PDA

View Full Version : NFL Meetings: Rooneys would push for change in overtime rule


Galax Steeler
03-22-2009, 07:21 AM
The Steelers avoided a potential embarrassment to the NFL when Ben Roethlisberger threw a touchdown pass to Santonio Holmes with 35 seconds left to beat Arizona, 27-23, in Super Bowl XLIII. Now, they'd like to head off another one.

Art and Dan Rooney would like to change the overtime rule.

"We'd like to see each team get one possession,'' said Steelers president Art Rooney II. "Not make it anything that has to be a dramatic change but really just have each team get one possession before we have to get into our sudden-death situation."
Overtime history

Instituted: 1974.

Possession: Determined initially by a coin flip.

Winner: First team to score, unless teams have played a full 15-minute period at which time a tie is called. A playoff game would continue until one team has scored.

OT games: 432 from 1974-2008.

In the NFL, the first team to score in overtime wins -- by safety, field goal or touchdown. If the receiving team returns the overtime kickoff back all the way, the game is over.

No Super Bowl has ever been decided in overtime, but few have come as close as the Steelers and Cardinals on Feb. 1 in Tampa. Had Holmes not had both toes in bounds to make his memorable 6-yard touchdown reception, the Steelers would have had one more play before they would have attempted a short field goal to send the game into overtime.

And that would have set up a real possibility that the game would end without one team ever having a chance to touch the ball on offense. NFL statistics show that the team that won the coin toss in overtime in 2008 games won 43.4 percent of the time on the first possession, and 63.3 percent of the overtime games.

Said Rich McKay, the league competition committee co-chairman about those statistics, "They are troubling to me personally in the sense that I would like to see a game that you would think was 'more balanced.'''

Yet, McKay and Ray Anderson, the NFL executive executive vice president of football operations, said they've found no sentiment in talks with management, the players and their union to change the rules.

The Rooneys have a different opinion and while the topic is not on the agenda for the NFL meetings that open today near Los Angeles, the two Steelers officials would like to talk about a change in overtime.

And their recent Super Bowl experience hit home for them.

"It sure did,'' Art Rooney said. "You think about it, that was a great game. If we don't score the touchdown and kick the field goal and go into overtime, maybe you kick off to them and they hit one pass to Larry Fitzgerald and kick a field goal, it's over.

"To me it shouldn't be that way. We should at least get one shot at it, particularly in a game like that. It's something we were in favor of when it came up a couple of years ago and thought maybe there was a chance."

It was on the agenda two years ago at the NFL spring meetings and went nowhere. While Rooney would like to see the change in every game, he'd settle for a change just for the playoffs, the way Major League Baseball last year unilaterally instituted a rule that there would be no rain-shortened games in the World Series.

Art Rooney also is concerned that some proposed new "safety" rules might make the game more difficult to officiate. He's particularly interested in the so-called Hines Ward Rule proposal that would not allow a player to throw a "blind-side" block to the head of a defender.

"In general you want to see player safety,'' Rooney said, "but when it comes down to how are they going to officiate these individual plays it does make us nervous.

"All of these little points of emphasis. Does it make the game harder to officiate? So that's something we keep getting concerned with, how they're going to officiate those rules. The helmet-to-helmet contact thing, that's usually not that difficult to officiate that, you can see that. But not when you start to say it's a blind-side block, what does that mean?

"So you start to get into these things, how are they going to officiate it? We're not really for a real dramatic change on those kinds of things."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09081/957517-66.stm

Give It To Abercrombie
03-22-2009, 08:41 AM
I hope the overtime rules stay exactly as they are. I completely understand the argument they are making but winning in the NFL takes all three facets of the game: Offense, defense and special teams. I'm sure plenty of people disagree with me. But hey, didn't win because the other team scored on their first possession? Get a better defense. There is enough build into this sport to create parity, to make things fair. Well, life doesn't always have to be fair. Waa. :coffee:

slippy
03-22-2009, 01:17 PM
they need to eliminate the tuck rule, not change the OT rule.

pepsyman1
03-22-2009, 01:27 PM
I agree, I don't think there is anything wrong with the current rule. Half the time, teams end up tying the game because the team with the lead goes into some type of prevent defense instead of playing the scheme that was helping them win the game in the first place. (kinda like we did in the fourth quarter of the SB). If you give up the lead that carelessly, you deserve to have to deal with a coin toss.

LambertLunatic
03-22-2009, 02:21 PM
The argument that if a team scores on their first possession of OT, the other team doesn't get a fair chance. I say Bovine Feces! The opposing team had 60 minutes to outscore their opponents.

St33lersguy
03-22-2009, 03:01 PM
I am disappointed. The only reason there is a discussion on changing the OT rule is because King Peyton Manning didn't get a chance to see the field in the wildcard game vs the Chargers because the Colts Defense sucks. If it was the other way around there would be no controversey surrounding the rules. the rules are just fine

tyler289
03-22-2009, 03:12 PM
College OT is pretty awesome and I'd love to see the NFL adopt some sort of style like that, but the current format is ok. Like many have said, if you can't stop a team when you lose the coin toss...you don't deserve to win.

St33lersguy
03-22-2009, 03:22 PM
College OT is pretty awesome and I'd love to see the NFL adopt some sort of style like that, but the current format is ok. Like many have said, if you can't stop a team when you lose the coin toss...you don't deserve to win. Unless there is a tie after 4 OTs I don't want the NFL to adopt a form of college OT. The problem with the OT system in college is it can go on for too long & seemingly never end

fansince'76
03-22-2009, 03:38 PM
I am disappointed. The only reason there is a discussion on changing the OT rule is because King Peyton Manning didn't get a chance to see the field in the wildcard game vs the Chargers because the Colts Defense sucks. If it was the other way around there would be no controversey surrounding the rules. the rules are just fine

Abso-frigging-lutely. I didn't hear jack shit about it when we lost the coin toss in OT in the first game against the Ravens this past season, yet wound up winning the game anyway. You want the ball in OT despite losing the coin toss? Tell your STs and defense to do their jobs. Or better yet, tell your whole damn team to play better and win the stinking game during regulation. The bottom line is one of the NFL's fair-haired boys wound up on the short end of the stick in the playoffs as a result of the current OT rules and now all of a sudden the 50+-year-old OT rules are "unfair" again.

tyler289
03-22-2009, 04:07 PM
Unless there is a tie after 4 OTs I don't want the NFL to adopt a form of college OT. The problem with the OT system in college is it can go on for too long & seemingly never end

Yea, that'd be pretty brutal, especially for night/primetime games.

Can you imagine playing a 4-OT MNF game, then playing again at 1 on Sunday? Geez.

rich4eagle
03-22-2009, 04:51 PM
The Steelers avoided a potential embarrassment to the NFL when Ben Roethlisberger threw a touchdown pass to Santonio Holmes with 35 seconds left to beat Arizona, 27-23, in Super Bowl XLIII. Now, they'd like to head off another one.

Art and Dan Rooney would like to change the overtime rule.

"We'd like to see each team get one possession,'' said Steelers president Art Rooney II. "Not make it anything that has to be a dramatic change but really just have each team get one possession before we have to get into our sudden-death situation."
Overtime history

Instituted: 1974.

Possession: Determined initially by a coin flip.

Winner: First team to score, unless teams have played a full 15-minute period at which time a tie is called. A playoff game would continue until one team has scored.

OT games: 432 from 1974-2008.

In the NFL, the first team to score in overtime wins -- by safety, field goal or touchdown. If the receiving team returns the overtime kickoff back all the way, the game is over.

No Super Bowl has ever been decided in overtime, but few have come as close as the Steelers and Cardinals on Feb. 1 in Tampa. Had Holmes not had both toes in bounds to make his memorable 6-yard touchdown reception, the Steelers would have had one more play before they would have attempted a short field goal to send the game into overtime.

And that would have set up a real possibility that the game would end without one team ever having a chance to touch the ball on offense. NFL statistics show that the team that won the coin toss in overtime in 2008 games won 43.4 percent of the time on the first possession, and 63.3 percent of the overtime games.

Said Rich McKay, the league competition committee co-chairman about those statistics, "They are troubling to me personally in the sense that I would like to see a game that you would think was 'more balanced.'''

Yet, McKay and Ray Anderson, the NFL executive executive vice president of football operations, said they've found no sentiment in talks with management, the players and their union to change the rules.

The Rooneys have a different opinion and while the topic is not on the agenda for the NFL meetings that open today near Los Angeles, the two Steelers officials would like to talk about a change in overtime.

And their recent Super Bowl experience hit home for them.

"It sure did,'' Art Rooney said. "You think about it, that was a great game. If we don't score the touchdown and kick the field goal and go into overtime, maybe you kick off to them and they hit one pass to Larry Fitzgerald and kick a field goal, it's over.

"To me it shouldn't be that way. We should at least get one shot at it, particularly in a game like that. It's something we were in favor of when it came up a couple of years ago and thought maybe there was a chance."

It was on the agenda two years ago at the NFL spring meetings and went nowhere. While Rooney would like to see the change in every game, he'd settle for a change just for the playoffs, the way Major League Baseball last year unilaterally instituted a rule that there would be no rain-shortened games in the World Series.

Art Rooney also is concerned that some proposed new "safety" rules might make the game more difficult to officiate. He's particularly interested in the so-called Hines Ward Rule proposal that would not allow a player to throw a "blind-side" block to the head of a defender.

"In general you want to see player safety,'' Rooney said, "but when it comes down to how are they going to officiate these individual plays it does make us nervous.

"All of these little points of emphasis. Does it make the game harder to officiate? So that's something we keep getting concerned with, how they're going to officiate those rules. The helmet-to-helmet contact thing, that's usually not that difficult to officiate that, you can see that. But not when you start to say it's a blind-side block, what does that mean?

"So you start to get into these things, how are they going to officiate it? We're not really for a real dramatic change on those kinds of things."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09081/957517-66.stm

The Rooney's are correct.......they get it.....both teams deserve a possesion.....take that as a starting point:tt03:

lilyoder6
03-22-2009, 05:02 PM
this is an iffy subject.. obv u want teams to get a fair chance and all but then again u don't want to have an long ot like in college...

the only way i see it is that someone will propose that each team is guarented 1 possesion on offense and go from there

rich4eagle
03-22-2009, 05:20 PM
I think you just repeated what I just said.and the Rooney's already proposed

tyler289
03-22-2009, 05:38 PM
Also, I'd hate the see the NFL ban blind-side blocks. First, it'd make officials make more judgment calls, which always leads to more controversy. Second, why do they feel the need to stop offensive players from hitting defenders? Defenders can hit an offensive player as hard as a train and then celebrate it, and then the NFL takes that hit and uses it to promote the game. Why can't offensive players do the same?

RoethlisBURGHer
03-22-2009, 05:39 PM
I think a lot of us would be thinking different if the Super Bowl goes to overtime and like Dan Rooney said...we lose the coin toss and one pass to Fitzgerald and the Cardinals kick a field goal and win the Super Bowl.

I think then all of us would be complaining how it wasn't fair that we didn't get a chance to answer with our offense.

I think maybe they should get rid if the field goal in overtime. Force a team to score a TD to win the game. I hate when a team gets into FG territory, runs one run play to the middle of the field to set up the FG, and then kicks it on 2nd down to win the game.

LVSteelersfan
03-22-2009, 08:14 PM
I like the idea of no field goals in OT but they would never go for that. There is no fair way to deal with it when you get down to it. Why not put the ball on the 50 yard line and let each team run a player from the end zone and give it to the person who gets there first. At least someone from either team has to do something to gain posession. Coin tosses aren't really fair. Especially when they give the ball to the wrong team on the toss. UNBELIEVABLE that happened.

Steely McSmash
03-22-2009, 08:16 PM
I prefer the college method -- more exciting in my opinion. Longer game = more fun for me. also more money for TV contracts.

Not an issue of fairness as I see it.

fansince'76
03-22-2009, 08:17 PM
I think a lot of us would be thinking different if the Super Bowl goes to overtime and like Dan Rooney said...we lose the coin toss and one pass to Fitzgerald and the Cardinals kick a field goal and win the Super Bowl.

I think then all of us would be complaining how it wasn't fair that we didn't get a chance to answer with our offense.

Nope, I'd be cursing Hartwig's name like O'Donnell's if that would have happened. We should have NEVER relinquished a 13-point 4th quarter lead.

SteelersMongol
03-22-2009, 08:19 PM
If Mr. Rooney says so then it should B handled so.

fansince'76
03-22-2009, 08:28 PM
I prefer the college method -- more exciting in my opinion. Longer game = more fun for me. also more money for TV contracts.

I doubt it will seem like such a good idea when key starter(s) become lost to IR for the season in prolonged OT games.

Give It To Abercrombie
03-22-2009, 08:28 PM
I think a lot of us would be thinking different if the Super Bowl goes to overtime and like Dan Rooney said...we lose the coin toss and one pass to Fitzgerald and the Cardinals kick a field goal and win the Super Bowl.

I think then all of us would be complaining how it wasn't fair that we didn't get a chance to answer with our offense.



Proud to say I am not a whiny bitch and would not say it wasn't fair if we had lost. Not saying you are, just stating I bet there are plenty of us who would not.

Give It To Abercrombie
03-22-2009, 08:32 PM
I prefer the college method -- more exciting in my opinion. Longer game = more fun for me. also more money for TV contracts.

Not an issue of fairness as I see it.

See, I can't stand college overtime. (insert random hippie's voice here) "Now let's make sure everyone gets a chance to play...."

Damn, lets just pretend its Little League and stop keeping score all together. We don't want anyone's feelings hurt.

tyler289
03-22-2009, 08:39 PM
See, I can't stand college overtime. (insert random hippie's voice here) "Now let's make sure everyone gets a chance to play...."

Damn, lets just pretend its Little League and stop keeping score all together. We don't want anyone's feelings hurt.

Care to explain why you don't like college overtime? Just curious. I love it. I wish they'd make it so that you start out of FG range, though.

Give It To Abercrombie
03-22-2009, 08:50 PM
Care to explain why you don't like college overtime? Just curious. I love it. I wish they'd make it so that you start out of FG range, though.

Its not something that naturally occurs in the game. Here's the ball in striking distance. Go ahead....ok, you did it, here's your gold star. Now little Tommy's team gets a try.

Its gimmicky. If I wanted to watch a short field, I'd watch arena league (well , not this year).

Or if you're going to play a short field like that, why not make it soccer-style, just do penalty kicks. No players, just kickers.

It's football, I want to see no rule change from one period to the next. Not saying I'm right, just my preference.

Give It To Abercrombie
03-22-2009, 09:02 PM
I doubt it will seem like such a good idea when key starter(s) become lost to IR for the season in prolonged OT games.

Besides, I can already here Clinton Portis complaining. Can't you?

X-Terminator
03-22-2009, 09:04 PM
If they do change the rule, make it so that if one team scores on their first possession, then they must kick off to the other team. If they stop them, they win. If the other team scores, then it becomes sudden death and the next team to score wins. That's probably the fairest way to do it.

However, I vote for keeping it as it is. If you can't stop a team from scoring if you lose the coin toss, why do you deserve a chance? Kick your defense/ST's collective asses for not getting the job done. At the very least, require a team to score a TD to win rather than kick a FG.

HometownGal
03-22-2009, 09:32 PM
However, I vote for keeping it as it is. If you can't stop a team from scoring if you lose the coin toss, why do you deserve a chance? Kick your defense/ST's collective asses for not getting the job done. At the very least, require a team to score a TD to win rather than kick a FG.

Exactly. I say leave things the way they are.

Gawd - the NFL is turning into the freakin' ACLU. :rolleyes:

tyler289
03-22-2009, 09:46 PM
Its not something that naturally occurs in the game. Here's the ball in striking distance. Go ahead....ok, you did it, here's your gold star. Now little Tommy's team gets a try.

Its gimmicky. If I wanted to watch a short field, I'd watch arena league (well , not this year).

Or if you're going to play a short field like that, why not make it soccer-style, just do penalty kicks. No players, just kickers.

It's football, I want to see no rule change from one period to the next. Not saying I'm right, just my preference.

Fair Enough. Like I said, I'd like it more if they moved the starting position back 5-10 yards.

Milkman
03-22-2009, 09:48 PM
I like the rules as they are currently tbh.

Stlrs4Life
03-22-2009, 09:52 PM
I think it would be a good change.

Preacher
03-22-2009, 11:28 PM
I like the idea of no field goals in OT .


I actually think that is the absolutely best way. It makes the smallest changes to the rules.

or no FG's for the first possession of each team.

That is even better. Just a slight rule change.

Galax Steeler
03-23-2009, 06:22 AM
I would like for each team to get a possesion. If the team that won the coin toss went down and got into field goal range, would you try to kick a field goal or try for a touchdown because you know the other team is going to get the ball back and if you kick a field goal the other team might get a touchdown and win.

Jackal
03-23-2009, 08:23 AM
Its not something that naturally occurs in the game. Here's the ball in striking distance. Go ahead....ok, you did it, here's your gold star. Now little Tommy's team gets a try.

Its gimmicky. If I wanted to watch a short field, I'd watch arena league (well , not this year).

Or if you're going to play a short field like that, why not make it soccer-style, just do penalty kicks. No players, just kickers.

It's football, I want to see no rule change from one period to the next. Not saying I'm right, just my preference.

So, do you think the NHL shootout rules are gimmicky, too?

IMO, the NFL's OT rules are awful and absolutely need changed. The fact that the team who wins the coin toss wins the game 63% of the time is statistically significant. If you've played your heart out for 60 minutes and done everything possible to win a game, then you should at least go home with a "T," instead of an out-and-out "L." Why should random chance play a role? Hell, let's just do away with OT and let them decide the game on a coin toss at the end. We all know the Steelers' luck when it comes to coin tosses:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/news/1998/11/26/lions_steelers/

If you want to make it quick and fair, implement the college system and do away with FG's.

scsteeler
03-23-2009, 08:37 AM
I am disappointed. The only reason there is a discussion on changing the OT rule is because King Peyton Manning didn't get a chance to see the field in the wildcard game vs the Chargers because the Colts Defense sucks. If it was the other way around there would be no controversey surrounding the rules. the rules are just fine


I agree with this statement 100%. I say keep the rule as is.

iceman000123
03-23-2009, 10:21 AM
So, do you think the NHL shootout rules are gimmicky, too?

IMO, the NFL's OT rules are awful and absolutely need changed. The fact that the team who wins the coin toss wins the game 63% of the time is statistically significant. If you've played your heart out for 60 minutes and done everything possible to win a game, then you should at least go home with a "T," instead of an out-and-out "L." Why should random chance play a role? Hell, let's just do away with OT and let them decide the game on a coin toss at the end. We all know the Steelers' luck when it comes to coin tosses:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/news/1998/11/26/lions_steelers/

If you want to make it quick and fair, implement the college system and do away with FG's.

I agree. Statistics don't lie. All players (or at least I would like to think) Play to win from the very beginning. so saying that they should have tried hard so they could have win the game so that it wouldn't have to go into overtime is a understatement. To play in the NFL it takes experience hard work dedication and a little luck.(and anything else I'm missing.) I just don't think that 63% percent of that should be luck. Both teams should get a chance. and if they both score the same amount of points. then T. there doesn't have to be any double overtimes or anything like that. Either that or what someone suggested earlier, eliminate field goals, which most likely won't happen.
:coffee:

The_WARDen
03-23-2009, 10:29 AM
So, do you think the NHL shootout rules are gimmicky, too?

IMO, the NFL's OT rules are awful and absolutely need changed. The fact that the team who wins the coin toss wins the game 63% of the time is statistically significant. If you've played your heart out for 60 minutes and done everything possible to win a game, then you should at least go home with a "T," instead of an out-and-out "L." Why should random chance play a role? Hell, let's just do away with OT and let them decide the game on a coin toss at the end. We all know the Steelers' luck when it comes to coin tosses:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/news/1998/11/26/lions_steelers/

If you want to make it quick and fair, implement the college system and do away with FG's.

NHL shootouts are gimmicky.

Tis why the NHL is joke sport...

Give It To Abercrombie
03-23-2009, 10:33 AM
So, do you think the NHL shootout rules are gimmicky, too?



You seriously want to structure the NFL's overtime rules after a league with 7 fans? The No Hope (for financial viability League.

And yes, I do. There is a reason they only do it in the regular season.

"Most NHL execs used to dismiss the shootout as a cheap gimmick. The shootout remains controversial, with some concern that its novelty will fade if fans see it too often. And what effect will it have on the preceding game? Might some teams play a conservative defensive style, preferring to guarantee one point and take their chances with a shootout?"

iceman000123
03-23-2009, 10:34 AM
I for one, would love to see this rule change. I'd love to see the game end with a play by our defense stoping our opponent on 4th down instead of it always being a field goal or touchdown that ends the game

plus, this would end any whining from the losing teams fans

Ah yes. The complaining and what ifs. "If we had the ball first we woulda won." with this change all of those excuses die. but then that opens the door for new excuses. "If Holmes didn't catch that pass we woulda won."

:rofl:

Give It To Abercrombie
03-23-2009, 10:35 AM
Both teams should get a chance.

Both teams do get a chance. They're both on the field at the same time right? Or does the offense go against an empty field? :coffee:

Give It To Abercrombie
03-23-2009, 10:36 AM
Ah yes. The complaining and what ifs. "If we had the ball first we woulda won." with this change all of those excuses die. but then that opens the door for new excuses. "If Holmes didn't catch that pass we woulda won."

:rofl:

Yeah, complaining wouldn't stop if the league folded tomorrow. "If we'd have played this year, We'd have won it all!" says the paperbag wearing Lions fan.

The_WARDen
03-23-2009, 10:37 AM
You seriously want to structure the NFL's overtime rules after a league with 7 fans? The No Hope (for financial viability League.

And yes, I do. There is a reason they only do it in the regular season.

"Most NHL execs used to dismiss the shootout as a cheap gimmick. The shootout remains controversial, with some concern that its novelty will fade if fans see it too often. And what effect will it have on the preceding game? Might some teams play a conservative defensive style, preferring to guarantee one point and take their chances with a shootout?"

Hey! It's important to get 1 point for a loss!

Give It To Abercrombie
03-23-2009, 10:39 AM
I actually think that is the absolutely best way. It makes the smallest changes to the rules.

or no FG's for the first possession of each team.

That is even better. Just a slight rule change.

Your posts kill me. I only ever glance at the left side of the screen as I read stuff and on your posts I just see orange and black. Looks like orange and black stripes in fact. Are you trying to mess with my head?

Jackal
03-23-2009, 10:54 AM
You seriously want to structure the NFL's overtime rules after a league with 7 fans? The No Hope (for financial viability League.

And yes, I do. There is a reason they only do it in the regular season.

"Most NHL execs used to dismiss the shootout as a cheap gimmick. The shootout remains controversial, with some concern that its novelty will fade if fans see it too often. And what effect will it have on the preceding game? Might some teams play a conservative defensive style, preferring to guarantee one point and take their chances with a shootout?"

Those rule changes are precisely why the NHL is growing by leaps and bounds in terms of viewership and overall popularity. I, for one, applaud them for being forward-thinking and making necessary changes to keep their game current and bring new fans into the fold.

Did I say I wanted to do a field-goal kicking contest to end the game? No, but I did say I wanted a fair system. Was it fair to the Steelers in 1998 when they played the Lions to a tie just to have the coin toss blown by the official and lose by a FG on the next drive? No f**king way!

You can blow as much smoke as you want, it doesn't change the fact that the current system isn't fair, and the numbers prove it. If it ain't broke, then don't fix it, but when it's glaringly obvious that it is broke, then get off your *ss and do something about it.

fansince'76
03-23-2009, 10:57 AM
You can blow as much smoke as you want, it doesn't change the fact that the current system isn't fair, and the numbers prove it. If it ain't broke, then don't fix it, but when it's glaringly obvious that it is broke, then get off your *ss and do something about it.

In 60% of OT games, both teams get at least one shot on offense. What's broken about it? Why prolong games needlessly and risk players even more to injury? I'll tell you right now I'd be seriously pissed off if a player like Ben or Harrison wound up on IR for the rest of the season as a result of an injury sustained during OT of a game that would have already been over under the current OT rules.

Jackal
03-23-2009, 11:05 AM
In 60% of OT games, both teams get at least one shot on offense. What's broken about it? Why prolong games needlessly and risk players even more to injury? I'll tell you right now I'd be seriously pissed off if a player like Ben or Harrison wound up on IR for the rest of the season as a result of an injury sustained during OT of a game that would have already been over under the current OT rules.

Because 40% of the time, one team doesn't get a chance on offense.

Would it be fair to put in a 5 day/40 hour work week, only to have your boss hand you a paycheck for 24 hours and say "Hey, you know our payroll system, sometimes it works in your favor, sometimes it doesn't"?

fansince'76
03-23-2009, 11:08 AM
Because 40% of the time, one team doesn't get a chance on offense.

Would it be fair to put in a 5 day/40 hour work week, only to have your boss hand you a paycheck for 24 hours and say "Hey, you know our payroll system, sometimes it works in your favor, sometimes it doesn't"?

So a team asking its defense and STs to do their jobs and prevent the other team from scoring to give their offense a chance is asking too much? You know, kind of like we did in the first game against the Ravens this past season where we lost the OT coin toss but won anyway? If they change this rule and a big name key starter for us goes down with a serious injury in an OT game that would have already been over under the current rules, I seriously wonder what people who are in favor of prolonging games this way will say.

LVSteelersfan
03-23-2009, 11:31 AM
Just get rid of OT completely in regular season games. If there are ties at the end of an OT why can't they just make it a tie at the end of the game? It would make it a lot more interesting at the end of the year when teams are vying for playoff spots. Of course you have the same problem when the playoffs start, but that would have to be figured out.

CPanther95
03-23-2009, 11:35 AM
I completely understand the argument they are making but winning in the NFL takes all three facets of the game: Offense, defense and special teams.

That's exactly the problem, in my view. It doesn't take all three facets once you get to OT - a disproportionate amount of the time, it only takes one to win it (offense).

I'm normally very resistant to changing anything about the NFL, however, I've reluctantly ended up on the same side as the Rooneys. I'm dead set against a college style of OT, but I'd be OK with either a mandatory possession for each team, or a half quarter minimum time. If after 7.5 minutes the score is still tied, it goes to sudden death.

Even with great defense, as long as they keep changing the rules (like this year's crackback block ban proposal) to favor offensive production, they will continue to skew the percentage of OT games won on the first drive.

Even a great defense can't be expected to stop a mediocre offense on every single drive from scoring just a field goal. That means that the outcome of the game is disproportionately decided based on a coin flip rather than the skill, or even the performance, of the team.

Here's another hypothetical. Both teams have no defense to speak of in regulation and they go into OT tied 70-70 with no punts all game. The team that loses the coin toss pulls off a defensive miracle (based on the game up to that point) and holds the offense to only a field goal for the first time in the game - yet they lose because of the coin toss - not because they couldn't maintain the level of performance of regulation.

Bottom line: If you lose 10 coin flips in a row, how many times do you think the better defense should keep a lesser offense from scoring a field goal on those 10 drives? Unless you honestly believe the answer is "10", then you are allowing the flip of a coin determine the winner of a game.

Steely McSmash
03-23-2009, 11:52 AM
I doubt it will seem like such a good idea when key starter(s) become lost to IR for the season in prolonged OT games.


I don't think I would tend to blame the OT situation for the injury. It could just as well have happened earlier. If this is the basis for making the decision, why not propose going back to 14 game seasons?

I like the excitement and the gamble that goes with the FG decision in the college rules.

Steely McSmash
03-23-2009, 12:11 PM
Bottom line: If you lose 10 coin flips in a row, how many times do you think the better defense should keep a lesser offense from scoring a field goal on those 10 drives? Unless you honestly believe the answer is "10", then you are allowing the flip of a coin determine the winner of a game.

0.09% chance of happening BTW. IMO coin flips are fair therefore the current system is fair.

I think the debate should be not so much whether the current system is fair but whether the NFL should allow a ramdom coin flip to influence the outcome of the game so strongly. I realize that defence and ST are playing etc, but the influence of the coin toss is definitely there.

Here's what we have to lose:

-players to injury
-potentially more fatigue affecting next week
-time
- excitement (debateable)
-random event strongly influencing game outcome

Here's what we have to gain:

- more $ in TV contact
- excitement (debateable)
- more entertainment time
- more $ in concessions
- game outcome less influenced by random events.
- gurantee of more than 30 sec of football after 5 min of commercials and commentary prior to the start of OT.

CPanther95
03-23-2009, 12:23 PM
0.09% chance of happening BTW. IMO coin flips are fair therefore the current system is fair.

Coin flips are a "fair" way to determine a winner?

Why not flip a coin to determine the outcome of every game then? Better yet, let's make it really fair and just assign the SB winner based on alphabetical order.

tyler289
03-23-2009, 01:10 PM
Coin flips are a "fair" way to determine a winner?

Why not flip a coin to determine the outcome of every game then? Better yet, let's make it really fair and just assign the SB winner based on alphabetical order.

The coin flip is 50/50 and therefore fair to determine who gets the ball first. I'd like to see anyone argue that a coin flip is NOT fair.

It doesn't determine the winner, it just determines who gets a shot at scoring first.

X-Terminator
03-23-2009, 01:14 PM
Those rule changes are precisely why the NHL is growing by leaps and bounds in terms of viewership and overall popularity. I, for one, applaud them for being forward-thinking and making necessary changes to keep their game current and bring new fans into the fold.

The NHL is growing by leaps and bounds in viewership and popularity because of the rule changes? Seriously? Then why are 2/3 of the teams in the league losing money and were losing money before the economic downturn? Why can't the defending Stanley Cup Champs fill up their arena and couldn't sell out Finals games last season? Why were there 2 teams this past year in danger of going bankrupt, one of which is still having financial trouble (PHX)? The Nashville Predators almost moved last year because they couldn't draw 14,000 fans a game for a playoff team! Don't be fooled by attendance figures - they go by tickets sold. The number of people actually in the building is usually less than the announced numbers, in some cases WAY less. Don't even get me started on viewership - the worst thing the NHL ever did was leave ESPN, for a network that most people didn't even get when they made the switch, and even now that more people get it, the fans STILL aren't watching. The reasons why they aren't going to or watching the games are because the games are so damn boring half the time from all of the ridiculous penalties and, more importantly, little or no physical play, and yes, that includes fighting. The game has gotten away from its roots thanks to Gary Bettman and his merry band of morons, and the league has suffered for it. And I see Kommissar Goodell (credit to FS76) doing the same thing to the NFL if he gets his way. I swear to God he and Butt-Head are related in some way, because neither of them have any idea how to run a professional sports league.

tyler289
03-23-2009, 01:36 PM
The NHL is growing by leaps and bounds in viewership and popularity because of the rule changes? Seriously? Then why are 2/3 of the teams in the league losing money and were losing money before the economic downturn? Why can't the defending Stanley Cup Champs fill up their arena and couldn't sell out Finals games last season? Why were there 2 teams this past year in danger of going bankrupt, one of which is still having financial trouble (PHX)? The Nashville Predators almost moved last year because they couldn't draw 14,000 fans a game for a playoff team! Don't be fooled by attendance figures - they go by tickets sold. The number of people actually in the building is usually less than the announced numbers, in some cases WAY less. Don't even get me started on viewership - the worst thing the NHL ever did was leave ESPN, for a network that most people didn't even get when they made the switch, and even now that more people get it, the fans STILL aren't watching. The reasons why they aren't going to or watching the games are because the games are so damn boring half the time from all of the ridiculous penalties and, more importantly, little or no physical play, and yes, that includes fighting. The game has gotten away from its roots thanks to Gary Bettman and his merry band of morons, and the league has suffered for it. And I see Kommissar Goodell (credit to FS76) doing the same thing to the NFL if he gets his way. I swear to God he and Butt-Head are related in some way, because neither of them have any idea how to run a professional sports league.

I absolutely agree that Bettman BLOWS and has made the game worse, but the NHL's popularity is INCREASING in most markets. The NHL can't help the fact that Detroit is probably the hardest-hit city in America and people are leaving. The expansion into the SunBelt has failed for the most part. Chicago and DC, two of the biggest markets in America, are going to be selling out for the foreseeable future and the Canadian teams of course remain at the top of attendance numbers. The only financial trouble the NHL is in is in Phoenix and Nashville.

And the NHL didn't really leave ESPN, ESPN left during the lockout and the NHL didn't want to pay what ESPN wanted afterwards. Apparently the NHL is looking to get back on ESPN when their contract with terrible VS is up.

Jackal
03-23-2009, 01:54 PM
The NHL is growing by leaps and bounds in viewership and popularity because of the rule changes? Seriously? Then why are 2/3 of the teams in the league losing money and were losing money before the economic downturn? Why can't the defending Stanley Cup Champs fill up their arena and couldn't sell out Finals games last season? Why were there 2 teams this past year in danger of going bankrupt, one of which is still having financial trouble (PHX)? The Nashville Predators almost moved last year because they couldn't draw 14,000 fans a game for a playoff team! Don't be fooled by attendance figures - they go by tickets sold. The number of people actually in the building is usually less than the announced numbers, in some cases WAY less. Don't even get me started on viewership - the worst thing the NHL ever did was leave ESPN, for a network that most people didn't even get when they made the switch, and even now that more people get it, the fans STILL aren't watching. The reasons why they aren't going to or watching the games are because the games are so damn boring half the time from all of the ridiculous penalties and, more importantly, little or no physical play, and yes, that includes fighting. The game has gotten away from its roots thanks to Gary Bettman and his merry band of morons, and the league has suffered for it. And I see Kommissar Goodell (credit to FS76) doing the same thing to the NFL if he gets his way. I swear to God he and Butt-Head are related in some way, because neither of them have any idea how to run a professional sports league.


Well, seeing as how I work in Sports Marketing and part of my job is doing the dasher board signage at NHL arenas, as well signage in the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NCAA, I'd like to think I know a little about what I'm talking about.

I may not be an expert in sports theory or history, but I like to consider myself an expert when evaluating sports media values.

CPanther95
03-23-2009, 02:03 PM
The coin flip is 50/50 and therefore fair to determine who gets the ball first. I'd like to see anyone argue that a coin flip is NOT fair.

It doesn't determine the winner, it just determines who gets a shot at scoring first.

But the team that gets the first shot, has a better chance of winning simply by virtue of getting the first offensive series. So your "50/50 fairness" is only completely fair if you feel that performance shouldn't be the primary factor in determining the victor..

At least a jump ball requires a skill set. The ultimate winner shouldn't be significantly influenced by the flip of a coin - no matter how much you feel that 50/50 is "fair".

Give It To Abercrombie
03-23-2009, 04:59 PM
Because 40% of the time, one team doesn't get a chance on offense.

That is the crux of our difference of opinion. I think playing defense, you are getting your chance. Can't stop someone? Had your chance. Bummer.


Would it be fair to put in a 5 day/40 hour work week, only to have your boss hand you a paycheck for 24 hours and say "Hey, you know our payroll system, sometimes it works in your favor, sometimes it doesn't"?

That's just ridiculous.

Give It To Abercrombie
03-23-2009, 05:00 PM
Just get rid of OT completely in regular season games. If there are ties at the end of an OT why can't they just make it a tie at the end of the game? It would make it a lot more interesting at the end of the year when teams are vying for playoff spots. Of course you have the same problem when the playoffs start, but that would have to be figured out.

That is the only change I'd be ok with.

vader29
03-23-2009, 05:03 PM
Keep the overtime rules the same except get rid of the coin flip completely, home team gets the choice of playing offense or defense, makes the home field advantage much more important especially in the playoffs.

CPanther95
03-23-2009, 05:04 PM
That is the crux of our difference of opinion. I think playing defense, you are getting your chance. Can't stop someone? Had your chance. Bummer.

Yep, that's the difference. You would allow the coin flip to determine which single aspect of the game the win will be based on.

The Rooney's one possession minimum proposal will make the victory dependent on the performance of all three aspects that make up your football team - offense, defense and special teams.

Give It To Abercrombie
03-23-2009, 05:06 PM
That's exactly the problem, in my view. It doesn't take all three facets once you get to OT - a disproportionate amount of the time, it only takes one to win it (offense).


Of course it takes all three. Great return coverage (special teams), the opponent starts further back. Great defense, not only stop them but get a three and out and you'll have great field position yourself.

So, say the kick return brings a team to the 25. Drive 40 yards and arrive at the opponents 35. Kick a 52 yard field goal for the win. 52 yards is awful far. Darn near impossible at Heinz field. So you are saying a defense that gives up a 40+ yard drive didn't have a chance?

Give It To Abercrombie
03-23-2009, 05:10 PM
But the team that gets the first shot, has a better chance of winning simply by virtue of getting the first offensive series. So your "50/50 fairness" is only completely fair if you feel that performance shouldn't be the primary factor in determining the victor..

At least a jump ball requires a skill set. The ultimate winner shouldn't be significantly influenced by the flip of a coin - no matter how much you feel that 50/50 is "fair".

Well that seals it. Jump balls to decide who gets the ball in overtime.

CPanther95
03-23-2009, 05:11 PM
Of course it takes all three. Great return coverage (special teams), the opponent starts further back. Great defense, not only stop them but get a three and out and you'll have great field position yourself.

That's 1 1/2.

So, say the kick return brings a team to the 25. Drive 40 yards and arrive at the opponents 35. Kick a 52 yard field goal for the win. 52 yards is awful far. Darn near impossible at Heinz field. So you are saying a defense that gives up a 40+ yard drive didn't have a chance?

No, I'm saying the offense didn't have a chance. That's one of the three key parts of a football team.

In your scenario, how was the kicking team's offense involved in the outcome?

CPanther95
03-23-2009, 05:15 PM
Well that seals it. Jump balls to decide who gets the ball in overtime.

Of course, you'd want it to be best of two, and they have to take turns jumping - and a coin flip to break any ties. That's the only way to insure that the outcome would be a "fair" 50/50 chance. Heaven forbid we let performance enter into the equation. :chuckle:

Give It To Abercrombie
03-23-2009, 05:16 PM
Yep, that's the difference. You would allow the coin flip to determine which single aspect of the game the win will be based on.


Well, I guess I'm the *-hole. I did say the defense can't take the field. I did, right? Somewhere?

So again I say......So, say the kick return brings a team to the 25. Drive 40 yards and arrive at the opponents 35. Kick a 52 yard field goal for the win. 52 yards is awful far. Darn near impossible at Heinz field. So you are saying a defense that gives up a 40+ yard drive didn't have a chance?

If your defense can't do that I don't care what your offense can do. To be perfectly honest, if someone were to give me an argument that didn't include the word "fair" I would be less inclined to argue. I am so tired of grown adults saying "that's not fair" I want to damn puke.

Give It To Abercrombie
03-23-2009, 05:20 PM
Of course, you'd want it to be best of two, and they have to take turns jumping - and a coin flip to break any ties. That's the only way to insure that the outcome would be a "fair" 50/50 chance. Heaven forbid we let performance enter into the equation. :chuckle:

DAMN IT!!!! you made me burn dinner.

Agree to disagree, I need to go try to scrape the black off.

:drink:

CPanther95
03-23-2009, 05:22 PM
If your defense can't do that I don't care what your offense can do. To be perfectly honest, if someone were to give me an argument that didn't include the word "fair" I would be less inclined to argue. I am so tired of grown adults saying "that's not fair" I want to damn puke.

Agree 100%.

I've been jabbing you with the word "fair" because I had the same reaction when it was posted that the coin flip is 50/50 - therefore it is "fair". I hadn't noticed that you took over the con side of the argument from tyler289 who had been the original poster of that claim.

Apologies.

steelerdave1969
03-23-2009, 05:26 PM
First disagreement with the Rooneys all year. I dont want the OT rule to change.

I totally agree with the Rooney's myself. I think that that would make it fair to both teams to have atleast 1 possession. I wouldnt mind seeing the college overtime rule myself. But thats just my opinions..
:noidea:

OX1947
03-23-2009, 05:27 PM
What I do not understand about this overtime thing is they are working off wrong percentages. They use the percentage of how a team scores on the first drive of OT at 46% or something, but the percentage they should be using is since this OT has been implemented, 53% of the time the team that wins the coin toss wins. That isn't a big difference. And also, the defense can win the game also. OT is fine the way it is. Damn freakin league needs to stop worrying about 1 game out of 5000 that results in a bad situation. If Indy weren't chokers, maybe they wouldn't have needed to go into OT in the playoffs and not have their precious Peyton Manning not get the ball. If the QB wasn't Payton Manning, there wouldn't have given a rats ass about this damn OT thing right now.

lilyoder6
03-23-2009, 05:28 PM
a coin flip is not fair.. i mean tails never fails right???? :flap:


they could always do what the xfl did.. a fumble rooskie drill

fansince'76
03-23-2009, 05:31 PM
If the QB wasn't Payton Manning, there wouldn't have given a rats ass about this damn OT thing right now.

Bingo! Well that and the illustrious Peter King pitching a bitch about it in his MMQB column.

CPanther95
03-23-2009, 05:52 PM
What I do not understand about this overtime thing is they are working off wrong percentages. They use the percentage of how a team scores on the first drive of OT at 46% or something, but the percentage they should be using is since this OT has been implemented, 53% of the time the team that wins the coin toss wins. That isn't a big difference. And also, the defense can win the game also. OT is fine the way it is. Damn freakin league needs to stop worrying about 1 game out of 5000 that results in a bad situation. If Indy weren't chokers, maybe they wouldn't have needed to go into OT in the playoffs and not have their precious Peyton Manning not get the ball. If the QB wasn't Payton Manning, there wouldn't have given a rats ass about this damn OT thing right now.

But we don't have the same rules "since this OT was implemented". The kickoff has been moved back to the 30 and starting field position is much better with fewer touchbacks. Plus almost all rule changes have been designed to help the offense score more.

The percentage since 2000 is more like 60%, not 53% - and it has been steadily climbing. That's not 1 out of 5000 - statistically, it is 1 out of 10 times the "better" team didn't win.

Give It To Abercrombie
03-23-2009, 07:01 PM
Agree 100%.

I've been jabbing you with the word "fair" because I had the same reaction when it was posted that the coin flip is 50/50 - therefore it is "fair". I hadn't noticed that you took over the con side of the argument from tyler289 who had been the original poster of that claim.

Apologies.

:drink:

iceman000123
03-23-2009, 08:58 PM
Well a better way of deciding since so many strongly disagree with change OT rules, then there should be perhaps a better means of deciding who gets the ball first. A means that requires more skill. Such as Team captain 40 race or something along those means. That way at least chance didn't come anywhere into play

X-Terminator
03-24-2009, 07:56 AM
Well, seeing as how I work in Sports Marketing and part of my job is doing the dasher board signage at NHL arenas, as well signage in the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NCAA, I'd like to think I know a little about what I'm talking about.

I may not be an expert in sports theory or history, but I like to consider myself an expert when evaluating sports media values.

Well then, you should know that the NHL cooks the books when it comes to attendance figures by using the number of tickets sold rather than the number of people coming through the turnstiles, and therefore they cannot be used as an accurate measure of fan interest. Most teams in the NFL use the same method (the Steelers do not). Watch as many games as I do, and look at all of the empty seats in various arenas, including Mellon Arena, and then come back and imply that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, this is way off-topic, so I'll end here.

Jackal
03-24-2009, 09:02 AM
Well then, you should know that the NHL cooks the books when it comes to attendance figures by using the number of tickets sold rather than the number of people coming through the turnstiles, and therefore they cannot be used as an accurate measure of fan interest. Most teams in the NFL use the same method (the Steelers do not). Watch as many games as I do, and look at all of the empty seats in various arenas, including Mellon Arena, and then come back and imply that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, this is way off-topic, so I'll end here.

Yes, this is off-topic, but nevertheless....

I alluded to that point in another post when they stated that the Red Wings were one of the most lucrative teams in sports, but they couldn't fill half the seats in the playoffs. While many teams use sales numbers to report attendance, they still keep a record of the turnstile numbers, as well, those stats just aren't reported to the public.

Largely, though, when you are buying arena/stadium signage, you are less concerned with the people actually in the stands than the TV coverage and spillover media you get (pictures in Sports Illustrated, etc.) Thus, I was extremely thrilled when I watched the Steelers Super Bowl DVD and saw the signage I bought this year over-and-over again in slow motion. Damn near brought a tear to my eye. :tt02:

STEELAMANIA
03-24-2009, 05:14 PM
With the new 4 rules passed in the meetings they might as well rename it to "National Flag Football League".

iceman000123
03-24-2009, 09:53 PM
With the new 4 rules passed in the meetings they might as well rename it to "National Flag Football League".

Yes. The four rules that they just passed are complete and total bullsh*t. What is the nfl becoming
:bs:

Galax Steeler
03-25-2009, 04:03 AM
Yes. The four rules that they just passed are complete and total bullsh*t. What is the nfl becoming
:bs:

Agreed the nfl is getting soft.:banging: