OT - New NFL overtime rules. Which system do you like better?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5022064
So the NFL changed the OT rules as expected. I still like the college system better. It gives each team an equal chance. But there are some interesting strategy implications in the new NFL rules that could create a lot of water cooler talk.
Typo in title. "rulse"- Tryin' to be helpful.
A change was needed, that's for sure. Coin flips should not determine outcomes.
thanks. typo corrected.
sure, np.
Thanks for sharing.
I've always liked this idea of bidding based on field position for the ball first in OT. If you're confident in your offense, you're willing to start from further back. First score wins. Adds a whole lot of excitement, and more fair, IME.
Obviously the college system still blows the NFL system out of the water. Although because I like college football so much more than pro football, I hope the NFL doesn't adopt it.
I hear you.
College Football > NFL
By miles.
I barely watch NFL and haven't watched a whole game in several years.
this goes for the NBA as well? Safe to assume?
That is correct.
Playing for championships instead of contract extensions.
This is an improvement, but honestly, I'd just copy the college format (but maybe with the ball at the 35, since NFL kickers are better). I don't understand why this rule is only going to apply to the postseason. Is it fair to have sudden-death in the regular season if it isn't in the playoffs?
I believe the concern is about the length of games, esp the early games on doubleheader days; the league wants to get the early games done and out of the way for the second time slot.
The reason the proposal is only for the playoffs is player safety. "We are very concerned about injuries occurring, which is the one great reason it has not been proposed before," Polian added.Link: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5018874
Hockey has a different system from regular season to the playoffs, always has. Few groused about it when there was no overtime in the regular season. Few complained when they added the 5 minute overtime. The bleating grew a little louder when they went to shoot outs. But bless their souls, the one thing the NHL has not screwed up is playoff overtime. Nothing like watching a series clinching game go into triple overtime.
You just can't do that in football. You need some system that resolves the tie, provides a measure of fairness, retains the integrity of the game [including all aspects of the game, inc. kicking field goals], and gets it resolved as quickly as possible so as to prevent a spike in injuries due to the tiredness of the athletes. The new rules are a little clunky but they work, and they avoid the one potential downfall of the college system [even if college ball has the better system over all] in that there is no sudden death.
I love watching overtime college football, but there is nothing that compares to the excitement of an overtime playoff hockey game.
...but there are too many "ifs," ands," and "buts" for me. They should either do it like college or just play an overtime period like hockey or basketball.
For that matter, they should do it in the regular season, too.
It shouldn't matter if a touchdown or field goal is scored, the other team should either get a chance or not. This rule seems pretty arbitrary, and more fitting to a game of quidditch.
I like the "first team to six" rule. Two field goals or a touchdown to win it.
But it's unnecessarily complicated. They should just get it over with and adopt the far superior college overtime system, except with midfield the starting position. (I'd actually like to see the NCAA consider moving the OT starting position back a bit, too; I don't like having teams automatically in field goal range.)
The college system doesn't give teams an equal chance. Teams that win the toss still win substantially more often than teams that don't because they get to go on defense first. There are superior alternatives.
It's become conventional wisdom that going second in OT is advantageous, because you know what is needed to tie or win. But do the numbers actually bear this out?
Yes. I read an article on it a while ago. If I remember correctly it was nearly as bad as the NFL's OT bias. This really shouldn't be surprising, it's simple game theory. I'll see if I can dig it up.
the article. I can get where it is a advantage for the team that wins the flip, but if it goes into a second set, they are at the disadvantage. Works out pretty well imo.
Damn if only we could have had this rule a couple of years ago... Nahh Marty Morningweg probably still would have taken the wind.
The changes outlined in the ESPN article are workable, but a tad clunky in my mind. Certainly better than what they have now. The college system is definitely better. What I do like about the change is that they keep all elements of the game [as opposed to first team to score a TD wins] and they protect the players from a protacted overtime. It seems unlikely that you will have an overtime extended much beyond three, perhaps four posessions ordinarily. It will also induce more risk taking in the first two posssessions as there is a lot of incentive to score the TD and end it right then. If you are the team to lose the toss and get that second possession, you really want to score the TD bacause if you hand the ball back again, on that third possession a field goal wins it. Not a bad solution. College is better though.
Was make the first coin flip decide the overtime possession as well. So if you defer to the second half (a strategic advantage), you also give up possession in OT. So if you receive first, you get the ball in OT.
Or, bust out the old XFL jump-ball rule: you want the ball? Go get it.
Personally I prefer the college system because it is exciting and fair to both sides - frequent scoring is also more entertaining than a series of punt exchanges, which you can get in the NFL.
Having said that I understand the NFL is loathe to change anything about a game that is by all measures wildly successful. The change they are making is not that dramatic - a TD on the first drive still wins. They are taking away the short first drive for a long field goal that ends the game - fair enough.
I think it could be written better, as outlined by ESPN, bc there seems to be some room for grey area.
A pick-6 would probably end the game, as an interception would be a change of possession. But what if team A got an interception off of team B but then fumbled on the return. If team B drove for a field goal, is the game over? Did team A really have a possession?
What about a safety?
After a field goal, if a team kicked an onside kick and recovered, is the game over?
Most likely these issues will never come up, but then again, we never thought there would be an issue with a Tuck rule. All it takes is one game. I'd hate for there to be any loopholes in this rule change.
Yes the game would end on a pick-6 as the intercepting team did not receive the kickoff.
"But what if team A got an interception off of team B but then fumbled on the return. If team B drove for a field goal, is the game over? Did team A really have a possession?
- Game over as the interception is a change of possession (by rule) regardless of the subsequent fumble.
"What about a safety?"
- Game over as the team receiving the kickoff did not score with their opportunity.
"After a field goal, if a team kicked an onside kick and recovered, is the game over?"
- Game over because the team with the field goal kicked off and the other team failed to score - they had "the opportunity to possess the ball" and did not score.
I believe the rules are clear - the only thing they are really eliminating is the winning field goal on the first possession.
"Statistics examined by the committee showed that since 1994, teams winning the coin toss win the game 59.8 percent of the time. The team that loses the toss wins the game 38.5 percent in that 15-year span."
How does that not equal 100%?
ties?
The rest were ties.
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:07 PM ^
The other 1.7% were called by Big Ten officiating crews.