What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

An Alternative to Overtime (1 Viewer)

Football is a strategic battle of field position involving offense, defense and special teams. To decide an overtime game with a different set of rules is a mistake.
Sudden death is also a different set of rules.
The basic rules of the game don't change. The college implementation of camping teams on the 20 yard line is a huge departure from the regular game.
I agree, and that's exactly why I don't like college overtime. I was just pointing out that you don't really believe that "to decide an overtime game with a different set of rules is a mistake." Except for those who are in favor of having no overtime at all, everyone wants to decide an overtime game with a different set of rules. We're just talking about degrees and varieties of differentness.
 
The college/HS OT setup won't work in the NFL because the FG kickers are too good. I really like the first team to 4 points.

 
Your assumption is the existing rules are flawed. I disagree.Using the recent Patriots/Jets game, New England's defense had a golden opportunity to stop the Jets and establish excellent field position. They failed and lost the game. The fact they never had "the ball" is irrelevant. Football is a strategic battle of field position involving offense, defense and special teams. To decide an overtime game with a different set of rules is a mistake.
very :thumbup:Though as a fan, I do like the win by 4 idea a lot.
 
I say just play "sudden death" 'til it's over.

Some will say it gives the team winning the overtime toss an unfair advantage but you can only go so far giving the other team "one more chance" to continue the game. Winning the toss in overtime is no different then a team driving down the field to win a tie game in regulation and no one complains about that. Anyway, defense is a big part of your team and they are not obliqued to let the offense score.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They were talking to Jonathan Kraft of the Pats on the radio before the Pats game today, and one of the main reasons he said the owners haven't made a move on the OT system is they want the game to get over as quickly as possible. The owners want the game over quickly so not to mess with the tv schedule for other games coming on after the one being played. That's an angle I never thought much about before.

 
OT is fine. tough break if you don't get the ball. last i checked defense is still a part of the game and if yours can't stop the other team from scoring, you lose.

play better defense, get the ball back and give your team a shot to win.

college OT rules are embarrassingly bad. horrific.

 
They were talking to Jonathan Kraft of the Pats on the radio before the Pats game today, and one of the main reasons he said the owners haven't made a move on the OT system is they want the game to get over as quickly as possible. The owners want the game over quickly so not to mess with the tv schedule for other games coming on after the one being played. That's an angle I never thought much about before.
This is a great example of why OT is not needed in the regular season. It really is ok to have a tie. I think in the other major sports with a much larger schedule it is fine to have OT and have a winner no matter what because they play each team so many times (within division anyway) the fluky wins get evened out and the better team really will win more. Although I would argue the larger schedule makes it even less important to have OT to break a tie.In football you get just one game, one chance to prove you are better (well 2 at most) so if a team can't prove they are better after 60 minutes of bashing skulls then a tie works for me. So there will be what, 5 or so ties each season out of 256 games? Who cares.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top