How would you change the overtime rules?

[44ever]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

what about in the playoffs?

we should consult mcnabb.. he's probably wondering what will happen if they tie.. round robin with the next team

what about the playoffs? OT can end in a tie. The 4th qtr. Can end in a tie. With that said all those ties would make the playoffs confusing

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by 44ever

what about the playoffs? OT can end in a tie. The 4th qtr. Can end in a tie. With that said all those ties would make the playoffs confusing

I'm not sure I completely follow... you can evaluate standings with ties

I'm just saying.. if there is no OT in the reg season, what system would he use in the playoffs?

[44ever]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

I'm not sure I completely follow... you can evaluate standings with ties

I'm just saying.. if there is no OT in the reg season, what system would he use in the playoffs?

Oh I see what your saying. Yeah your right about that. I'm retarded.

[hooskins]

make it exactly like soccer then, one away and one home game and total the aggregate of the scores. Then have a field goal chip-off if tied.

[Daseal]

Gil Brandt on NFL radio brought up an interesting possibility to NFL overtime today, however I missed part of it. The basic gist was -- make teams score 6 points to win. I'm not sure if it was the first to 6 or win by 6, etc. But the idea is interesting. If a team elects to receive, they have to score a TD on that possession to win the game. A fiend goal won't win the game. It puts pressure on both teams -- personally, I like the idea. The league is slanted towards offenses now days, and one long completion (or PI penalty) puts the other team in FG range.

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by Hogroll

FYI...

From the 2000 through 2007 regular seasons, there have been 124 overtime games. In every single game except one (I believe), the team that won the toss elected to receive. And those receiving teams won 60% of the time (and tied once). That's a relatively large advantage, particularly when compared to home field advantage.

Home teams have only won 51% of OT games. The weakness of HFA isn't too surprising given the way it diminishes throughout a game. It's strongest in the 1st quarter and then diminishes through subsequent quarters until it's almost non-existent in OT. Fans are presumably at their most involved at this point in a game, which suggests crowd involvement is not the primary source of HFA.

I got that from here: Advanced NFL Stats: How Important is the Coin Flip in OT?

This is the article that got me thinking about the idea really (along with the colts/chargers game). I threw out the "turnover ends the game" thing just to see if I could get people to think outside the box. It came from thinking about how offenses attack tired defenses and try to exploit penalties (if they are not Zorn) when they get the ball. The team that wins the flip just has to have a good offensive series. The team that loses the flip has to have a good defensive series and a good offensive series. Seems obviously lopsided and stats back it up.


Maybe they could use something like the college system but dis-allow field goals. Currently, is the team going second sees the team going first score a TD, they essentially get an extra down to match the TD. Take that advantage away. Like Daseal just posted...

Originally Posted by Daseal

Gil Brandt on NFL radio brought up...If a team elects to receive, they have to score a TD on that possession to win the game. A fiend goal won't win the game. It puts pressure on both teams --

[CRedskinsRule]

what if you kept it like it is but just disallowed field goals in overtime?

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Gil Brandt on NFL radio brought up an interesting possibility to NFL overtime today, however I missed part of it. The basic gist was -- make teams score 6 points to win. I'm not sure if it was the first to 6 or win by 6, etc. But the idea is interesting. If a team elects to receive, they have to score a TD on that possession to win the game. A fiend goal won't win the game. It puts pressure on both teams -- personally, I like the idea. The league is slanted towards offenses now days, and one long completion (or PI penalty) puts the other team in FG range.

Ivars Peterson's MathTrek - Football's Overtime Bias

I'd say just play a whole 15 min period. I also don't mind GMScud's suggestion of giving the opponent an opportunity to match a score if the team that won the flip scored. Then go into sudden death if the winning team gave up possession. I don't hate the current system, but I do HATE the college rules. The real problem with the SD/IND game was that the refs had too much impact on the outcome. In several recent playoff overtime games that I can recall (Sea/GB a few years ago and GB/NYG last year) the team that won the toss did not win the game. Winning the toss is statistically significant in the outcome, but it is not determinative of victory. Probably not much if any more than winning the toss in college and deferring.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

what if you kept it like it is but just disallowed field goals in overtime?

You would greatly increase the number of ties. Even more than you would if you played to 6.

[CRedskinsRule]

^even if you increase the number of ties in the regular season does that really hurt anything? and in the playoffs you would play till a winner is decided.

[dmek25]

its not broken, so don't try to fix it. i like it just the way it is. if you want to win, and lose the coin toss, make a play on defense. the hell with equal opportunity football

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by dmek25

its not broken, so don't try to fix it. i like it just the way it is. if you want to win, and lose the coin toss, make a play on defense. the hell with equal opportunity football

Well, the point is a lot of people think it is broke.

[MTK]

I would like to see both offenses get an opportunity to score like in college. The college OT is very entertaining.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Hogroll

FYI...

From the 2000 through 2007 regular seasons, there have been 124 overtime games. In every single game except one (I believe), the team that won the toss elected to receive. And those receiving teams won 60% of the time (and tied once). That's a relatively large advantage, particularly when compared to home field advantage.

Home teams have only won 51% of OT games. The weakness of HFA isn't too surprising given the way it diminishes throughout a game. It's strongest in the 1st quarter and then diminishes through subsequent quarters until it's almost non-existent in OT. Fans are presumably at their most involved at this point in a game, which suggests crowd involvement is not the primary source of HFA.

I got that from here: Advanced NFL Stats: How Important is the Coin Flip in OT?

If I'm correct that stat also encludes games where both teams had a chance at O but the team that won the coin toss still won the game. I think its more like 53% of the time that the team that wins the coin toss wins the game in the first drive.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I wouldn't change it one bit. What, because they didn't win the toss the defense doesn't have an opportunity to make a play?

Man up. If they get the ball first, it's do or die for the defense. Take it like a man, sack up, and stop 'em. Then you truly deserve to win.

I love the sudden death drama. And by the way, win on a turnover? WTF?

You are only saying that because you know tat we cannot create turnovers. JK. I do not like the idea either.