There is a lot of discussions on other forums about the NFL Overtime System, and how it needs to be changed.Many don't believe it's "fair" to decide the first possession of OT by a coin flip, and if you lose the flip, your team may never get a chance in overtime on offense.
Instead, they'd like to see the college system implemented, where each team gets a possession, and the game continues until the team that scored keeps the other team from scoring.
In my opinion, I LOVE the NFL Sudden Death Overtime system. Whether your team wins the toss or not, your players have to execute, and everything is on the line on every play.
I hate the college system because it embodies the "community soccer" philosphy of everything being fair and everyone getting equal opportunity.
Face it, life is not fair. Probability and chance are a large part of the enjoyment and outcome of athletic competition, so the coin flip is no different than the ball bouncing your way (or not) on a critical play. Besides, if your team had 60 minutes on offense and defense and couldn't effect the outcome, you don't deserve an equal shot in the OT period.
Case in point. We had SEVERAL opportunities to stop the Redskins on 3rd and long in OT and failed each time. If we succeeded in making a tackle, they would have punted and we would have gotten the ball on offense. Our defense didn't do its job, so the fault is not on the OT system, but on us.
That's how I feel. What do the rest of you think?
Nice piece Alba, couldn't agree more, we were having the exact same discussion after the game yesterday (as were many I'm sure), and there were good points both ways, but when looking at it without bias, and pain of the loss, it's exactly as you stated, an oportunity for each team to prove who 'deserves' to win the game. All the Hawks had to do was control and contain Brunell for that final few minutes and we'd have won.
ReplyDeleteOf course if Brown had made either of his misses it would be a moot point, but.......
Well theres' always next week. :)
Posted by Vinnyhawkalugi
Personally, I would like a combination of the two systems. The NFL and college system appear radically different, but it would not take a lot to integrate the two.
ReplyDeleteIts regular football, until one team scores. If both teams have run at least one offensive play, it can end when one team takes the lead.
In terms of yesterday's game, after the Redskins kick the field goal, they kick off to us, We are given that possession to tie or take the lead. If we tie it, the overtime continues, sudden death from that point.
What this does is it makes the winning team "prove" that they can hold on and deserve to win. The way its set up, a team forces OT, wins the toss, and they can "steal" a win. With a decent kick return (to say, the 30) they need to move the ball 40 yards for a 47 yard field goal attempt (makeable by most kickers not named Josh Brown).
And if youy want excitement, the college style atmosphere is amazing. I witnessed an OT game in person over the weekend, and it was edge of your seat knowing that if we stop the other guys from scoring on this possession, we win.
I think a combination of the two formats would be real exciting and fair to everyone.
Let the debating begin.
Posted by Alan
I think the NFL and the networks don't like this system because it unnaturally prolongs the game and the telecast (into regularly scheduled programming), and increases the possibility of injuries.
ReplyDeleteThe NFL is already a long season, and you don't want your guys playing too many extra minutes if not necessary.
Here's something that someone suggested awhile ago, which is a little hokey, but could be a viable replacement for the coin toss.
Team A kicks off to Team B, and Team B returns as far as they can. Field position is marked. Then Team B kicks off to Team A. If Team A returns further than Team B did, they keep the ball, otherwise it's Team B's ball at the spot of their original return.
This takes "chance" out of the mix and puts first possesion of overtime in the control of the players. It also adds only one extra play, and that second kick return would prove to be pretty exciting.
It also adds value to the kicker position in a game that's named FOOTball.
Posted by alba
me and my friend were saying the exact same thing
ReplyDeleteits unfair that the game---maybe even your playoff hopes can be decided on a coin flip
what happens in the Super Bowl? huh? 2 teams in a grueling battle only to have it ended because they lost a coin flip...
hate it
and just to add...im not mad at Josh Brown...im mad at the refs the most...then comes whoever lost 2 yards trying to set Brown's field goal up closer...and Holmgren was no genius in this game
im not a Holmgren basher, but he didnt help us getting outcoached again, by a guy who hasnt been in the nfl in a good 10 years up until last season
I think the coaches should have a hotdog eating contest. Holmy should win most of them, cept maybe against Reid... would the Lambs sneakily hire Kobayashi? He can't be any worse of a coach than Martz! Threw the ball 62 times, ran 14 with RBs, Jesus wept. At least they lost too...
ReplyDeletePosted by JoSCh
I, personally, hate the current NFL system and think that it's a farce. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the team winning the coin flip is about a 2/1 favorite to win the game historically. After these two teams have battled evenly for 60 minutes, I think it is ridiculous that one team gets a 2/1 edge because they got lucky on the coin flip. So, I don't see how anyone can argue that it is a good overtime system...it's not. The greater question is: What is a good overtime system? Well, I think it should have a few attributes: 1. It embodies real football and not some system where each team gets a chance from the 25, which takes special teams out entirely and to a certain extent plays against good defensive teams or teams with poor kickers. 2. It should be fair. 3. That is it.
ReplyDeleteMy suggestion would be the same setup they have now except that the game ends only when each team has had an equal number of possessions. Yesterday, the Hawks would get a chance to match. The problem here is that this gives the kicking team in OT an advantage similar to the advantage the team playing defense first has in college. If you know your opponent did not score, you are safe kicking a field goal. If you have to go first on O, you are uncertain as to what the other team will do and you have a decision to make: Go for a TD or play safe and kick FG. The other team will have this information when they make their decision, which is unfair.
So, it is my opinion that there is no good OT system and overtime should be done away with. Go back to ties. Probably not the popular consensus, but I don't believe there is a system meeting my criterion 1 and 2 which is also implementable.
Posted by mfan
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/hender/ot.pdf
ReplyDeleteThat link has some good stuff about different overtime methods. I particularily like the double kickoff for possession still with sudden death idea.
"The New York Jets and Kansas City Chiefs have tied 27-27 in regulation. Overtime begins with the Double KO. The Chiefs kick off to the Jets, and Santana Moss returns the ball to the 32-yard line. Now the Jets kick off to the Chiefs, and returner Dante Hall, near the goal line, watches the ball in the air. If he can get it back to the 33 or beyond, the Chiefs will have possession. If not, the Jets will have the ball at their 32. "I can do it," Hall says to himself. The
frenzied fans in the stadium rise to their feet. Across the country, the eyes of millions of NFL fans are absolutely riveted to their television sets. The excitement is palpable..."
I think that quote illustrates how cool this could be.
The main contention I have with the current OT is the team that wins the coin toss wins 58% of the time. On something so arbitrary. The double kickoff, is much more about actualy football, and less about the weight ratios and wind resistance of the heads side of the coin versus the tails.
Posted by gumbostu
Gombusto - that's the same idea that I had heard about an posted a few items above. It would be pretty cool.
ReplyDeleteThe NFL could do what the NBA and NHL do which is play one more full period and take the result at the end of that.
Posted by alba
anything legit then the one currently...
ReplyDeletei know we all probably wouldnt discuss this had we won...but the loss magnifies it...(Rams game, anyone???...with that defense, had we won the toss...we could of won that EASILY)
i like the idea of an extra, but shorter period...and take what comes outta it...and i even like the odd return-offs for possession...
Posted by adp
No support for hotdog eating contest? I live "outside the box".
ReplyDeletePosted by JoSCh
i love the idea Josch!
ReplyDeleteunfortunately all that protein wont be able to replace the genius thats fading out of him
i could win that though...i eat 4 hot dogs a night as a 'snack'...part of my 'must get to 185-195 pounds diet...im at about 175 now...
Posted by adp
it also wouldnt replace his lack of balls
ReplyDeleteJoSCh - any post that can work in a Kobayshi reference is alright in my book!
ReplyDeleteADP - it's hard enough not to hate you for being young, athletic and a hit with the ladies, but now you gotta brag about how hard it is TO PUT ON WEIGHT???!!!
If I eat more than 4 hotdogs in a month I gotta go buy a new wardrobe!!
Posted by alba
im not braggin about anything SIR :P
ReplyDeleteits so hard to put weight on...by i know it gets easier as time goes by...im at college playing weight...but my arms need work...theyre long so the muscles are spread out and look smaller...if i had shorter arms, i would have big muscles...but now my forearms are weak and im not a very good tackler
whats your secret to getting bigger forearms???!?!?
Posted by adp
oh and to make it thread-worthy
ReplyDeleteholmgren sucks!
Mack Strongs 3rd and 10 run was stupid...if you want positive field position...do the the pass i explained in two diffeent threads with the RB...he would have to really suck not to be able to catch the ball, plus hes guaranteed several yards...and a better shot at the 1st...
I really want to see the numbers before I judge. I think that the 58% sounds about right, but that doesn't tell me how many times the team that won the toss had to punt, but still ended up winning. I think the NFL system works. I think that as long as the numbers stay around 50-55% in favor of either team, it's fine.
ReplyDeleteAnd just for the record, I hate ties. Worse than losing.
Posted by PaulieP
Man that was a rough one. Overall they really didn't play well, but played well enough to win. Only to have victory DOINK off the right upright. If that was good I'm sure the topic of the day would be a lot different, but nevertheless here are my 2 cents on the subject.
ReplyDeletePersonally I don't mind sudden death overtime, especially in the NHL playoffs where you can lose at any second. It really amps up the tension. I like it much better that what they do in college football by giving teams a chance from the 25. My only suggestion would be to require a touchdown to win the game. For some reason it seems to be a little too easy for teams to march down the field and get into decent field goal range. At the same time, most average or below average teams have a hard time putting it in for 6. If you had to score a TD to win you'd probably see teams taking more chances and make it a more exciting game. They should also get rid of the ties after one OT so that it wouldn't give teams incentive to play conservative and just settle for a tie.
Just a thought,
Dusto
dusto, you should post more often...i like hearing your thoughts...
ReplyDeletethat was written...and even i didnt even think about the whole field goal vs. TD thing...now that I do, it makes a lot of sense
Panthers BETTER win tonight...after tonight im not betting against GB anymore...even a blind squirrel gets a nut
Posted by adp
People have made references to the NHL's sudden death overtime, but based on the differences between football and hockey alone, they can't be considered similar.
ReplyDeleteIn hockey, you win the face off, and then what? You certainly don't just march down the ice and score a goal. Because its a freer, more wide open game, and the puck is always alive, the defense has a greater chance of forcing a turnover. An errant pass in hockey will result in a turnover. A bad pass in football can result in a turnover, or simply an incompletion.
Basically, what it boils down to is, its easier in hockey for teams to get at least one possession then it is in football. On October 5th, watch a game and count the possession changes in the first minute or so of an NHL game. Then, count them in an NFL game. That is why the formats, though similar on the outside, are entierly different beasts.
Posted by Alan
I think they need to change the NHL, make it so a guy can pick up the puck and put it in his pocket (may require uniform alterations), then his team forms a wedge of sorts and right near the goal they throw the puck holder roller-derby style into the net. Conservative but physical, and takes all that free wide open crap out of the picture. Then the coaches eat hot dogs.
ReplyDeleteAgree with Dusto, that is a good idea, TD only.
ADP, bigger forearms, ask alba... plus big is just for looks, not performance.
Posted by JoSCh
Don't let your forearms get too big though, it leads to blisters in very sensitive areas!!!
ReplyDeletePosted by alba
alba, if thats what i think it means...disgusting! but hey this is a male dominated place for now so oh well
ReplyDeletebut bigger forearms are needed when my arms are long...i have no leverage on tackles...its bittersweet, they help me use size on people and pick a million passes i had no business even looking at...but i cant tackle cause i got leverage in the forearms...its like lock, then go for a ride
but yeh, sorry if this got me-oriented i have no idea if its jokes or if i really am conceded, but im trying not ot be either way
Posted by adp
Maybe if you ate even more hotdogs? Hotdogs are the answer for everything this week.
ReplyDeletePosted by JoSCh
The NHL and NFL are definately different types of sports. I only mentioned it because I think it is probably the best use of sudden death overtime in any sport. Also, maybe if they made it more difficult to win (by requiring a touchdown) you might get a similar type of overtime experience in the NFL. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteDusto
I'm against anything that attempts to bastardize the purity of the game, such as spotting the ball on a particular yardline or requiring a team to score a TD to win. (Has there ever been an OT game decided by a safety? that would be cool)
ReplyDeleteThe issue seems to be the fact that one team could never get a chance to touch the ball on offense under the current system.
If I were to support a change at all (as if I have any say in it!) I would be willing to say that each team should get at least ONE offensive possession, and then play sudden death after that.
Every other team sport allows this by either playing an extra period or by the nature of their sport. (i.e. hockey)
In thinking aobut this I thought about how other sports handle ties.
Would it be fair in a baseball game to flip a coin for "first ups" and then not give the other team their ups if the first team scored?
Would it be fair to battle back in a tournement to tie Tiger Woods, only to be told that Tiger won the toss, and will get to play the hole first, and if he breaks par he wins?
Would it be fair for Anna Pornakova to finally force a playoff in the US Open, only to have Venus Williams ace the first serve, giving her the victory, but not the 12 page layout in Penthouse?
I think this spirited and lively debate may have moved me off of my staunch "old school" position.
Posted by alba