|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 180
1st String
|
1st String
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 180 |
J/C... Peter King provides some compelling evidence that the current OT system is not fair. To everyone saying that we should continue with the coin flip, particularly in the playoffs, it's a rather difficult position to defend. Quote:
Here's some evidence, which Jim Nantz of CBS -- a proponent to change the rules to give both teams at least one possession in overtime -- was kind enough to assist with:
• In 1974, when the overtime rule was put in place, teams kicked off from the 40-yard line, making touchbacks -- and thus starting drives from the 20-yard line -- easier to achieve. Today, the average drive start is the 27, in part because the kickoff has been pushed back to the 30-yard line.
• Kickers have become so much more accurate in recent years, and that's impacting the end of overtime games far more than in the early days of the system. From 1974-78, the first five years of the overtime system, field-goal kickers made a combined 62 percent of their kicks. Four teams in 1974 were under 50 percent in field-goal accuracy. In the last five years, kickers have made 82 percent of their field-goal attempts. Quite simply, the game has changed.
In the mid-70s, if a team got the ball to start an overtime drive at its 25, it would have to drive about 55 yards to be in comfortable field-goal range, just inside the 40. Today, if a team gets the ball at the average-drive starting point of the 27, driving 43 yards would give it about a 48-yard field goal attempt ... easily within range of every kicker in the league.
• In the first five years of the system, there were 34 overtime games. The team that won the coin flip to start overtime won 15 of those games -- just 44 percent of the games. In the last five years, there have been 72 overtime games, and the team that won the coin flip won 44 of the games, which is 61 percent. Moreover, 28 of the 72 games ended on the first possession.
So in the past five years, 39 percent of the games ended with only one team getting the ball. "I call those 'top-of-the-10th' victories,'' Nantz said. "If four out of 10 games in overtime end with one offense never getting a chance to touch the ball in overtime, it's a grossly unfair system.''
Add to that the fact that 61 percent of the games in the past five years ended with the coin-flip winner winning the game sometime in overtime, and you've got a good reason to at least entertain the thought of opening up overtime to this simple solution: On the second possession of overtime, once the opposing team fields a punt or kickoff, the game is now in sudden death.
When the trend shows that over 60% of the teams that win the coin flip ultimately win the game, I'd say there is something not right in the current system. At least when we are considering the post-season, when a loss means the end of the season.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 180
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 180 |
Sorry, here is the link... Peter King MMQB
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
Make the overtime the same as the game. That is the OT period will be 15 (or 12 if you think that is too long) minutes and played until the end of that period. If the game is still tied then the next OT period will be reduced, say to 10 minutes and played to the end. This will repeat until there is a winner. This is totally fair to both teams.
...Basketball doesn't change it's OT in the pros or college, I don't believe..it might be a reduction in minutes but they still play the same structured game
You know, that would be the interesting idea but what would the best time be? Five minutes might be too short....and 15 is a whole quarter. I bet the players union would reject adding a mandatory time for OT games (which I would agree on a labor side).
There has to be a way to make it more fair and stay away from the gimmicky nature of college football.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
You start the game with a coin flip.
Basketball starts the game with a toss.
They do the same with OT.
In football..if you can't stop a opponent from driving in OT and scoring..then too bad.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
In football..if you can't stop a opponent from driving in OT and scoring..then too bad.
That's easy and convenient to say, but you can't deny that the coin flip winner has an advantage. There's nothing fair about having the game decided by a flip of a coin.
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
So what I'm reading is that nobody is keen on the idea that the home team gets the choice.
Why?
Is it because there's a sense that each team should have a chance to get the ball?
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 604
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 604 |
Quote:
You start the game with a coin flip.
Basketball starts the game with a toss.
They do the same with OT.
In football..if you can't stop a opponent from driving in OT and scoring..then too bad.
Exactely....they should just leave it the way it is......the only thing you could consider is maybe just adding a full quarter, and who ever is ahead at the end of that, wins........but I still think that is too much, and they should just leave it alone....
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Roscoe5319/Marty2.jpg) "Winning is not a some time thing, it's an all the time thing" ....-Lombardi-
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Each team should get a chance to get the ball. Since there are 3 distinct and different sections of the team, defense, offense and special teams, all three should get their opportunity in an overtime situation. The home team already has an advantage with the 12th man. The most I would give them is the opportunity to call the coin flip to see who gets the ball first.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
Why does the coin flip winner have a advantage?
It's not evident the why's.
I think it's all in their minds..the team that loses , loses momentum..there 's no reason a team losing that toss can't stop the other from scoring...none.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Wonder what the numbers are on the number of drives vs the number of drives resulting in at least 3 pts.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
While it can be argued that each should get a chance, it can also be said that each had their chance during regulation. However, OT is a different animal. There are a lot of factors. Fairness should be one, and not decided by a coin flip. Yes, to decide who goes first, but not to decide who gets the better chance to win the game.
Someone pointed out that my (colloq) defense not being able to stop that first drive is my problem,...very true. But should I not get a chance to see if your defense can hold serve too ?? I.E. your defense doesn't have to play because of a coin flip ??
Ties stink, but they are very, very fair. I would lean toward regular season ties. Sometimes you do have to kiss your sister,...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
I HATE the college OT format. However, I DO think that OT would, potentially, be more exciting if both teams got ONE offensive series before reverting to sudden death for the rest of the OT period. If the defenses do their job, OT doesn't really change with this minor tweak. The benefit, IMO, is that a team might think twice about settling for a FG if they knew their opponent could win with a TD going the other way. The other thing this little change would do is give all three phases of each team (offense, defense and special teams) a chance to make a play or two in OT.
I wouldn't want to see anything more "elaborate" than the above change, however. The college OT rules are WAY too contrived for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
I think what bothers me about college OT is, there IS no chance for a tie. The format, I have no problem with. At least both teams get the ball, and both defenses have to "go to work."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
Yeah, but why leave out special teams play (other than extra points, which aren't really a test for special teams, IMO)? I don't get the "scrimmage" format in college. That's not playing the game as far as I'm concerned. That's just practice with something at stake. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
Why does the coin flip winner have a advantage?
It's not evident the why's.
I think it's all in their minds..the team that loses , loses momentum..there 's no reason a team losing that toss can't stop the other from scoring...none.
Whether its all in the players heads, that the NFL is an offense-based league or it's the combination of more accurate kickers and better starting field position....but the....dang, I don't want to say it but I have to......the stats don't lie (please don't say, "stats are for losers" or "stats will tell you anything you want to see"  ). In the last 5 years, the team that wins the flip will end up winning the game 61 % of the time.
Thing is, I like the current format. I just don't like the percentages. If it were 51%....I wouldn't really care but 61% is a lot. If they moved the kickoff back to the 40, maybe that helps reduce percentages. I don't like the "give everyone at least one possession rule".......I like the "force a TD to be scored" (or 2 FG's). And use that format for the first 10:00 OT quarter....and then sudden death after that.
Last edited by Punchsmack; 01/12/09 03:42 PM.
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 180
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 180 |
Quote:
Why does the coin flip winner have a advantage?
It's not evident the why's.
I think it's all in their minds..the team that loses , loses momentum..there 's no reason a team losing that toss can't stop the other from scoring...none.
Did you read Peter King's explanation? It's rather clear that the teams winning the coin flip have an advantage. The proof is in the numbers. Over 60% win the game - if the coin flip had nothing to do with the result, 50% would win the game.
As you propose, if the team losing the coin flip loses momentum (and it is all in their heads), then the coin flip has a direct affect on the outcome, psychological or not. Maybe we should apply a psychological twist for the team that wins the coin flip, like, if you don't score on the first possession you lose... Or, if you lose the game, we cut off your right pinkie toe.
It's pretty simple, the team that wins the coin toss is in a better position to start beyond the 20-yard line. If starting at the 30, all they need to do is get one first down and they can punt to place the opponent within their 20. Or, all they need to do is get ~3 first downs and they are in a position to kick a field goal. You're basically arguing that the offensive unit needs just a mediocre performance to put themselves in a position to win, while the defense must perform far better.
Besides, defensive units are more tired and drained at the end of the game (compared to offensive and special teams). That's a pretty good reason why even a good defensive team is not able to stop an opponent in OT.
Finally, if the coin flip does not matter, why do teams that win the coin flip always celebrate and select to receive the ball? (That celebration never happens at the start of the game). Even teams that have a stronger defensive unit will select to receive the ball.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Really good point,...
I didn't mean to ignore special teams,...just concentrating on having the ball--or in the case of the discussion -- AT ALL, based on a flip.
Agreed, college ball could stand having the KO, Punt and Return teams out there. They need to work that in,....(VaTech's kick blocking ability comes to mind.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
Finally, if the coin flip does not matter, why do teams that win the coin flip always celebrate and select to receive the ball? (That celebration never happens at the start of the game). Even teams that have a stronger defensive unit will select to receive the ball.
To add onto that, didn't the Lions former head coach elect to defer the overtime possession a few years ago and ended up losing on the first drive to the Bears. He got ridiculed across the league. There is no strategy. Winning the coin flip is an obvious advantage.
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
Peter King doesn't know why.
No one does.
Fact is..if you start a OT..and win the toss more pressure is on the coin toss loser to stop the first drive.
But why is it seemingly hard to do?
Again it's on the defensive unit.
I think it's self inflicted pressure.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
I think the answer is simple: The game has been geared to favor the offense, therefore, with all things being equal, the offense has the advantage, so teams that win the toss win the game more than lose it.
I think the playoffs become a different animal, because virtually all the teams in the playoffs play good defense, thus changing the factors in the case study.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 180
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 180 |
 Why do we have to prove "why" when the data supports the argument? Teams that win the coin flip have a higher chance of winning the game. It's that simple. But, if we stick with your approach, then we should have just one possession in OT. Put the pressure on both units. If the team losing the coin toss has more pressure on them, then it is only "fair" to require the team winning the coin toss to score, or else lose the game. In fact, the odds would simply be flipped (the team losing the coin toss would have won 60% of the time over the past 5 years).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 830
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 830 |
Quote:
Am I the only one who thinks all the talk about going to a college system is rediculous, or that overtime should be cut down to 5 minutes?
Ive been hearing quite a few ridiculous things, when its really quite simple imo. Remove the words " sudden death " play one regulation extra quarter and you either win lose or tie at tthe end of that quarter. Except for the playoffs where you would keep going till someone wins.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
Where U get this WE stuff from?
I didn't ask anyone to prove it..I said it's mental..
Toad says OT favors the offense..because all they have to do is drive within FG range..but then something changes..
But defenses have to be able to shut it down..and I don't see any reason why they can't unless they suck..if they're good they should be able to force a out somewhere in that first drive.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 180
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 180 |
Quote:
I think the playoffs become a different animal, because virtually all the teams in the playoffs play good defense, thus changing the factors in the case study.
True. We have only a handful of playoff OT games, so we have to be careful about extending our conclusions from regular-season results to post-season results. Still, we can't use the argument that playoff teams have good defenses as support for the coin flip sudden death. The fact still remains that we are giving one team an advantage in the OT (even if it is not as great as the regular season), based purely on the coin flip. If it is an issue of better defenses in the OT, the team winning the coin flip has a better chance of winning the field position battle, thereby giving their defense a longer field to defend.
If folks want to allow the team winning the coin flip to have the first chance to score points and win the game, then it is certainly "fair" to require them to score or else lose the game. That would sure save some ugly tie-games, like the Eagles-Bengals game earlier this season.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 180
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 180 |
Quote:
But defenses have to be able to shut it down..and I don't see any reason why they can't unless they suck..if they're good they should be able to force a out somewhere in that first drive.
Defenses tire at the end of games. They can also make a dumb mistake, like a penalty or slip in coverage, or officials can make a mistake with a pass interference call. There are many reasons a good defense gives up a score to a lesser offense. To put it all on the defense seems rather one-sided, though. A team's defense is all that matters for winning a game?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
And that's part of the counter-argument,...is this really a problem ?? How many ties have there been,....
Probably a better question is, how many OT games have there been, that were actually decided on the very first--not toss winners on their second shot--but the very first drive, with the loser getting NO shot ??
Anyhow, ANY unfair advantage is unfair; I don't care if it's 7% or 14%, it ain't right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
U substitute if your starters are tired.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
...I said it's mental...But defenses have to be able to shut it down..and I don't see any reason why they can't unless they suck..if they're good they should be able to force a out somewhere in that first drive.
I think you two are debating different points (Attack and Spider). How to fix vs. why it's not fair (paraphrasing).
Of course, a defense SHOULD just stop them from scoring. It's not really about them sucking, it's about being put in an unfair situation. The stats don't lie, the team that wins the coin flip wins the game 61% of the time (over the past 5 years). I guess I don't really care WHY it happens....I'm interested in how do the NFL fixes the inequity.
Like I mentioned above, be it mental, momentum, starting field position, kickoff yardline, an offense-based league (that is why they moved back the kickoff to the 30) or some weird reason based on the alignment of the planets. The coin flip + average starting position + sudden death isn't fair. Recent history is proving that.
The more I think about it, a mandatory full length OT quarter will never fly from the players union side (unless the NFL starts paying for OT). So we'll just have to figure a way to make it more fair. If this were a poll, which might be a good idea, I'd vote for the "win in OT by scoring a TD only - sudden death" or "move the kickoff line back to the 40" (with the edge going to the TD format).
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,160 |
All ya gotta do is this..leave it as is..in OT..it's over at a certain time limit (15/10 or 8 minutes) and whoever scores the most wins. That does it for me.That's it..don't care what the players union thinks..thats the way to go.. 
Last edited by Attack Dawg; 01/12/09 05:52 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 180
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 180 |
That might be so, Punch (Attack and I are arguing separate points.  ) I'm not concerned about how to fix it at this point - just that should be fixed. I realize there a many powerful constituencies involved, and we might continue to have to suffer with it. But, to say that the current OT system is "perfect" (not attributing this to you, Attack) or "fair" is flat-out wrong. It might be the best we got, but it is not good... Maybe the union or owners will oppose it. Maybe the networks will oppose it because 60 Minutes would be airing late at night. There are many "costs" that can make it difficult or impossible to implement. But the best solution in terms of fair competition is for a full quarter of football.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,374
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,374 |
I think the rules concerning OT are just fine the way they are.
LET'S GO BROWNS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/OldSixty-Two/new0400001.jpg) [b]WOOF WOOF[b]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 144
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 144 |
Oh geez, here we go again...  It's Pro football!!! It's the NFL!!!...it ain't intramurals!! Huh? Oh my bad, wrong rant 
Coin toss, schmoin toss! Problem is, IMO, the league has tweaked the game too much as it is, all in favor of the offenses. Every time the defenses catch up to the new rules, they mess with it some more. Observe:
1) They took away the bump & run coverage (as a former DB, this still grinds my gears). Now, WR's can just run willy-nilly thru secondaries and can actually beat the hell out of DB's in the process. How often do U see offensive PI called, huh? Remember, Michael Irvin made a HOF career doing this... GMAB!!
2) No more head-slapping for D-linemen, but they can still get cut blocked and have their career's potentially ended; i.e. see Denver's offensive line strategy and anywhere else that their line coach (his name escapes me right now) has been over the years. Hey, the NFL says that's legal, as long as it's inside the "tackle box"....WTH???
3) If U even breathe on a QB while he's throwing the ball, it's a personal foul. Lord help U if U hit him a nanosecond after he's thrown it (remember our game against the Squeelers 2 yrs ago, and The Giants/Titans game the week prior to that?). U can best believe U'll be gettin a letter from 410 Park Ave in New York. The league really expects a 300+ lb. lineman, going FULL SPEED, to actually STOP his momentum within 6 inches of his target??? Yeah right...
Look, there's a reason it's called "sudden death", guys. First team to score wins, period If the guys on defense do what they're paid to do (handsomely, I might add) from the opening snap, then it seems to me that we aren't talking about a coin flip (see the 2000 Ratbirds, 70's-era Squeelers & Cowboys, etc ad nauseum...). And I don't wanna hear about fatigue on defense at the end of the game - every team has at least 22 defensive players: Somebody's tired, then make a damn substitution! If the sub isn't good enough to adaquately fill the role, then U gotta ask why is he on the team, right? Someone was talking about not seeing Peyton Manning get a shot in OT? Well guess what? If he hadn't been so busy trying to play "Jedi Mind-master" with the Chargers "D" and instead started snapping the ball as soon as he got to the line more often than the 1 time he threw the TD pass to Wayne, then it wouldn't have mattered.
I DO think that fixing the officiating would eliminate the intangibles that go into this supposed advantage of winning the coin toss, though. Case in point: the defensive PI called on the Colts during the Chargers' last drive was ridiculous! Both players were grabbing each other and many have said that, in that situation, U gotta let 'em play! However, if the NFL ABSOLUTELY MUST change the post-season overtime rules (and I'm guessing that King Roger and his loyal following of whiners will make this happen sooner than later), then I GUESS I'd be in favor of extending the game in this fashion:
1) NO COIN TOSS. Instead, a 10-minute overtime period begins. The team that has the ball at the end of the 4th qtr. would continue play where they were when the quarter ended, down & distance unchanged! The team that scores the most at the end of this period wins. Should the teams remain tied, another period, 5 minutes in length, shall commence, the same as the first OT session. Same rules apply.
2) Teams with remaining timeouts after the 4th quarter can retain them to pair with the 2 they are automatically awarded at the beginning of the 1st overtime period; HOWEVER, no team shall have more than 3 when the overtime period begins.
3) Teams with challenges remaining at the end of the 4th quarter can retain them throughout the overtime period(s) and CAN USE THEM as they see fit, with the rules governing the use of challenges in full effect. It's always bugged me that they take the ability to challenge a play from the coaches in OT - it makes no sense!
OK, I'm done now... 
[color:"green"] Education is when you read the fine print; experience is what you get when you don't.[/color]
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Overtime rules: Perfect exactly
the way they are......
|
|
