NFL Offseason

[CubColtPacer]

I don't really get why people were that upset with sudden death either. I know someone mentioned that the coin flip can greatly alter the odds of winning, but if I remember correctly, the team that wins the coin flip only wins 50-something percent of the time.

 

I know they would never change it to this because they want the teams rushing to score at the end, but I always just felt that if the game is tied after the 4th quarter, they should just continue on from wherever they left off like it was a change from the 1st to 2nd quarter and finish in a sudden death style. The team that has the ball continues from the down and distance they left off at. Having the lead after 60 minutes is already completely arbritrary. Who cares if the winner is the team that takes the lead at 60+ minutes? Seems more fair than the coin flip, considering the team that just scored could get it right back.

 

The current OT rules are a hell of a lot better than that suggestion, and I kinda hate the current OT rules.

Do you hate it because it takes away a team trying to rush down the field at the end? I can see that. I guess it is just whether you want the excitement of someone trying rush to score at the end or being more fair. I didn't mind the old OT rules, but just thought this would be more fair. A tie game in sudden death is already exciting. I wouldn't really care either way--and honestly wouldn't totally mind ending the games in a tie.

 

I hate it because football doesn't work as a "short game". Yes, occasionally there's a quick drive, big pass, etc. But generally it's a grind it out, get 3-4 yards, try to sprinkle in the occasional big play game, and I dont' think that fits well into a confined space. I think OT ends up giving a win to one team and a loss to another, for a game in which both proved equal over the course of 60 minutes of play. I'd rather give them a tie and move along. Obviously that's not an option in the playoffs, and something has to be done there.

 

I wonder how ties instead of OT would have affected this past season? If I get some time later in my Friday, I'll see if I can figure that out.

 

Denver would have finished last in their division instead of first (with San Diego going to the playoffs).

Arizona would have had a much better draft pick since they were 4-0 in OT games.

Dallas would have had a worse record. Hard to know how that would have affected the NFC East because the tiebreakers already caused some strategy changes at the end of the last year.

[Banedon]

I wonder how ties instead of OT would have affected this past season? If I get some time later in my Friday, I'll see if I can figure that out.

 

Denver would have finished last in their division instead of first (with San Diego going to the playoffs).

Arizona would have had a much better draft pick since they were 4-0 in OT games.

Dallas would have had a worse record. Hard to know how that would have affected the NFC East because the tiebreakers already caused some strategy changes at the end of the last year.

 

No Tebow in the playoffs? I call that a win.

[PosterToBeNamedLater]

I don't really get why people were that upset with sudden death either. I know someone mentioned that the coin flip can greatly alter the odds of winning, but if I remember correctly, the team that wins the coin flip only wins 50-something percent of the time.

 

I know they would never change it to this because they want the teams rushing to score at the end, but I always just felt that if the game is tied after the 4th quarter, they should just continue on from wherever they left off like it was a change from the 1st to 2nd quarter and finish in a sudden death style. The team that has the ball continues from the down and distance they left off at. Having the lead after 60 minutes is already completely arbritrary. Who cares if the winner is the team that takes the lead at 60+ minutes? Seems more fair than the coin flip, considering the team that just scored could get it right back.

 

The current OT rules are a hell of a lot better than that suggestion, and I kinda hate the current OT rules.

Do you hate it because it takes away a team trying to rush down the field at the end? I can see that. I guess it is just whether you want the excitement of someone trying rush to score at the end or being more fair. I didn't mind the old OT rules, but just thought this would be more fair. A tie game in sudden death is already exciting. I wouldn't really care either way--and honestly wouldn't totally mind ending the games in a tie.

 

I hate it because football doesn't work as a "short game". Yes, occasionally there's a quick drive, big pass, etc. But generally it's a grind it out, get 3-4 yards, try to sprinkle in the occasional big play game, and I dont' think that fits well into a confined space. I think OT ends up giving a win to one team and a loss to another, for a game in which both proved equal over the course of 60 minutes of play. I'd rather give them a tie and move along. Obviously that's not an option in the playoffs, and something has to be done there.

 

I wonder how ties instead of OT would have affected this past season? If I get some time later in my Friday, I'll see if I can figure that out.

I could definitely go along with giving the teams a tie, but the comment about football not really working as a short game is why I always thought it would be better to just continue on from where they left off. It seemed strange to need to start the game over from scratch with another coin toss and play a mini game to see who wins, rather than just continuing on with a slightly longer game to see who is the leader. Again, it is already arbitrary that we consider the winner the team with the lead after 60 minutes. Why not just continue on until someone has the lead again and stop the game at that point?

[Banedon]

I don't really get why people were that upset with sudden death either. I know someone mentioned that the coin flip can greatly alter the odds of winning, but if I remember correctly, the team that wins the coin flip only wins 50-something percent of the time.

 

I know they would never change it to this because they want the teams rushing to score at the end, but I always just felt that if the game is tied after the 4th quarter, they should just continue on from wherever they left off like it was a change from the 1st to 2nd quarter and finish in a sudden death style. The team that has the ball continues from the down and distance they left off at. Having the lead after 60 minutes is already completely arbritrary. Who cares if the winner is the team that takes the lead at 60+ minutes? Seems more fair than the coin flip, considering the team that just scored could get it right back.

 

The current OT rules are a hell of a lot better than that suggestion, and I kinda hate the current OT rules.

Do you hate it because it takes away a team trying to rush down the field at the end? I can see that. I guess it is just whether you want the excitement of someone trying rush to score at the end or being more fair. I didn't mind the old OT rules, but just thought this would be more fair. A tie game in sudden death is already exciting. I wouldn't really care either way--and honestly wouldn't totally mind ending the games in a tie.

 

I hate it because football doesn't work as a "short game". Yes, occasionally there's a quick drive, big pass, etc. But generally it's a grind it out, get 3-4 yards, try to sprinkle in the occasional big play game, and I dont' think that fits well into a confined space. I think OT ends up giving a win to one team and a loss to another, for a game in which both proved equal over the course of 60 minutes of play. I'd rather give them a tie and move along. Obviously that's not an option in the playoffs, and something has to be done there.

 

I wonder how ties instead of OT would have affected this past season? If I get some time later in my Friday, I'll see if I can figure that out.

I could definitely go along with giving the teams a tie, but the comment about football not really working as a short game is why I always thought it would be better to just continue on from where they left off. It seemed strange to need to start the game over from scratch with another coin toss and play a mini game to see who wins, rather than just continuing on with a slightly longer game to see who is the leader. Again, it is already arbitrary that we consider the winner the team with the lead after 60 minutes. Why not just continue on until someone has the lead again and stop the game at that point?

 

Because that point the clock is irrelevant. Why have it? You also lose the urgency of the 2 minute drill.

[Banedon]

A league source tells PFT that there’s talk of a high-level negotiating session occurring Friday between the league and the locked-out officials.

 

Per Albert Breer of NFL Network, Goodell twice refused to rule out a return by the regular officials for Week One

[dew1679666265]

What would be the problem with keeping the sudden death OT format as it is, but eliminating field goals from it? The times I've had this debate, most people had a problem with teams winning the toss, driving 30-40 yards, kicking a field goal and winning. This way, with the new kickoff rules, teams would have to drive 75 yards most of the time to win on the opening possession. It would keep the intensity of knowing that any missed play could end the game, while also evening up the odds for those who don't like the coin flip playing a major part.

 

And if you don't like completely eliminating field goals, maybe only allow them inside the red zone or something. That would still force considerable drives to win games.

[Banedon]

What would be the problem with keeping the sudden death OT format as it is, but eliminating field goals from it? The times I've had this debate, most people had a problem with teams winning the toss, driving 30-40 yards, kicking a field goal and winning. This way, with the new kickoff rules, teams would have to drive 75 yards most of the time to win on the opening possession. It would keep the intensity of knowing that any missed play could end the game, while also evening up the odds for those who don't like the coin flip playing a major part.

 

And if you don't like completely eliminating field goals, maybe only allow them inside the red zone or something. That would still force considerable drives to win games.

 

The coin flip still determines too much in this case for me.

[Sammy Sofa]

http://cdn.ksk.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/tebowbaby.jpg

[jersey cubs fan]

he misses his foreskin

[dew1679666265]

The coin flip still determines too much in this case for me.

 

At that point, the defense just has to make a stop. I can understand the argument that it's unfair to expect the defense to stop an offense from moving 30-40 yards in this pass-happy environment, but the vast majority of the time with the new kickoff rules, teams would start from their own 25. If the defense can't stop a team from driving 75 yards, they shouldn't win the game anyway.