Quote:
Originally Posted by siberian khatru
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.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detoxing
**************************
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
|
No, you're dead ass right. It's a massive advantage. It's almost like...this wasn't thought out very well.
So now we have all these jackasses trying to fix a problem that isn't even a problem (20-mother****ing percent) and are instead making it even MORE broken. If they could rub two damn braincells together and think for a second....