PDA

View Full Version : Football I Forgot About This. No More Sudden Death In Overtime For The Playoffs


Stinger
01-04-2011, 07:49 AM
So long, sudden death: Playoffs offer new overtime approach

Atlanta Falcons coach Mike Smith is glad his top-seeded NFC team got a first-round playoff bye -- and not for the usual reasons of players getting healthy, getting more time to game plan, etc.

The added few days allow Smith, and every other team with a bye, to prepare for new overtime rules that were implemented this offseason but not put into effect until the playoffs. The eight teams involved in this weekend's wild-card games have to cram in order to be ready for the chance they get to overtime.

"This can influence decision making, especially how you play the last couple minutes of a ball game, in terms of playing for the tie or win in regulation," Smith said. "There are a lot of situations that you have to coach differently in overtime."

Beginning Saturday, sudden-death as we know it, is history -- until next regular season.

Unlike regular-season overtime rules that have been in place for years, both teams could have the chance to score in overtime, even if the first team with the ball kicks a field goal. Normally, the team to score first, regardless of how, wins. Not necessarily in the postseason.

If a field goal is made by the team in the first possession in overtime, the other team gains possession. If that team scores a touchdown, game over. If it kicks a field goal to tie, then the next team to score wins. The only way the game ends on the first possession is if that team scores a touchdown or if the defense forces a safety or returns a turnover for a score.

The changes didn't sit well with coaches, especially since the first time they could encounter them could be with a Super Bowl berth on the line. Teams now have to add another layer of preparation to their practices, in the film room and on the field because of the variety of uncharted scenarios that could present themselves.

The possibilities have had coaches trying to sort out every circumstance possible -- and there are plenty. For example ...
The kicking game

If a kickoff is booted deep into the end zone, a player could be coached to take the touchback rather than try and bring it out and risk a fumble or a penalty that could give them awful field position and result in a punt close to or from the end zone. Both could give the opposition ideal field position.

If the team has to punt on its first possession, does the return team double team the gunners? By having additional bodies blocking near where the ball could land, it could increase the risk of the ball touching a player on the return team. If that were to happen, the punting team would regain possession in good field position and possibly win with a field goal since the turnover is considered a possession.

Look for teams to stack the box with eight or nine defenders to force max protection and reduce traffic coming off the edges near the return man, a league source said.
On defense

Players could be coached that if they intercept the ball in the end zone on the first possession to take the touchback. Should they return it and fumble in the process, it could give the opposing team possession in field goal range. The fumble of an interception would mean that each team has had a possession and now a field goal wins the game.
On offense

Teams who get the ball first could be more aggressive trying to score touchdowns (one of the reasons the rule change was applied) so the other team won't get the ball back.

If you trail by a field goal and are getting the ball with a chance to tie or win, every possession is a four-down possession, so play-calling on both sides of the ball could be different.

http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/story/09000d5d81d72298/article/so-long-sudden-death-playoffs-offer-new-approach-to-ot


Mark Humphrey / Associated Press
The Saints' victory in the NFC Championship last season was just one of three playoff games that ended with a field goal on the opening possession of overtime. The winners of two of those games went on to claim the Super Bowl title.

OT playoff games won with FG on first possession:

2009 NFC Championship
Saints 31, Vikings 28

2002 AFC Divisional playoff
Titans 34, Steelers 31

2001 AFC Divisional playoff
Patriots 16, Raiders 13

baitism
01-04-2011, 09:40 AM
I really think they are overstating how complicated it is to plan for this format. Coaches need to stop complaining and earn their paychecks.

CaliforniaChief
01-04-2011, 09:42 AM
I really think they are overstating how complicated it is to plan for this format. Coaches need to stop complaining and earn their paychecks.

Exactly. I like it. It will force you to be more aggressive. That said, it will probably screw us where it hurts this weekend. But overall, I like the rule.

Rain Man
01-04-2011, 09:46 AM
I'd forgotten about this.

I think they're missing the most obvious scenario plan. If I win the coin toss in overtime now, I might elect to kick off (or take the wind - whatever). The reason? All I have to do is stop a touchdown now, because a field goal isn't fatal. So the outcomes if I kick off are:

- they get a touchdown, which means I'm screwed but it probably doesn't happen.
- they get a field goal, which then means I get the ball and know exactly what I need to do to tie or win.
- my defense stops them (or even gets a turnover), which likely means I have much better field position, and now my field goal wins the game, whereas if I got the ball first it didn't necessarily mean that.

I think Point #3 is huge, which means I want the other team to get the ball first.

Farzin
01-04-2011, 09:47 AM
I dislike it, strongly. When fans, coaches, players say "Our team never got the ball in OT," I always say to myself, "Sure they did. They had 60 minutes before the OT period."

I just think people use that as an excuse because they lost. I liked sudden death, personally.

Farzin
01-04-2011, 09:53 AM
I just remembered something..

What if a team makes a FG, and recovers an unexpected onside kick? Not that it would be a wise thing to do, but wouldn't surprise me a whole lot if Todd Haley did that. I never remember that being discussed when the rule came out, but I guess the team who made the field goal wins, as long as they recover the ball.

philfree
01-04-2011, 09:53 AM
I don't have this years OT stats in front of me but I think what happened in OT games this years shows taht this was a dumb rules change. I don't think the games were won on the first possession in half the games.


PhilFree:arrow:

Chiefnj2
01-04-2011, 09:56 AM
I just remembered something..

What if a team makes a FG, and recovers an unexpected onside kick? Not that it would be a wise thing to do, but wouldn't surprise me a whole lot if Todd Haley did that. I never remember that being discussed when the rule came out, but I guess the team who made the field goal wins, as long as they recover the ball.

I think both teams have to have possession of the ball.

suzzer99
01-04-2011, 09:56 AM
I dislike it, strongly. When fans, coaches, players say "Our team never got the ball in OT," I always say to myself, "Sure they did. They had 60 minutes before the OT period."

I just think people use that as an excuse because they lost. I liked sudden death, personally.

Well then why not just flip a coin to determine the winner in OT? I mean both teams had 60 minutes to win. So the loser can't complain, right?

Dante84
01-04-2011, 09:56 AM
Please tell me what's wrong with the college format? It's the perfect overtime scenario. Each team is forced to succeed on Offense and Defense if they want to win.

JD10367
01-04-2011, 09:57 AM
Football is made up of three phases: offense, defense, and special teams. If you lose the coin toss and your team gives up a big runback or a big opening drive, fuck you, you weren't good enough to win. This rule change is stupid, and all the things mentioned here (onsides kick, kicking off first, etc.,.) will just confuse and cloud and screw it up more. I hope they kill this rule quickly.

Pushead2
01-04-2011, 09:59 AM
You play to win the game baby.

Farzin
01-04-2011, 09:59 AM
Well then why not just flip a coin to determine the winner in OT? I mean both teams had 60 minutes to win, so the loser can't complain, right?

I'm not saying flip a coin. I'm saying play defense. If a defense cannot stop the offense, then people just need to accept that their team got beat.

Farzin
01-04-2011, 10:00 AM
Football is made up of three phases: offense, defense, and special teams. If you lose the coin toss and your team gives up a big runback or a big opening drive, **** you, you weren't good enough to win. This rule change is stupid, and all the things mentioned here (onsides kick, kicking off first, etc.,.) will just confuse and cloud and screw it up more. I hope they kill this rule quickly.

Exactly.

Chiefnj2
01-04-2011, 10:01 AM
Please tell me what's wrong with the college format? It's the perfect overtime scenario. Each team is forced to succeed on Offense and Defense if they want to win.

Starting at the 25 doesn't force you to play much defense.

suzzer99
01-04-2011, 10:02 AM
My version that I was preaching for years was that the if the first team to get possession scored, the second team simply had one chance to beat that score. So even if the first team scores a TD+1, the second team has a chance with a TD+2. But they have to beat it - a tie doesn't help them. So the game never lasts more than 1 extra possession over the current system.

suzzer99
01-04-2011, 10:08 AM
I'm not saying flip a coin. I'm saying play defense. If a defense cannot stop the offense, then people just need to accept that their team got beat.

What if you have two offensive juggernauts with terrible defenses? Then a huge part of it comes down to chance.

My point is the whole "you already had 60 minutes" argument doesn't really negate perceived unfairness in the overtime scenario. If fans leave the stadium feeling cheated because their team never touched the ball in OT, that's not the best thing for the game.

Stinger
01-04-2011, 10:09 AM
I just remembered something..

What if a team makes a FG, and recovers an unexpected onside kick? Not that it would be a wise thing to do, but wouldn't surprise me a whole lot if Todd Haley did that. I never remember that being discussed when the rule came out, but I guess the team who made the field goal wins, as long as they recover the ball.

I believe under this rule that if you score and recover and onside kick that would be the game and the other team would not have a possession.

Chiefnj2
01-04-2011, 10:15 AM
From masnsports.com

"In case you need a refresher, here's how the new system will work:

While there is still a sudden-death element of the rule, the first score does not necessarily win the game. Under the new rule, both teams have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the overtime period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff (we'll call that team "Team A") scores a touchdown on its initial possession. In that case, Team A is the winner.

If the team that possesses the ball first on its opening possession scores a field goal, the other team (Team B) will have an opportunity to get a possession as well. If Team B scores a touchdown on its possession, it is the winner. If the game is tied after both teams have a possession (meaning either that neither team scored or each team kicked a field goal), then the next team to score by any method is the winner.

If the score is tied at the end of the 15-minute overtime period, another OT period will begin and the game will continue until a team scores.

So, to summarize, if Team A scores an opening-drive touchdown, they win. An opening-drive field goal by Team A, however, no longer wins the game.

This takes away some of the weight of the coin toss, which in the past, had obviously played a major factor in overtime results.

Turnovers and trick plays could make the new system even a bit more confusing. "The opportunity to possess the ball" means that you are on the field to receive a kickoff. If you fumble the kickoff or if the kicking team recovers an onside kick, that still counts as your opportunity to possess the ball.

It might be important to note - or it might not, really - that only four teams voted against the new rule when it was proposed at the owners meetings, and one of those teams was the Ravens."

Swanman
01-04-2011, 10:15 AM
I liked the XFL "can you beat this" overtime rule. It was similar to college overtime rules, as each team got the ball on the 25. However, the added wrinkle was that if Team A scored a touchdown in 3 plays, for example, then Team B had to score a touchdown in 3 plays to force a second overtime or less than 3 to outright win the game. It was a goofy rule that I wouldn't advise putting in the NFL, but it was a fun rule for the circus sideshow that was the XFL.

Cave Johnson
01-04-2011, 10:24 AM
Don't feel bad, so did McNabb.

Nzoner
01-04-2011, 10:43 AM
I'm really going to have to think about my bets on the over/unders now,damn the extra work. :)

WebGem
01-04-2011, 10:50 AM
I don't have this years OT stats in front of me but I think what happened in OT games this years shows taht this was a dumb rules change. I don't think the games were won on the first possession in half the games.


PhilFree:arrow:

If the Chiefs scored first I doubt Haley calls an onside. He'd rely on the defense at that point.

milkman
01-04-2011, 10:54 AM
If the Chiefs scored first I doubt Haley calls an onside. He'd rely on the defense at that point.

I don't know.

I can see either he, Bellichick or Sean Payton being the ones to do it.

OnTheWarpath58
01-04-2011, 11:07 AM
I don't know.

I can see either he, Bellichick or Sean Payton being the ones to do it.

I don't see any of them taking the risk.

Don't recover, and the opposition needs 5 yards for a tying FG, and 40 yards for a win.

Cover the kick and play defense.

wazu
01-04-2011, 11:13 AM
I dislike it, strongly. When fans, coaches, players say "Our team never got the ball in OT," I always say to myself, "Sure they did. They had 60 minutes before the OT period."

I just think people use that as an excuse because they lost. I liked sudden death, personally.

Totally agree. Every team loves to play for overtime, then bitch about how overtime is a coin toss. Go for 2 when you score that last TD if you want to have the game in your own hands. If you want a coin toss, then just kick an extra point and stop whining.

VAChief
01-04-2011, 11:14 AM
I guess I am missing something here. Seems like an easy change to me with little downside and plenty of upside. Touch back coaching really? What would be different than the current OT system? Even in the current sudden death system you would want your return person to be careful with their decisions, protect the ball, etc. This isn't brain surgery.

I like giving each side a chance, especially in a playoff situation. Can you imagine a Final Four or NBA finals game going to OT and telling the team that wins the toss, ok first one to score wins...Tough noogies to you if you don't play defense good enough to stop them you had your chance the first 40 or 48 minutes. Or baseball going to first one to score.

This isn't perfect but its better than what they have now.

wazu
01-04-2011, 11:15 AM
I don't see any of them taking the risk.

Don't recover, and the opposition needs 5 yards for a tying FG, and 40 yards for a win.

Cover the kick and play defense.

Agreed. I'd much rather see an attempt on fourth down than an onside kick after a field goal.

Chiefnj2
01-04-2011, 11:19 AM
I don't see any of them taking the risk.

Don't recover, and the opposition needs 5 yards for a tying FG, and 40 yards for a win.

Cover the kick and play defense.

But don't kick to Devin Hester.

Chiefnj2
01-04-2011, 11:21 AM
I don't see any of them taking the risk.

Don't recover, and the opposition needs 5 yards for a tying FG, and 40 yards for a win.

Cover the kick and play defense.

If you were playing a Marty-esque coached team, would you onside knowing there is a good likelihood he will just try 2 yards and a cloud of dust and automatically settle for the FG, giving you the ball back where you can go for the win?

OnTheWarpath58
01-04-2011, 11:22 AM
If you were playing a Marty-esque coached team, would you onside knowing there is a good likelihood he will just try 2 yards and a cloud of dust and automatically settle for the FG, giving you the ball back where you can go for the win?

No.

Rain Man
01-04-2011, 11:25 AM
If you were playing a Marty-esque coached team, would you onside knowing there is a good likelihood he will just try 2 yards and a cloud of dust and automatically settle for the FG, giving you the ball back where you can go for the win?

I wouldn't do an onsides, but per my post early in this thread I would definitely want to kick off to start overtime. I have no problem with these changes, but think I'd rather be the second team with the ball than the first team (assuming that my defense hasn't given up 5 TDs that day).

baitism
01-04-2011, 11:40 AM
Why not just change the rule to the first team to score a TD in OT wins? I think most people just don't like the fact that a team can drive 30 yards or so and kick a ~55 yard FG to win.

JD10367
01-04-2011, 11:56 AM
I like giving each side a chance, especially in a playoff situation. Can you imagine a Final Four or NBA finals game going to OT and telling the team that wins the toss, ok first one to score wins...Tough noogies to you if you don't play defense good enough to stop them you had your chance the first 40 or 48 minutes. Or baseball going to first one to score.

Totally stupid comparison in much different scenarios. Basketball is a short-field game where you can score in one second. Baseball is already designed to give each team a chance on offense. Football is football. Fuck it, then, maybe they should eliminate turnovers, huh, 'cause it's not fair that the other team doesn't get the ball on offense as much. Each side DOES "have a chance": to score, or to stop them. It's complicating a situation that doesn't need to be complicated. Aww, poor coaches and teams, complaining because "all" the other team has to do is get within FG range. Last time I checked, FG range means you need to get AT LEAST to the opponent's 35-yard line (to make it a 52-yard try). It's not the winning teams' fault that your kicker sucks balls and/or your kickoff coverage does as well.

JD10367
01-04-2011, 11:56 AM
Why not just change the rule to the first team to score a TD in OT wins? I think most people just don't like the fact that a team can drive 30 yards or so and kick a ~55 yard FG to win.

As I just posted, if they only have to go 30 yards then your special teams suck balls and you don't deserve to win anyway.

gblowfish
01-04-2011, 12:01 PM
All these rules! Please, somebody explain this "foosball" game to me:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IRN0GywklZk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IRN0GywklZk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

baitism
01-04-2011, 02:10 PM
As I just posted, if they only have to go 30 yards then your special teams suck balls and you don't deserve to win anyway.

Maybe, but a TD just kinda makes it so no one can complain; it gives it a finality. Also, I think it adds more strategy to OT, such as field position battles, etc. For the record, though, I had no big beef with the normal rules.

VAChief
01-04-2011, 02:41 PM
Totally stupid comparison in much different scenarios. Basketball is a short-field game where you can score in one second. Baseball is already designed to give each team a chance on offense. Football is football. **** it, then, maybe they should eliminate turnovers, huh, 'cause it's not fair that the other team doesn't get the ball on offense as much. Each side DOES "have a chance": to score, or to stop them. It's complicating a situation that doesn't need to be complicated. Aww, poor coaches and teams, complaining because "all" the other team has to do is get within FG range. Last time I checked, FG range means you need to get AT LEAST to the opponent's 35-yard line (to make it a 52-yard try). It's not the winning teams' fault that your kicker sucks balls and/or your kickoff coverage does as well.

Of course it is a different scenario, but stupid? Don't get your panties in a bunch because someone has a different opinion. I never said anything about poor coaches or teams.

If you prefer that the game can be decided in one possession of a championship game as opposed to letting both sides having an equal chance as in other major sports you can have that opinion. The only change I am asking is that if one team scores on the first possession, the other team gets a chance to equal them. More than 50% of the time we aren't going to need that possibility. However in a championship game why not have that option?

VAChief
01-04-2011, 02:49 PM
Totally stupid comparison in much different scenarios. Baseball is already designed to give each team a chance on offense. Football is football.

Baseball is the perfect example of what I am talking about. They carry over the same basic format to "extra" play as for the regular game. What I am suggesting is similar. Right now when one team scores (either a TD or FG) they kick off to the other team and they get the ball. Overtime should give each team at least one possession. We don't have to extend it to "equal" possessions like college or change the field position. Just don't let it end up being a coin flip, a score and that's it. Let both team's offense, defense, and special teams be tested in overtime as in regular play.

JD10367
01-04-2011, 03:00 PM
Of course it is a different scenario, but stupid? Don't get your panties in a bunch because someone has a different opinion.

My panties are fine and unbunched. Don't get YOURS all bunched because you said something stupid. Let me requote:

"Can you imagine a Final Four or NBA finals game going to OT and telling the team that wins the toss, ok first one to score wins...Tough noogies to you if you don't play defense good enough to stop them you had your chance the first 40 or 48 minutes."

That was plain stupid. Pointless, non-comparably stupid, with absolutely no bearing to the scoring system of the NFL, the field size of the NFL, or the game play of the NFL.

Guru
01-04-2011, 03:05 PM
they are over complicating this. Good grief. Just play YOUR game.

Farzin
01-04-2011, 05:15 PM
What if you have two offensive juggernauts with terrible defenses? Then a huge part of it comes down to chance.

My point is the whole "you already had 60 minutes" argument doesn't really negate perceived unfairness in the overtime scenario. If fans leave the stadium feeling cheated because their team never touched the ball in OT, that's not the best thing for the game.

I see where you are coming from. To answer your question: too bad. Defenses need to step it up. If a coach doesn't have faith in his defense in OT if he thinks he'll lose the coin toss, then go for two, or go for the onside kick.

Teams had their chances to score before the OT regulation. I got annoyed, even from Chiefs fans (Chiefs vs Broncos, week 2, 2006) saying Denver won the cheap way. Maybe if LJ didn't fumble in that game, we'd win..

VAChief
01-04-2011, 05:20 PM
M Pointless, non-comparably stupid, with absolutely no bearing to the scoring system of the NFL, the field size of the NFL, or the game play of the NFL.

Over react much? Yes, the court is different sized in basketball, they score differently (not sure what that has to do with anything, but whatever) and it is a different f***ing game! I get that...but you are still letting the first team that scores win...the comparison was made to highlight the absurdity of the rule. You don't like the basketball example take the baseball one. Are you saying that it would be fair to let only one team bat if they score in extra innings?

I know this is FOOTBALL...which is why I say make both teams prove themselves in overtime, just like in the regular game. Sudden death runs counter to the culture of the game. Sudden death is for pussies.

Bearcat
01-04-2011, 05:47 PM
I like the change. I don't exactly get the argument that "you should have done something different in regulation" or "all you have to do is force a punt if you don't win the coin toss," because it just comes back to the coin toss.

Why should a team have to go for 2 in regulation so they can avoid losing a coin toss? Why let a coin toss get in the way of your coaching decisions?

And to say a team should be able to force a punt seems logical enough, but it still goes back to the coin toss. Had the Chiefs/Colts game in January 2004 gone into OT, the winner of the coin toss would have won the game.

38-38, Colts win the toss in OT, win the game. Someone says "the Chiefs didn't make one f***ing stop, they don't deserve to win!".... but, the Colts, who also didn't make one stop, deserve to win?

I'd rather they simplify it to guaranteeing one offensive play for each team, but I think this change is at least better than how it was before.

ClevelandBronco
01-04-2011, 06:04 PM
Why not just change the rule to the first team to score a TD in OT wins? I think most people just don't like the fact that a team can drive 30 yards or so and kick a ~55 yard FG to win.

I like this. Takes the kickers off the field for the final play of overtime. Leads to dramatic decisions on fourth down.

kysirsoze
01-04-2011, 06:28 PM
Starting at the 25 doesn't force you to play much defense.

I would contend that it forces you to play stellar defense.

Also, I agree with Rainman. With this new rule you should absolutely defer everytime.

KChiefs1
01-04-2011, 06:29 PM
I'd onside kick it if I lost the coin toss.

KChiefs1
01-04-2011, 06:32 PM
If you were playing a Marty-esque coached team, would you onside knowing there is a good likelihood he will just try 2 yards and a cloud of dust and automatically settle for the FG, giving you the ball back where you can go for the win?

EXACTLY!

It's worth the chance of recovery in my opinion. Even if the other team gets it on the 40 yd line just hold them to a FG & all you need is a FG to tie or a TD to win.

I can see Haley doing this....

Marcellus
01-04-2011, 06:34 PM
I'd onside kick it if I lost the coin toss.

Interesting but what if they defer, do they attempt the onside?

philfree
01-04-2011, 06:39 PM
Interesting but what if they defer, do they attempt the onside?

Now that's tricky. Defer to lull them into a false sense and then onside kick! LOL


PhilFree:arrow:

JASONSAUTO
01-04-2011, 06:46 PM
But don't kick to Devin Hester.

Cribbs, more than once. Lol
Posted via Mobile Device

Dante84
01-04-2011, 07:10 PM
Starting at the 25 doesn't force you to play much defense.

'kay. Start at the 40.

Over-Head
01-04-2011, 07:18 PM
Just keep playen for another 15mins, (at a time if need be) highest score wins, just like in baseball.
Make these premadonna millionaires earn their SB paycheques :p

KCSupersized
01-04-2011, 07:38 PM
Just keep playen for another 15mins

I agree with this.

HBKChiefs
01-04-2011, 10:45 PM
I'm cool with the new rule and think it should be in place for regular season play as well. Winning a coin toss and driving 30-40 yards down the field to kick a game winning field goal is anti-climatic and really is not a fair conclusion in my opinion. The chance of this happening in football should not exist, regardless of how often/rare it has actually happened in the past.

I can live with each team getting an offensive possession in OT. The whole onside kick thing is interesting though and might be changed to not allow onside kicks the first two possessions if a controversy happens over it.

chiefzilla1501
01-04-2011, 11:10 PM
Totally stupid comparison in much different scenarios. Basketball is a short-field game where you can score in one second. Baseball is already designed to give each team a chance on offense. Football is football. **** it, then, maybe they should eliminate turnovers, huh, 'cause it's not fair that the other team doesn't get the ball on offense as much. Each side DOES "have a chance": to score, or to stop them. It's complicating a situation that doesn't need to be complicated. Aww, poor coaches and teams, complaining because "all" the other team has to do is get within FG range. Last time I checked, FG range means you need to get AT LEAST to the opponent's 35-yard line (to make it a 52-yard try). It's not the winning teams' fault that your kicker sucks balls and/or your kickoff coverage does as well.

I don't know how anyone can defend the current OT rules. You can maneuver anyone you want, but the fact is that offenses dominate scoring. On a very rare occasion, a defense will make a key turnover in OT that leads to a game-winning score. Even if an offense falls short. They can bring the ball to the 50 yard line, fuck up, and punt the ball to pin the other team within the 10 yard line. Nothing about the current OT system makes sense. If the game is a tie game, bullshit on the idea that they should have won the game in regulation. Neither team got the job done, so neither team should have an advantage.

What the new OT system brings is an element of strategy and guts. The coin toss is now about strategy. And no longer will a team lay up on the 30 yard line. Instead, they'll have to decide whether to play for a field goal that might not win the game or play for a TD that guarantees a win.

Right now, 60% of coin toss winners win. And about 70% were decided by a field goal. Overtimes should be decided by strategy and aggressive play, not by coin tosses and laying up for field goals.

DRU
01-05-2011, 12:51 AM
but, the Colts, who also didn't make one stop, deserve to win?

They did make one stop. They forced a Priest Holmes fumble. Still breaks my heart that Holmes is the one who gave the Colts an extra possession in a game where we lost by 7 and nobody punted.

Rudy lost the toss
01-05-2011, 01:11 AM
It would suck to lose because you kicked a fg and then gave up a TD after the opponent converted on 4th down conversions outside of fg range.

Then again....I guess that's how regulation works.

Mr. Laz
01-05-2011, 03:44 PM
I think both teams have to have possession of the ball.
might be covered already but both teams don't get a possession and the title of the thread is misleading

sudden death is still in play

If the 1st team gets the ball and scores a touchdown then they win ... period.

It's only a fieldgoal that gives the other team a possession.

Bearcat
01-05-2011, 04:22 PM
They did make one stop. They forced a Priest Holmes fumble. Still breaks my heart that Holmes is the one who gave the Colts an extra possession in a game where we lost by 7 and nobody punted.

I was saying, hypothetically, if it went into OT at 38-38 (meaning the Holmes fumble never happened) and the team that won the toss scored first, neither team would have made a stop the entire game, so you can't really say one team deserved to lose because they couldn't make a stop.

mohammedhali
01-05-2011, 04:41 PM
Sudden Death was stupid, it was never sudden and no one ever died. The NFL should just take the NCAA"S rules except each team has to start at the 50.