PDA

View Full Version : Football Competition Committee approves OT proposal


Mr. Laz
03-21-2010, 07:39 PM
Report: Competition Committee approves OT proposal (http://blogs.nfl.com/2010/03/21/report-competition-committee-approves-ot-proposal/) <!-- p class="post-info-author">By Frank Tadych</p -->

Posted: March 21st, 2010 | Frank Tadych | Tags: Bill Polian (http://blogs.nfl.com/tag/bill-polian/), Brad Childress (http://blogs.nfl.com/tag/brad-childress/), Jeff Fisher (http://blogs.nfl.com/tag/jeff-fisher/), John Mara (http://blogs.nfl.com/tag/john-mara/), Marvin Lewis (http://blogs.nfl.com/tag/marvin-lewis/), NFL Annual Meeting (http://blogs.nfl.com/tag/nfl-annual-meeting/), Ozzie Newsome (http://blogs.nfl.com/tag/ozzie-newsome/), Rich McCay (http://blogs.nfl.com/tag/rich-mccay/), Rick Smith (http://blogs.nfl.com/tag/rick-smith/), Stephen Jones (http://blogs.nfl.com/tag/stephen-jones/), Zygi Wilf (http://blogs.nfl.com/tag/zygi-wilf/)
The latest out of the NFL Annual Meeting Sunday is that the competition committee has voted to approve the proposal for the overtime rule changes (http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2010/03/polian_weighs_i.html?camp=localsearch:on:twit:pats), according to the Boston Globe. The modified overtime rule will be voted on by league owners (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d816ff6eb&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true) this week.
We don’t have confirmation yet on how the eight-member committee (Titans coach Jeff Fisher, Falcons president Rich McKay, Cowboys COO Stephen Jones, Bengals coach Marvin Lewis, Giants president and CEO John Mara, Ravens GM Ozzie Newsome, Colts president Bill Polian and Texans GM Rick Smith) voted, although Newsday’s Bob Glauber and Judy Battista of the New York Times report is was 6-2, with Battista noting Lewis and Newsome opposed (http://twitter.com/judybattista/status/10828840795).
In order to pass, the measure needs 24 of 32 votes (75 percent success) when it’s presented to full ownership.
Here are some of the stances we’re reading teams taking on the proposed overtime rules:


Polian supports the changes, according to the Globe, citing the statistics (http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2010/03/polian_weighs_i.html?camp=localsearch:on:twit:pats) since 1994.



The Lions are undecided (http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2010/03/lions_remain_undecided_about_n.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+detroit-lions+%28Detroit+Lions+-+MLive.com%29&utm_content=Twitter) about the new overtime proposal, according to Tom Kowalski of Mlive.com.



Jud Zulgad of the Star Tribune reports that while Vikings coach Brad Childress is undecided, indications are owner Zygi Wilf isn’t in favor (http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/blogs/56735627.html) of the change.



Mara also supports the modified rule, but isn’t optimistic (http://blogs.nfl.com/2010/03/21/giants-mara-supports-overtime-changes/) it will pass among owners.



As a co-chairman of the committee and one of the minds behind the proposal, Fisher supports OT changes (http://blogs.nfl.com/2010/03/19/titans-coach-fisher-supports-playoff-ot-changes/).




Owners scheduled to vote on change to playoff overtime rules

Associated Press
NEW YORK -- NFL owners will vote next week whether to allow each team a possession in overtime in the playoffs if the team that wins the coin toss kicks a field goal on the first series.

Previously, the game would end whenever either side scores, as happened in the NFC Championship Game (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010012401/2009/POST20/vikings@saints) in January, with the New Orleans Saints (http://www.nfl.com/teams/neworleanssaints/profile?team=NO) beating the Minnesota Vikings (http://www.nfl.com/teams/minnesotavikings/profile?team=MIN) on Garrett Hartley (http://www.nfl.com/players/garretthartley/profile?id=HAR717525)'s kick. But NFL competition committee chairman Rich McKay says a trend has developed showing too strong an advantage for teams winning the coin toss to start overtime.

La Canfora: Some big talking points

The most intriguing items on the competition committee's agenda at next week's ownership meetings involve player safety/concussions and overtime changes, Jason La Canfora writes. [/URL]

If the team that falls behind by three points on the first series also kicks a field goal, then the game would continue under current sudden-death rules.
The proposal is only for the postseason.
"Statistically, it is pretty clear there has been a change," McKay said. "When sudden death was put in for 1974, it clearly worked very well and was a good system. It brought excitement and effectively broke ties. From '74-'93 you had a 50-50 (breakdown) in who would win between those who won toss and who lost the toss.
"Changes occurred over time, and the numbers have changed to 59.8 percent winning the coin toss and winning the game. The team that loses the coin toss wins 38.5 percent. We are trying to put in a system that emphasizes more skill and strategy as opposed to the randomness of the coin flip."
McKay credited the advancements in field-goal accuracy and skills of return teams for the hefty switch in statistics. The competition committee found that since 1994, when the kickoff was moved back 5 yards to the 30, teams winning the OT coin toss won 34.4 percent of the games on the first series. They kicked field goals 26.2 percent of those times, an increase from 17.9 percent in 15 years.
"I would say this is something that's been on our radar for a number of years and been talked about a lot," McKay said. "In the last four or five years, we have not proposed anything because we thought if there weren't enough votes (among the 32 owners), we should not propose it. This year, the statistics are so compelling we need to get the discussion going."
Rest assured there will be plenty of discussion; 24 votes are needed to adopt the change.
The players union strongly has supported the current overtime setup because it fears another system could lead to more injuries. McKay said the competition committee has "not spent a lot of time with them" on this proposal, but it will make the players association aware of the recommendation.
Vikings kicker [URL="http://www.nfl.com/players/ryanlongwell/profile?id=LON819356"]Ryan Longwell (http://blogs.nfl.com/2010/03/17/competition-committee-faces-interesting-issues/) never had a chance to try to win that game in New Orleans, under the current rule. But Longwell said Tuesday that he wasn't lobbying for a change.
"Personally, I like it the way it is," Longwell said in a text message. "If you get the ball, go score. If you don't get the ball, stop 'em."
Questions have been raised whether altering overtime is something that must be collectively bargained with the union, but the NFL says it would simply be a rule change the league can unilaterally enact.
Another recommendation to the owners, who will hold their meetings in Orlando, Fla., beginning Sunday, centers on expanding protection for defenseless players, most notably receivers. McKay said a recent rule change helped, but there are cases where receivers already have made a catch and still are defenseless when they are hit in the head area.
The proposal will offer those players protection from hits to the head until after the catch is made and the receiver has an opportunity to protect himself.

Mr. Arrowhead
03-21-2010, 07:50 PM
its stupid that its only for the playoffs

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 07:56 PM
The owners better vote this down.

Leave it the way it is. I'm sick of hearing how it's not fair to the team that loses the cointoss. Play fucking defense.

Losing the cointoss sure didn't hurt the Cardinals in their OT game against GB.

Bowser
03-21-2010, 07:58 PM
Christ, this is as pathetic as Carl trying to get an extra team in the playoffs after his '05 team went 10-6 and didn't make it in.

cdcox
03-21-2010, 08:02 PM
its stupid that its only for the playoffs

Yep. Every game matters. This isn't baseball. Amazing how clueless the owners are.

milkman
03-21-2010, 08:04 PM
The owners better vote this down.

Leave it the way it is. I'm sick of hearing how it's not fair to the team that loses the cointoss. Play ****ing defense.

Losing the cointoss sure didn't hurt the Cardinals in their OT game against GB.

To be fair, the only reason it didn't hurt the Cards is that Aaron Rogers missed a wide open receiver.

But at the end of the day, I agree.

Leave the damn game alone.

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 08:07 PM
To be fair, the only reason it didn't hurt the Cards is that Aaron Rogers missed a wide open receiver.

But at the end of the day, I agree.

Leave the damn game alone.

Matt Hasselbeck wants the ball and he's gonna score.

aturnis
03-21-2010, 08:08 PM
The owners better vote this down.

Leave it the way it is. I'm sick of hearing how it's not fair to the team that loses the cointoss. Play ****ing defense.

Losing the cointoss sure didn't hurt the Cardinals in their OT game against GB.

Well, if they force a team to kick a field goal, they did play defense. In regulation, that is considered a victory for the defense 90% of the time. The only time it isn't a win is if it's in OT, or a last second victory FG.

If your defense forces the FG, good, you get another shot. If you want to win, score a ****ing touchdown mother ****ers!

Not condoning the rule change, just playing devils advocate for discussion sake. Really I could care less, it's the playoffs and won't be affecting the Chiefs for some time.

DaFace
03-21-2010, 08:10 PM
Yep. Every game matters. This isn't baseball. Amazing how clueless the owners are.

Yeah, that makes this seem a lot more half-assed.

Buck
03-21-2010, 08:14 PM
They should test it in the Regular Season before voting on it for the playoffs.

Either way, no.

cdcox
03-21-2010, 08:14 PM
Here's how I would make the OT rules for both regular season games and playoffs:

You win if you 1) score a TD that puts you in the lead or 2) you are leading at the end of an overtime quarter. FGs are worth 3 points, but they don't end the game.

Bane
03-21-2010, 08:19 PM
No poll?WTF!ROFL
I wish they'd just leave it the fugg alone.IMO it's stupid to only do it in post season play if they do it at all.:shrug:

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 08:21 PM
Fuck, why don't we just have a NFL version of a shootout with the kickers?

Seriously, all this time wasted on a rule there is nothing wrong with.

Lose the coin toss? Play defense and force a punt.

What's even more ridiculous is considering a change when a very, very small percentage of games are even affected. How many games went to OT last year over the regular season and playoffs?

Maybe six?

Out of around 275 games?

Leave it the fuck alone.

They've already made a travashamockery out of the game by putting QB's in dresses and instituting this BS "defenseless WR" rule.

Instead of making new rules, how about hiring officials that can consistently call the game by the current rules?

Buck
03-21-2010, 08:26 PM
They give the example of NO vs MIN in the article, but what about ARI vs GB?

-King-
03-21-2010, 08:27 PM
They give the example of NO vs MIN in the article, but what about ARI vs GB?

Because more games happen like NO vs Min than ARI vs GB.

Baconeater
03-21-2010, 08:29 PM
I would've liked to have seen them move up the kickoffs and see what effect that had before doing some stupid shit like this, but whatever.

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 08:31 PM
They give the example of NO vs MIN in the article, but what about ARI vs GB?

Or the Giants picking off Favre to win the NFC Championship?

Or Hasselbeck being pick-sixed by GB?

Last I checked, football is a team game, and the defense is part of the team.

Baconeater
03-21-2010, 08:31 PM
Because more games happen like NO vs Min than ARI vs GB.
Nope, we went through this in the last thread, only 1 out of 3 OT games end without the coin toss loser ever getting the ball. That means that more often than not the coin toss loser gets the ball at least once.

Bane
03-21-2010, 08:36 PM
So basically all this crybaby BULLSHIT stems from Lord Favre not going to the Super Bowl?So WTF would be the big topic now if Lord Favre had made it,then threw that same int and Indy won? What the fugg ever.:bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:

-King-
03-21-2010, 08:37 PM
I would've liked to have seen them move up the kickoffs and see what effect that had before doing some stupid shit like this, but whatever.

Move them up? Why? If they moved them up, people like David Beulher and Janakowski would kick the ball into the first row of the stands.

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 08:38 PM
So basically all this crybaby BULLSHIT stems from Lord Favre not going to the Super Bowl?So WTF would be the big topic now if Lord Favre had made it,then threw that same int and Indy won? What the fugg ever.:bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:

Actually, all this BS started when the Chargers beat the Colts in OT several years back and Manning never saw the field.

To which I say, tough shit. Field a better defense.

-King-
03-21-2010, 08:40 PM
Nope, we went through this in the last thread, only 1 out of 3 OT games end without the coin toss loser ever getting the ball. That means that more often than not the coin toss loser gets the ball at least once.

True, but I'd rather a guaranteed possession after a Field goal.

Baconeater
03-21-2010, 08:42 PM
Move them up? Why? If they moved them up, people like David Beulher and Janakowski would kick the ball into the first row of the stands.
Ok, then the opponent gets the ball at the 20 and no chance at a return. Part of the argument against the current system is that if the receiving team gets any type of return then they only have to get a couple first downs to get in FG range.

Baconeater
03-21-2010, 08:44 PM
Actually, all this BS started when the Chargers beat the Colts in OT several years back and Manning never saw the field.

To which I say, tough shit. Field a better defense.
Or find a way to win in regulation and not let it come down to a coin toss.

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 08:45 PM
Ok, then the opponent gets the ball at the 20 and no chance at a return. Part of the argument against the current system is that if the receiving team gets any type of return then they only have to get a couple first downs to get in FG range.

And that argument is stupid as well.

Don't allow a big return.

Simple as that.

Why should a team with an exceptional ST unit be penalized by not getting to return a kick?

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 08:45 PM
Or find a way to win in regulation and not let it come down to a coin toss.

Absolutely.

-King-
03-21-2010, 08:45 PM
Actually, all this BS started when the Chargers beat the Colts in OT several years back and Manning never saw the field.

To which I say, tough shit. Field a better defense.

Defenses only have 50 yards to defend though. Kickers can kick from 50+ yards these days. Even if a kick return is only 20 yards, then the offense doesn't really need to do that much work to get to field goal range. Just 40-50 yards. It really isn't fair to put a defense in that position IMO.

Baconeater
03-21-2010, 08:46 PM
And that argument is stupid as well.

Don't allow a big return.

Simple as that.

Why should a team with an exceptional ST unit be penalized by not getting to return a kick?
There's really no way to make it totally fair, but that would at least help to offset whatever advantage the coin toss winner has.

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 08:48 PM
Defenses only have 50 yards to defend though. Kickers can kick from 50+ yards these days. Even if a kick return is only 20 yards, then the offense doesn't really need to do that much work to get to field goal range. Just 40-50 yards. It really isn't fair to put a defense in that position IMO.

:spock:

Are they part of the fucking team, or not?

If you can't keep a team from gaining 50 fucking yards, you don't deserve to win.

dirk digler
03-21-2010, 08:48 PM
This rule isn't what exactly what I would propose but it is alot better than the antiquated OT system they have now. Since they have moved kickoff's back and tailored the rules in favor of the O it is only fair that both teams get a chance on offense to score.

-King-
03-21-2010, 08:48 PM
Moot point anyway McKay said that a two-possession proposal previously had been made by the Competition Committee, but that it obtained only 18 votes. McKay added that there also was a prior attempt to move the kickoff point, presumably from the 30 back to the 35. It also failed.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/21/stats-changed-polians-mind-on-overtime-rules/

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 08:49 PM
There's really no way to make it totally fair, but that would at least help to offset whatever advantage the coin toss winner has.

The current system is as fair as it gets, IMO.

The team that wins the coin toss has a chance to score, and the team that loses the coin toss has a chance to stop them from scoring and give the ball to their offense.

It's good enough for the first 4 quarters.

DaFace
03-21-2010, 08:50 PM
Actually, all this BS started when the Chargers beat the Colts in OT several years back and Manning never saw the field.

To which I say, tough shit. Field a better defense.

The issue, as I see it, is that they've passed rule after rule designed to promote offense in the game. Take those away, and I agree that the OT rules are fair. As it is, it's too lopsided toward the offense to let the game end without both teams having a shot.

dirk digler
03-21-2010, 08:50 PM
Defenses only have 50 yards to defend though. Kickers can kick from 50+ yards these days. Even if a kick return is only 20 yards, then the offense doesn't really need to do that much work to get to field goal range. Just 40-50 yards. It really isn't fair to put a defense in that position IMO.

50? More like 20-30. IIRC the average field position is around the 30 yard line.

dirk digler
03-21-2010, 08:52 PM
Polian has this right

"No matter where you came down on the subject," Polian said, "whether you were a pure two-possession guy or a status quo guy, as I was going in, when you saw the statistics broken down from 1994-2009, and you saw the team winning the toss winning 60 percent of the time, and then you saw the accuracy of field-goal kickers, both in distance and accuracy over that period of time, it's obvious that it's game that from 1994 on is very different than what we had prior to 1994," he said. "[Before that], essentially, there was no difference between team winning the toss and losing it."

As Competition Committee co-chair Rich McKay pointed out during a Wednesday conference call, the increase in first-drive field goals traces to the movement of the kickoff point (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/17/competition-committee-will-propose-modified-sudden-death-for-overtime/) from the 35 to the 30.

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 08:53 PM
The issue, as I see it, is that they've passed rule after rule designed to promote offense in the game. Take those away, and I agree that the OT rules are fair. As it is, it's too lopsided toward the offense to let the game end without both teams having a shot.

Disagree.

If there weren't many examples of teams winning an OT game on defense, or making a defensive stop and then scoring on offense, maybe I'd feel differently.

Ultimately, the percentages aren't that far apart, and it effects less than 3% (average of 6-8 OT games a year) of games over the course of the regular season and playoffs.

-King-
03-21-2010, 08:54 PM
The issue, as I see it, is that they've passed rule after rule designed to promote offense in the game. Take those away, and I agree that the OT rules are fair. As it is, it's too lopsided toward the offense to let the game end without both teams having a shot.

Exactly.

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 08:54 PM
50? More like 20-30. IIRC the average field position is around the 30 yard line.

Quit giving up big returns.

Chocolate Hog
03-21-2010, 08:54 PM
This is fucking stupid.

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 08:54 PM
Polian has this right

Polian should consider fielding a better defense.

Baconeater
03-21-2010, 08:55 PM
The current system is as fair as it gets, IMO.

The team that wins the coin toss has a chance to score, and the team that loses the coin toss has a chance to stop them from scoring and give the ball to their offense.

It's good enough for the first 4 quarters.
Honestly, I could care less if it's fair or not, like I mentioned in the last thread on this subject I'm tired of seeing coaches playing for overtime instead of the win. All I'm saying is if they feel they HAVE to do something I'd rather see them move the kickoffs than do this stupid shit. I don't really have a problem with the way it is now.

dirk digler
03-21-2010, 08:55 PM
Quit giving up big returns.

You realize they moved kickoff's back to promote more kickoff returns because they were exciting?

-King-
03-21-2010, 08:55 PM
50? More like 20-30. IIRC the average field position is around the 30 yard line.

Even if the average position is at the 30, it would still make teams go more than 30 yards.

From the 30, if you go 30 yards, then it would be about a 57 yard field goal. Only 1 or 2 kickers can realistically make that really.

DaFace
03-21-2010, 08:56 PM
Disagree.

If there weren't many examples of teams winning an OT game on defense, or making a defensive stop and then scoring on offense, maybe I'd feel differently.

Ultimately, the percentages aren't that far apart, and it effects less than 3% (average of 6-8 OT games a year) of games over the course of the regular season and playoffs.

OK, so this is the underlying question: do you disagree that both teams should have an equal chance of winning a game that goes into overtime? It sounds like your answer is "yes," and that's OK. I think they should, but if we can't agree on that one, the details don't really matter - we'll have to agree to disagree.

Buck
03-21-2010, 08:57 PM
The best playoff game I ever saw was the NFC Divisional game between the Rams and Panthers when the Panthers won in the 2nd OT.

That used the current rules.

threebag02
03-21-2010, 08:57 PM
The owners better vote this down.

Leave it the way it is. I'm sick of hearing how it's not fair to the team that loses the cointoss. Play fucking defense.

Losing the cointoss sure didn't hurt the Cardinals in their OT game against GB.

Stop making rules that protect the offense and let the defense play like it use to be

Chiefnj2
03-21-2010, 08:59 PM
More coaches will play for a tie in regulation if they know both teams will get the ball in OT.

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 09:00 PM
You realize they moved kickoff's back to promote more kickoff returns because they were exciting?

Special teams are part of the fucking game.

I see returners every week get pinned inside their own 20.

I also see defenses force 3-and-outs or very short drives that force punts.

But sure, let's change the game to make only the offense matter in OT.

Christ, even the Chiefs won a playoff game this year by forcing Pittsburgh to punt, and then scoring.

Baconeater
03-21-2010, 09:01 PM
OK, so this is the underlying question: do you disagree that both teams should have an equal chance of winning a game that goes into overtime? It sounds like your answer is "yes," and that's OK. I think they should, but if we can't agree on that one, the details don't really matter - we'll have to agree to disagree.
Even with the current system you could argue that both teams don't have an equal chance if the coin toss winner scores on their second possession because the coin toss loser won't get a second possession. There is really no way to make it completely fair.

Buck
03-21-2010, 09:02 PM
How about they just make the Coin Flip determine the winner so teams don't play for OT.

DaFace
03-21-2010, 09:02 PM
Even with the current system you could argue that both teams don't have an equal chance if the coin toss winner scores on their second possession because the coin toss loser won't get a second possession. There is really no way to make it completely fair.

Well, the stats say moving the ball back to the 30 for the kickoff would do it. That's why I favor that solution as opposed to this one.

Baconeater
03-21-2010, 09:03 PM
More coaches will play for a tie in regulation if they know both teams will get the ball in OT.
Yep, and too many do even with the current rules. IMO they should make it even less desirable to go into OT. Hell I'd be fine if they flipped a coin to determine the winner.

-King-
03-21-2010, 09:03 PM
Disagree.

If there weren't many examples of teams winning an OT game on defense, or making a defensive stop and then scoring on offense, maybe I'd feel differently.

Ultimately, the percentages aren't that far apart, and it effects less than 3% (average of 6-8 OT games a year) of games over the course of the regular season and playoffs.

There were 13 OT games last year.

15 in 2008

15 in 2007.

Baconeater
03-21-2010, 09:04 PM
How about they just make the Coin Flip determine the winner so teams don't play for OT.
lol...great minds. :clap:

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 09:06 PM
OK, so this is the underlying question: do you disagree that both teams should have an equal chance of winning a game that goes into overtime? It sounds like your answer is "yes," and that's OK. I think they should, but if we can't agree on that one, the details don't really matter - we'll have to agree to disagree.

IMO, both teams DO have an equal chance of winning a game that goes into OT.

Football is a team sport, and the offense, defense and special teams are all part of it.

Do your job. If you win the coin toss, your job is to score.

If you lose the coin toss, your job is to stop the other team from scoring.

Just like in the first 4 quarters.

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 09:08 PM
There were 13 OT games last year.

15 in 2008

15 in 2007.

First, link?

Second, that means a whopping 5% of games, regular season and playoffs are affected.

And out of that 5% of games, people are bitching about there being a 60-40 split?

Play fucking defense, and quit wasting time trying to put gimmicks in the game.

-King-
03-21-2010, 09:08 PM
IMO, both teams DO have an equal chance of winning a game that goes into OT.

Football is a team sport, and the offense, defense and special teams are all part of it.

Do your job. If you win the coin toss, your job is to score.

If you lose the coin toss, your job is to stop the other team from scoring.

Just like in the first 4 quarters.

In the first 4 quarters, the defense knows that their team's offense will come out the next drive and try to equal the score. In overtime, the defense doesn't have that luxury.

DaFace
03-21-2010, 09:09 PM
IMO, both teams DO have an equal chance of winning a game that goes into OT.

Football is a team sport, and the offense, defense and special teams are all part of it.

Do your job. If you win the coin toss, your job is to score.

If you lose the coin toss, your job is to stop the other team from scoring.

Just like in the first 4 quarters.

I guess the problem then is that the facts say that the kicking team wins 59% of the time. The game is not equally weighted toward offense and defense. You can say that the defense has a chance to stop them, but the fact is that the game favors the offense. That's not an equal chance. :shrug:

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 09:09 PM
Yep, and too many do even with the current rules. IMO they should make it even less desirable to go into OT. Hell I'd be fine if they flipped a coin to determine the winner.

I'd be fine if they eliminated OT in the regular season.

Can't win in 3 hours of football? Fuck you, you tied.

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 09:11 PM
I guess the problem then is that the facts say that the kicking team wins 59% of the time. That's not an equal chance. :shrug:

They had an equal chance when the ball was kicked off.

Too bad if the defense didn't do their job.

-King-
03-21-2010, 09:11 PM
First, link?http://espn.go.com/nfl/schedule

Just use the find feature on your browser. Type in (OT) and it will highlight all of them.

Second, that means a whopping 5% of games, regular season and playoffs are affected. I didn't include playoff games in my count.

And so? I bet even less games are affected by a bullshit PI call, but I still want them to fix that.

DaFace
03-21-2010, 09:11 PM
I'd be fine if they eliminated OT in the regular season.

Can't win in 3 hours of football? Fuck you, you tied.

I'd agree with that. But Americans don't like ties.

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 09:12 PM
Fuck, let's not even put the defense on the field.

Let's have a QB skills competition.

First one to throw a ball through a moving tire at 30 yards wins.

Baconeater
03-21-2010, 09:12 PM
I guess the problem then is that the facts say that the kicking team wins 59% of the time. That's not an equal chance. :shrug:
See, you're getting the facts twisted. The problem that people have with it is that sometimes one team never sees the ball, and that only happens 34.4% of the time. It's right there in the article. The fact that sometimes the coin toss winner wins on their second possession is irrelevant.

teams winning the OT coin toss won 34.4 percent of the games on the first series.

dirk digler
03-21-2010, 09:13 PM
Special teams are part of the fucking game.

I see returners every week get pinned inside their own 20.

I also see defenses force 3-and-outs or very short drives that force punts.

But sure, let's change the game to make only the offense matter in OT.

Christ, even the Chiefs won a playoff game this year by forcing Pittsburgh to punt, and then scoring.

I realize that but you know that the NFL has tailored alot of the rules to help the offense to score points. Moving the kickoff back was one of those rule changes that is why the stats show there has been an increase in first drive field goals winners.

Bane
03-21-2010, 09:13 PM
****, let's not even put the defense on the field.

Let's have a QB skills competition.

First one to throw a ball through a moving tire at 30 yards wins.

Oreo dunking league?ROFL

Baconeater
03-21-2010, 09:14 PM
I'd be fine if they eliminated OT in the regular season.

Can't win in 3 hours of football? **** you, you tied.
So would I, but you'd still have to deal with OT in the playoffs, and then the same gripes would come up.

DaFace
03-21-2010, 09:14 PM
See, you're getting the facts twisted. The problem that people have with it is that sometimes one team never sees the ball, and that only happens 34.4% of the time. It's right there in the article. The fact that sometimes the coin toss winner wins on their second possession is irrelevant.

As I mentioned, I don't favor the rule change being proposed. I have no idea if that will fix the problem of the game being weighted toward the coin-toss-winner or not. Moving the kickoff to the 30 would.

I just want both teams to have an equal chance of winning - that's all.

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 09:14 PM
Oreo dunking league?ROFL

Well, that would make the league happy, seeing as how the Manning's have the Oreo market cornered.

Baconeater
03-21-2010, 09:15 PM
****, let's not even put the defense on the field.

Let's have a QB skills competition.

First one to throw a ball through a moving tire at 30 yards wins.
LMAO How about an XFL style scrum for the ball to declare the winner? That at least would be entertaining.

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 09:15 PM
So would I, but you'd still have to deal with OT in the playoffs, and then the same gripes would come up.

The only people that bitch are fans/owners of teams with shitty defenses.

Matt Hasselbeck STILL wants the ball, and dammit, this time he's gonna score.

dirk digler
03-21-2010, 09:17 PM
As I mentioned, I don't favor the rule change being proposed. I have no idea if that will fix the problem of the game being weighted toward the coin-toss-winner or not. Moving the kickoff to the 30 would.

I just want both teams to have an equal chance of winning - that's all.

My proposal would be both offenses get the ball once if it is still tied after that then it is sudden death.

-King-
03-21-2010, 09:17 PM
LMAO How about an XFL style scrum for the ball to declare the winner? That at least would be entertaining.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tPcUAhpjVPA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tPcUAhpjVPA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Haha.

Bane
03-21-2010, 09:20 PM
Well, that would make the league happy, seeing as how the Manning's have the Oreo market cornered.

Did you see sports center where Herm said just take FG attempts out of OT?

chiefzilla1501
03-21-2010, 09:20 PM
The owners better vote this down.

Leave it the way it is. I'm sick of hearing how it's not fair to the team that loses the cointoss. Play ****ing defense.

Losing the cointoss sure didn't hurt the Cardinals in their OT game against GB.

I disagree.

This game is becoming extremely pass offense friendly. If I'm not mistaken, something like 40% of teams are winning the game on a coin toss. Nothing is more retarded than watching a team complete one 20-30 yard play, and then start jamming the ball up the middle to lay up for a field goal. Completely takes the drama out of the game.

The way the game SHOULD be played is that in Sudden Death, you're in constant attack mode. If a conservative team wants to lay up for a field goal, they better be prepared for the second-possession team to gun for a TD. You should be rewarded for taking chances. Not for playing Marty ball late in the game.

I don't understand the defense of the current system. It's horribly one-sided. It promotes boring "play for a field goal" football. And 40% of the time, one offense doesn't get to touch the ball.

OnTheWarpath58
03-21-2010, 09:21 PM
Did you see sports center where Herm said just take FG attempts out of OT?

Nope.

Baconeater
03-21-2010, 09:21 PM
As I mentioned, I don't favor the rule change being proposed. I have no idea if that will fix the problem of the game being weighted toward the coin-toss-winner or not. Moving the kickoff to the 30 would.

I just want both teams to have an equal chance of winning - that's all.
Well you're never going to get a perfect 50/50 split, and would 55/45 really make you feel better? Is gaining another 5% towards the coin toss loser going to be worth all this nonsense? Because that's probably what would happen. Or even worse, what if after a few years the numbers end up 60/40 in favor of the coin toss loser? Then what do we do? Change it back?

-King-
03-21-2010, 09:21 PM
The only people that bitch are fans/owners of teams with shitty defenses.

Matt Hasselbeck STILL wants the ball, and dammit, this time he's gonna score.

If they wanted to stick to the current system but make it fairer, they should force the teams to get TDs.

dirk digler
03-21-2010, 09:22 PM
Did you see sports center where Herm said just take FG attempts out of OT?

LMAO Herm wouldn't know what to do without FG's.

Bane
03-21-2010, 09:23 PM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tPcUAhpjVPA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tPcUAhpjVPA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Haha.

I went to one of those games in Memphis.The Maniax vs the Rage.Honestly it was a pretty damn good game.Rashaan Salaam was playing for the Maniax then.

DaFace
03-21-2010, 09:23 PM
Well you're never going to get a perfect 50/50 split, and would 55/45 really make you feel better? Is gaining another 5% towards the coin toss loser going to be worth all this nonsense? Because that's probably what would happen. Or even worse, what if after a few years the numbers end up 60/40 in favor of the coin toss loser? Then what do we do? Change it back?

Prior to the kickoff being moved, it was nearly exactly a 50/50 split. And the stats for modern-era (2000+) games says that it would still hold.

Here's a ton of analysis on the subject in case anyone's interested.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/02/why-nfl-overtime-needs-to-change.html

Bane
03-21-2010, 09:24 PM
LMAO Herm wouldn't know what to do without FG's.

My 9 year old was watching with me and said is that why he's not our coach anymore?ROFL Bwaaa haaaa haaaa!

Baconeater
03-21-2010, 09:24 PM
If they wanted to stick to the current system but make it fairer, they should force the teams to get TDs.
You'd still get the same complaints about one team never getting the ball.

Baconeater
03-21-2010, 09:26 PM
Prior to the kickoff being moved, it was nearly exactly a 50/50 split.

Here's a ton of analysis on the subject in case anyone's interested.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/02/why-nfl-overtime-needs-to-change.html
Well then the answer seems pretty damn simple to me, why they would want to implement this other retarted system is just beyond me. It makes no damn sense at all.

DaFace
03-21-2010, 09:29 PM
Well then the answer seems pretty damn simple to me, why they would want to implement this other retarted system is just beyond me. It makes no damn sense at all.

Eh, I think I'm in the minority when it comes for the desired outcome. Most people just want to make sure Peyton Manning gets to touch the ball in overtime. I don't care about that, I just want it to be even.

I actually found another post by the guy that discusses this specific proposal.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/03/new-proposed-overtime-rules.html

According to the analysis, the current proposal would end up making the odds 56/44%. Bleh.

dirk digler
03-21-2010, 09:35 PM
Eh, I think I'm in the minority when it comes for the desired outcome. Most people just want to make sure Peyton Manning gets to touch the ball in overtime. I don't care about that, I just want it to be even.

I actually found another post by the guy that discusses this specific proposal.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/03/new-proposed-overtime-rules.html

According to the analysis, the current proposal would end up making the odds 56/44%. Bleh.

Yeah but both teams would have an opportunity to have the ball which IMVHO is the most important thing. It never is going to be perfect like baseball or basketball.

chiefzilla1501
03-21-2010, 09:36 PM
Well you're never going to get a perfect 50/50 split, and would 55/45 really make you feel better? Is gaining another 5% towards the coin toss loser going to be worth all this nonsense? Because that's probably what would happen. Or even worse, what if after a few years the numbers end up 60/40 in favor of the coin toss loser? Then what do we do? Change it back?

I don't care about the #'s behind which team (winner/loser of coin toss) eventually wins the game.

I care about the fact that 30-40% of games are being decided without one offense ever touching the field.

Offenses have a significantly better chance of scoring. So when you keep one offense off the field in Sudden Death, it's completely retarded. It's not like soccer, where possession changes frequently within the start of sudden death.

As far as I'm concerned, 30-40% is 30-40% too much.

chiefzilla1501
03-21-2010, 09:43 PM
Well then the answer seems pretty damn simple to me, why they would want to implement this other retarted system is just beyond me. It makes no damn sense at all.

For the record, I favor the new OT rule, except I would allow the first possession team to win if they score a TD. I don't think anyone would complain about that.

That makes it an equal advantage between first-possession and second-possession teams. In fact, it makes for a really interesting strategy to decide whether you want to kick or receive.

Adds a whole new element to the game.

Baconeater
03-21-2010, 09:46 PM
For the record, I favor the new OT rule, except I would allow the first possession team to win if they score a TD. I don't think anyone would complain about that.
lol...then you have no idea how the average sports fan is wired, plus that completely contradicts what you said in your post right before that.

milkman
03-21-2010, 09:50 PM
Every time I see this thread title, I think to myself, this must mean they passed a rule that every team must draft an OT with their first round pick.

True fan would have an orgasm.

chiefzilla1501
03-21-2010, 09:52 PM
lol...then you have no idea how the average sports fan is wired, plus that completely contradicts what you said in your post right before that.

Not really. You're never going to get perfect results. Yeah, you'd like both teams to get two possessions. I think we all agree that 30-40% of one-possession wins is way, way, way too much. And moving the kickoff a few yards back will drop that % down a little bit, but in this pass-crazy league, not by much. And even if you move the ball 20-30 yards and have to punt, you get to pin the other team within the 10-15 yard line, giving the first possession team a significant advantage.

So even though that number is 34%, I imagine 40-45% of games are decided where the first possession team gets significantly better field position than the second possession team (if you count the 34% in that).

I'm sure allowing teams to win on a field goal would drive that % down to below 10%. First, because many teams will opt for a non-winning field goal. Second, because it's significantly harder. And it rewards teams who are aggressive on the first possession, and forces teams to be conservative at their own peril.

threebag02
03-21-2010, 10:16 PM
I thought maybe it was an "Offensive Tackle" proposal that they would all have to bang a family member. That way it wouldn't be a hostile work environment for the ONE that did.

mcan
03-22-2010, 09:51 AM
Sudden death is the way it SHOULD be. It puts the burden of winning and losing on the entire team, and not just on offenses. The problem is that the rules have changed significantly over the last several years to benefit offenses and hamstring defenses. Pass interference has been out of hand for a LONG LONG time. We need to stop calling the defender for a penalty because he did or did not "turn his head around." The rule should 100% be about CONTACT, before the ball touches the receiver's hands that impedes the receiver's ability to catch the ball. That's the way the rule should be called, 100%. Make an effort to be ecumenical to defenses while calling the game, and you'll see that percentage swing back to 50% pretty damn quick.

Mr. Laz
03-22-2010, 08:50 PM
Chiefs Owner Clark Hunt: Overtime Proposal 'Makes A Lot Of Sense'

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/profile_images/240996/headshot_tiny.jpg by Joel Thorman (http://www.sbnation.com/users/Joel%20Thorman) on Mar 22, 2010 5:17 PM CDT (http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2010/3/22/1385558/chiefs-owner-clark-hunt-overtime) in 2010 Campaign (http://www.arrowheadpride.com/section/2010-campaign) http://cdn3.sbnation.com/images/icons/comment.v1599.png 31 comments

The Kansas City Chiefs (http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/KAN) have pushed on more than one occasion to change the current sudden death version of overtime in the NFL. Now, a new proposal has come out that would alter only the postseason version of overtime.

Nearly a third of overtime games in the last 16 seasons are determined on the first possession which is a major increase over the numbers in the previous 20 years.
According to the proposal applicable to only the postseason, a team could only win on the first possession of overtime if they score a touchdown. If they only score a field goal, then the other team would get a possession. If the other team fails to score in response to the field goal, the game would be over. If the other teams matches the field goal, then the game would turn into sudden death again.

Chiefs owner Clark Hunt supports the more fair overtime proposal (http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/21/1828305/nfl-owners-will-vote-on-change.html#ixzz0ivLklXPG), according to Adam Teicher of the Kansas City Star.

http://cdn1.sbnation.com/images/blog/star-divide.v5547.jpg

"I’m intrigued by it," Hunt said. "It’s something that’s been discussed for a number of years, but this is the first time this particular proposal has come forward. I think it makes a lot of sense."

However, Mr. Hunt doesn't want to stop there. If it's acceptable for the postseason, he says, then it should be for the regular season as well.

"One of the questions I have on it is whether it should apply to both postseason and regular season," he said. "It does seem odd to me that you would have a different overtime rule in the postseason versus the regular season, though I understand the rationale why.

"My inclination right now is that we should do this for the regular season, too. I do want to hear the concerns from the coaches and general managers about wear and tear on the players and the possibility of impacting games the following weekend if you have overtime games that go longer."

That sounds like a yes to me on the overtime proposal.

http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2010/3/22/1385558/chiefs-owner-clark-hunt-overtime

Baconeater
03-23-2010, 01:36 PM
Just heard on the local sports radio that this has passed.

Edit: overwhelmingly I might add, the vote was 28-4

Amnorix
03-23-2010, 02:05 PM
Yes. 28-4. Teams voting against were Minnesota, Baltimore, Buffalo and Cincinnati.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/

Chiefnj2
03-23-2010, 02:07 PM
If you get the ball in OT and kick a field goal, can you onside kick?

dirk digler
03-23-2010, 02:11 PM
That is awesome but it is too bad it is not for regular season games.

KCtotheSB
03-23-2010, 02:30 PM
I like the change.....but I would have liked it 137% more if they applied this for the regular season as well.

ArrowheadHawk
03-23-2010, 03:12 PM
Special teams are part of the ****ing game.

I see returners every week get pinned inside their own 20.

I also see defenses force 3-and-outs or very short drives that force punts.

But sure, let's change the game to make only the offense matter in OT.

Christ, even the Chiefs won a playoff game this year by forcing Pittsburgh to punt, and then scoring.Do what?

OnTheWarpath58
03-23-2010, 03:26 PM
Do what?

I don't even think I was drunk when I typed that.

LMAO

WTF?

DaFace
03-23-2010, 03:29 PM
Meh.

keg in kc
03-23-2010, 03:33 PM
I don't even think I was drunk when I typed that.

LMAO

WTF?Maybe you were seeing the future.

dirk digler
03-23-2010, 03:40 PM
Some interesting things in regards to the rule. A safety will win a game and if the kicking team recovers an onside kick and scores the game is over.

Also it appears that in May they are going to probably set the rule for regular season games as well.

Some of you have asked what happens if a team recovers an onside kick on the first kickoff of overtime. In that scenario, the recovering team could win the game on a field goal. The rules read:

"A kickoff is the opportunity to possess for the receiving team. If the kicking team legally recovers the kick, the receiving team is considered to have had its opportunity."

So a team could get a "walkoff" win by recovering the kick and going in for a score. Sudden death rules would then apply. The same rules apply if the receiving team fumbles a kickoff.

chiefzilla1501
03-23-2010, 06:11 PM
I like the change.....but I would have liked it 137% more if they applied this for the regular season as well.

It will.

Once people realize that it's going to make football a hell of a lot more interesting, it will.

Thank god. No more watching people lay up for a field goal in sudden death. Now we can finally watch some real OT football!