new OT rules?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:17 am

This proposal would be better than the current OT format, imo.

The explosion of the NFL passing game and growing strength of kicker's legs has just made it too easy for a team to win the coin toss, get a decent return, complete a couple of passes, and get into field goal range.

The current format was fine in 1974, but it ain't 1974.

But this piece reads as if the current OT format will still be in use during the regular season.

Interesting.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:38 am

Gay.

If they want to change something, move the kick off back 10 yards.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:47 am

mvscal wrote:Gay.

If they want to change something, move the kick off back 10 yards.

Back? Or did you mean forward? Moving it back ten yards would only give the receiving team an even easier time of moving into FG position.

JMak · Post by **JMak** » Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:13 am

Stupid. No change is necessary. This has nothing to do with the game but instead a lame attempt to enhance the game for fans. Nothing is more exciting than a defense stepping up and not letting the other team score in OT.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:31 am

Van wrote:
mvscal wrote:Gay.

If they want to change something, move the kick off back 10 yards.
Back? Or did you mean forward? Moving it back ten yards would only give the receiving team an even easier time of moving into FG position.

Uh...yeah. That's what I meant.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:54 pm

JMak wrote:This has nothing to do with the game but instead a lame attempt to enhance the game for fans.

Yeah, god forbid a business enterprise should ever pander to the wishes of its paying customers. Enhancing the game for the fans? Giving them more football to enjoy? What a stupid notion, huh?

JMak · Post by **JMak** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:33 am

Deliberately obtuse, much? This is not an enhancement. There is far more drama with sudden death than this bullshit or what cfb does...

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:02 am

No, there isn't. There is far less drama, and it's not even close. A TD followed by a two-point play attempt for the win is infinitely more exciting than winning the coin toss, returning the kick to the thirty, 'marching' forty yards (often by way of a P.I. call) and kicking a FG while one team's D and the other team's O never leave the bench. The NFL's way of handling O.T. is about as anti-climactic and deflating a way to resolve a football game as there could be.

This isn't even debatable, so don't even try.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:31 am

Van wrote:...winning the coin toss, returning the kick to the thirty, 'marching' forty yards (often by way of a P.I. call) and kicking a FG

Try covering the kick and playing a little defense or quit your fucking sniveling. You have to execute to perfection in at least two phases of the game to win in overtime without the other team touching the ball.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:41 am

BFD. When the other team also has to cover a kick and play a litte defense, then you'll have reason to stop hitting the snooze button.

Tell me again how heroic the Saints' kick-coverage team and D were in O.T. during their O.T. win over Minnesota.

Oh, wait. You can't, since they never saw the field.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:02 am

Who gives a fuck?

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:07 am

The NFL, apparently.

JMak · Post by **JMak** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:47 pm

Maybe defense doesn't fit into Van's game of football...

Look, are we going to chanhge OT to remedy Brett Favre not going to the Super Bowl? WGARA?

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:56 pm

JMak, since defense is so important, how's about BOTH teams be made to play it in O.T.? How's about the Saints not winning that game until their defense also managed to stop the Vikes' offense in O.T.? If playing D is so important in O.T. - which it is - then why was only the Vikes' D tested?

JMak · Post by **JMak** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:28 pm

Both defenses have played...during the previous 60 minutes of regulation.

OT is sudden death. EOS. The only reason to change is under the guise of enhancing the game for fans...which more often than not fails.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:40 pm

Both defenses also need to play in O.T. Having both of them play all game, then having only one of them play in O.T. is simply stupid. EOS.

JMak · Post by **JMak** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:29 pm

Nice logic...both must play defense cuz cuz cuz it's stupid otherwise. LOL!

Why must they play defense in OT?

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:45 pm

Nice try, dumbass. I didn't merely say they both must play because it'd be stupid otherwise. I said that they both must play because they both have to play during regulation, and to change that logical concept for O.T. is stupid.

It doesn't get much simpler or more logical than that, which is why there is no other major sport which allows its O.T. to decide a winner merely by pitting one team's O against the other's D, with no reciprocity.

As it sits now, it's potentially only sudden death in O.T. for the team which loses the coin toss. That team is playing under greater jeopardy than their opponent. If the defending team screws up, the game is over. If the team on offense screws up, the game continues. That's absurd, especially when that wasn't the case all throughout regulation play.

Beyond all that, it's just boring and anti-climactic. Watching teams merely try to maneuver into FG range and not even try to score a TD while the other team's offense is helpless to answer the FG, it's a fucking abortion. It's painful to watch, once a team gets within FG range. Their own D did nothing in O.T., yet they're about to be rewarded with a win. The other team's O was never given a chance to play in O.T., yet they're saddled with the loss.

Meanwhile, some scrub kicker usually ends up being the hero merely for hitting some chippy, while his own team's Lawrence Taylor and the other team's Joe Montana never even got to get on the field.

Only a full-on retard would subscribe to the notion that this system is the best the NFL can offer its fans.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:34 pm

Something painfully obvious for you to consider...

What do these sports (as well as nearly any other you care to name) all have in common?

College football
MLB
College baseball
Olympic baseball
NBA
NCAA hoops
Olympic hoops
NHL
Olympic hockey
NCAA hockey
PGA golf
NCAA golf
Professional tennis
NCAA tennis
Olympic tennis
World Cup soccer
Olympic soccer
Champions League soccer
MLS soccer
PGA bowling

Answer: When they go to O.T., nobody ever complains that their player or team got jobbed by the format of the O.T., the way it so often oftens in the NFL.

In college football, no fan of ND ever complained that they lost to Navy unfairly, since they know that ND had an equal opportunity to score. In baseball, when a team scores a run in the top of the 10th inning, the game doesn't end right there. The other team is still going to get their chance to prolong or win the game with their own at-bat. In basketball, both teams will play the game for another five minutes exactly as the game was played for the first forty-eight. In hockey, the puck is dropped and both teams have an equal opportunity to play offense, defense and score. In tennis, the first person to score a point or win their service game doesn't win the match.

There is always the mechanism in O.T. for the opponent to have an equal opportunity to win the game.

In the NFL, there is not. The team which loses the coin toss must do two things in order to win, while their opponent need only do one. The defending team must first stop their opponent's offensive drive, then they must do what their opponent couldn't: They must drive the ball down and score. Their opponent? All they need to do is drive the ball down and score. They were never under the jeopardy of having to prevent a score. They're under very little jeopardy of losing the game during their own drive, while the defending team is under massive jeopardy during that drive.

That's why the winner of the coin toss elects to receive the ball every fucking time. They may defer to the second half when they win the toss to start the game, but they never defer in O.T. That's also why the team which wins the coin toss has won the majority of the games in every season since O.T. was adopted in the NFL. They always will, too. When a third of the O.T.'s end with the receiving team scoring on their initial possession, the total numbers will always tilt in their favor.

Like the NCAA's horrific system of selecting its national champion for D1 football, there simply is no defending this nonsense. The NFL's O.T. stands alone in all of American sport in its blatant stupidity, which is why it will soon be addressed and at least somewhat corrected.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:38 pm

Over the past decade, the team that has won the coin toss has scored on the initial OT possession 37% of the time.

It's pretty high.

Folks who think the current system is good, what if the NBA used the NFL system?

Coin flip, first team to score wins?

Good?

JMak · Post by **JMak** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:02 pm

Playing both offense and defense during regulation is the concept. Not sure why you think that time played outside regulation must adhere to the same concept. Notice that soccer fundamentally alters its game when regular time ends. Hockey blends it by using an extra shortened period and then using a faggoty shootout method. Basketball and baseball just extend regular playing time in periods and innings. College football fundamentally changes when arbitrarily places the ball at some point on the field and let's teams trade possessions eliminating special teams altogether.

The point of that summary being that overtime aint treated similarly across all sports except football. Soccer differs, college football differs, basketball and baseball differ, etc.

The NFL's proposed change is only being formally proposed cuz Farve didn't make it to the SB....bfd!

JMak · Post by **JMak** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:07 pm

37 percent of the time?? That's it?

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:14 pm

You're missing the point, and probably intentionally so. In all those examples you gave, the one thing which didn't change in O.T. is that both teams still were given an equal opportunity to win. Neither team was afforded less of a task in order to win.

In NFL football, fuck, the defending team must first prevent a return for a score, or at least a return which puts the receiving team within FG range. Assuming that, they must then prevent the opponent from scoring on their drive. Provided they can do those two things and force a change of possession, they still have to go down and score. They didn't win the game merely by playing good defense. Their offense still has to come in and do their job.

All that, versus the kick-receiving team simply needing to return the kick for a score or set themselves up for a FG.

Ludicrous.

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:20 pm

JMak wrote:37 percent of the time?? That's it?

Isn't that enough?? It's not like the other team automatically won the game by stopping them 63% of the time on that opening drive, and it's also not as if the defending team was going to automatically score on their opening drive following the change of possession. At that point, the team which originally received the ball is only then facing the same jeopardy that the defending team faced on the opening drive.

Nearly 40% of the time, though, they were never even put into that position. They didn't even have to take the field before the win was handed to them.

JMak · Post by **JMak** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:44 pm

Van, it's not about equality of opportunity. Hence, sudden death overtime. Both teams have to play football. One team must successfully defend. If they cannot, well, tough shit. They lose.

About that 37 percent it means that nearly two-thirds of the time the defending team gets the ball back in OT. Wtf are we really addressing here? 63 percent of the time or in two games of three that go into OT both teams play offense and defense. Doesn't seem so very lopsided and unfair to me...

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:59 pm

Van wrote: What do these sports (as well as nearly any other you care to name) all have in common?

How 'bout NASCAR? They have an OT. It's called a green, white, checker. And they play defense.

PGA bowling

PGA? Did you just equate bowling with golf?

Well, they are similar in that neither team plays defense... unless my witchy woman of a wife is on your bowling team. The whammys that girl has inflicted on our opponents are something to behold.

Opposing bowler is rolling along quite nicely stringing strikes when out of nowhere here comes a pocket 7-10 split. Now how the fuck did that happen, they ask? My girl put the evil eye on you, that's how. Don't mess with us.

As for NFL OT rules, here's a concept: Win the game in regulation and don't let it come down to a coin toss. Barring that, you get what you get.

JMak · Post by **JMak** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:18 am

Wags, instead of fucking off in here why not reset your Toyota Recall thread to discuss GM's 1.3 million vehicle recall? Just sayin...

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:43 am

JMak wrote:Van, it's not about equality of opportunity.

Wrong. Yes, it is. It has to be. Anything short of that goal cannot be allowed to persist in what is supposed to be a level playing field of sport. Giving one team an advantage - and the team who wins the coin toss in the NFL's O.T. definitely enjoys an advantage - goes against everything that sports is supposed to stand for.

Hence, sudden death overtime.

It's only sudden death for the defending team, though, which is bullshit. It needs to be sudden death for both teams, with the risk equally meted out.

Both teams have to play football. One team must successfully defend. If they cannot, well, tough shit. They lose.

Wrong. The odds are against them from the beginning. The team that isn't even asked to defend has a clear advantage.

About that 37 percent it means that nearly two-thirds of the time the defending team gets the ball back in OT. Wtf are we really addressing here? 63 percent of the time or in two games of three that go into OT both teams play offense and defense. Doesn't seem so very lopsided and unfair to me...

That's because you're intentionally being an imbecile. When the team who wins the coin toss also wins the majority of the games every single year without fail, and you don't recognize the flaw in that system, you're an imbecile. When you see that more than a third of the games end without both teams even getting a crack at scoring in 'sudden death', and you see that as perfectly fine, you're an imbecile.

Thing is, I know you're not an imbecile. You're just playing one on the internet, in the guise of Old-School Guy Who Hates Change.

In ten year's time, once we've gotten used to the new NFL O.T. rule which affords both teams an equal shot at the ball, neither you nor anybody else will look back nostagically at this current system. It'll be consigned to the dustbin of history, and good riddance.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:45 am

JMak wrote:Wags, instead of fucking off in here why not reset your Toyota Recall thread to discuss GM's 1.3 million vehicle recall? Just sayin...

I was gonna post a thread to Wags about that too.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:55 am

JMak wrote:Wags, instead of fucking off in here why not reset your Toyota Recall thread to discuss GM's 1.3 million vehicle recall? Just sayin...

nah, but be my guest.

Terry in Crapchester · Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:27 pm

I, for one, like the proposed rule change. Matter of fact, that's my preferred format for overtime, both in the NFL and in college.

Van wrote:Something painfully obvious for you to consider...

What do these sports (as well as nearly any other you care to name) all have in common?

College football
NHL
Olympic hockey
NCAA hockey
World Cup soccer
Olympic soccer
Champions League soccer
MLS soccer

Uhhh, if they're tied at the end of regulation, they often end in a shootout?

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:32 pm

Uhhh, a shootout involves both teams getting the same number of shots against the other team's goalie. The game doesn't end with the first shootout goal made. Neither team is in greater jeopardy during a shootout. The risk is shared equally.

Not the case with NFL O.T.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:54 pm

Maybe the NFL could learn something from curling.

Terry in Crapchester · Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm

Van,

I was talking about college football, not the NFL. College football devises OT rules, and the best they can come up with is football's equivalent of a shootout?

It sux and is gax. Get rid of it, immediately. The model the NFL is contemplating would be a quantum leap improvement.

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 8:13 pm

The college O.T. is excellent. It could be improved by moving the starting point back to midfield, but otherwise it's awesome because it encourages attempts at TDs, not just slogging one's way into FG range. More importantly, both teams have an equal chance at winning. There is no 'sudden death' component placed only on the defending team.

This new proprosal by the NFL is an improvement over its current system, yet it still sucks because the game ends if the receiving team scores a TD. That fact still places the defending team in unequal jeopardy. Any proposal which involves the game ending before both teams have had a chance with the ball is still a fucked up proposal.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:04 pm

Van wrote:The college O.T. is excellent.

No, it isn't. It's a stupid gimmick that has no resemblence to actual football.

JMak · Post by **JMak** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:50 am

The college football gimmick sucks...as I already said. Arbitrarily dropping the ball on the 35 is far less exciting than seeing a sudden death OT...

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 1:47 am

Just move it back to midfield and it'd be fine. The bottom line is it's far more exciting than the NFL's funeral march, and it's equally fair to both teams.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 3:54 am

Van wrote:Just move it back to midfield and it'd be fine.

No, it wouldn't. It would suck donkey dick. The NFL overtime forces teams to play football with everything on the line. It rewards clutch play and is the only format which allows special teams to truly shine.

Lose the toss? Cover the kick and play defense. Win the toss? Play offense and kick the field goal. Nothing is a given. The game is played as it is meant to be played and is not resolved by a completely artificial gimmick like soccer and hockey.

Van · Post by **Van** » Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:35 am

Of course the NFL's system is completely artificial. One team scores, and the game is over? That's wholly contrived and utterly stupid.

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.

Win the toss? Play offense and kick the field goal.

Yet here, the game is over.

Nothing is a given.

Something is absolutely a given. The defending team has to do more than twice as much as the receiving team in order to win the game.

The receiving team need merely score. The defending team needs to prevent the return from being too damaging, then they have to prevent the drive from resulting in a score. Having achieved both these things, they still have to score themselves.

That's all a given. It's also all a given bucket of shit.