because the problem is with sudden death with the kickoff from where it is. Basing it on the opening game coin toss, or which team has a balder coach, does not change a damn thing.
Ehh. The teams played to a tie after 60 minutes and numerous possessions. Now each needs to get one possession in overtime? What if they match scores and the team receiving the third overtime kickoff wins with a field goal on that possession? People could still bitch that the overtime coin toss won the game, as in- Team A wins coin toss. Team A successfully kicks a field goal on 1st OT possession. Team B matches on its possession. Team A wins with a field goal on its 2nd OT possession. Another problem is with defensive touchdowns on the first overtime possession. If, by rule, both teams needed to have one possession, Green Bay would have had to kick off to Arizona after the Karlos Dansby touchdown in their 2009 Wild Card game. Green Bay would have tried an onside kick. If unsuccessful, Arizona would have gone in victory formation for four plays. That would have been some anti-climactic shit. You could tell me that the game would still end on that touchdown. I don't agree. If the rule would be that both teams need one possession, then both teams would get one possession. Something freaky could have happened if GB had to kick to Arizona after the Dansby touchdown. If it's a rule, it would have to be enforced. I'm fine with sudden death. Both teams had 60 minutes and numerous possessions to win. If they couldn't win after 60 minutes, tough shit if you have to play defense on the first overtime possession. Don't let the opponent score and you'll get your shot on offense. Many fans hate it when a team receives the overtime kickoff and wins the game a few moments later with a field goal. The league knows this and that's why options are being considered. I think the plan being considered by the league, the current format, and the first to six points are three good plans. I don't think the 1 possession and then it becomes sudden death is a good plan.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the OT system. I hate when people complain about it, keep it as is.
Better check your facts. People wouldn't be complaining if it were fair and "about 50%". From 2000-2007, approximately 61% of teams that won the overtime coin toss went on to win. I never found the time to add 2008 and 2009. As I posted in a different thread, the coin toss didn't use to have such an impact, because the kickoff was moved back from the 35 to the 30 in 1994. After that is where the swing started.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percent_of_teams_that_win_the_coin_toss_win_in_overtime_in_the_NFL Coin Toss Bias in the NFL The NFL uses a sudden death format for overtime games, with the first team to score winning the game. Winning the coin toss gives a team the choice between kicking or receiving the ball and overwhelmingly the team decides to receive the ball in overtime, giving them the first chance to score and end the game. Stats on Overtime Coin Tosses (1974-2003) The NFL has had 325 overtime games since the rule was adopted in 1974. The results: •Both teams have had possession 235 times (72.3%). •The team that has won the toss has won 169 times (52.0%). •The team that has lost the toss has won 141 times (43.4%). •223 games were decided by a field goal (68.6%). •86 games were decided by a TD (26.5%). •One game was decided by a safety (0.3%). •There have been 15 ties (4.6%). Source: NFL *It seems fair but these numbers are somewhat misleading because in 1994 a rule changed moved the kickoff back 5 yards to the 30 yard line (those numbers were based on data from 1973-2003). Since then, it's been about 60%. Prior to the rule change, the coin toss had no predictive value for deciding who would eventually win the game. Since 1994, the coin flip winner has a clear advantage. seems the handicap on the kickoff is the real culpret of an unfair advantage...
I wouldn't know about that for I'm not into the whole incest thing. That was the NFL from 1933-73. Regular season: no overtime Postseason: sudden death overtime (If wondering about 1920-32, there were no postseason games in those years. The 1932 Bears-Spartans game was essentially a playoff game but it counted in the regular season standings.) If the NFL keeps simple sudden death for the regular season and for the playoffs goes with the format mentioned in the above AP article, then I will agree with you and say it is retarded. My wish, however, is to simply eliminate overtime unless necessary- and that would only be in the postseason. In other words, a return to the way things were prior to 1974. But, I would be in favor of moving from sudden death to maybe going with either of the two other options.
Deadspin raises some good questions about this proposal: http://deadspin.com/5482032/three-questions-about-the-nfls-new-overtime-system
I've been a proponent of the "first team to score 6 points wins" overtime format for years. The point of overtime is to get the game over as fast as possible while still determining a winner. The problem is that just kicking a field goal isn't a big enough determinant of a winner: all it could take is one play and game over, team is in FG range. At least if someone needs to score a touchdown, then it actually means something. Scoring a touchdown is the goal of the offense and preventing it is the goal of the defense. If the offense scores a TD, game should be over: it's been decided enough. If both teams trade field goals, then you're basically back in the old format. And that's fine. Eventually, the game needs to end.
I'm actually fine with the current format. After 60 mins, if you cannot beat the other team, it might as well come down to the coin toss. If I was playing, I would probably have a different opinion. Since I'm just watching TV, waiting for it to end, the ref can ask them to pick a number for all I care.
you don't get any type of enjoyment from watching two evenly matched teams slug it out? when i have invested 3 hours of my time into watching a game i'm not worried about it ending as fast possible, i'm worried about getting a satisfying conclusion to a well played game.
If there are two great teams evenly matched, I tend to enjoy overtime. If there are two God-awful teams continuing to ruin my screen, I would rather see it end ASAP.
Thats the whole point!!!! Each team had their chance in all 3 facets, Off Def and ST.. With each team getting a possession It eliminates a team winning because of the Coin Toss once the other team has their shot. Again, That's the whole point. Each team had their Shot. team A throws a Pick Team B returns it and wins on the TD. People (the NFL) want to make the shit all complicated when It's not.
I agree with that. I watched the Eagles-Bengals overtime period from 2008. The Jets had played New England the Thursday of that week and because there was no Jets conflict I stayed with the Eagles-Bengals game because, get this, I was hoping for a tie. I got my wish, but I must say that that overtime period was filled with terrible football. The teams had nothing left in the tank and it was poor play after poor play after poor play for 15 minutes. I love postseason overtime because every play is intense- somebody's season will end at any moment. You can't say that about a regular season overtime game (aside from a Week 17 game in which a team losing in OT could be eliminated from a playoff spot).
They already have 60 minutes to do that. If the above scenario plays out, then it is still the coin toss that determines it. If team B wins the coin toss, then they probably win the game in that scenario. It seems less like they are trying to actually change things and more like they are trying to keep the ad revenue going for another 10-12 minutes. At least with the College OT rules, someone must pull off a defensive stop in order to win. I would much rather see the NFL adopt those rules, with a kickoff instead of an automatic start at the 35 like in the Deadspin article.
They had all that in regulation. Overtime is just trying to break the tie. Under the current format, if the team kicking off in overtime does well enough on that one special teams play and then on defense, then they will get the ball on offense. All three facets would then come into play.
Another thought that I had: The new playoff rules are really going against the "underdog" teams. Some of the lower seeded playoff QBs might not have 2 OT drives left in them at that point. I'll reserve my opinion on this thought for now because I want to see what everyone else thinks first. The rule definitely caters to marquee QBs like Manning, Favre, and Brady(still?)(and Sanchez, hopefully?) which is a good business decision for the NFL. EDIT: Then again, this is an opinion based on OT rules where teams basically played for a FG unless someone misses a huge tackle or there is completely blown coverage. If teams are playing for a TD, and the rules are simplified to "first to six", my above observation could be moot.
Did you overlook what I wrote? If Team B matches Team A's score, then you want it to become sudden death at that point. Well, under that system, at that point in overtime we're right back to what we have now- with sudden death and the team that won the coin flip having the advantage. I'll play around with some examples. Jets 20, Patriots 20, end of regulation Jets win coin toss and drive for a field goal. Jets lead 23-20. Patriots receive kickoff and eventually score a touchdown. Patriots win 26-23. The system would work with such a game. What I am trying to say is that we would see games where the trailing team will match the first score. Jets 20, NE 20 at end of regulation. Jets win toss, kick FG. Patriots get ball, kick FG. Now it becomes sudden death. Jets score a few moments later and win game 26-23 or 29-23. People bitch. System changed, but people still bitch about the lucky team that won the overtime coin flip. If we can figure out a way to eliminate the luck of the coin toss and each team has one possession, then maybe we're on to something. The college system is a farce because there is no overtime kickoff or punts. The other ridiculous thing is starting possessions on the opponent's 25 yard line.
yea but the difference is that for team A to end the game without team B getting a shot they need to take it all the way down to the endzone instead of the much easier FG, which seems to be what most people dont like about the current system. likewise team B has the same opportunity to end it either by turnover and score, or if Team A kicks the FG then B still controls there own destiny to try and get to the endzone for the win, or if they cant, then kick the FG and take their chances in sudden death. which at that point sudden death should be fine because both teams had an equal opportunity to end the game on their terms, just get it over with now. the difference is that it takes away that "easy" FG and forces the teams to drive towards the endzone.
You're not looking at what I was responding to. I was responding to this comment by RoyalTee- He had nothing in there about one team needing to score a TD or FG or whatever. He simply wrote that he wants each team to have a possession and if still tied, he wants the system to then become sudden death.
