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

[Chaka]

If you want to avoid losing because of a coin flip, don't put yourself into a situation where you can lose because of a coin flip.

Talk about a fallacy.

 

[Chaka]

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. 

Get back to me when that happens.

 

[Chaka]

1 out of the last 2 playoff OT coin toss winners won the game. 

So it's 50/50.  See how small sample sizes can skew the results..

Thank you for the numbers lesson.  Here's another one 11>2

 

[Ilov80s]

I still like my idea of the home team or team with the better record gets the ball to start OT. That makes it a reward instead of random and it lets the lower seeded team know the deal before OT so they can play more aggressive at the end.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Get back to me when that happens.

It's irrelevant if it happens, because it proves nothing, and sets zero expectations for future teams. 

Like flipping the coin itself. Flip it 9 times. It's heads 9 straight times. I guess you'd better run out and bet your life savings on tails, because it's (checks statistics) a 50-50 chance it'll be tails on the next toss, just like the previous 9 tosses. 

Playing football has many elements to it. The coin toss only determines who gets 1st offensive possession & which direction they play. The rest of the stuff that the guys in helmets do on the field matters a hell of a lot more, and it's fallacious to assert otherwise. 

No offense, but this 11-1 or 1-1 small sample size hokum is highly unconvincing. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Thank you for the numbers lesson.  Here's another one 11>2

His lesson made more sense than yours. 

 

[tangfoot]

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.

How many of those teams were the Vegas favorite?

 

[The Frankman]

The whole "fair" argument is bonkers. Football, like life, isn't fair. If you want to win the game, win it in regulation. Or as it's already been said, whatever squad you have out on the field in OT goes out and does its job; if offense go and score a TD. If defense, stop the opponent or hold them to a FG. Changing the rule in this manner is silly and it artifically lengthens the game (so much for all that player safety stuff).

I love Mike Tomlin's reply to this
 

“To be quite honest with you, I’m a sudden death advocate. I’m a traditionalist,” Tomlin, who is a member of the league’s Competition Committee, said this week. “I don’t fear sudden death and I never have, but obviously I lost that battle a decade ago. But my position remains unchanged. I am one of the few sudden death advocates I would imagine.”

“I just think 60 minutes everybody has had a fair opportunity to win the game,” Tomlin added. “When you’re talking about changes as it pertains to competitive fairness, I speak to the first 60 minutes that we all had. So, win the game. I don’t fear sudden death.”

He don't fear no stinkin' sudden death. The whole rationale being it's not fair because the Bills didn't get a chance in OT... So what the Bills didn't get another chance in OT? Don't effing allow the Chiefs to go 43 yards in 10 seconds!

 

[Leroy Hoard]

How many of those teams were the Vegas favorite?

I think that is the perfect solution. Vegas favorite wins all ties. If you really want your team to win, bet enough where they became the favorite.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The whole "fair" argument is bonkers. Football, like life, isn't fair. If you want to win the game, win it in regulation. Or as it's already been said, whatever squad you have out on the field in OT goes out and does its job; if offense go and score a TD. If defense, stop the opponent or hold them to a FG. Changing the rule in this manner is silly and it potentially lengthens the game.

I love Mike Tomlin's replay to this
 

He don't fear no stinkin' sudden death. So what the Bills didn't get another chance in OT? Don't effing allow the Chiefs to go 43 yards in 10 seconds!

Amen.

what’s truly bizarre is that they’re saying they made the rules change in response to coaches like Tomlin advocating for a return to sudden death. 

Uh, what?!  NFL done lost they minds 

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Amen.

what’s truly bizarre is that they’re saying they made the rules change in response to coaches like Tomlin advocating for a return to sudden death. 

Uh, what?!  NFL done lost they minds 

I think there is something to be said in the fact that the new rules and the way the game is officiated is a lot different then the times Tomlin is speaking of.....the slant towards the offense and drives being so easily extended is different now then when it used to be....

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I think there is something to be said in the fact that the new rules and the way the game is officiated is a lot different then the times Tomlin is speaking of.....the slant towards the offense and drives being so easily extended is different now then when it used to be....

You might be right.

i still think It was fine the way it was. Just because some perceived the end of the Bills game as “anticlimactic” doesn’t mean you implement a big change like this. 

 

[massraider]

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.

Wait till both teams score TDs, then the team that wins the coin toss scores a FG to win the game. 
Wait till that happens three times a row. Talk about unfair. Totally unfair. Like, it's not EVEN. It's really unfair.  They got TWO possessions!! Maybe the other team would have scored a TD, but now we will never know, because the 2nd team never got another possession, because of a coin flip. 

The NFL is regulating this billion dollar league like it's a Madden tournament in my dorm room. Nobody knock over the bong, it was, like, $200. 

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The whole "fair" argument is bonkers. Football, like life, isn't fair. If you want to win the game, win it in regulation. Or as it's already been said, whatever squad you have out on the field in OT goes out and does its job; if offense go and score a TD. If defense, stop the opponent or hold them to a FG. Changing the rule in this manner is silly and it artifically lengthens the game (so much for all that player safety stuff).

I love Mike Tomlin's replay to this

“To be quite honest with you, I’m a sudden death advocate. I’m a traditionalist,” Tomlin, who is a member of the league’s Competition Committee, said this week. “I don’t fear sudden death and I never have, but obviously I lost that battle a decade ago. But my position remains unchanged. I am one of the few sudden death advocates I would imagine.”

“I just think 60 minutes everybody has had a fair opportunity to win the game,” Tomlin added. “When you’re talking about changes as it pertains to competitive fairness, I speak to the first 60 minutes that we all had. So, win the game. I don’t fear sudden death.”

He don't fear no stinkin' sudden death. The whole rationale being it's not fair because the Bills didn't get a chance in OT... So what the Bills didn't get another chance in OT? 

Then why even bother playing sudden death?  Why not just flip a coin and the winner wins the game?  Or why not count the number of brown haired people in the stands and if it's over 40,000 then the home team wins?

If his point is essentially "fairness is only necessary in regulation, anything after that can just be arbitrary" then why play more football at all and risk people getting hurt?  Just play rock paper scissors, right?

 

[bostonfred]

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.

There's a clear advantage to winning the coin toss here too. I want to go second. 

You have to consider punting on fourth down if you're outside field goal range.  If you score, i will always use all 4 downs. 

If you don't score, I know i can win with a field goal.  

If you score 3, i can win with any touchdown or tie with a field goal.

If you score a touchdown and miss your extra point, i can win with a td and xp. 

If you score 7, and neither defense can stop each other like that kc buffalo game, i can go for two.  

If you score and go for two, you risk giving me the chance to win with 7. You can never surprise me by going for two and making it - i always get a chance to respond.  

It's like being the dealer in blackjack.  Massive advantage for the team that goes second.  

 

[wlwiles]

Good lord we're gonna re-argue the old thread in here I see...

I just wish they'd pick some rules, any rules, and stick with them for Pete's sake.  I can't keep track of what the rules are anymore, and whether they apply in the regular season, playoffs, or both.  No more changing the overtime rules every 3 years, and get off my lawn! 

 

[Gally]

Then why even bother playing sudden death?  Why not just flip a coin and the winner wins the game?  Or why not count the number of brown haired people in the stands and if it's over 40,000 then the home team wins?

If his point is essentially "fairness is only necessary in regulation, anything after that can just be arbitrary" then why play more football at all and risk people getting hurt?  Just play rock paper scissors, right?

i believe he was saying that Sudden Death is not arbitrary.  Complaining that one team didn't get the ball in OT is irrelevant because you had the entirety of regulation to possess the ball and win the game.  That is not arbitrary.  There is no need to force an equal number of possessions.  Play sudden death and first team to score wins.  Done.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

There's a clear advantage to winning the coin toss here too. I want to go second. 

You have to consider punting on fourth down if you're outside field goal range.  If you score, i will always use all 4 downs. 

If you don't score, I know i can win with a field goal.  

If you score 3, i can win with any touchdown or tie with a field goal.

If you score a touchdown and miss your extra point, i can win with a td and xp. 

If you score 7, and neither defense can stop each other like that kc buffalo game, i can go for two.  

If you score and go for two, you risk giving me the chance to win with 7. You can never surprise me by going for two and making it - i always get a chance to respond.  

It's like being the dealer in blackjack.  Massive advantage for the team that goes second.  

Walt…so you’re saying…there’s more to it than simply flipping a coin?! 
 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

i believe he was saying that Sudden Death is not arbitrary.  Complaining that one team didn't get the ball in OT is irrelevant because you had the entirety of regulation to possess the ball and win the game.  That is not arbitrary.  There is no need to force an equal number of possessions.  Play sudden death and first team to score wins.  Done.  

They should give the overtime loser a participation trophy. That way nobody goes home with hurt feels after the game. 

 

[Chaka]

There's a clear advantage to winning the coin toss here too. I want to go second. 

You have to consider punting on fourth down if you're outside field goal range.  If you score, i will always use all 4 downs. 

If you don't score, I know i can win with a field goal.  

If you score 3, i can win with any touchdown or tie with a field goal.

If you score a touchdown and miss your extra point, i can win with a td and xp. 

If you score 7, and neither defense can stop each other like that kc buffalo game, i can go for two.  

If you score and go for two, you risk giving me the chance to win with 7. You can never surprise me by going for two and making it - i always get a chance to respond.  

It's like being the dealer in blackjack.  Massive advantage for the team that goes second.  

Whoever wins the coin toss always has the option to go second. I believe only two times in NFL history has a team decided to 'go second under the current scheme (well two times that I can remember at any rate). There is a reason for that.

Let's take the opportunity to see how it plays out under the new scheme.

 

[Chaka]

And "just play defense" is another fallacy in an era where virtually every single gameplay rules change over the past two decades has favored the offense.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

i believe he was saying that Sudden Death is not arbitrary.  Complaining that one team didn't get the ball in OT is irrelevant because you had the entirety of regulation to possess the ball and win the game.  That is not arbitrary.  There is no need to force an equal number of possessions.  Play sudden death and first team to score wins.  Done.  

That's not why I got out of his quote at all.  He basically said "everyone already had 60 minutes of fairness" and "when we talk about making things fair, we should only be talking about the first 60 minutes".  He's basically saying we only need to try and keep things fair for regulation, and then after that we can just do whatever, so we may as well just make it sudden death since that's what we grew up with traditionally.

I think it's a ridiculous argument by him, personally, to think trying to keep the game fair should only matter for regulation.

 

[Gally]

That's not why I got out of his quote at all.  He basically said "everyone already had 60 minutes of fairness" and "when we talk about making things fair, we should only be talking about the first 60 minutes".  He's basically saying we only need to try and keep things fair for regulation, and then after that we can just do whatever, so we may as well just make it sudden death since that's what we grew up with traditionally.

I think it's a ridiculous argument by him, personally, to think trying to keep the game fair should only matter for regulation.

Hmm.......I don't see it that way at all.  I took it as you had 60 minutes to win the game.  Now it comes down to sudden death.  It has nothing to do with fairness.  To me the "fairness" aspect he is talking about is people saying that sudden death isn't fair because both teams don't get a chance at the ball.   

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Hmm.......I don't see it that way at all.  I took it as you had 60 minutes to win the game.  Now it comes down to sudden death.  It has nothing to do with fairness.  To me the "fairness" aspect he is talking about is people saying that sudden death isn't fair because both teams don't get a chance at the ball.   

That’s how I read it.

What’s next, it’s not “fair” that one team has Patrick Mahomes while the other team has JimmyG? 

So in OT both teams must have an offensive possession, and Mahomes has to switch jerseys so that both teams have a Patrick Mahomes behind center for the drive? 

“fairness” is kind of a stupid concept in this context. 
 
 

 

[Chaka]

Walt…so you’re saying…there’s more to it than simply flipping a coin?! 
 

Under the current system winning the coin toss provides a greater than zero advantage. That is not debatable.

Fred's scenarios are well considered and could, indeed make a difference in the calculus of OT decision making. But only under the new system. No right minded coach is choosing to receive after winning the coin toss under the old system. Because no amount of analytic gymnastics could defend it as the correct decision.

The new rule absolutely puts the analytics on the table and it will be fascinating to see if teams start deferring after winning the coin toss.

It's a much better rule.

 

[Chaka]

That’s how I read it.

What’s next, it’s not “fair” that one team has Patrick Mahomes while the other team has JimmyG? 

So in OT both teams must have an offensive possession, and Mahomes has to switch jerseys so that both teams have a Patrick Mahomes behind center for the drive? 

“fairness” is kind of a stupid concept in this context. 
 
 

Actually, that's exactly why the NFL has a draft. I am not sure there are any other employment models in dependently capitalist economies that outright deny prospective employees the opportunity to have a say in their future employer. It's all about giving bad teams a better chance to find the next Mahomes.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Actually, that's exactly why the NFL has a draft. I am not sure there are any other employment models in dependently capitalist economies that outright deny prospective employees the opportunity to have a say in their future employer. It's all about giving bad teams a better chance to find the next Mahomes.

Except we’re talking about fairness in the playoffs where special rules changes are being made so no one gets hurt feels over perceived unfairness. 

 

[Chaka]

Except we’re talking about fairness in the playoffs where special rules changes are being made so no one gets hurt feels over perceived unfairness. 

Winning the coin toss is an actual advantage, not a perceived one.

Arbitrary, yes. Perceived, no.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Winning the coin toss is an actual advantage, not a perceived one.

Arbitrary, yes. Perceived, no.

Except it’s not. 

it’s just a coin toss. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Under the current system winning the coin toss provides a greater than zero advantage. That is not debatable.

Fred's scenarios are well considered and could, indeed make a difference in the calculus of OT decision making. But only under the new system. No right minded coach is choosing to receive after winning the coin toss under the old system. Because no amount of analytic gymnastics could defend it as the correct decision.

The new rule absolutely puts the analytics on the table and it will be fascinating to see if teams start deferring after winning the coin toss.

It's a much better rule.

But the game isn’t “decided by a coin toss”, right?

right? 

That’s been your position. 

 

[Chaka]

Except it’s not. 

it’s just a coin toss. 

The winner of which benefits from a demonstrable advantage. We can debate if it is a 2.6% advantage or a 63.6% advantage but it is unquestionably an advantage.

Why is that such a problem?

 

[Chaka]

But the game isn’t “decided by a coin toss”, right?

right? 

That’s been your position. 

My position is the winner of the coin toss receives a demonstrable advantage. If there was none you would expect to see close to 50% deferral rate based upon multiple factors, many of the enumerated by Fred, but you don't see that, you see 0.01% deferral, maybe less. Because winning the coin toss imparts an advantage.

Not sure why that is a problem for you.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

My position is the winner of the coin toss receives a demonstrable advantage. If there was none you would expect to see close to 50% deferral rate based upon multiple factors, many of the enumerated by Fred, but you don't see that, you see 0.01% deferral, maybe less. Because winning the coin toss imparts an advantage.

Not sure why that is a problem for you.

Because that’s not what you said twice. You said the coin flip decided the game. 

 

[Chaka]

Because that’s not what you said twice. You said the coin flip decided the game. 

Semantics? Really?

It imparts an advantage, I have said that more than twice. Maybe instead of trying to win a semantics battle, which I concede, you win,  we can talk about whether or not arbitrarily receiving a greater than zero advantage by virtue of winning a coin toss is the best way to resolve a football game.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Semantics? Really?

It imparts an advantage, I have said that more than twice. Maybe instead of trying to win a semantics battle, which I concede, you win,  we can talk about whether or not arbitrarily receiving a greater than zero advantage by virtue of winning a coin toss is the best way to resolve a football game.

It’s not at all semantics.

you flatly stated, and then subsequently defended your statement that the coin toss “decides a game”.

you went on to simplify by saying “maybe we should just do the coin flip” instead of playing OT.

You could simply say you’re backing off that position because it was wrong to say that, instead of whatever this defensive nonsense is.


 

“greater than zero advantage” is one hell of a retreat from an absolutist statement that a coin toss literally decides games. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

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

Reminder. 

 

[Raging weasel]

Whoever wins the coin toss always has the option to go second. I believe only two times in NFL history has a team decided to 'go second under the current scheme (well two times that I can remember at any rate). There is a reason for that.

Let's take the opportunity to see how it plays out under the new scheme.

Pretty sure Marty Mornhinweg is the only coach to ever win the toss but not take the ball first when it was sudden death rules 

 

[bostonfred]

Semantics? Really?

It imparts an advantage, I have said that more than twice. Maybe instead of trying to win a semantics battle, which I concede, you win,  we can talk about whether or not arbitrarily receiving a greater than zero advantage by virtue of winning a coin toss is the best way to resolve a football game.

Getting the ball second with the new rule is objectively an advantage. It's like the dealer in blackjack. More information is better.  

It might reduce the advantage that the old rules gave, but it definitely does not eliminate the advantage from winning the coin flip altogether. 

Under the old rules, going first was a clear advantage, but not as much as pure sudden death.  The "everyone gets the ball unless you score a touchdown" rule was a compromise to minimize the advantage of sudden death.  

Under the titans proposal, the team going first could go for two and end it, which mitigated the advantage somewhat in the other direction, because going second is such a clear and obvious advantage. Under that rule, going for two and making it ends the game.  Under this rule, going for two and making it is the only way to ensure your opponent can't end the game without you getting another chance to score.  

 

[Anarchy99]

Pretty sure Marty Mornhinweg is the only coach to ever win the toss but not take the ball first when it was sudden death rules 

History of teams kicking after winning coin toss in OT. 

LINK

 

[Raging weasel]

History of teams kicking after winning coin toss in OT. 

LINK

Thanks! Surprised there were so many.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Thanks! Surprised there were so many.

I recall many times during the sudden death era… Just got to a point where no matter what the coach did, the MMQB would rip them if they lost the game.

it almost seemed like that constant & absurd criticism is partly what led to the rules change in the first place.

 

[Harry Frogfish]

If they're going to change the rules for OTs, they should also change them for Defensive Tackles.

 

[KellysHeroes]

this is so stupid.. no pressure on the Defense now in OT.  Whats next.. 2 hand touch instead of tackle?

 

[The Duff Man]

I love the “just play defence” argument.  When the team that wins the toss scores they don’t have to. 

Imagine extra innings where if the away team scores it is over. “JUST PITCH and you don’t need to worry about it”. If you think the home team should also have a chance to bat you are a whiner!

The new change isn’t even FAIR.  Does it matter?  No it is never going to be fair and they shouldn’t even shoot for FAIR as the goal. 

I can’t think of any argument that the change doesn’t make it FAIRER and as a league they should be striving to make changes with that goal in mind. Especially now that they are tying themselves to legal sports gambling. 
 

 

[The Duff Man]

I am hoping the World Cup brings a coin flip into penalty shoot outs. Why waste time with five shots each?  First goal wins. If you lose the coin toss all you have to do is make a save.  If you don’t like it you should have played to win in regulation. 

 

[DropKick]

The answer has always been getting rid of sudden death.

Can you imagine the chaos of Basketball games were decided by sudden death?

Can you  imagine the chaos of a hockey game not decided by sudden death?

 

[DropKick]

I am hoping the World Cup brings a coin flip into penalty shoot outs. Why waste time with five shots each?  First goal wins. If you lose the coin toss all you have to do is make a save.  If you don’t like it you should have played to win in regulation. 

Maybe the worst analogy that I've ever seen.

 

[DropKick]

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

Just to demonstrate that it is all relative.

 

[DropKick]

I actually think the coin toss for playoff OT shouldn’t exist. The home team should get the advantage. They theoretically earned it by being better during the season. 

Fair rationale.  But I thought the flip gave an element of randomness; that either team could get the ball.  Knowing ahead of time could influence end of regulation strategy.

 

[Ilov80s]

Fair rationale.  But I thought the flip gave an element of randomness; that either team could get the ball.  Knowing ahead of time could influence end of regulation strategy.

I agree but my thought is what’s wrong with both teams knowing who gets the ball?  If both teams know,  it’s fair and they both operate under that knowledge. It would only impact the strategy in the final 1-3 drives.