...until now when Favre didn't get to the SB some pussies want to change it.

Fact - two-thirds of OT games see both teams getting the ball. I.e., the majority of OT games see both teams playing both sides. There is no problem unless the results are not going your way...stfu.

Okay, so you're just insisting on being an idiot.

JMak wrote:What is this equal opportunity fetish? There is no equal opportunity. Teams don't spend the same amt of money. Teams don't play with the same personnel. There are all sorts of variabilities and here you are whining abouit equal opportunity.

Despite the fact that the team winning the toss wins the majority of games...who wouldn't expect that?...the league hasn't changed it's policy. Teams have played by the rule...until now when Favre didn't get to the SB some pussies want to change it.

Fact - two-thirds of OT games see both teams getting the ball. I.e., the majority of OT games see both teams playing both sides. There is no problem unless the results are not going your way...stfu.

Jesus Christ you're one thick motherfucker. The reason the NFL is looking into changing the rule is simple. They saw one of their conference championships settled by a relatively cheap OT field goal. And in that moment when the Saints were celebrating on the field Roger Goodell was visited by the ghost of Super Bowl future. And that ghostly motherfucker showed Goodell a scene of millions of fans rioting over a bullshit ending to the bigest game of the year. Yea, I said bullshit. And no matter how vehemently you disagree with that opinion, the fact remains that a clear majority of actual NFL owners appear to be on board with this idea. So if you don't like it, go get fucked you paste eating retard.

You fucks are slipping.

BSmack wrote:the fact remains that a clear majority of actual NFL owners appear to be on board with this idea.

28 to 4, to be exact.

But just for the playoffs, for now. Can't have games running extra late and fucking up network TV schedules during the regular season, you know.

It's a good OT rule and should be incorporated into regular season games as well. Eventually, I'm sure it will be.

So regular season games don't count? Having games settled by "cheap" field goals is acceptable so long as it doesn't happen in OT of a playoff game? So cheap field goals can decide who gets into the playoffs just not who wins playoff games?

Absurd, much like the reasoning for the change in the first place...

Baby steps, Jmak. Baby steps.

They had to start somewhere.

War Wagon wrote:Baby steps, Jmak. Baby steps.

They had to start somewhere.

Bullshit. This ain't the federal government...or what used to be the fed govt where incrementalism ruled. Thisis the NFL. If thge new OT rules are addressing some perceived inequity in the the OT rules then fix the entire fucking thing. But this ain't about fixing the OT rules. It's about fixing the playoffs.

What people seem to forget is both teams had 60 minutes to win the game and didn't. Now we have a rule that gives both teams a chance if the team that scores first only gets a FG, but if the second team does too, then we go to sudden death.....

Why do I feel this issue isn't going anywhere despite the change, and further changes are in the future? :?

It may be for the playoffs now, but it will certainly be adapted for the regular season.

When that happens the longer the game goes the better the chances both teams lose the following week, weeks that are often shorter these days because of Monday/Thursday Night football.

Horeshit

I wish these assholes would stop fucking with the league. The main problem is the helmet's inability to stop concussions, that is where changes should be made.

Joe in PB wrote: When that happens the longer the game goes the better the chances both teams lose the following week, weeks that are often shorter these days because of Monday/Thursday Night football.

There are no following weeks in the playoffs for one of those teams.

How many concussions was it you said you'd had?

Joe... c'mon man.

JMak wrote:

War Wagon wrote:Baby steps, Jmak. Baby steps.

They had to start somewhere.

Bullshit. This ain't the federal government...or what used to be the fed govt where incrementalism ruled. Thisis the NFL. If thge new OT rules are addressing some perceived inequity in the the OT rules then fix the entire fucking thing. But this ain't about fixing the OT rules. It's about fixing the playoffs.

I'm with JTard. These new OT rules are about as gay as a Friday night with these two:

I blame Peter King.

This version of O.T. still sucks, but it's better than its predecessor. Why they would institute it only for the playoffs, though, that's just beyond stupid. There is no way that one will stick.

jiminphilly wrote:I blame Peter King.

He is a colossal douche.

Van wrote:Why they would institute it only for the playoffs, though, that's just beyond stupid. There is no way that one will stick.

We're OK with it.

Sin,
The television networks that provide billions in revenue



I can't stop laughing at the retards that just can't figure out why it's for playoffs and not regular season games...

Stop whining about it, shut up, and get to feeling remorseful for being so goddammed stupid.

So, Dins, when the O.T. rules are again changed to make them uniform across the board, including the regular season - which is going to happen, as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow - will you come back in here and bump your little quote there?

I'm guessing, no, you won't.

Van wrote:So, Dins, when the O.T. rules are again changed to make them uniform across the board, including the regular season - which is going to happen, .

They weren't uniform before the change, idiot.

Yes, they were, dumbass. The regular season and playoffs O.T.s were identical, other than for the fact that a regular season game could end in a tie following a full extra period of O.T. That differs from what's about to go into effect, whereby the basic format of O.T. will differ between regular season games and the playoffs.

They're going to make this new version of O.T. - or some other version, since this new one blows - apply to the regular season as well, before too very long. They may still allow for the possibility of a tie following the O.T. during the regular season, but they're going to make the basic format of O.T. the same for both.

Van wrote:Yes, they were, dumbass. The regular season and playoffs O.T.s were identical, other than for the fact that a regular season game could end in a tie following a full extra period of O.T.

That would make them not identical.

The actual O.T. periods are identical. The difference is that one may be extended to another O.T. period, while the first may not.

Van wrote:The actual O.T. periods are identical. The difference is that one may be extended to another O.T. period, while the first may not.

That would make the OT rules less than uniform. Just so you know.

Fine. Beyond the first O.T., the rules were different. During the first O.T., they weren't; now they are. The league may decide to retain that differentiating aspect of regular season vs playoffs O.T., but they will make uniform the initial period of O.T., and it won't take long.

Van wrote:Fine. Beyond the first O.T., the rules were different. During the first O.T., they weren't; now they are. The league may decide to retain that differentiating aspect of regular season vs playoffs O.T., but they will make uniform the initial period of O.T., and it won't take long.

Just stop.

The initial O.T. period has been played the same whether it was the regular season or the playoffs. That's no longer the case, yet it will be again, soon.

Van wrote:So, Dins, when the O.T. rules are again changed to make them uniform across the board, including the regular season - which is going to happen, as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow - will you come back in here and bump your little quote there?

I'm guessing, no, you won't.

Wow. You've heaped a big pile of KYOA on this buffet of a thread.


OK, Van...

First, I don't think the words "uniform" and "identical" mean what you think they mean, as has been pointed out by multiple people.

Second, I was merely offering a very smart-assed response to a question.

Van wrote:WHY...

YOU, along with many other people, asked "why"?

I was merely laughing at your inability to grasp the fucking obvious.

If you're still feeling particularly stupid, I suppose I could explain what should be obvious to anyone with an IQ higher than Vince Young, but do you really need television sceduling explained to you?

But I'll bet if you wrote the NFL a check for billions of dollars, they might listen to your thoughts on the scheduling of their games...

Dumbass.

KC Scott wrote:I'm wondering why there wasn't a serious consideration for doing it CFB style. I honestly can't think of a better way to settle OT.

You can't because you're as dumb as the day is long.

CFB-style = sux and gax. It's gay, but that's why you like it.

Both teams getting the ball on the 25? Fuckin' laughable and a rule only babies or short term attention span morons can appreciate. That's what college football is right? Every coach will tell you their team is full of kids. When I played HS football the coach referred to us as men, his way of instilling toughness and accountability. LMAO, 300 lb babies who are coddled in college. Its no wonder the NFL has as many unaccountable rejects as they do, tards who expect their teams and the league to cover up their fuck ups like the Universities did. The bottom line is, CFB significantly alters its rules in OT by shortening the field by 75%. Minimizing defense, as offenses are awarded field position that is already in scoring position before the ball is even snapped. But what can you expect from a league that votes in the teams playing for its championship.

The NFL should stay as far away from NCAA CFB rules & regulations as possible. On the other hand CFB could improve upon its product infinitely if they adapted NFL rules, a playoff system, and accountability by its players who certainly aren't fuckin' kids.

Rant over...... :x

Douche, not having to play special teams removes one of the core aspects of the game. Hence, it is gay to simply hand the ball to a team.

Then dispense with special teams altogether cum-gargler. Why fundamentally alter the game in OT?

Dins, since you want to tie everything into the wishes of the networks, well, okay, your thinking is about as dumb as anything I've ever seen from you, even when you weren't meaning to be an idiot.

See, Dins, I hate to be the one to have to break this to you, but the networks actually want more NFL, not less. Longer games and longer O.T.'s mean fewer people will be shutting off their TVs because Peyton Manning just got replaced by Angela Lansbury. What, did you think it a coincidence when Sunday football begat Monday Night Football, which begat Thursday Night Fotball, Sunday night football on ESPN, the NFL on Saturdays the moment the college football season is over, etc...oh, and longer seasons, with more teams?

Has it also escaped your attention that the networks want more offense, and they always have? Again, did you think it a coincidence when the headslap was banned, along with DBs being allowed to touch the receivers more than five yards beyond the line of scrimmage? Are you somehow working under the delusion that the networks wouldn't fucking LOVE to see BOTH Drew Brees and Brett Favre be guaranteed a shot at the ball in O.T., as well as Adrian Peterson and Reggie Bush? When there's a Lawrence Taylor sitting on the sidelines, along with a Joe Montana, and they're both unable to get on the field, do you think that makes the network brass happy?

Are you fucking high? I mean, not just in your usual, literal sense?

Christ, dude. Think. Think. More NFL football = happy networks. If you don't think the networks were behind this new rule change, as well as every other one that promoted more offense, you're seriously fucking retarded. Dramatic, lengthy O.T.'s mean more network viewers, full stop.

KC Scott wrote:It's all in how you look at it, Semen Slurper.

Most "purists" look at football as offense vs. Defense with Special teams being the necessary evil (hence the ridicule all kickers receive).

There is no way to totally address what the league wants to do - specifically make sure Brett Favre gets at least one chance to drive the offense down the field for the game tying / winning score in OT without taking special teams out of the equation. One bad bounce = one muffed kickoff = No chance to win.

And have no doubt, you Pole Smoking Simpleton, the whole reason this issue is "suddenly" relevant is beacuse Drew Brees took the opening kickoff down for a chip shot field goal with Brett standing on the sideline looking like this:

Jizz-funnel, I'm the one who was arguing all along that the proposed change was all about getting Brett to the Super Bowl. That's the only reason this comes up now.

Football is offense, defense, and special teams...the so-called "purists" are idjits, plain and simple. Taking away a core component of the game fundamentally alters the game. It's not football anymore.

Van wrote:See, Dins, I hate to be the one to have to break this to you, but the networks actually want more NFL, not less.

They get paid the same, dumbfuck.

What does that have to do with anything? The money's already spent. They want viewers. More NFL on the tube means more viewers for the network, which means more people watching their promos for their other programs, which means more people watching more of their commercials, which means they can charge more to advertizers.

Think, numbnuts. More NFL on TV benefits the network in every single way. More O.T. means more NFL on TV.

I don't think that's what the NFL wants at all, Van. They want their games all wrapped up in their 3-hour window, so they can get their prime time schedule out on time. Otherwise, they stand to lose the non-NFL fans who flip over after the games are supposed to be over, and find the NFL still on.

DingDingDing!


We have a winner in Goobs.

Van, you're so fucking clueless, take your lumps and just stay the fuck down.

If you think networks are actually in favor of erratic scheduling.... you're an idiot.

Sunday Night Football advertising might be more expensive, but the afternoon game, I doubt that you're going to pay higher rates from 4-7 PM than you are heading into primetime.

http://www.frankwbaker.com/prime_time_p ... _costs.htm

I thought that the networks typically lost money on the Sunday afternoon rights, but felt it was worth it in terms of pimping their prime time lineups.