BillsWatch Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9369852...tiating-tactics The league does not want games decided by a coin toss, but the competition committee, which proposes rules changes, said the players were strong in their opposition to any change. The NFL never would adopt the goofy college rule, which is more of a shoot-out than a football game. But it also has resisted a simple fix of just moving the overtime kickoff back to the 35-yard line to restore the offense/defense balance that used to exist. I have read other articles on WHY they do not want the change is because they believe that their is an increased risk in changing the rules such as proposed for at least one TD score, if team receiving kick team scores a FG opposing team has chance to score a TD, etc. Do not let players say their first concern is winning in NFL - their first concern is not getting paid; there is nothing wrong with that but their is something wrong with being hypocritical saying such cliches as 'Anything we can do to give us a chance to win more I am in favor of' like we hear from speaking to press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9369852...tiating-tacticsThe league does not want games decided by a coin toss, but the competition committee, which proposes rules changes, said the players were strong in their opposition to any change. The NFL never would adopt the goofy college rule, which is more of a shoot-out than a football game. But it also has resisted a simple fix of just moving the overtime kickoff back to the 35-yard line to restore the offense/defense balance that used to exist. I have read other articles on WHY they do not want the change is because they believe that their is an increased risk in changing the rules such as proposed for at least one TD score, if team receiving kick team scores a FG opposing team has chance to score a TD, etc. Do not let players say their first concern is winning in NFL - their first concern is not getting paid; there is nothing wrong with that but their is something wrong with being hypocritical saying such cliches as 'Anything we can do to give us a chance to win more I am in favor of' like we hear from speaking to press. I'm no fan of the college OT in the pros. I agree it is much to close to a shootout. But, there is something flawed in the system, when the team that wins the coin toss also wins a disproportional number of the games. One way to try to close the gap (but still not subject the players to long, drawn out OTs) is: If the team who takes the first kickoff scores, the other team gets a chance...but they have to score more points than the other team. That is, if the first team got a FG, the team that gets one last chance has to score a TD. TD and extra point/TD and a deuce. The team that takes the first kickoff of OT can't go for a two-point conversion on their TD, even if they wanted to. After each team has had one possession...sudden death. If the D scores on the first possession, game over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I'm no fan of the college OT in the pros. I agree it is much to close to a shootout. But, there is something flawed in the system, when the team that wins the coin toss also wins a disproportional number of the games. One way to try to close the gap (but still not subject the players to long, drawn out OTs) is: If the team who takes the first kickoff scores, the other team gets a chance...but they have to score more points than the other team. That is, if the first team got a FG, the team that gets one last chance has to score a TD. TD and extra point/TD and a deuce. The team that takes the first kickoff of OT can't go for a two-point conversion on their TD, even if they wanted to. After each team has had one possession...sudden death. If the D scores on the first possession, game over. Nice, I like that. With that said, it makes way too much sense and will never happen (I guess that makes me a pessimist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yasin's BILLS Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 yeah too bad its old news. they reported it like last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haven Moses Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 The college OT is growing on me. I kinda like it now. If it were up to me, the team that gets the ball first has to score a TD to win. If they get a FG, the other team shoud get one chance with the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I'm glad they are not changing it. I like it the way it is. Two reasons: 1. Simplicity 2. Sudden death is cool I don't feel bad for a team that loses in OT on the first possession. They should have either (a) won it in regulation or (b) played better defense in OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I'm glad they are not changing it. I like it the way it is. Two reasons:1. Simplicity 2. Sudden death is cool I don't feel bad for a team that loses in OT on the first possession. They should have either (a) won it in regulation or (b) played better defense in OT. ...© done a better job of calling the coin toss! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I'm no fan of the college OT in the pros. I agree it is much to close to a shootout. But, there is something flawed in the system, when the team that wins the coin toss also wins a disproportional number of the games. One way to try to close the gap (but still not subject the players to long, drawn out OTs) is: If the team who takes the first kickoff scores, the other team gets a chance...but they have to score more points than the other team. That is, if the first team got a FG, the team that gets one last chance has to score a TD. TD and extra point/TD and a deuce. The team that takes the first kickoff of OT can't go for a two-point conversion on their TD, even if they wanted to. After each team has had one possession...sudden death. If the D scores on the first possession, game over. Actually, that's a misconception. According to a USA Today article, the team that has won the toss has won 169 times (52.0%). And both teams have had possession 235 times (72.3%). Based on those umbers, I would argue that history has shown that in the majority of overtimes, both teams do get the ball and therefore a chance to win the game. So, IMO, no reason to fix what's not broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizell Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I like OT the way it is. Good call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Actually, that's a misconception. According to a USA Today article, the team that has won the toss has won 169 times (52.0%). And both teams have had possession 235 times (72.3%). Based on those umbers, I would argue that history has shown that in the majority of overtimes, both teams do get the ball and therefore a chance to win the game. So, IMO, no reason to fix what's not broken. Well that is interesting. While I think that article is from 2003, I can't believe much has occurred to change the overall numbers by very much. I swear I have heard, a number of time, on NFL broadcasts, and ESPN roundtable discussions, that the coin toss winner accounted for over 60% of OT wins. I wonder where they have been getting their numbers? As a research guy, my response is "show me the data!", but if we assume McPaper is correct, then I agree, no change is necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Well that is interesting. While I think that article is from 2003, I can't believe much has occurred to change the overall numbers by very much. I swear I have heard, a number of time, on NFL broadcasts, and ESPN roundtable discussions, that the coin toss winner accounted for over 60% of OT wins. I wonder where they have been getting their numbers? As a research guy, my response is "show me the data!", but if we assume McPaper is correct, then I agree, no change is necessary. You got me to thinking.. .so here's more from a 2009 NPR Article: During the first five years of overtime, the team that won the coin flip, and therefore received the ball first, was 15-16-1. This was in an era of 62 percent field-goal accuracy, when kickoffs were from a team's 40-yard line. But in the past five years, field-goal accuracy has increased by 20 percent and the kickoff has been moved back 10 yards. So over the five years that ended in 2008, the team that received the ball first won the game 62 percent of the time. That's statistically significant. In 2008, the coin flip winners were 11-4-1. Perhaps we're both right? Interesting point in that snippet for me was the idea that field goal kickers were having a big impact in the overtime results. Makes sense, when you think about it. I just hadn't thought about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 You got me to thinking.. .so here's more from a 2009 NPR Article: Perhaps we're both right? Interesting point in that snippet for me was the idea that field goal kickers were having a big impact in the overtime results. Makes sense, when you think about it. I just hadn't thought about it. Excellent work, Dan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Based on the affect of the FG to the increase in wins for the team winning the coin toss, seems like a simple fix would be this: 1. Rules are the same, except, if the team winning a coin toss kicks a FG then the opposing team gets the ball once. 2. Any TD ends the game at any point. 3. If no team scores on either first possession, game goes to first score wins, including a FG. 4. If both teams score a FG on first possesion, then game goes to first score wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Based on the affect of the FG to the increase in wins for the team winning the coin toss, seems like a simple fix would be this: 1. Rules are the same, except, if the team winning a coin toss kicks a FG then the opposing team gets the ball once. 2. Any TD ends the game at any point. 3. If no team scores on either first possession, game goes to first score wins, including a FG. 4. If both teams score a FG on first possesion, then game goes to first score wins. I don't think the players go for that, but who knows. Under your scenario, I think if the 1st team kicks a FG, the other team should have to go for a TD...but, of course, that's JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Based on the affect of the FG to the increase in wins for the team winning the coin toss, seems like a simple fix would be this: 1. Rules are the same, except, if the team winning a coin toss kicks a FG then the opposing team gets the ball once. 2. Any TD ends the game at any point. 3. If no team scores on either first possession, game goes to first score wins, including a FG. 4. If both teams score a FG on first possesion, then game goes to first score wins. Convoluted. Inelegant. Awkward. Ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 They should break the tie by playing a round of 43-Man Squamish... http://www.collectmad.com/madcoversite/ind...z_olympics.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Why don't they just have it that the other team has to match the score if the team that wins the toss scores right after the coin toss? If the the team trying to match throws a pick or fumble, lose... It becomes sudden death after the second score. EDIT: Oh... If the team that wins the toss kicks a FG, then the team going to match gets more points, that team wins. This would stop teams from maybe going for FG's off the bat. ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I don't think the players go for that, but who knows. Under your scenario, I think if the 1st team kicks a FG, the other team should have to go for a TD...but, of course, that's JMO. I thought about that, but the problem is this. The coin toss winner has a big advantage and a shorter field under your suggestion. So, not only do they have the advantage of having the ball first, but now they have to do less with it. Someone posted stats that show a dramatic advantage in the last 5 years for teams winning the coint toss and then winning the game becuase of the impact of the FG and its accuracy increasing. So, my suggestion would neutralize that by allowing the opposing team to either match the FG or win outright by scoring a TD. If both score a FG, then both had equal chance to win and didn't, so the next team to score (even if it’s a FG) wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Why don't they just have it that the other team has to match the score if the team that wins the toss scores right after the coin toss? Throw a pick or fumble, lose... It becomes sudden death after the second score. That is essentially what I am suggesting, however, if the opening drive results in a TD, game over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 They should break the tie by playing a round of 43-Man Squamish... http://www.collectmad.com/madcoversite/ind...z_olympics.html Holy crap, Cincy, I remember that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 That is essentially what I am suggesting, however, if the opening drive results in a TD, game over. I don't like that because you have to give the other team a chance to "match" or die. Then, there is the choice of two to win or one PAT to force the game into sudden death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I don't like that because you have to give the other team a chance to "match" or die. Then, there is the choice of two to win or one PAT to force the game into sudden death. As long as we're getting crazy here, proposing rules that will never be adopted, here's another one I like: If a team decides to kick the extra point, to tie a game in the last minute of regulation, the other team gets to receive in OT. Go for two, pu$$ies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I like the college OT and it would work in the NFL if each team started at the 50 . With that said, they need to allow for another possession to 'match'. The fact that any tie game can be decided on a combination between a coin toss and a questionable penalty should scream change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Actually, that's a misconception. According to a USA Today article, the team that has won the toss has won 169 times (52.0%). And both teams have had possession 235 times (72.3%). Based on those umbers, I would argue that history has shown that in the majority of overtimes, both teams do get the ball and therefore a chance to win the game. So, IMO, no reason to fix what's not broken. Exactly. The coin toss myth is complete bullsh-- and no one has come up with a better way to handle OT than the current format (the college OT rules are a complete joke). Thank goodness for a rare victory for common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Why not keep the rules the exact same with one minor exception... The initial coin toss of the game determines who receives. Why not make whoever receives the opening kick also receives the overtime kickoff. It would give more potential importance to the decision to defer the opening kickoff if you win the coin toss. So Team A receives opening kick. Team B gets 2nd half kickoff. Team A then gets the overtime kickoff, if needed. Right now the vast majority of coaches are deferring the opening kickoff, make them think about that decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I think the team that loses the coin toss should be given a chance to make it 2 out of 3, if they can answer a series of pop trivia questions. Then 3 out of 5, etc… with gradually more difficult questions. Of course, the home team would have the advantage of fans shouting answers. Seriously though, you know what would be kind of fun? No punts in overtime! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 ^^^^ Thats a good idea. I could live with that for now. (the opening kickoff idea) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 How 'bout a giant spinning wheel that they bring out at the start of overtime and each team spins it so see how many points they need to win the game? The values range from 2 to 11. The hard part? You can't go over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Exactly. The coin toss myth is complete bullsh-- and no one has come up with a better way to handle OT than the current format (the college OT rules are a complete joke). Thank goodness for a rare victory for common sense. Did you miss his follow-up post showing that, now the team that wins the coin toss wins 62% of the games, and last year "the coin flip winners were 11-4-1"? So, it's really not a myth. The data in Dan's original post was older, and not reflective of the current OT situation. Whether the rule should be changed, or not, is another matter entirely, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I like the college OT and it would work in the NFL if each team started at the 50 . With that said, they need to allow for another possession to 'match'. The fact that any tie game can be decided on a combination between a coin toss and a questionable penalty should scream change. Exactly... That is all I am saying... Until Deano had to get snarky. Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Exactly. The coin toss myth is complete bullsh-- and no one has come up with a better way to handle OT than the current format (the college OT rules are a complete joke). Thank goodness for a rare victory for common sense. You know with the original rules to basketball, inventor of the game, James Naismith wanted to have a jump ball after every basket made... Kinda like a face-off at center ice. You probably say: "What does that have to do with anything?" It doesn't, except that there are two distinct sides of the ball (O and D) in American football and letting a coin decide may handicap one team over the other... Just as shear player height USUALLY dictates in basketball. The only thing hockey has over the other sports is with the face off where skill dictates winning the draw is an inherent not dependent on luck or physical attributes. It is almost as equal as you can get. Maybe they can have a scrum, rugby style instead of the coin-toss... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I don't like that because you have to give the other team a chance to "match" or die. Then, there is the choice of two to win or one PAT to force the game into sudden death. I think you misread what I wrote...any TD wins at all times, even on opening drive. There will be no extra point attempt on any TD scored. If the team wins the coin toss comes out and kicks a FG, the defending team gets the ball one time to either tie with their own FG and force sudden death (first to score wins, even on a FG) or win outright with a TD. If the opening drive by the team winning the coin toss scores a TD, game over...the other does not get a chance to match. I will say though, I also like someone elses idea mentioned in this thread about making the decision tied to the opening coin toss to start the game... I would make the coin toss chocies this: If you recieve the ball to start the game, then you kick to start overtime. If you kick the ball to start the game, you recieve in OT. Kicking team in OT gets to choose which direction (wind). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Did you miss his follow-up post showing that, now the team that wins the coin toss wins 62% of the games, and last year "the coin flip winners were 11-4-1"? One year's stats are almost meaningless. As for the recent five year trend, that's not necessarily the new standard, just the recent data. Are FG kickers really that much better in the last five years? That doesn't quite seem right to me. I'd guess that eliminating the statistical anomalies would leave a true advantage somewhere in the 55%-59% range, which is acceptable compared to the awful alternatives. Hell, if you're playing the Pats* or Steelers, you have a much worse chance than that just from the officiating and no one seems to be in a hurry to change that. Maybe they can have a scrum, rugby style instead of the coin-toss... Now that I would support! But your point about basketball is a good one. Basketball teams don't necessarily get an equal # of possessions during the OT. Actually, amid all the horrible ideas in this thread, I think Dan had an interesting one. The coin flip at the start of the game determines the rights for the rest of the game, including OT. The team that take the option at the start of the first half also has it for the start of the OT (the '3d half'). Thus there is a cost to deferring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 One year's stats are almost meaningless. As for the recent five year trend, that's not necessarily the new standard, just the recent data. Are FG kickers really that much better in the last five years? That doesn't quite seem right to me. I'd guess that eliminating the statistical anomalies would leave a true advantage somewhere in the 55%-59% range, which is acceptable compared to the awful alternatives. Hell, if you're playing the Pats* or Steelers, you have a much worse chance than that just from the officiating and no one seems to be in a hurry to change that. FG accuracy has increased, but the biggest difference is the movement of the kickoff LOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 They could also do it like the XFL where they let 2 guys go get the ball...who ever gets has first choice...it actually wasnt a bad idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 NFL overtime makes as much sense as having an NHL shootout where the first shooter scores and that's it. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 They could also do it like the XFL where they let 2 guys go get the ball...who ever gets has first choice...it actually wasnt a bad idea... Perhaps you missed the first ever XFL game when one of the guys separated his shoulder going for the ball and missed the rest of the season... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 NFL overtime makes as much sense as having an NHL shootout where the first shooter scores and that's it. PTR Or if baseball had a sudden death overtime where the game could end on a run in the top of the 10th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Perhaps you missed the first ever XFL game when one of the guys separated his shoulder going for the ball and missed the rest of the season... Injuries are part of the sport...lol Ok, how about each team picks one guy and they have a sumo style match at mid field. When they paint the field they can put a cirlce at mid field. First person to push the other guy out of the circle essentially wins the coin toss...LMAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts