Football Overtime

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

Spun off from last game. The choice is clear to me.

[devo 0]

Matching possessions. As was said in the other thread, though, it's unclear how the networks would react to longer NFL games delaying their programming.

[The Man in Blak 0]

For competitive balance, the matching possessions is an obvious winner to me.

 

That being said, a discussion about the best option for the NFL has to consider how the league would handle the overruns on games that went into multiple OT periods. We already have issues seeing games in their entirety today, due to the inane rules in place - how could the NFL accommodate a lengthier OT game in their strict scheduling for TV?

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

For competitive balance, the matching possessions is an obvious winner to me.

 

That being said, a discussion about the best option for the NFL has to consider how the league would handle the overruns on games that went into multiple OT periods. We already have issues seeing games in their entirety today, due to the inane rules in place - how could the NFL accommodate a lengthier OT game in their strict scheduling for TV?

 

What the networks should do is set aside an extra 30 minutes per game in case it goes longer than expected. Really, NFL is much more popular than what they usually show afterwards which are either infomercials, 60 Minutes, etc.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Networks can accomodate extra innings and overtime in other sports. Don't forget that NASCAR races are far from consistent in their length too.

[Slayer 0]

From 2005:

 

And the overtime rule in college isn't real football.

The fuck? "We won the coin toss, we will now just get to the 25 or so and kick" isn't real competition. How can an overtime be fair if the other team's offense doesn't get to even take the field?

A couple years ago when people were bitching about that "problem" in the NFL, statistics were brought out that showed it was about 50-50 in terms of whether the first team on offense scores right away or whether the other team gets a chance, so the "only one team gets a chance" argument is bullshit.

 

Essentially, if you lose the toss, don't give up the deep ball

 

Or, even better, you could win the toss and then kick with the wind...

I still stand by this. Each system works for their respective level.

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

It doesn't, though, because you said that the offense doesn't get on the field in half the games. Sudden death is optimal in hockey because everyone is playing to score, even the Devils. In football, where you have clearly delineated offensive and defensive roles, deciding a game by sudden death is just as silly as terminating a baseball game in extra innings before the home team has had its chance to bat.

[Slayer 0]

At the same time, it sounds like an attempt to absolve the defense from any blame if they fail to prevent the first offense from scoring, which is ridiculous

 

"You can't blame us! Our offense didn't even take the field!"

 

If the proportion was 80-20 or 70-30, then I'd sound the alarm, but that's still half (possibly less) the time that the other offense does get their chance on the field.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Slayer's right. It's the fuckin' NFL. If your defense can't stop the other team or your special teams give up a big return on the opening kickoff, you lose. It's a good format for a no-excuses league that has its highest level of play ever right now.

[The Man in Blak 0]

I think you're missing the point, though. The odds behind the distribution of whether both offenses take the field or not is kind of irrelevant, when the alternative (matching possessions) is a 100% guarantee that both teams get a fair shot on offense.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Also in matching possessions, it rewards both a good offense and a good defense.... or punishes the bad offenses/defenses.

[EricMM 0]

The 1/2 inning analogy is a good one.

 

There is no fair reason for the opponents not to get a chance to match. I don't know the rules in hockey, but don't they have a faceoff? I'd rather see sudden death in that situation or a tipoff from basketball, where the posession is determined by something more solid than a coin toss.

 

In other words, the outcome of the game should come down to more than luck.

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

At the same time, it sounds like an attempt to absolve the defense from any blame if they fail to prevent the first offense from scoring, which is ridiculous

 

"You can't blame us! Our offense didn't even take the field!"

 

If the proportion was 80-20 or 70-30, then I'd sound the alarm, but that's still half (possibly less) the time that the other offense does get their chance on the field.

But if it still happens around 50%, that's a sizable number of unfair overtimes. Maybe this is just the baseball fan in me trying to impose elements of what's probably the one perfectly structured game into another sport (I also love shootouts in hockey), but I don't think a game should be decided without one team's offense and the other's defense ever setting foot on the field. It seems like common sense to anyone that this is a broken system.

 

Eric: as for regular season hockey, you have a five-minute sudden death overtime, faceoff at center ice (aside: interesting that hockey, unlike basketball, allows either team to get possession after every stoppage in play). If it's tied after 5, you go to the shootout, home team elects to take the top or bottom of the inning, so to speak, most after at least three pairs of penalty shots wins. Now the gripe from mopes like Niskie and Barron is that this isn't real hockey, so just have a tie, and in a sense they're right, but fuck it, they're cool. Playoff hockey is sudden death, no bells and whistles, and that's even better than a shootout.

[snuffbox 0]

I know I'm supposed to be on the Czechwagon and all but I like it the way it is. Sudden Death for NFL games.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

I'm with Slayer/Kotz. You had 60 minutes to win the game in regulation. If you can't do it then, then not getting your offense on the field in OT is 1 of the risks you run.

 

College football is about the spirit of competition (LOL - I know, I know), so the matching possessions make sense.

 

For the matching possession proponents, what would be your plan? Exactly like college? Or only do matching if there's a score by the offense on their 1st possession?

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Also, hockey OT runs the risk of 1 team never being on offense. Team 1 can theoretically win the faceoff, go down & score without Team 2 ever touching the puck. Rare, yes, but still a possibility.

[bob_barron 0]

But you get an equal shot of winning the faceoff, where in football it's a coin toss.

 

I've warmed to the shootouts, but I still don't like them. It just feels like a bullshit way to win a hockey game.

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

But they had a chance to win the faceoff, so the element of skill was always involved, whereas football's sudden death is considerably more aleatoric.

[Guest Princess Leena]

I'm for matching possessions. But, definitely not like the gimmicky current college way.

 

Both teams kickoff from the 20-yard line. Kick coverage is also a part of football.

 

If the NFL must stay in time limits, or whatever... then end regulation games as a tie. The current OT system is flawed. With the increased range of kickers in the past 20 years, winning the coin toss means you win around 65% of the time, and over 30% of OT games being decided on the 1st drive.

[KingPK 0]

I'd do matching posessions, but start it from the 30 or 35 yard line to make the field goal option just a little bit tougher if they go three and out.

 

To prevent a hundred OT periods, I'd have it so that teams must go for two starting with the second OT period.

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

Leena and PK have some good ideas when it comes to perfecting the nuts and bolts of the system, but if you think an intrinsically flawed system doesn't need to be fixed, then I don't know.

[Just John 0]

I agree with whoever said both work best for their respective leagues. I hate the college system, personally, but since college is all about offense, it works. Defenses in the NFL are a million times better than defenses in college, so sudden death works because the matchups are more even. This year, I think 5 of 11 OT games ended on the first posession, and the league average is around 50/50 where it should be. That means NFL offenses and defenses are of equal skill, and no one is being disadvantaged by a sudden death format.

[razazteca 0]

Fieldgoal shootout start at the 40 then move back 5 yards after every attempt

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Im glad that there are at least a few people that agree with me that Sudden Death is a must for the NFL.

[iggymcfly 0]

NFL overtime's gay. Ignoring the fairness issue (which is very important since half the starters don't get to play half of the time), it's anticlimactic and boring. The deciding play of the game (the final field goal) is almost a certainty in most situations. The game's pretty much decided but not quite when the other team moves into field goal range, and that doesn't exactly make for high drama.

 

While I think the matching possessions rule would be an improvement (probably from the 40 in the NFL with better kickers), why not just end regular season games in ties, and let overtime games go for another 15 minutes? I think that would be a definite improvement over either system since it incorporates every element of football into a real-game situation. I know ties aren't practical so the best solution is to use matching possessions from the regular season and then the longer system in the playoffs, although as long as they used the long system for playoff games, I really wouldn't care how they ended the regular season games.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

There were 2 OT games this past sunday, 1 ended on a TD (the Pitt/Cincy game) and the other went almost 12 minutes before a FG was kicked which ended up being an upset and keeping a team out of the playoffs..

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

There were 2 OT games this past sunday, 1 ended on a TD (the Pitt/Cincy game) and the other went almost 12 minutes before a FG was kicked which ended up being an upset and keeping a team out of the playoffs..

Yes. That is a statement of fact. Another is that Denver beat Kansas City this year on one drive in overtime, winning the game 3 kicks to 2.

[Red Baron 0]

Also, hockey OT runs the risk of 1 team never being on offense. Team 1 can theoretically win the faceoff, go down & score without Team 2 ever touching the puck. Rare, yes, but still a possibility.

 

Brian Skrudland 1986 OT goal in 1986 of the second game of the 86 Finals against Calgary. Only took nine seconds of OT play. Fastest OT goal in NHL history.

 

 

 

How about getting rid of overtime forever?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Also, hockey OT runs the risk of 1 team never being on offense. Team 1 can theoretically win the faceoff, go down & score without Team 2 ever touching the puck. Rare, yes, but still a possibility.

 

Brian Skrudland 1986 OT goal in 1986 of the second game of the 86 Finals against Calgary. Only took nine seconds of OT play. Fastest OT goal in NHL history.

 

 

 

How about getting rid of overtime forever?

 

How exactly do you get rid of OT unless you're a fan of ties? and even then, how the hell would the playoffs work without overtime?

 

and I was thinking about the baseball equivalent of the college football OT rules and it would be give both teams the bases loaded and no outs and see how many runs they can score before they make an out. actually sounds kinda interesting, but at the same point insanely stupid..but its the same thing.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Not really, Marv. Regardless of whatever choices you make to give each team an equal playing field, whether it's 5 outs or 3 runners or nothing at all, baseball's extra innings are about as close a comparison to college OT as you're going to find. Every college OT is an inning.

 

I don't mind NFL overtime, but I'd like to see them try a season with something like college. Knowing NFL coaches, we'd probably get whatever the most conservative playcalling possible would be to put someone in reasonable field goal range regardless of where the teams started off.