the only reason i said that is because after reading cakes post that this whole time hes been debating a fantasy proposal not the actual one was kinda misleading, i thought this whole time we were talking about the OP now i findout it was something someone dreamt up, my bad.
I like reading other people's proposals, including proposals I don't like. We get more discussion out of the topic than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the format that the competition committee will consider in March. I appreciate RoyalTee's proposal, but I am worried about the matching scores aspect and then the game becoming sudden death at that point. Teams are tied at 24-24 at end of regulation. If the score is 27-27 or 31-31 after the first two possessions to then go to sudden death would not improve upon our current system. Maybe we can make an amendment to the RoyalTee proposal. Maybe the second possession has to end the game. If Team A gets up 31-24 at the end of the first possession, then maybe Team B has to score a TD and 2-point conversion or lose. Maybe something about that is weird, but at least the coin flip isn't a big issue here.
i was just confused, i was trying to get on track, this whole time ive been fighting a dead battle, i said i was only kidding, i wasnt trying to be a dick. it just seemed everyone was on a different page was all i was getting at. as far as changing the KO psoition, then youd have 2 diff postions from reg time to OT, not a fan of that but it would likely ensure a touchback on the OT kickoff making it more even, not bad.
It's okay. These overtime proposal threads always get confusing. I've seen this occur at TGG and on other message boards whether I'm posting in the thread or just lurking. A big problem that always happens is people will propose formats that seem similar to other proposals at first glance, but then you look at them deeper and you find big differences. This is what has happened in this thread. If anyone is confused with my stance, then go back to my posts in this thread before RoyalTee entered the thread. RoyalTee proposed a variation of the format discussed in the AP article. The whole thread got confusing after that.
Fuck this. Football is about offense, defense and special teams. Not just offense. If a team can't stop an offense or fucks up on special teams and allows them to score first then they don't deserve to win. But this is about making the NFL and media more money so all that goes out the window.
None of you, nor anyone else, will come up with new OT rules that are substantially less problematic than the current ones.
What if there are two great offenses and lousy defenses? Many better solutions have been proposed many times. The NFL has refused to move from its sudden death format, but that in no way means it is the best format. What this debate comes down to every time is "Why should one team gain a decided advantage over the other based on a coin toss?" And about the "they don't deserve it because they could've won in regulation" argument: that applies equally to the team that ends up winning. Since neither team deserves it according to that position, a tie would be the fairest way to conclude the game, when possible. Let it be settled on the field, with a fairer system. In an extreme case, with two defenses that haven't been stopping the offenses all game, it really is very unfair for only one offense to get a shot (and not having to move the ball very far to do it).
And I see nothing wrong with ending regular season games in a tie. From what I understand, the coin flip wasn't much of an issue until 1994 or so when they moved the kickoff spot back from the 40 to the 30. And now that the league's gotten softer and even more offense-heavy, the problem has exacerbated. The league keeps changing the rules so there's more scoring - so now they've got more scoring and a fucked up OT system. Changing the system again to make OT a back-and-forth offensive showdown is just another step in the wrong direction.
You got that right. Rule changes designed particularly to appeal to the casual fan just might be my biggest problem with the NFL. I truly appreciate the fact that baseball and basketball are relatively simple sports that don't have to change rules too often. Football is just crazy with the rules. The constant tinkering can be maddening.
I don't understand why, in OT, a field goal is suddenly not enough to win a game. In regulation time it is. The game shouldn't change in OT. And I hate all the talk about it not being fair if Team A doesn't get a shot on offense. If they aren't good enough to stop Team B when they have the ball, game over, just like it would be on a last-minute drive in regulation. OT games are almost unbearably exciting and tense. Changing the format will take a lot of the tension out.
OK, each team gets 1 possession and after that it's sudden death.... I really can't understand what's so deep that it needs explanation. :lol: Here, If Team A scores a TD (that's their 1 possession) then Team B scores a TD(thats their 1 possession) after that...it is now Sudden death. 1st team to score wins!! If Team A Doesn't score (that's their 1 possession) then Team B Doesn't score (thats their 1 possession) ...it is now Sudden death. 1st team to score wins!! This eliminates the "Unfair Advantage" for the coin toss, again Just the coin toss. That's it. That's the only thing that needs to be eliminated from OT. :up: I kinda understand your point but IMO this way each team at least gets their shot. IMO It's the "fairest" if I can use that word... Also, adds much more drama on the Decisions the CS makes... Going for a TD instead or a 2 pt. conversion etc...
It needed an explanation because your proposal has a major flaw. If the teams match scores, we're right back to where we started. If the teams match scores, then it becomes sudden death? That is not improving the situation. As I stated earlier, your proposed format could work in situations where the teams do not match scores. You proposed format could also work if the teams both did not score on their first possessions. Your proposal does have a problem, though. If the format you are proposing was foolproof the league would have adopted it already.
As I wrote upthread, if the score remains tied after each team had its one possession and if the game then gets decided on the next possession (the third overall possession of overtime), people are still going to bitch about the coin toss as in, "Hey, the team that won the coin toss had two of the three overtime possessions." A new overtime format should be clearly better than the current format for the league to make a change. With all due respect, I do not believe that your proposal is clearly better than the current format. Addendum- if you want the coin flip to have less meaning, maybe each team should have the same number of overtime possessions. Maybe one possession for each team. If Team A makes a field goal, then Team B has to try to score a touchdown. Problem- if Team scores a TD and converts a 2-pt. conversion, how could Team B win? The rule would probably have to be that Team A cannot go for 2. That system maybe is screwy, too, but at least both teams would get one possession and the game would end after the second possession. The overtime period would get wrapped up fairly quickly.
If you want to get rid of the "Unfair Advantage" of the OT coin flip, why not just have the team who received the KO to start the game receive the KO in OT? Both teams would know if the game were to make it to OT who would receive the OT KO throughout the whole game. If you didn't win the coin toss, play the game to win instead of settling for OT.
Team A wins toss. Team A receives. Team A scores a FG. Team A kicks off to team B. Team B scores a FG. Team B kicks to team A. Team A scores a FG. Team A wins. Team A wins toss. Team A receives. Team A scores a FG Team A kicks off to team B. Team B scores a TD Team B wins. Team A wins toss. Team A receives. Team B scores a Defensive TD Team B wins. Team A wins toss. Team A receives. Team A scores a FG Team A kicks off to team B. Team B scores fails to score Team A wins.
