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.

New OT Rule for Playoffs Only: Now THIS is the Worst Rules Change Ever...Or Is It? (1 Viewer)

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
There was quite a bit of debate on here about this after the Bills loss. 

I was squarely on the side of "it's fine. Don't mess with it."

They messed with it. 

:wall:

"Sports llustrated's Albert Breer reports the league will change its overtime rules to allow one possession per team in postseason games. 

NFL owners weren't willing to go all the way and implement the rule for regular season games. The overtime tweak was made after Josh Allen and the Bills offense didn't see the field in an overtime loss to Kansas City in the Division Round in January -- one of the most epic games in league history that flatlined with an anticlimactic ending. The change comes after some NFL coaches, including Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin, advocated for the old-school "sudden death" overtime format during owners meetings."

:sadbanana:

so dumb

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's my problem with it. This still sets up a team missing the playoffs because they never got O.T. possession in a regular season loss.
Exactly. This fixes nothing. It's a half-hearted move to placate the teams whining about it. Here's a thought: play defense, and you'll get a possession in OT. You know, since they already changed OT rules to address exactly this. 

 
Meh. One step at a time.  This rule is objectively better.
Except they explicitly said that there’s a “very strong resistance to implementing this for regular season games” and this is NOT a dry run towards that eventuality.

This is their solution. Enjoy. 

 
It's better to have different rules for the playoffs than the regular season? 

:no:  
Honestly, I don't see why there is overtime in the regular season, just have ties. Then in the playoffs, I've never understood why they don't just do like basketball and baseball do, and just play another quarter/inning, and whoever is leading wins. Its a playoff game(single elimination no less) so who cares if it goes 4+ hours?

 
Honestly, I don't see why there is overtime in the regular season, just have ties. Then in the playoffs, I've never understood why they don't just do like basketball and baseball do, and just play another quarter/inning, and whoever is leading wins. Its a playoff game(single elimination no less) so who cares if it goes 4+ hours?
Exactly. 

 
I’m old. I remember before they started OT in 1974. I liked it better with no OT, games ended in ties, and sudden death OT in the playoffs. Don’t like getting a tie or not getting the ball in OT? Play to win in regulation. 

I think the best / fairest way to resolve things is to play out an OT period like soccer or basketball. But the player safety police will not let that happen. 

They lost me at how complicated they made OT the past 10 years. I still say both teams had 60 minutes to determine a winner. Either go sudden death or play out an extra period.

 
Meh. One step at a time.  This rule is objectively better.
It's not though.  So what happens when each team gets the ball once and each score the same points?  Then the original team gets it for a 2nd time and then scores.  Game over and the exact same argument to be made.  One team didn't get the ball as many times as the other team.  It only prolongs the same issue.  It's not better.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m old. I remember before they started OT in 1974. I liked it better with no OT, games ended in ties, and sudden death OT in the playoffs. Don’t like getting a tie or not getting the ball in OT? Play to win in regulation. 

I think the best / fairest way to resolve things is to play out an OT period like soccer or basketball. But the player safety police will not let that happen. 

They lost me at how complicated they made OT the past 10 years. I still say both teams had 60 minutes to determine a winner. Either go sudden death or play out an extra period.
I'm also a fan of sudden death, while we're on the subject. 

 
It's not though.  So what happens when each team gets the ball once and each score the same points?  Then the original team gets it for a 2nd time and then scores.  Game over and the exact same argument to be made.  One team didn't get the ball as many times as the other team.  It only prolongs the same issue.  It's not better.  
nope....if it is still tied after each team gets a possession you go to sudden death....the team that has the ball second will know what they need to do....FG...TD+1... or TD+2....if the team that gets the ball first scores a TD+1....the second team knows they have to get a TD+2 or might lose on next possession....

 
It's not though.  So what happens when each team gets the ball once and each score the same points?  Then the original team gets it for a 2nd time and then scores.  Game over and the exact same argument to be made.  One team didn't get the ball as many times as the other team.  It only prolongs the same issue.  It's not better.  
Precisely. This just artificially gives a team that failed to play defense an opportunity. It's affirmative action for bad defensive teams. 

 
nope....if it is still tied after each team gets a possession you go to sudden death....the team that has the ball second will know what they need to do....FG...TD+1... or TD+2....if the team that gets the ball first scores a TD+1....the second team knows they have to get a TD+2 or might lose on next possession....
So why not just simplify it and go right to sudden death? 

 
Honestly, I don't see why there is overtime in the regular season, just have ties. Then in the playoffs, I've never understood why they don't just do like basketball and baseball do, and just play another quarter/inning, and whoever is leading wins. Its a playoff game(single elimination no less) so who cares if it goes 4+ hours?
I'm kinda with you here. Given a choice between this, and the abomination they just created, gimme your thing. 

 
But make it more complicated like you can't win on a 2 pointer. It has to be a 3 pointer. 
I kinda liked the suggestion of longer and longer FGs to determine the winner. Would really help put an emphasis on FA K signings in the offs, too. 

Just what the NFL needs. 

:sarcasm:

 
nope....if it is still tied after each team gets a possession you go to sudden death....the team that has the ball second will know what they need to do....FG...TD+1... or TD+2....if the team that gets the ball first scores a TD+1....the second team knows they have to get a TD+2 or might lose on next possession....
We can eliminate that 2nd round altogether by making the losing team go for the win.

 
if you go to sudden death because it is still tied after each team has a possession....neither team can really complain....you had your chance...

it would actually put some pressure on the team that gets the ball first....they know that if they don't score a TD+2....the other team can one up them....

 
the only downside would be if the first team gets a TD+2 and then the second team also gets a TD+2....then it goes to sudden death and the second team MUST stop the first team....but you could argue....they had two chances to stop them and at that point, that just the breaks if they can't stop them once in two tries...

 
It's not though.  So what happens when each team gets the ball once and each score the same points?  Then the original team gets it for a 2nd time and then scores.  Game over and the exact same argument to be made.  One team didn't get the ball as many times as the other team.  It only prolongs the same issue.  It's not better.  
It's not and you know it.

Anything is better than relying on a 50:50 coin toss to determine the outcome of games.

 
All this back and forth is why they'll eventually just do a full quarter. Play football for another quarter. If it's still tied, play another quarter. Until someone is winning when the clock hits 0:00.

 
All this back and forth is why they'll eventually just do a full quarter. Play football for another quarter. If it's still tied, play another quarter. Until someone is winning when the clock hits 0:00.
The problem is the health and stamina of the players there.

 
Let's just get rid of OT entirely and let the coin decide the victor.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just for the playoffs. May happen once or twice a year. Regular season can stay as 10 mins  sudden death win by a TD. 
I am in favor of getting rid of OT in the regular season. What’s even the point? 
 

I get what you are saying about it being rare but would be crazy if Sunday night playoff games for triple OT. I feel like that’s really putting a strain on the players to recover and get ready for the next weekend. In the end, there probably isn’t a perfect scenario. 

 
Anything is better than relying on a 50:50 coin toss to determine the outcome of games.
This is a logical fallacy though. It's a false conclusion and/or misleading premise.

Everyone should agree that "anything is better than relying on a 50:50 coin toss to determine the outcome of games" - but that's not at all what determines the outcome of games. It only determines who gets the offensive possession & which side of the field is defended. 

Logically speaking, a number of factors determine the outcome of the game. Most notably, the team playing defense either stopping the team with possession, or barring that, holding the team with possession to a FG. 

What "determines the outcome of games" is which team executes better in overtime. The current rules allowed for both teams to have a possession - all the team losing the coin flip had to do is play football better than the team that won the coin flip. 

 
10 of the last 11 playoff OT coin toss winners won the game.  Seven times on the opening drive.

It's not a fallacy, it's a clear advantage.
Past history isn't a guarantee of future performance though. 

Maybe the next 10 of 11 OT coin toss winners will lose the game. 

You're not proving that the coin toss wins the game. You're only proving that in 10 of the last 11 playoff OT games, the team that won the coin toss subsequently played better football than the team that lost it. 

That's it. It's a clear fallacy. They still need to go out and execute. And if the team playing defense executes better, they can win. 

 
10 of the last 11 playoff OT coin toss winners won the game.  Seven times on the opening drive.

It's not a fallacy, it's a clear advantage.
The coin toss itself is 50/50. If teams want more control and less random chance then they should play to win during regular time. Also 11 trials isn’t enough to make any certain declarations.  It’s like saying RB X scored a TD in 10 of his last 11 games so we can surely say he’s going to score a TD just about every game of his career.  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top