OT: LOL Football, League Voting on Change to Playoff Overtime Rules
So, the league says for the longest time there is no problem with overtime rules (ProTip: there is.)
But Brett Favre blows his team's Super Bowl Chance at the end of regulation that leads to an overtime loss and now there is something wrong with it?
People have been calling for them to change the sudden death rule for a while, but this is the straw that broke the camels back?
almost 2 years ago
scout6
26 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
The NFL overtime format works just fine. That college football crap is terrible.
Terrible.
The Giants Way™"If anybody deserves credit for this year’s turnaround it’s these two people, Brian and Bruce," Neukom said. "The encouraging thing is we think we’re back to playing baseball the way it ought to be played."
You don’t change the format of the game for overtime. It doesn’t happen in baseball and it works fine. It doesn’t happen in basketball and it works fine. Making sure everyone has a chance with the ball is asinine because it doesn’t happen in the first four quarters. No one makes sure the number of possessions are the same for four quarters. Why in the heck would you need to do that for overtime?
The Giants Way™"If anybody deserves credit for this year’s turnaround it’s these two people, Brian and Bruce," Neukom said. "The encouraging thing is we think we’re back to playing baseball the way it ought to be played."
So if you don’t want the rules changed, what you really want is for them to play another full quarter that isn’t sudden death. Claiming the next person to score wins is asinine because it doesn’t happen in the first four quarters. No one makes sure the first team to score wins in the first four quarters. Why the heck would you need to do that for overtime?
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
Actually, yes that would make more sense. Maybe cut it down to 10 minutes. Thanks.
The Giants Way™"If anybody deserves credit for this year’s turnaround it’s these two people, Brian and Bruce," Neukom said. "The encouraging thing is we think we’re back to playing baseball the way it ought to be played."
True sudden death is another option, which just means keep playing the fourth quarter after time expires until somebody scores.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 19, 2010 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions
I'd disagree
But since I can’t stand football, I’m all for a ridiculous contrivance like sudden death to get it off of my TV faster.
VAE PVTO DEVS FIO
They should appoint champions from each team to take off the pads and fight to the death with machetes in the case of a tie.
Utter frustration and futility.
Adopted 'nephew' to the ever avuncular and always awesome Jon Miller
by Johnny Disaster on Mar 18, 2010 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Then you’ll love my “true sudden death” suggestion. It would take even less time to finish than the current system.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 19, 2010 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Go to penalty kicks.
The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."
Go Roger Kieschnick! And son, please continue to break scoreboards on your way to San Francisco.
Actually, that would be kind of awesome.
And we’d get to see Ochocinco kick more.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 19, 2010 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Let the teams pick the opposing teams kickers! Imagine all LOLinemen that would be kicking then!
Matt Graham is an anagram for .... why don't you ask the scrabble expert!
by say hey nation on Mar 19, 2010 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Actually, penalty punts would be better for the 49ers. At least in the short term.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 19, 2010 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Drop Kicks FTW!
Matt Graham is an anagram for .... why don't you ask the scrabble expert!
by say hey nation on Mar 19, 2010 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions
I want "sudden death"
Simply change the rule so that you have to win with a touchdown or safety.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
I don’t like eliminating kicking. If kicking isn’t good enough to let you win the game, then don’t allow it at the end of the fourth quarter, either. Or don’t allow it altogether.
I like kickers. For being among the 20 – 30 best people in the country at a particular skill, they get a lot of hate.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 19, 2010 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions
The idea is to try to balance the chances of winning between the winner and loser of the coin toss. Taking the kick out of OT makes it far less easy for the receiving team to score.
Another idea would be to have the “receiving team” just start at the 20, so they have to at least drive a good 50 yards to get in range.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
I understand the reasoning, and the idea that “driving 30 yards to kick the ball” really does seem kind of weak. But again, it’s the same thing that teams do to try to win games in the fourth quarter. Or to send games into overtime that they’d otherwise lose. So I’m not sure I can feel uneasy about a strategy that I don’t flinch at during any other part of the game. I don’t think kicking is wrong with the sport, and I don’t think kicking is wrong with overtime – either field goals or kickoffs.
Like ResDog, I really don’t see any reason to change the actual format of the game. Because then it would be the same problem you have with soccer. “Oh, so we’re playing football / futbol for four quarters / two halves, but then we’re going to play something else at the end here?”
If the competitive balance is what’s wrong with overtime, creating a solution that sends the message that kicking is what’s wrong with overtime seems to be addressing the wrong problem to me.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 19, 2010 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions
But again, it’s the same thing that teams do to try to win games in the fourth quarter. Or to send games into overtime that they’d otherwise lose.
I have nothing against kicking, but this is different. If two teams have played to a tie in regulation, they should both have a reasonable chance to win in OT without depending on a coi toss. In the example you give, both teams have had plenty of chances to get the ball and try to score.
Stats have shown that too much value goes into who wins the toss in the current system. It’s so bad that I’d probably attempt an onside kick every time I lost the OT coin toss.
I hate Favre and was pulling for the Saints big time, but the current system has bugged me for some time.
Proudly adopted Aubrey Huff. You can't beat that!
But that’s the whole rub of “sudden death” the way we have it. One team will always win the coin toss. If the issue is that it’s not fair because it’s so dependent on a coin toss, then the thing that needs to be changed is the coin toss. It’s not “not fair” because you can legally score by kicking the ball. That’s what my issue is, this whole thought that “The team that wins the coin toss wins too much, so let’s change this other thing that’s not inherently wrong with the system.”
So I submit to you again my “true sudden death” scenario. You get to keep sudden death, as you wish, and you get to eliminate the coin toss, as you also wish. Play simply continues after regulation ends, and the first team to score any kinds of points wins. Games stay short, and the end of the fourth quarter gets a lot more competitive.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 19, 2010 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions
The two minute warning (and its guaranteed commercial break) would like to have a word with you.
Utter frustration and futility.
Adopted 'nephew' to the ever avuncular and always awesome Jon Miller
by Johnny Disaster on Mar 19, 2010 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t see why you can’t still have the commercial break.
I don't know about that, to the groin.
by howtheyscored on Mar 20, 2010 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
A random-number generator that gives each team a 50/50 shot at possession
But what would really get some blockbuster ratings is a paper-rock-scissors for possession. That **** would just get intense.
by Stoned Slacker on Mar 20, 2010 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Long time coming
While its not an outlandish advantage, the fact is the coin flip determines overtime winners to the tune of something like 55 – 45. To me that’s just unacceptable, even worse than things like penalty kicks in soccer or a shootout in hockey. At least those give an even chance after a hard-fought 48/60/90 minutes.
Regarding the college system, I don’t watch that stuff at all but maybe the most exciting football I’ve ever seen was an overtime between Davis and Sac. State years back. Maybe each team getting a chance from the 35 isn’t a perfect extension or resolution of the first 60 minutes, but its a helluva lot better than a coin flip and can make some extremely entertaining situations. On the balance I’d prefer it.
In the end, lots of better options out there than the current system.
by Stoned Slacker on Mar 20, 2010 12:13 PM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Josh Hamilton on public relapse: ‘It was just wrong. That’s all it comes down to.’
- Photo: The Marlins’ ridiculous-looking home run sculpture is almost complete
- Yankees GM Brian Cashman lures alleged stalker into police dragnet
- Report: Josh Hamilton had a relapse with alcohol
- Happy Birthday Boy! Wes Ferrell, the best-hitting pitcher of all-time, would be 104
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
