PDA

View Full Version : Poll: NFL to Vote on OT Changes Next Week


strafen
03-17-2010, 09:44 PM
What do you guys think of the new rules to-be?

In a move that will be hailed as salvation by people who enjoy complaining about things that aren't actual problems, the NFL is moving toward changing its overtime rules from sudden death to...well, something that makes far less sense.

The NFL's competition committee will submit what it's calling a "modified sudden death" proposal to owners at next week's league meetings in Orlando, and it 75 percent of the teams approve the new plan, overtime rules will be changed for next year's playoffs and Super Bowl. Under the proposed change, the team that possesses the ball first in overtime could still win the game on its first possession -- but only if it scores a touchdown. If the team that gets the ball first kicks a field goal on its first possession, it would then have to kick off, and the opposing team would get a chance to tie or win the game. If that team then kicks a field goal to tie the game, the format reverts to sudden death from that point.

"In the past, people have been quick to say that our system works very well and so why would we change it?" competition committee co-chair Rich McKay said on a conference call Wednesday morning. "And that's always been a blocking point to change. In this case, we just try to make a statistical argument that the time has come to change and to innovate a little bit. It's pretty clear there's been a change."

27
ShareMcKay said he doesn't know if the new proposal will get enough support at next week's meeting to be enacted. The competition committee has been meeting in Naples, Fla., for the past six days, and the league meetings begin Monday morning. For the sake of the league, McKay ought to hope that the thing gets voted down, because it's little more than a gimmicky solution to something that's not really a problem.

Now, McKay has numbers that he says indicate otherwise. He says that from 1974 (when sudden-death overtime was adopted) through 1993 (the last year before they moved the kickoff), teams winning the overtime coin toss won 46.8 percent of overtime games, and teams losing the coin toss also won 46.8 percent. McKay says that from 1994 through 2009, teams winning the coin toss won 59.8 percent of overtime games, and teams losing the coin toss won 38.5 percent. Additionally, he says that the team winning the coin toss won the game with a first-possession field goal 17.9 percent of the time from 1974 to 1993 and that from 1994 through 2009, that number was 26.2 percent.

My question is: So what? Overtime is a tiebreaker. You're supposed to win the game in regulation. If you don't, you know for a fact they're going to flip a coin and decide who gets the ball first for sudden-death overtime. This provides incentive to win the game in regulation. Critics of overtime point to this year's NFC Championship game, which is ridiculous. The Vikings had 16,000 chances to win that game in regulation. When they didn't, they knew exactly what would happen as a result. Nobody sprung some crazy new rule on them when the game ended.

The motivation for this change appears to be that kickers have become too good. McKay cited changes in field position (as a result of the 1994 kickoff rule change) and improved accuracy of kickers as the reason overtime has become too slanted toward the team that wins the toss. This indicates that the league would rather have its overtime games decided by plays from scrimmage than in the kicking game, though when asked that question directly McKay didn't say yes.

The kicking game has become, and the field goal accuracy has become, exceptional," McKay said. "Accordingly, you now have a situation where, if you have a great return or one long platy from scrimmage, you're in field goal range and the game is over. And in our mind, that probably wouldn't have happened prior to 1993 as much."

McKay also said the current system gives an advantage to teams that construct their rosters to include kickoff specialists and return specialists. Goodness, no! Does he mean to say teams aren't allowed to employ certain players that might give them an advantage on special teams, just because other teams might decide not to?

What's next? A rule to de-emphasize passing plays because they favor teams that have really good quarterbacks?

This sounds like people with too much time on their hands. And frankly, the "solution" they've proposed to this "problem" is silly. The game can still end without each team getting a chance to touch the ball -- especially if one of those dastardly speedy return men takes the overtime kickoff all the way back to the end zone. All they've done is come out and say field goals are a bad way to end a game. If that's the case, why have kicking at all?

McKay's stats show the game has changed. Big deal. If they enact this new rule, teams are going to scheme and plan and find ways to beat it. That's the way it goes. NFL overtime is fine as a tiebreaker, and the NFL really should leave it alone. At least until they come up with something obviously better. Which this is not.http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/03/17/nfl-to-vote-on-overtime-changes-next-week/

broncosteven
03-18-2010, 12:58 AM
I thought this was going to be about Off Topic forum changes!

LOL

I would like to see the games go back to ties during the regular season. And during the post season play 7 minute and 30 second quarters, kinda like hockey does, until there is a clear victor.

Don't do it in the offseason because games could go way too long but who cares during the Playoffs. Also this would allow the Networks to schedule games so that the 2nd set of games don't get blacked out until the 1st set of the days action is still going during overtime.

The above or

Just do 1 10 minute period (no sudden death) play the full period for both RS and Playoffs. If one team puts up scores 21 points to the other teams 10 then they win by 11 big deal I would rather watch that then a FG to win.

UberBroncoMan
03-18-2010, 01:37 AM
I wouldn't mind a first to 6 points thing going on, but that doesn't look exactly like what this is going towards.

The MVPlaya
03-18-2010, 01:55 AM
It's a step in the right direction... I think it's too complex. I guess the rules have to be limited to a certain point because you don't want ties to be showing up either.

Make it simple - first person to take a lead of 4 or more wins the game

uplink
03-18-2010, 02:00 AM
It's a step in the right direction... I think it's too complex. I guess the rules have to be limited to a certain point because you don't want ties to be showing up either.

Make it simple - first person to take a lead of 4 or more wins the game

sound good, also i guess if one team leads by 3 after the period then they win.

Garcia Bronco
03-18-2010, 05:46 AM
Gay.

chex
03-18-2010, 06:07 AM
As I have said and believed for too long now:

One possession per team, if tied after that, next score wins.

chrisp
03-18-2010, 06:16 AM
I've got a degree of sympathy with what the guy says in the article - I don't think overtime as it is is a massive problem, however I don't think that the new rules are as over-complex as he suggests. Sounds pretty simple to me , and its something that a lot of people have been asking for for a long time, so they didn't just pull it our of their asses....

Also, compared to other sports American foootball IS over-officiated and over-complicated - its part of the charm dagnabbit!!!

This guy is probably just not very bright....

StugotsIII
03-18-2010, 06:23 AM
How hard is it to simply give each team 1 chance to score points?

broncosteven
03-18-2010, 06:37 AM
How hard is it to simply give each team 1 chance to score points?

How hard is it to play a 5 or 10 minute quarter?

Then if still tied after that the kickers should do a "Kick off" with full rush, 4 kicks starting at the 25 yard line and move back 5 yards after each attempt.

LOL

broncosteven
03-18-2010, 06:39 AM
OOOHHH I got it!

If tied after regulation they should have 1 player from each team run the Battle of the football stars obstacle course. Or have each teams QB do a QB challenge throwing at moving targets.

That would be tits.

CHANGSTER
03-18-2010, 08:13 AM
Regular season- One 10 min quarter. Tied after that- its a tie.

Playoffs- One 10 min quarter. Tied after that- sudden death.

This makes the most sense to me. May increase the num of ties in reg season and prolong a playoff game or two, but thats not an actual problem imo.

StugotsIII
03-18-2010, 08:16 AM
Get rid of ties...


Why bother playing the game?

atomicbloke
03-18-2010, 08:49 AM
The NFL OT should be made in to a TRUE sudden death....

The OT should have ONLY one possession.... if the team getting the ball first scores, they win... just like now..... but if they fail to score on that possession, the other team automatically wins.... true sudden death....

It will ensure that the team winning the coin flip won't automatically choose to receive the kick-off.... teams will go with what is their strongest suit.... if the team has good D, they will choose to kickoff.... if they have a good O, they will choose to receive.... it'll make OT more exciting, since the team with the ball will be in 4th down territory immediately.... and both teams will have equal pressure on them....

BroncoBen
03-18-2010, 10:23 AM
It's a step in the right direction... I think it's too complex. I guess the rules have to be limited to a certain point because you don't want ties to be showing up either.

Make it simple - first person to take a lead of 4 or more wins the game

How is the proposed rule too complex? If you get the ball and score a Touchdown you win, puts the pressure on the defense to make a stop.

To me it stops the BS of just driving down the field and kicking a field goal to win.

If a team scores field goal to go up by 3, then you get the ball back and either score a TD for the win, or go into sudden death with a field goal to tie the game.

At least a team would have a chance to make something happen.

TailgateNut
03-18-2010, 10:28 AM
sound good, also i guess if one team leads by 3 after the period then they win.


I like it!

broncosteven
03-18-2010, 11:12 AM
The NFL OT should be made in to a TRUE sudden death....

The OT should have ONLY one possession.... if the team getting the ball first scores, they win... just like now..... but if they fail to score on that possession, the other team automatically wins.... true sudden death....

It will ensure that the team winning the coin flip won't automatically choose to receive the kick-off.... teams will go with what is their strongest suit.... if the team has good D, they will choose to kickoff.... if they have a good O, they will choose to receive.... it'll make OT more exciting, since the team with the ball will be in 4th down territory immediately.... and both teams will have equal pressure on them....

That is interesting.

I think that the coin flip at the start of the game should decide who gets the ball in the OT. Teams might not go for the FG to tie with a minute or 2 to go and hope for a defensive stand and luck in OT. maybe then more teams would go for it on 4th down.

scttgrd
03-18-2010, 11:15 AM
Leave it like it is, they pay the defensive players too.

Shoemaker
03-18-2010, 11:44 AM
Leave it like it is, they pay the defensive players too.

Exactly.

It seems like people who whine that overtime is "unfair" now because the team that scores first wins forget that defense is just as much a part of the game as offense.

I'm just not sure why a team deserves "another chance" to tie the game if their defense wasn't good enough to stop the other team's offense.

TexanBob
03-18-2010, 01:19 PM
If it is still tied in regulation, you bring the cheerleading squads onto the field and hold a pencil test for a tiebreaker. The squad with the higher percentage of cheerleaders that can hold a pencil under their boob when removing their hands wins the overtime. Feminists and Baptists will be upset but tv ratings will climb.

Garcia Bronco
03-18-2010, 01:50 PM
Leave it like it is, they pay the defensive players too.

Agreed. I do like the Atomic solution

NYBronco
03-18-2010, 01:54 PM
I would like to see both teams get at least one offensive posession. After all the previous 4 quarters were played as a team (offense, defense and special) effort.
Play one 15 minute OT quarter and end the game. Ties at the end of the year could be more interesting to determine the final playoff spots.

bowtown
03-18-2010, 01:55 PM
leave it like it is, they pay the defensive players too.

+1

Hogan11
03-18-2010, 03:24 PM
Leave the game alone.

Blart
03-18-2010, 03:46 PM
If you can't win the game in 4 quarters, you deserve a tie.

REMOVE OVERTIME! Bring the tie back! McNabb 2012

Kaylore
03-18-2010, 07:30 PM
I've got a degree of sympathy with what the guy says in the article - I don't think overtime as it is is a massive problem, however I don't think that the new rules are as over-complex as he suggests. Sounds pretty simple to me , and its something that a lot of people have been asking for for a long time, so they didn't just pull it our of their asses....

Also, compared to other sports American foootball IS over-officiated and over-complicated - its part of the charm dagnabbit!!!

This guy is probably just not very bright....

I agree with this post.

Arkie
03-18-2010, 08:11 PM
Exactly.

It seems like people who whine that overtime is "unfair" now because the team that scores first wins forget that defense is just as much a part of the game as offense.

I'm just not sure why a team deserves "another chance" to tie the game if their defense wasn't good enough to stop the other team's offense.

Because both team's defenses can't stop the other team's offenses. You can't rely on a coin flip.