Directshun

Your suggesion is lame :whackit:

I 'm not a big fan of the college system. I don't like looking at the papers and seeing a score of 49-42, and I imagine it would drive fantasy football owners berzerk. Not to mention that Peyton Manning's TD record becomes worthless.
A new OT system would have to guard against statistical inflation.

At the most, a 5-point OT rule would only give players an extra TD.

College OT rules would completely destroy the NFL record books which is why you'll never see that...

There's about 1 tie every 10 years so I don't see it as an issue, also the people who think the coin toss is a huge deal, or both teams should get the ball, the team that wins the toss wins roughly 55% of the time...it's not some ridiculous percentage.

Why do people always bitch about OT?

I figure it's just a matter of time before some NFL player gets a contract that exempts him from playing in overtime games. Why take that injury risk when you're not even getting paid for overtime?

For many reasons:
#1) 30% of teams win the game on the first possession. That is like saying that baseball should be sudden death and that if one team bats and scores a run, then the other team doesn't get a chance to bat
#2) it encourages teams to lay up for field goals instead of going for TDs. Nothing is more stupid than watching a team complete one pass, and then run the ball up the gut twice, and then kick a field goal on third down. That's no dramatic way to finish a game
#3) It adds an element of strategy. Do you lay up for a field goal on 4th and 2 and risk giving the ball back to your opponent who can win with a TD? Or do you go for the threat and go for it on 4th and 2 so you can get a TD and win the game?

The current OT system is stupid. It gives 30% of the teams an advantage purely on the flip of a coin. It encourages conservative football at the end of games. And it has no element of strategy--the only goal is to get the ball to the 20-30 yard line and hope to lay up for a field goal. That's no way to end a game. And it grossly favors offensive teams. If you play in a shootout between two offensive powerhouses, why would a team's offense not be allowed to at least see the field?

If you suck on defense and can't stop the other team you deserve to lose...

Huh, I thought it was even closer to 50% than that.... I'd like to see the coin flip go away just so home field advantage plays into it, and it would add to the strategy at the end of regulation, since if you were the home team, you could decide beforehand whether to kick or receive in OT (and the road team would generally have a good idea of what the home team would plan on doing, too).

Does anyone know why the college system is called the Kansas tiebreaker? Does it come from the 8-on-8 (or whatever) leagues? :shrug:

But since when is defense the only part of the game? Think it's fair to tell the 2000 Rams that the only way they are allowed to win a game is to make a defensive stop?

There is way too big of an advantage given to teams who win a coin flip. A kickoff these days can usually get to the 30 or 35. Even if your defense forces a punt, there's a very good chance that the team with the first possession can punt and pin the other team within the 5 yard line.

Can you imagine extra innings in a baseball game settled by sudden death? Football is not like soccer or hockey, in which possession quickly changes hands and the offense can get the ball/puck back within seconds. It's one in which the offense has full control over whether they can score or not.

Here's about as good of an analysis as I can find:
http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html

It basically says that if you factor out years that had different overtime rules (keep in mind that this is 2004 data), about 60% of coin toss winners win games. And about 33% of them win on the first possession.

To me, that says that 33% of teams lost without ever touching the ball on offense. I just can't dig that. The study also suggests that the first-to-6 rule would mean that about 49% of teams win based on coin toss vs. 60%, which is a tremendous improvement.

It would increase the # of ties from 9% to 12%, but I think most would agree that we would rather have 49% of games decided on a coin toss than 60%.

how bout NBA-like system
don't they play 1/2 a quarter and see who's ahead then?

I've always thought it should stay as it is but with one exception- there's no kickoff. The times I hate the overtime is when there's a big kickoff return or the kickoff goes out of bounds and the receiving team ends up with the ball near midfield. Then they just go 20 yards to have a decent field goal shot. And it seems to happen quite a bit.
I would still do the coin toss but the team that wins the coin toss has the option of getting the ball at their 20 yard line or letting the other team have it at their 20. (I'm sure they'd choose the ball every time, but whatever.)
That way a team would have to gain around 50 yards or so to have a field goal chance. That would give the defense ample chance to force a punt. If a team can drive down the field and score a field goal after starting at their own 20 I don't think you could call it cheap.

I like the College format.

Have both offenses and both defenses on at the same time. Each offense starts from its own 20. No downs; each offense gets as many plays as it needs to go down the field. Turnovers can be returned for a touchdown (thus winning the game), but anything short of that merely resets the line of scrimmage to wherever the defender gets tackled.

First team to score a touchdown wins.

Yeah, if a team kicks a 56-yard FG that means your D sucks. :rolleyes: