Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

cmeisenzahl · Mar 23, 2010, 12:11 PM

There has been a great deal of hand-wringing lately about the OT design in the NFL. Some complain that too much emphasis is on the coin toss, that if you win the coin toss and get the ball, you can go right down inside the other team's 35 and kick a FG to win. This scenario allows one team to win in OT withouot the other team ever possessing the ball.

My initial though is that's not a bad deal, the losing team had 60 minutes to stop the other team one more time, or score even a FG more.

But here's an idea I heard that I really like. In OT, the first team to score 6 points wins. Period.

What say you?

The Final Dakar · Mar 23, 2010, 12:12 PM

Sudden death blows.

SpaceMonkey · Mar 23, 2010, 12:23 PM

But here's an idea I heard that I really like. In OT, the first team to score 6 points wins. Period.

This.

starman · Mar 23, 2010, 12:24 PM

I was never a fan of the NFL's OT rules.

Here's how I'd like to see it. I may modify this as time goes on.

If one team scores, the other team has ONE possession attempt to score next. If they lose possession, it's over. If they tie the first team, repeat. If team B can't score more points than team A at the end of their posession, team A wins.

This gives the other team a CHANCE.

ort888 · Mar 23, 2010, 12:38 PM

Here's what you do. Put the ball on the 50 yard line. Have both teams choose 11 players that would start in their own end zone. At the start of OT, both teams would sprint for the ball at the 50 and battle it out for it. First team to cary the ball into the other teams end zone wins.

No whistles, no downs, no nothing. Just chaos.

cmeisenzahl · Mar 23, 2010, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by ort888

here's what you do. Put the ball on the 50 yard line. Have both teams choose 11 players that would start in their own end zone. At the start of ot, both teams would sprint for the ball at the 50 and battle it out for it. First team to cary the ball into the other teams end zone wins.
No whistles, no downs, no nothing. Just chaos.

lol! ;-)

voodoo · Mar 23, 2010, 01:45 PM

I don't mind too much about the OT-rules. Sure the coin toss matters, but it isn't deciding. Have you seen any statistic on the winning percentage of the team that wins the coin toss. It's not 100%. It's actually much closer to 50%.

Even so, these teams have been battling it out for 60 minutes without result, so why not just toss a coin?

boy8cookie · Mar 23, 2010, 03:09 PM

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.

The dreaded 'lose-the-coin-toss-never-touch-the-ball' scenario happened in 37 out of the 124 OT periods, or about 30% of all overtime games. That's too often in my opinion. The NFL's current sudden death format can be exciting and lead to quick resolutions. But if almost 1 out of 3 games is over before the unlucky coin toss loser even touches the ball, a lot of teams and fans are going to be left with a bitter and empty feeling.
source

While it is closer to 50 than 100%, it's still a majority. Home field is less of a factor than the coin toss (statistically). I think it should change, but I don't really care for the college format either. I like ort's idea.

Shaddim · Mar 23, 2010, 03:57 PM

I like the college OT rules much more than the NFL's.

CreepDogg · Mar 23, 2010, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

But here's an idea I heard that I really like. In OT, the first team to score 6 points wins. Period.

What say you?

Similar. I've said, first team up by 4 or more wins. If that doesn't happen, the team ahead at the end of the OT period wins.

CreepDogg · Mar 23, 2010, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

I like the college OT rules much more than the NFL's.

I don't like any overtime rules that disrupt the 'natural flow' of the game. The college rules take kickoffs and punts, and field position out of the picture, and I find that distasteful.

The worst is the NHL, where games get decided by a skills competition. Ugh.

CreepDogg · Mar 23, 2010, 06:31 PM

Well, what do you know...

NFL owners make right call on overtime, even if coaches disagree - Peter King - SI.com

I can't really say that I'm enamored with this approach. If the team on the first possession kicks a field goal, the next possession is 4-down territory the whole way. The team has nothing to lose by going for it every 4th down. It's not horrible, but I don't think it really solves anything either.

My whole issue with OT the way it is is that games get decided by cheap field goals. A team can get a decent kickoff/punt return, then get a ticky-tack pass interference call, and kick a quick field goal. Ball game. The approach the NFL just passed doesn't really solve that, because cheap field goals can happen on the first, second, third, or tenth (i.e. any) possession.

Now, if a team can get two cheap field goals before the other team scores, well, then they deserve to win!

ShortcutToMoncton · Mar 25, 2010, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by CreepDogg

I don't like any overtime rules that disrupt the 'natural flow' of the game. The college rules take kickoffs and punts, and field position out of the picture, and I find that distasteful.

The worst is the NHL, where games get decided by a skills competition. Ugh.

Not really.

1. There is an overtime period of 4 on 4 hockey.
2. Playoffs don't have shootout.

greg

CreepDogg · Mar 25, 2010, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Not really.

1. There is an overtime period of 4 on 4 hockey.
2. Playoffs don't have shootout.

greg

Yes, and those are good things. I'd prefer a longer period of 4 on 4, with no shootout, to what they do now. And who doesn't love playoff overtime?

Fact of the matter is, there are regular-season games that are decided by shootouts. Ick.

-Q- · Mar 25, 2010, 03:00 PM

The new OT rules sound good on paper, I just wonder why they only made them apply to the playoffs?

ort888 · Mar 25, 2010, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by CreepDogg

Yes, and those are good things. I'd prefer a longer period of 4 on 4, with no shootout, to what they do now. And who doesn't love playoff overtime?

Fact of the matter is, there are regular-season games that are decided by shootouts. Ick.

So much about the shootout is screwed up. I hate how a game that goes into OT is worth 50% more points then a normal game. The idea that the loser still gets a point is just so incredibly stupid.

I don't think the Players Association would go for unlimited overtime in the NHL. You have injury concerns, plus with so many back-to-back games it's not fair to the players. Personally, I just want them to bring back the tie. I actually liked ties. Do a 10 minutes 4 on 4 overtime and then it's a tie. The end.

The playoff overtimes, of course, would not change.

SpaceMonkey · Mar 25, 2010, 03:15 PM

I like the shootout.

olePigeon · Mar 25, 2010, 03:17 PM

Thunderdome.

CreepDogg · Mar 25, 2010, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by ort888

I don't think the Players Association would go for unlimited overtime in the NHL. You have injury concerns, plus with so many back-to-back games it's not fair to the players. Personally, I just want them to bring back the tie. I actually liked ties. Do a 10 minutes 4 on 4 overtime and then it's a tie. The end.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Probably didn't come out that way.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I like the shootout.

I think a lot of people do, and that's why they instituted it. It's 'fan-friendly'. I do think I'm in the minority (along with ort888), but I hate it!

Anyway...back OT to the NFL...

SpaceMonkey · Mar 25, 2010, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Thunderdome.

Pfft. That's your answer to everything.

ort888 · Mar 25, 2010, 04:10 PM

I'd be lying if I said that part of me doesn't like the shootout... because it is kind of cool to watch... but that said, screw the shootout. It's a stupid idea.

It's like settling a baseball game with a homerun derby... or a football game with a field goal competition. It removes the team aspect of the game.