Originally Posted by RunKC (Post 16106177)

Keep going until either:

A. One team doesn’t answer with a TD and can be eliminated bc the opposing team gets a TD.

B. Time runs out

The players playing longer doesn’t matter. It’s OT. Win the game. It’s not like the NFL isn’t adding more games to the regular season anyway. At this rate we’ll have 20 regular season games by 2030.

Originally Posted by Pasta Little Brother (Post 16106313)

I just don't understand why people think it's a guarantee TD on the first possession of OT. It's not and data proves it if you don't cherry pick. The Bills don't get an imaginary pretend TD drive fir a hypothetical coin toss loss just like KC in 19. Bills lost legitly end of story

Originally Posted by Bearcat (Post 16106150)

I don't necessarily love/hate the sudden death aspect, but would much rather HFA determine who gets the ball first in OT... use something that's already been earned, not a freakin coin.

And go one way or the other... not the "score a TD and the game is over, but not over with a FG". I don't like changing rules for OT. Either do sudden death, guarantee one possession each, or do a 10 or 15 minute period.

I'd prefer the timed period for the playoffs, but would be fine with simply guaranteeing one possession each and sudden death after that.

Originally Posted by ptlyon (Post 16106300)

How about each team gets to pick their own "Pickup sticks with your butt cheeks" contestant?

Originally Posted by siberian khatru (Post 16106356)

Has this been brought up anywhere?

If the other team is guaranteed a possession, they do so with the extra knowledge of what it takes to win the game. In other words, if the first team scores a TD and kicks the PAT, the second team not only knows it needs a TD, it also can go for 2 for the win and not give the ball back. (Or risk not making it and losing.)

Now, the first team could go for 2 to go up 8, but if they fail, the other team knows it only has to kick to win.

See what I'm saying?

Maybe the solution would be to require both teams to go for 2 each and every time in OT. But then you're still looking at long games and player safety, etc.

Originally Posted by siberian khatru (Post 16106356)

Has this been brought up anywhere?

If the other team is guaranteed a possession, they do so with the extra knowledge of what it takes to win the game. In other words, if the first team scores a TD and kicks the PAT, the second team not only knows it needs a TD, it also can go for 2 for the win and not give the ball back. (Or risk not making it and losing.)

Now, the first team could go for 2 to go up 8, but if they fail, the other team knows it only has to kick to win.

See what I'm saying?

Maybe the solution would be to require both teams to go for 2 each and every time in OT. But then you're still looking at long games and player safety, etc.

Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 16106292)

**************************

Ok, how about this for not fair:

Team 1 goes down and scores and elects to kick the XP.

Team 2 now has a HUGE advantage, as they can now elect for a 2pnt conversion and win the game outright.

In a situation in which both teams are guaranteed a possession, there's a very clear strategic advantage to receiving the ball 2nd.

Team 1 has to decide if they should kick the XP or go for two. If they go for 1, team 2 has a decided advantage over team 1 in their next possession as they KNOW they can win with a 2pt, while team 1 risks either losing by NOT going for 2, or going for 2, missing and then losing to team 2 who now only needs to kick an XP to win.

That's such a massive advantage to the team with the 2nd possession it's not even funny. Much bigger advantage than just winning a coin flip

Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 16106292)

These overtime rule changes are so poorly thought out.

Im so sick of hearing this. It's STILL not fair. All you're doing is extending the game.

Ok, so Mahomes get the ball and scores. Great.

Then Allen gets the ball and scores. Great.

NOW what? Now the next score wins? NOW the defense matters? So Mahomes gets the ball after Allen scores, goes down the field and scores. Can the game be over now, or does Allen still get another chance to make it fair?

At what point do we acknoweldge that a stop has to be made? And if a stop HAS to be made, then wtf is the point of extending it at all? Just so Allen can score one more touchdown and still lose the exact same ****ing way when Mahomes gets the ball back?

**************************

Ok, how about this for not fair:

Team 1 goes down and scores and elects to kick the XP.

Team 2 now has a HUGE advantage, as they can now elect for a 2pnt conversion and win the game outright.

In a situation in which both teams are guaranteed a possession, there's a very clear strategic advantage to receiving the ball 2nd.

Team 1 has to decide if they should kick the XP or go for two. If they go for 1, team 2 has a decided advantage over team 1 in their next possession as they KNOW they can win with a 2pt, while team 1 risks either losing by NOT going for 2, or going for 2, missing and then losing to team 2 who now only needs to kick an XP to win.

That's such a massive advantage to the team with the 2nd possession it's not even funny. Much bigger advantage than just winning a coin flip

**************************************************

And here's the real kicker:

In the playoffs, only 20% of the teams that receive the ball in OT are actually winning them on the first possession.

20% you dolts!

20%!


For that math illiterate, 80-mother****ing percent of the time BOTH QB'S ARE touching the ball under current rules.

80-mother****ing percent of the time both offenses get a chance in OT. Jesus.

This isn't even a real issue! LMAO It's a completely false narrative drummed up by pouty bitch ass losers. It's not even a real ****ing problem in the NFL for christ's sake.