murra Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 There is no reason why the NFL should side with tradition. I would say a majority of the fans don't like the NFL OT system. I would also say that the argument for the system is a stupid and invalid one. The argument boils down to well its never going to be perfect so leave it the way it is. To me that is a God awful argument so it can't be perfect that's the reason not to make it better? What kind of logic is that. Well life isn't fair and neither should the OT system, well the essence of competition is that there is an even playing field and you let the participants decide the winner not some arbitrary circumstance like a coin toss. Here are some other arguments. Well defense is part of the game, So the other teams D doesn't count. Why does everything have to be fair quite being a wuss, So the Pats* cheating isn't a big deal you should have just found out about it or changed your signals. Well its never going to be perfect so leave it be, So lets not make it better because it can never be perfect isn't a good but not perfect system better then a bad system? All of these arguments were often used against instant replay and I would say the ability to challenge certain plays and have officials look at replays late in games and in OT is a good thing and makes the game better. Is replay perfect no but its better then nothing. NO ONE READS YOUR POSTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 11, 2010 Author Share Posted January 11, 2010 See, all of those analogies would make sense if the team that won the coin toss always won the game, but in a significant number of games; that does not happen. Aha! But in 30% of the games it does! Which means 30% of the time only one team gets the ball and wins. So it's okay to be unfair 30% of the time? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Aha! But in 30% of the games it does! Which means 30% of the time only one team gets the ball and wins. So it's okay to be unfair 30% of the time? PTR I just don't get why it has to be unfair in those instances when the team that won the coin toss also won the game on the first possession. Why can't it just be the other team's defense didn't do their job in those instances? I guess that's our hangup. You think it's unfair, I think it's part of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cash Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 30% of the time teams who got the ball 1st won the game on that drive. 60% of the time the team that gets the ball 1st wins. To me those are significant numbers. A coin toss just has too much to say on the outcome of a closely contested game. The NFL needs to change it to make it better. Is it going to be perfect no but it can get better. I think that you like the idea of Sudden death, that at any moment the game can end. I have a compromise for you and its a system I wouldn't have to big an issue with. You need to score a TD to win in OT, Field goals don't count (I don't know what you would do about safeties either they win you the game or you get the ball deep in your opponents territory but it can be worked out) and no you can't kick 2 field goals either. The 1st team in OT to score a TD wins. Now would it still allow for a 1st possession win BUT your defense or special teams would have to give up the entire field in order for this to happen. I would be fine with this system I think it still allows for that tense "Golden Goal" feeling while still retaining the nature of the game (No team hopes to take its opening drive for a field goal). Its a simple fix that appeases the fans but doesn't make any huge changes. What's wrong with 2 FGs? You have to put together a decent drive, then either get a stop and put together another decent drive, or get a turnover deep in your opponent's territory. And if your opponent, already down 3, elects to kick a FG, then they deserve what they get. That's Dick Jauron-style coaching right there. I like the first to 4 or 5 idea because that way, a TD or any other 2 scores wins you the game. Just a FG won't do it, but 2 FGs or a FG and a safety will do it. I feel like giving up a safety in OT should be an automatic loss. The fact that it currently is an automatic loss is one of the best (and also least-frequent) aspects of the current system. But I'd be willing to sacrifice it (since it never happens) for a system where both teams play like they do in the 1st quarter - i.e., only settling for a field goal if they were truly stopped by the D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 What's wrong with 2 FGs? You have to put together a decent drive, then either get a stop and put together another decent drive, or get a turnover deep in your opponent's territory. And if your opponent, already down 3, elects to kick a FG, then they deserve what they get. That's Dick Jauron-style coaching right there. I like the first to 4 or 5 idea because that way, a TD or any other 2 scores wins you the game. Just a FG won't do it, but 2 FGs or a FG and a safety will do it. I feel like giving up a safety in OT should be an automatic loss. The fact that it currently is an automatic loss is one of the best (and also least-frequent) aspects of the current system. But I'd be willing to sacrifice it (since it never happens) for a system where both teams play like they do in the 1st quarter - i.e., only settling for a field goal if they were truly stopped by the D. Honestly I would be OK with a 2 field goal wins system. BUT I think making it you need a TD (Or even a safety) to win is much more exciting. Any turnover deep makes it still feel like you have a chance. It makes it so that your defense always has a chance to make a stop and your offense really has to earn it. I just think having to score a TD brings a lot of drama like having a goal line stand always a possibility. To me 2 field goals would be lame (I would still find it acceptable over the current system) as it would suck a lot of drama out of the whole OT process. I would just like to see a TD system in place from a entertainment perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 12, 2010 Author Share Posted January 12, 2010 I just don't get why it has to be unfair in those instances when the team that won the coin toss also won the game on the first possession. Why can't it just be the other team's defense didn't do their job in those instances? I guess that's our hangup. You think it's unfair, I think it's part of the game. Well I have the absolute, shut-you-up, slam-dunk piece of evidence that proves the OT system is unfair: What percentage of teams choose to go on defense if they win the coin toss? 0.01%? Sure there is the one game where weather is a factor a team might....MIGHT...choose to defer. But under any normal circumstance the team winning the coin flip takes the ball. Why is that? Is it because it's easier to win the game playing offense rather than defense??? If it didn't matter who gets the ball first why do teams never choose to defend? GAME, SET, AND MATCH!!!! PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 that stat really surprises me, i was of the same opinion of PTR, but now I am not so sure I did a super quick search and from 2000-2007 that scenario occurred in 37 of 124 OT games. That's less than 30%. So in 70% of OT games both teams get the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Aha! But in 30% of the games it does! Which means 30% of the time only one team gets the ball and wins. So it's okay to be unfair 30% of the time? Remember the Comeback Game? As everyone was preparing for the OT coin toss, Todd Christensen (good player, awful broadcaster, IMO) said that after all that happened during regulation, the game was coming down to the serendipity of a coin toss. I still hate the argument about "one team getting the ball". Yes, one team gets the ball, but I would imagine it's more likely throughout the course of regulation that either team scores less often than they don't. The defenses are there for a reason. I still say the format is fine. If everyone feels the need to make a change to the rules, then make OT a full quarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 12, 2010 Author Share Posted January 12, 2010 Remember the Comeback Game? As everyone was preparing for the OT coin toss, Todd Christensen (good player, awful broadcaster, IMO) said that after all that happened during regulation, the game was coming down to the serendipity of a coin toss. I still hate the argument about "one team getting the ball". Yes, one team gets the ball, but I would imagine it's more likely throughout the course of regulation that either team scores less often than they don't. The defenses are there for a reason. I still say the format is fine. If everyone feels the need to make a change to the rules, then make OT a full quarter. Again I will say...why do teams who win the coin flip always take the ball? Because it's the better chance to win. Thus the coin flip bestows one team a huge advantage. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Again I will say...why do teams who win the coin flip always take the ball? Because it's the better chance to win. Thus the coin flip bestows one team a huge advantage. PTR Learn how to pick 'em, would be my best advice. Because the system isnt going to change anytime soon no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts