View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 21st, 2014, 1:41 am



Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 NFL to vote on new OT rules 
Author Message
Junior Varsity

Joined: March 30th, 2009, 11:55 pm
Posts: 182
Post 
I honestly don't see how a massive altering of the OT rules to fit the college style "with a little tweaking" would be acceptable... but what amounts to minor change that would actually impact very few games to start is "ridiculous".

If someone takes that opening drive and ends up putting it in the end zone there will be no change from the current system (except that they actually had to work for it instead of being able to put it on their kicker from the 30+ yard line). If someone takes the opening possession and does nothing, there won't be any change either.

I just don't see where it's that gamebreaking a change, and should actually improve the quality of postseason OTs. Happy to see it passed :twisted: .


March 24th, 2010, 2:44 pm
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2283
Post 
This was a great change that has been needed for years. It is a little more complicated than a simple change like "You have to get 4 pts to win in OT" but has a similar effect. Whoc ares how complex it sounds, it will actually make OT better. Here is my point for point answer for the naysayers.

Wayne Fontes wrote:
I said it before and i'll say it again, I hate this rule. It's silly and arbitrary now and even worse then before. Why is it just in the playoffs? Why do both teams need to get a possession? PLAY DEFENSE! Just because you can't stop a team doesn't mean it's unfair. If you look at the numbers it wasn't an overwhelming number of teams that win the coin toss win the game. It was 60-40. If it was 70-30 or 80-20 then sure it would warrant a change, but not now. Another thing that bothers me is that it downplays the role of the kicker somewhat as well.


You are correct. It is 60-40. However, 20% is a HUGE Margin of unfairness in a BILLION Dollar Industry at the end of a 3 hr football game that cost millions to produce, to give an arbitrary 20% advantage to either team is just plain silly. It needed to be fixed. Otherwise it is not too dissimilar from say, making them play an extra 15 Minute quarter, but giving 1 team a free 3 points. Its 15 minutes, and only 3 points. It only a Small Advantage. That doesnt make it any less unfair. If the marginw as less than 5% you would have a point.

Quote:
The fact that Minnesota, the team that got the short end of the stick, voted no, is surprising. I think that the NFL looked at the rule because of that game.


While it is Ironic that Minn voted No, the league didnt looka t it because of this game. The Competition Comittee has discussed this issue for YEARS , almost a full decade now. Now that Public Perception has noticed how retarded it is, they finally had the impetus to get the owners to vote the change that they have known was needed for years. This is not a new issue (its about as New as the "College FB needs a Playoff" argument.

Quote:
If there was going to be a better scenario then the new rule and previous rule, I think it would be to just play 8 or 10 minutes more and whoever is up at the end of that time wins. If they are still tied, keep going. That's how it is in the rest of the major sports (except for shootouts...field goal kicking contest?)


They already explained why they did not like this options. Teams(Owners, Coaches, Players) would not allow for a guaranteed extra period. Too much extended Risk of Injury, Player Fatigue, No Extra Pay for extra Hours, TV Contract Issues , etc. An Extra period is just not an option in Football.

They wanted a somewhat more fiar system, that gives each team the opportunity to touch the ball (You arent guranteed a possession since they can still onside kick it) while keeping it a Sudden Death Scenario in most cases.

Again, while the rule sounds complex, it actually will do what it is supposed to, which is balance OT a little bit.


March 24th, 2010, 4:19 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Post 
CalvintheBeast wrote:
I honestly don't see how a massive altering of the OT rules to fit the college style "with a little tweaking" would be acceptable... but what amounts to minor change that would actually impact very few games to start is "ridiculous".


I didn't say that a small change would be ridiculous, while a big change would be acceptable. What I did say was that it is ridiculous that a whole season's worth of work can come down to a coin flip, ergo the status quo is also ridiculous.


March 24th, 2010, 4:59 pm
Junior Varsity

Joined: March 30th, 2009, 11:55 pm
Posts: 182
Post 
wjb21ndtown wrote:
CalvintheBeast wrote:
I honestly don't see how a massive altering of the OT rules to fit the college style "with a little tweaking" would be acceptable... but what amounts to minor change that would actually impact very few games to start is "ridiculous".


I didn't say that a small change would be ridiculous, while a big change would be acceptable. What I did say was that it is ridiculous that a whole season's worth of work can come down to a coin flip, ergo the status quo is also ridiculous.


LOL. Sorry... guess I'm going to have to resort to the quote pyramid more. It was actually more in response to Wayne Fontes's statements then yours:

[quote= "Wayne Fontes"]I think this is bogus. I have no problem with the current system. If they truly wanted a fair shake then they should just play the way they do in college, but tweaked. The fact that they have these exceptions makes it silly.[/quote]

[quote= "Wayne Fontes"]I also heard, but have not been able to substantiate it yet, that even though the team that gets the ball first wins 60 percent of the time, the number of teams won it on their first possession is only like 35%. If that's true then this rule change is even more ridiculous.[/quote]

Of course... since you brought it up....

wjb21ndtown wrote:
I disagree and I think you're #'s are inaccurate. I think it is more like 70% of the time the team getting the ball in OT wins.

That said, this new rule is silly. I don't want to see the exact same situation as college, because it is too easy to score in college (they damn near give you the ball in FG range), but I would like to see something like a regular kickoff to each team, or each team gets an opportunity from THEIR 35 (rather than the opposing teams 35).

It just seems ridiculous that an entire season can come down to a coin flip. Especially in the NFL, where the salary cap seems to dictate that you can't be great on both sides of the ball (good maybe, but I don't think any team has been truly great on both sides of the ball). It's unfair for teams that are offense heavy to never even get to showcase their talent in OT.


I actually agree with you to a point, but don't see where these new rules are that much worse from what you proposed. Maybe that would indeed be the next logic step (each team getting at least one possession regardless). My feeling is that this is, at the least, a good first step to fixing what I feel borders on a broken OT system, sometimes you gotta walk before you run though... especially when you're dealing with a lot of old school owner-types.

Between the increased range and accuracy of kickers and all these rule changes to promote/ favor the offenses it seems that the OT coin flip has become too important. I just don't want to see the college OT rules enacted. They're fine... for college. I personally don't like their fit for the pro game however; imo it would be like deciding a NHL playoff game with a shootout.


March 24th, 2010, 11:38 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.