Sudden Death in NFL overtime

[mxyzptlk]

If it were up to me, I'd keep it sudden death but field goals don't count. First team to score a proper touchdown wins.

OR a safety.. there should be more safetys.

Hey, I'm not alone

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax
The biggest argument against SD is the team that didn't get the ball in OT didn't have a chance to win. Last time I checked, there are three majors parts to a football team:

1) Offense
2) Defense
3) Special Teams

With this said, if your defense can't stop their offense then your football "team" isn't very good and probably should lose. They did have a chance to win - it is just that their defense wasn't good enough to do it.

What if both defenses are bad? Why shouldn't the other offense have a chance to exploit the other defense? Why should that be left to the chance of a coin flip?

I think the current NFL sudden death OT is complete bullshit. I just don't think it's fair that the Colts offense didn't have the same shot at scoring like the Chargers did. Sure, it's a team sport, and if the defense couldn't hold, then so be it. But then again, it's a team sport, why shouldn't both sides of the ball be represented in OT? The entire game of football is a balance between offense and defense, but you're telling me that suddenly, OT isn't so balanced anymore? If you have a bad offense, you hope your defense can pick up the slack, and vice-versa. To be handicapped in OT by the luck of the draw is complete crap.

With that said, the better team won last Saturday night, and the Colts wouldn't have done anything with the ball had they gotten it in OT anyway. But they should've had the chance regardless.

 

[Drakkon]

Originally posted by: sash1
they should do penalty kicks. just have the kickers line up and boot 40 yarders until they miss

How about Free Kicks of at least 60 yards?

 

[SlitheryDee]

Being tied at the end of regulation means that two teams are pretty evenly matched. In that case the winner is probably largely determined by luck anyway. Whatever tiny difference in skill there is might become evident if we make regulation time 2 or 3 times as long. If we're not going to do that we might as well keep sudden death.

 

[BUTCH1]

A point not being made yet is that defenses are just gassed after 4 quarters, coin flip winner will always have an advantage IMO. That's why you see so many OT drives for FG's, you have to give both offenses a shot, period..

 

[HopJokey]

A good compromise (between Sudden Death and the college way) would be to make OT the first to 4 points.

This way a team with the ball first needs to score a TD to win the game instead of just a FG. Also I choose 4 so that a team can win via 1 TD or any other two score combos (2 FG, 2 Safety's, 1 Safety and 1 FG).

In the regular season OT still lasts 15 minutes and if no one reaches the 4 point plateau then the one with the most points is the winner (or tied). In the playoffs it's first one to four no matter how long.

 

[akshatp]

Originally posted by: ducci
I love reading Peter King's writing, and he just put up this debate with Don Banks (another good one) about overtime in the NFL.

I keep swaying back and forth between how I feel about it.

How do you guys stand?

How do I stand? With my two legs.

I think you mean where do you guys stand.

Anyway, to answer the question, there should be a full OT period. In the regular season, if it is still tied, then so be it. In the playoffs, keep continuing full OT periods until there is a winner.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

There should be an extra quarter added of 10 or 15 minutes of length where they play that time and if there is still a tie at the end of the quarter in the regular season then it is a tie. If in the playoffs, one 10 minute quarter than Sudden Death.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Babbles
I hate the idea of sudden death in football.

So does Korey Stringer's widow.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
I'd go until the first unanswered score (meaning give an automatic possession to the opposing team and let them have that possession to answer back, if not, game over).

If it's going to be changed at all, I'd go with this plus NO field goals.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: ducci
The Bears had (have) a god-awful offense, but their defense got them to a Super Bowl. If given the option, I wonder if they would trust the defense to score rather than the offense.

Please. As bad as any Bears offense has been, it still has a statistically better chance of scoring than their defense.

 

[fustercluck]

Like the OP, I go back and forth a bit, thinking about the different sudden death systems, but I always come back to thinking it should change to something similar to the college system. A football team consists of both offense and defense, the whole team should get a chance in sudden death. This previous weekend the Colts went down to SD in OT, deservedly so. Peyton never got on the field though to show if he could tie it up, or choke - Like many others I feel the outcome is much too dependent on a coin flip. If the Colts fate of that little spinning half dollar was different, the Colts would most likely be moving on to the next round. Though it was tails, and SD pulled it out. I'm not saying the Colts got cheated or anything, I'm just using the game as an example as why I think they need to change the rules next season.

But, if it doesn't get changed, it won't bother me much. I'm about 60/40 in favor of the college overtime system. Should probably start em on the 30 yard line though.

ps what is the actual percentage of NFL teams who win the overtime coin toss toss that end up winning? I think I remember it being about 75%.

 

[Zebo]

Terrible rule- the worst - worse than no college playoffs.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: wankawitz
Like the OP, I go back and forth a bit, thinking about the different sudden death systems, but I always come back to thinking it should change to something similar to the college system. A football team consists of both offense and defense, the whole team should get a chance in sudden death. This previous weekend the Colts went down to SD in OT, deservedly so. Peyton never got on the field though to show if he could tie it up, or choke - Like many others I feel the outcome is much too dependent on a coin flip. If the Colts fate of that little spinning half dollar was different, the Colts would most likely be moving on to the next round. Though it was tails, and SD pulled it out. I'm not saying the Colts got cheated or anything, I'm just using the game as an example as why I think they need to change the rules next season.

But, if it doesn't get changed, it won't bother me much. I'm about 60/40 in favor of the college overtime system. Should probably start em on the 30 yard line though.

ps what is the actual percentage of NFL teams who win the overtime coin toss toss that end up winning? I think I remember it being about 75%.

And if the Colts were really the better TEAM (notice there's a defense, it's not all Manning last I checked), then they would have made the stop in OT when it counted. No excuses. And if Manning was really that better than San Diego's D, then why the hell didn't he prove it BEFORE OVERTIME? This second chance bullsht is further proof of the pussification of our country. "It's not fair", "I didn't get a trophy for doing my homework", "He called me poopypants" = man up for Christ's sake. Last I checked your team had FOUR QUARTERS to assert its dominance, don't cry and say Peyton never got a chance. Utter bullsht. He choked during 4 quarters (only completed 59.5% of 42 passes lol), no more second chances. Our grandfathers are rolling in their graves.

PS: Fly, Eagles Fly...

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Anubis
Sudden Death in any and all sports is a bad idea and should be changed

No way! It is perfect in Hockey and even Soccer, but in a game like Football it just doesn't work. They definitely need to change it.

KT

Why did you have to pollute a football thread?

This is America we don't do soccer probably for that reason, beside being a scoreless affair with acting that gives Lawrence Olivia a run for his money, it's decided on pure goalie luck, guessing right or wrong. Then you have the riots, racism and bombs.


Hockey is another 'sport' I don't care to emulate but it's a lot better, mens soccer with fights on ice.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Genx87
It(sudden death) really doesnt make sense in football if you think about it. Both teams play to a tie in regulation. Why shouldnt they both be offered an equal opportunity in overtime?

Easy, because if you're the best team you will win in the clutch like you failed to do in regulation. Your defense will make the stop when it's most critical. Your offense will score when you most need it and not fold under the pressure. There is no such thing as "fair" when it comes to being the best.

College just does it because they wanted to be different and they want the games to last longer (also see: stopping the clock temp after a 1st down). It's stupid.

Nothing more needs to be said about this topic IMO, IF you're the best, you will prove it when it's most needed. Do you disagree with that?

I disagree because neither team proved they were the "best" during regulation when it was "most" needed. Why should one be afforded a disproportional opportunity to win based on a coin toss?

 

[fustercluck]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
And if the Colts were really the better TEAM (notice there's a defense, it's not all Manning last I checked), then they would have made the stop in OT when it counted. No excuses. And if Manning was really that better than San Diego's D, then why the hell didn't he prove it BEFORE OVERTIME? This second chance bullsht is further proof of the pussification of our country. "It's not fair", "I didn't get a trophy for doing my homework", "He called me poopypants" = man up for Christ's sake. Last I checked your team had FOUR QUARTERS to assert its dominance, don't cry and say Peyton never got a chance. Utter bullsht. He choked during 4 quarters (only completed 59.5% of 42 passes lol), no more second chances. Our grandfathers are rolling in their graves.

PS: Fly, Eagles Fly...

Blarrg, you missed my point. Neither the Colts or Chargers are 'my team' either. So I don't have any fanaticism (is that really a word?) for either team. Anyhow, some teams have a great offense and no defense or vice versa. Being an offensive team and losing the toss in OT would be a killer. Colts/Chargers probably is a bad example for this stupid point I'm trying to make - Mainly it's just that the coin flip decides the outcome too much. If the chargers were so good why didn't they win in regulation? Both teams were pretty even, that's why, and the game was decided by a coinflip. I think the better team won though. Anyways, like I say I'm still 40% in favor of the NFL overtime system, so it's hard to argue against it too much. Just trying to explain why I like the college system a little bit more.

No team who won this previous weekend (including the Eagles ) is going to win the superbowl anyways. Probably none of them will advance to the next round even.

 

[Casawi]

I like the idea that one must get the job done on defense if it comes down to it. Overall, I don't feel that each team gets the same chance at winning at the end.
Why can't they just play another quarter (maybe only 10mins)... if it is tied still.. who ever had the ball gets to start a sudden death extra quarter again.
But I guess this will make the game extra extra long.

 

[Insomniator]

Once again, the coin toss (which we'll just call the receiving the ball) DOES NOT give an advantage. So far, statistics show that the coin flip has no significant outcome. Given that fact, there is no reason to change the rule into some other goofy system like college.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Genx87
It(sudden death) really doesnt make sense in football if you think about it. Both teams play to a tie in regulation. Why shouldnt they both be offered an equal opportunity in overtime?

Easy, because if you're the best team you will win in the clutch like you failed to do in regulation. Your defense will make the stop when it's most critical. Your offense will score when you most need it and not fold under the pressure. There is no such thing as "fair" when it comes to being the best.

College just does it because they wanted to be different and they want the games to last longer (also see: stopping the clock temp after a 1st down). It's stupid.

Nothing more needs to be said about this topic IMO, IF you're the best, you will prove it when it's most needed. Do you disagree with that?

I disagree because neither team proved they were the "best" during regulation when it was "most" needed. Why should one be afforded a disproportional opportunity to win based on a coin toss?

If neither proved it, then why should it matter who gets the ball first? No, winner of coin toss =! advantage. If you can find the percentage of 1000 overtime games (the only statistically sound evidence), then good luck because it doesn't exist. And I guarantee you that even over 1000 games, it's not going to be 50/50. You would probably whine if the defense showed a .5% of the time winning.

Play on the field decides the game, not a coin toss. No FG is guaranteed. No snap is guaranteed to even find its way into the QB's hands. You still have to earn the win. Either way both teams already had a chance to win, no excuses should be made. The better team will produce under pressure and the loser will fold. It's that simple. Testing both the offense and defense is stupid, both were already tested for 4 quarters.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Once again, the coin toss (which we'll just call the receiving the ball) DOES NOT give an advantage. So far, statistics show that the coin flip has no significant outcome. Given that fact, there is no reason to change the rule into some other goofy system like college.

Untrue.

A recent analysis by economist Richard E. Hawkins of Pennsylvania State University in DuBois confirms that these differences are statistically significant. "The analysis finds with 99.99 % certainty that the [coin] flip has made a difference in the outcome of the game over the last 10 years,"

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html

More

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.

http://www.advancednflstats.co...s-coin-flip-in-ot.html

Kicking field goals from the 45 best of 5 would be better than this crap shoot of a coin toss.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: wankawitz

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
And if the Colts were really the better TEAM (notice there's a defense, it's not all Manning last I checked), then they would have made the stop in OT when it counted. No excuses. And if Manning was really that better than San Diego's D, then why the hell didn't he prove it BEFORE OVERTIME? This second chance bullsht is further proof of the pussification of our country. "It's not fair", "I didn't get a trophy for doing my homework", "He called me poopypants" = man up for Christ's sake. Last I checked your team had FOUR QUARTERS to assert its dominance, don't cry and say Peyton never got a chance. Utter bullsht. He choked during 4 quarters (only completed 59.5% of 42 passes lol), no more second chances. Our grandfathers are rolling in their graves.

PS: Fly, Eagles Fly...

Blarrg, you missed my point. Neither the Colts or Chargers are 'my team' either. So I don't have any fanaticism (is that really a word?) for either team. Anyhow, some teams have a great offense and no defense or vice versa. Being an offensive team and losing the toss in OT would be a killer. Colts/Chargers probably is a bad example for this stupid point I'm trying to make - Mainly it's just that the coin flip decides the outcome too much. If the chargers were so good why didn't they win in regulation? Both teams were pretty even, that's why, and the game was decided by a coinflip. I think the better team won though. Anyways, like I say I'm still 40% in favor of the NFL overtime system, so it's hard to argue against it too much. Just trying to explain why I like the college system a little bit more.

No team who won this previous weekend (including the Eagles ) is going to win the superbowl anyways. Probably none of them will advance to the next round even.

I understand your point about some teams excelling on D or O, but "Any Given Sunday"when it comes to OT. Just because it's a team's strength doesn't mean it won't fold under pressure. That's the beauty of sudden death. Look at players like Tony Romo who fold like a lawn chair in high pressure situations. The Dallas O is definitely their strength, but it's a toss up whether he'll choke in the clutch. Yes, Manning is better at handling high pressure situations but he could have been having a slightly off day (like last Sunday) and it's a toss up. Any team's defense can step up as well and make the sack, FF, or INT.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Once again, the coin toss (which we'll just call the receiving the ball) DOES NOT give an advantage. So far, statistics show that the coin flip has no significant outcome. Given that fact, there is no reason to change the rule into some other goofy system like college.

Untrue.

A recent analysis by economist Richard E. Hawkins of Pennsylvania State University in DuBois confirms that these differences are statistically significant. "The analysis finds with 99.99 % certainty that the [coin] flip has made a difference in the outcome of the game over the last 10 years,"

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html

More

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.

http://www.advancednflstats.co...s-coin-flip-in-ot.html

Kicking field goals from the 45 best of 5 would be better than this crap shoot of a coin toss.

A) 124 games is not statistically significant. Try flipping a coin 124 times, will it be heads/tails 50% of the time? No. Try 1000 times, it'll be much closer to 50/50 for heads/tails than 124. It's stat 101.

B) Your field goal kicking example is absurd because football is a team sport, not 1 man vs 1 man.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Genx87
It(sudden death) really doesnt make sense in football if you think about it. Both teams play to a tie in regulation. Why shouldnt they both be offered an equal opportunity in overtime?

Easy, because if you're the best team you will win in the clutch like you failed to do in regulation. Your defense will make the stop when it's most critical. Your offense will score when you most need it and not fold under the pressure. There is no such thing as "fair" when it comes to being the best.

College just does it because they wanted to be different and they want the games to last longer (also see: stopping the clock temp after a 1st down). It's stupid.

Nothing more needs to be said about this topic IMO, IF you're the best, you will prove it when it's most needed. Do you disagree with that?

I disagree because neither team proved they were the "best" during regulation when it was "most" needed. Why should one be afforded a disproportional opportunity to win based on a coin toss?

If neither proved it, then why should it matter who gets the ball first? No, winner of coin toss =! advantage. If you can find the percentage of 1000 overtime games (the only statistically sound evidence), then good luck because it doesn't exist. And I guarantee you that even over 1000 games, it's not going to be 50/50. You would probably whine if the defense showed a .5% of the time winning.

Play on the field decides the game, not a coin toss. No FG is guaranteed. No snap is guaranteed to even find its way into the QB's hands. You still have to earn the win. Either way both teams already had a chance to win, no excuses should be made. The better team will produce under pressure and the loser will fold. It's that simple. Testing both the offense and defense is stupid, both were already tested for 4 quarters.

How the hell did you pass statistics class?
Who told you you need more than 1,000 sample size for something to be considered statistically significant?

 

[rasczak]

here's my thought on it.

Regarding the overtime question, my feeling is, instead of stopping the game at the end of the fourth quarter, why not just continue on with play until someone scores at the end? this eliminates the coin flip, but allows both teams to continue play until one team has stop the other from scoring.

My idea is thus, at the end of regulation, if one team scores, then they must still kickoff hence both special teams and defense get to help decide the outcome of the game, not just one third of the team (offense or defense)scoring continues, until one team is stopped. if however 15 minutes have passed and there is still a tie, then field goals should decide that outcome ala soccer, after each successive kick, the teams are pushed five yards back.

sounds fair to both teams no?

I have to admit, I would rather nothing changed at all.