PDA

View Full Version : Time to change Overtime


LukesDad88
02-03-2009, 02:22 PM
We came within one down and half a foot of going to overtime on Sunday, and having an inordinate amount of power residing in the flip of a coin. With as close as the Superbowl came to OT, and with the OT loss by Indy to the Chargers, it is time to fix the problem.

How would you fix overtime?

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
02-03-2009, 02:23 PM
Do it like college...You each get a shot at the endzone. If team A scores on their turn, and team B fails to return the favor, team A wins.

fansince'76
02-03-2009, 02:30 PM
Keep it as is. I guess the 1958 NFL Championship game should be replayed then since the system is "broken." Time to exhume Johnny U. If you want to win the game, and you lose the toss, your D needs to do their job, which ours didn't in the 4th quarter Sunday night, let's face it.

Steel_Bus_24
02-03-2009, 02:41 PM
I think we should just play another quarter, maybe 10 min instead of 15


My beef though is that how many years have people been b****ing for this???............But Manning doesn't get a chance in one Playoff game and its all of a sudden got to be changed:shake01:

fansince'76
02-03-2009, 02:43 PM
My beef though is that how many years have people been b****ing for this???............But Manning doesn't get a chance in one Playoff game and its all of a sudden got to be changed:shake01:

BINGO! Didn't hear a word about it earlier this season when we went to OT against Baltimore, did we? Maybe because we won the game anyway despite losing the toss? But when one of the NFL's fair-haired golden boys (see Manning and Brady) get sent home for the season due to it, all of a sudden Peter King writes an article bitching about what a travesty it is. Funny how that works, huh?

Dino 6 Rings
02-03-2009, 02:45 PM
BINGO! Didn't hear a word about it earlier this season when we went to OT against Baltimore, did we? Maybe because we won the game anyway despite losing the toss? But when one of the NFL's fair-haired golden boys (see Manning and Brady) get sent home for the season due to it, all of a sudden Peter King writes an article bitching about what a travesty it is. Funny how that works, huh?

There's a New Golden Boy now...his name is Ben :tt02:

fansince'76
02-03-2009, 02:47 PM
There's a New Golden Boy now...his name is Ben :tt02:

Yeah, we'll see when the media goes back to fellating Romo once more next year after a few 300-yard games and Ben becomes an afterthought again.

Stover4Prez
02-03-2009, 03:45 PM
Romo is the greatest QB ever until it counts. He is a choke artist and I don't see him getting any better. He gets face time because like Peyton and Tom, he is a celebrity QB and is flashy. Ben is great but won't ever get the play like those others because he is a working man's QB. He doesn't have a stupid hot model girlfriend or go to Cabo before the playoffs and is not part of the Oreo Lick Off League.

Personally I would prefer a worker vice a showman. His time will come if he continues to play the way he has lately. He wasn't the key factor in your SB a couple years back against the SeaChickens, but he was in this one.

As for the overtime I say leave it. I hated it initially until I heard Goodell talking about how it forces teams to win in regulation. Plus with teams like ours (strong D) who cares who wins the toss? I say leave it.

LukesDad88
02-03-2009, 04:26 PM
Keep it as is. I guess the 1958 NFL Championship game should be replayed then since the system is "broken." Time to exhume Johnny U. If you want to win the game, and you lose the toss, your D needs to do their job, which ours didn't in the 4th quarter Sunday night, let's face it.

The game changes over time, as the players change. During the first couple of decades, the team that won the toss has a much higher statistical advantage of winning.

If we had gone to overtime Sunday, lost the coin toss, and lost the game with Ben and the O never even getting onto the field, you guys would have been balistic. This place would have gone crazy. Why wait for that situation to arise? With average starting field position after a kickoff of the 30 yard line as opposed to the 23 (where it was before they moved the kickoff back. Plus, back in the good old days, kicks beyond forty yards were rare, and very iffy. No team would pull up at the thirty and kick it. The line was the twenty. On average, they had to move sixty yards just to be in decent field goal range. And that was with rules that weren't nearly as favorable to offenses as today's are. By comparison, today's winner of the coin toss just have to move 35-40 yards with rules that have been tweaked in favor of offense in order to provide higher scores, and better ratings.

Nope, 20-30 years ago, I might have ageed with you. Not today. The rules have changed too much, the athletes have changed too much, and the winner of the coin toss has half again better chance of winning than the loser of the coin toss. The rule needs changed.

SteelCurtain7
02-03-2009, 04:29 PM
We came within one down and half a foot of going to overtime on Sunday, and having an inordinate amount of power residing in the flip of a coin. With as close as the Superbowl came to OT, and with the OT loss by Indy to the Chargers, it is time to fix the problem.

How would you fix overtime?

By leaving it alone. Take your college rules and leave them in school. :rolleyes:

rich4eagle
02-03-2009, 04:40 PM
We came within one down and half a foot of going to overtime on Sunday, and having an inordinate amount of power residing in the flip of a coin. With as close as the Superbowl came to OT, and with the OT loss by Indy to the Chargers, it is time to fix the problem.

How would you fix overtime?

Simple just adopt college overtime rules and make going for two after the second possession mandatory.......simple elegeant and fair:tt03:

as opposed to pure busshot as it is now

fansince'76
02-03-2009, 05:08 PM
If we had gone to overtime Sunday, lost the coin toss, and lost the game with Ben and the O never even getting onto the field, you guys would have been balistic. This place would have gone crazy.

Yes, but I would have went ballistic over pissing away a 13-point 4th quarter lead to lose, squandering a play for the ages by Harrison in the first half, and a season for the ages by this defense, not because we lost a coin toss.

The game changes over time, as the players change. During the first couple of decades, the team that won the toss has a much higher statistical advantage of winning.

Sorry, I disagree.

I did a very quick scan of the 2007 regular season games that went into overtime. A total of 15 games went into overtime, 7 games were won by the team that won the coin-toss on their first possession. Another 2 games were won by the winners of the coin-toss, but not on the first possession.

http://sportingun.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/nfl-overtime-statistics/

And I've seen other research on the same subject with larger sample sizes (going back to 2000 or so) that bear out this same trend. The winner of the coin toss has about a 50/50 chance of winning in OT. That's not an overwhelming advantage. Once again, the only time this seems to become an issue with the media, and in turn, with fans, is when one of the NFL's marquee players or teams gets sent home for the offseason because of it.

7SteelGal43
02-03-2009, 05:12 PM
the team that wins the coin toss wins on their opening drive less than 48% of the time. if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

devilsdancefloor
02-03-2009, 05:16 PM
leave it as it is!

CPanther95
02-03-2009, 05:40 PM
I've switched positions after seeing how the statistics have changed as the kickoff line was moved further back.

I like the idea of a 7 1/2 minute OT Qtr. the best.

Could live with a guaranteed possesion by each team (but not college rules).

... or if sudden death remains, I'd make a requirement that a field goal in OT has to be 30 yards or less - or the kicker has to kick with his plant foot.

OX1947
02-03-2009, 05:58 PM
You leave it the same or you make overtime a quarter. Period. I hate college OT in the NFL. Its great in college, but not in Pro Football. Stoppage in play and having to score this and that to justify the win, that's just stupid.

LukesDad88
02-03-2009, 06:20 PM
the team that wins the coin toss wins on their opening drive less than 48% of the time. if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It used to be 36%. The athletes are evolving, the game should evolve with it.

As far as a larger statistical survey: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/10/how-important-is-coin-flip-in-ot.html

60%-40%. You have half again a better chance of winning by receiving the kick. It's not just on the first drive, either. If you just make one to two first downs the first posession, you'll pin the other team back, and gain favorable field position. Average field position following the OT kickoff is the thirty. Average starting field position for the second team if they stop the first drive is the 17.

I'm not advocating the college system. I'm just saying the game has changed, and OT is too influenced today by who wins the coin toss.

fansince'76
02-03-2009, 06:43 PM
It used to be 36%. The athletes are evolving, the game should evolve with it.

As far as a larger statistical survey: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/10/how-important-is-coin-flip-in-ot.html

60%-40%. You have half again a better chance of winning by receiving the kick.

From the analysis you cited:

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.

So in roughly 7 cases out of 10, the team losing the toss still got the ball on offense at least once in OT with a chance to win the game. I don't see enough of a disadvantage in losing the toss there to change the existing OT rule. As far as gaining a field position advantage by receiving the ball first in OT, that's just part of the game, IMO, and is mitigated by the rules changes to favor offenses (which you mentioned earlier and I agree with you 100% about) that have occurred over the last 30-odd years or so.

jev7452
02-03-2009, 06:47 PM
keep it as it is.. whether the team is on offense or defense, its up to them to make something happen and either side has just as much of an opportunity to do that.. indy's defense should have stepped it up a notch so they could give their QB a chance