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)

renesauz

IBL Representative
Stinkin Ref said:
I've pounded the table for this for a long time.....just keep playing from the point of interruption (which is when the regulation clock expires).....just keep playing...

if you have it and its 3rd and 10 when regulation expires....you start OT with you having the ball 3rd and 10 and next score wins...

if the only argument is "this eliminates awesome endings"....I say who cares....we are not shooting for awesome endings....we are shooting for the fairest way to end a game without it being a tie....don't stop it and start over, just keep playing...

this would strategically affect the way many teams approach the end of regulation and would be very "awesome" to watch....
interesting thought, but in order to be fair, you'd have to extend the identical concept to halftime. It would change the game in a very FUNDAMENTAL way. This current change really doesn't change the game fundamentally

 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
interesting thought, but in order to be fair, you'd have to extend the identical concept to halftime. It would change the game in a very FUNDAMENTAL way. This current change really doesn't change the game fundamentally
I mean, you wouldn't *have* to. If they do things differently in the post season than in regular season, why couldn't they do something different in the 1st half than in the 2nd half? 

Or even better, have all 4 quarters regulated differently. No matter where they are on the field, come out in the 2nd quarter to a coin flip for possession. Make each quarter its own 15 min football game. 

:pickle:  

 

Ilov80s

Footballguy
Except this isn't true.  A division winner with a 10-7 record would be the home team over a wild card with a 12-5 record.
Sure but what if the team with the 12-5 record played an easier schedule? The NFL has decided that winning a division is more important than record so that’s how we operate. It’s still putting the power into the teams and their quality of play. I get it’s not perfect but the current state of affairs has been dictated by a coin flip which is ridiculous.

 

renesauz

IBL Representative
I mean, you wouldn't *have* to. If they do things differently in the post season than in regular season, why couldn't they do something different in the 1st half than in the 2nd half? 

Or even better, have all 4 quarters regulated differently. No matter where they are on the field, come out in the 2nd quarter to a coin flip for possession. Make each quarter its own 15 min football game. 

:pickle:  
you really are bored, aren't you?  ;)  

 

renesauz

IBL Representative
Sure but what if the team with the 12-5 record played an easier schedule? The NFL has decided that winning a division is more important than record so that’s how we operate. It’s still putting the power into the teams and their quality of play. I get it’s not perfect but the current state of affairs has been dictated by a coin flip which is ridiculous.
52%  Can't get much closer then that using ANY system. TBH, it's this position alone that I take issue with. I totally get that many feel it needed a revisit based on recent playoff trends and the leagues emphasis on offense (and thus I'm fine with this change, even if I think it was un necessary)...but it's demonstrably false that the old system was anything close to patently "unfair"

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ilov80s

Footballguy
52%  Can't get much closer then that using ANY system. TBH, it's this position alone that I take issue with. I totally get that many feel it needed a revisit based on recent playoff trends and the leagues emphasis on offense (and thus I'm fine with this change, even if I think it was un necessary)...but it's demonstrably false that the old system was anything close to patently "unfair"
How far back does that historical data go?

 

Ilov80s

Footballguy
Ok so I looked at the data since the new OT system has been in place:

Regular Season:

Win coin toss, won the game 53% of the time, tied 10% of the time and lost 37% of the time. 
 

So 53 vs 37 does seem like a significant gap. Also in the playoffs as has been discussed, winning the coin led to a 91% win rate.  
 

Maybe the coin toss is a huge deal, maybe it’s only a small factor. I think we can all agree that the result of an OT coin toss does have some impact on the result. If we can eliminate that coin flip and replace it with some kind of earned advantage, I fully support it.

 

BoltBacker

Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy said:
I say put clickers in front of every fan and have a live vote. Except the clicker would be unmarked, so the fans wouldn’t know which team they were voting for. 

Perfect. Fair. 
The first quote from the spanos family when the road team wins every live fan vote, "They hate these clickers! What is it about these clickers that cause all the fans to vote for the opposing team!?"

Maybe they would name Chuck Woolery as the next HC in a desperation move.

 

BoltBacker

Footballguy
3 words:

cheerleader knife fight 
Ravens win the SB with that advantage. They have dudes, have fined broads for being built like dudes, even the "ladies" have been busted for being pedophiles.....

Not only do the Rave-fems(?) win every knife fight, they probably make their own shivs using a hairdryer and mascara applicator to do it. 

 

Chaka

Footballguy
52%  Can't get much closer then that using ANY system. TBH, it's this position alone that I take issue with. I totally get that many feel it needed a revisit based on recent playoff trends and the leagues emphasis on offense (and thus I'm fine with this change, even if I think it was un necessary)...but it's demonstrably false that the old system was anything close to patently "unfair"
52.8% overall since the 2010 rules change, 90.9% in the playoffs overall & 63.6% for first drive walk off wins.

If you play perfect Black Jack the House's advantage is less than 2.8%. If you know how to count cards, and do it properly your advantage is less than 2.8%. If you get caught the House will ask you to leave.

2.8% is an enormous advantage.

NFL coaches are finally recognizing that fact and making in-game decisions based on those advantages.

 

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
interesting thought, but in order to be fair, you'd have to extend the identical concept to halftime. It would change the game in a very FUNDAMENTAL way. This current change really doesn't change the game fundamentally
thats really reaching IMO....you don't "have" to do it at end of second quarter....going to OT is its own separate beast...

 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
Start of the game: coin flip

start of the 2nd quarter: rock paper scissors

start of the 3rd quarter: thumb wrestling

start of the 4th quarter: dance-off

OT: cheerleader knife fight

Perfect. Fair.

 

rick6668

Footballguy
52.8% overall since the 2010 rules change, 90.9% in the playoffs overall & 63.6% for first drive walk off wins.

If you play perfect Black Jack the House's advantage is less than 2.8%. If you know how to count cards, and do it properly your advantage is less than 2.8%. If you get caught the House will ask you to leave.

2.8% is an enormous advantage.

NFL coaches are finally recognizing that fact and making in-game decisions based on those advantages.
It's not 90.9%.  Every looking at the stats is looking after the Biils-KC game and forgets that KC-Bengals went to OT and the team winning the toss lost.  It's 10/12 which is ~83.3%.

Regardless, there is not enough data to make a decent hypothesis.

Let's look at the opening coin toss to start the game.  Would winning that coin toss have any effect on the winner?  Most teams used to choose to receive, now most teams defer.

Here's an article with some data:

https://www.bruinsportsanalytics.com/post/cointoss

For all playoff games from 2002-2019, Teams that won the coin toss to begin the game have a win percentage of 44.9% while teams that lost the coin toss to start the game had a win percentage of 55.1%.  

That's a much larger sample size and a much larger disparity.  Are we going to conclude that the coin toss to start the game give a 10% advantage to the team who loses? 

The analysis says the data was still not significant enough and in the data we have for OT coin flips it's definitely not a large enough sample size to make any conclusions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

babydemon90

Footballguy
I'm not sure how much this will help. Team A scores TD, team B scores TD, Team A now just has to score a FG? The team getting the ball still has an advantage.  Just go with the college OT rules.

 

babydemon90

Footballguy
Let's look at the opening coin toss to start the game.  Would winning that coin toss have any effect on the winner?  Most teams used to choose to receive, now most teams defer.


If it werent for halftime where possession flipped from what you chose to begin, and it was a 'running possession' approach?  They'd choose to receive 100% of the time.

 

Dez

Footballguy
So with the old rule you always took the ball first.  Now with the new rule I would guess teams will always take the ball last.  You will know if you need a TD or just a FG.  You will know if you have to go for it on 4th down or not.

Now the 1 draw back to taking ball 2nd is you better be prepared to go for 2 if you score after they scored and kicked the XP because you don't want them to just need a FG on the way back.

 

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
there is something to be said for choosing to play defense first.....the flow of the thread has kind of been assuming that the first team to get the ball scores a TD....and then when they do, you would know what you need to do.....well the other part of choosing to play defense first is .....well what do you know, your defense might actually stop them the first time....and then all you need is a FG.....

plus it puts a little pressure on the team with the ball first as they can't necessarily go for it on 4th down....ala KC vs CIN...

 

The Frankman

Footballguy
Peter King - Football Morning In America: 2022 NFL Draft Top 10 Buzz, Including A Trade And Two QB Picks
 

5. There’s a fascinating hidden stratagem to the next overtime rule

You know the owners voted 29-3 for a new playoff overtime system; now each team will get the chance to possess the ball, and if it’s tied at the end of the second possession, the game becomes sudden death.

First reaction for most people: Look for teams to want the ball second—allowing them to know what they need to do to either win the game or tie it to continue it into a third possession.

There’s one more bit of strategy, as pointed out by former Saints coach Sean Payton. He said if wind or weather was a factor in a playoff game, he’d choose to defend a goal (take the wind, in other words). So that’s one more thing to think about. “Even if it’s not much wind,” Payton said, “I want that 8 mph breeze at my back—because I know I’m going to get at least one possession.”

I checked with Competition Committee chair Rich McKay, who double-checked with Walt Anderson of the league’s officiating department. Anderson said yes, the winner of the overtime toss in the playoffs can choose to receive or kick off, or could choose the choice of goal to defend. The coin-toss winner can only pick one of those three options. So choosing to defend a goal means the coin-toss loser will have the option to receive or kick off.

One other thing a smart GM told me over the weekend: “In a game with two great quarterbacks, I think a coach might want the ball first. That means if each team scores a touchdown and the extra point on the first two possessions [of overtime], the first team can win the game with just a field goal on the third possession.” It’s an interesting conundrum, potentially. The bottom line is this new rule is not as simple to divine as it appeared when it got passed in Florida the other day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
there is something to be said for choosing to play defense first.....the flow of the thread has kind of been assuming that the first team to get the ball scores a TD....and then when they do, you would know what you need to do.....well the other part of choosing to play defense first is .....well what do you know, your defense might actually stop them the first time....and then all you need is a FG.....
but….but wasn’t that absolutely true in the last system?

That was my defense of the way it was, and all I saw was “it’s a huge advantage to get the ball 1st” and “the whole game is geared towards offense , how can anyone be expected to make a stop?” “It’s unfair!”

But there it is. Under the last system all anyone needed to do was play a little defense, hold the offense to a FG or no points (like Cinci did last year) and all they need is a FG to win.

How is the new system different? The safety net or not being able to lose on a TD? I’m not sure that fixes anything. 

 

Leroy Hoard

Footballguy
As a bettor I find the fact that the first team can now score 7 or 8 points instead of the game being over at  6 kinda interesting. A lot of 6 to 8 point favorites in the NFL.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
but….but wasn’t that absolutely true in the last system?

That was my defense of the way it was, and all I saw was “it’s a huge advantage to get the ball 1st” and “the whole game is geared towards offense , how can anyone be expected to make a stop?” “It’s unfair!”

But there it is. Under the last system all anyone needed to do was play a little defense, hold the offense to a FG or no points (like Cinci did last year) and all they need is a FG to win.

How is the new system different? The safety net or not being able to lose on a TD? I’m not sure that fixes anything. 
no....it's pretty simple....you KNOW you get the ball back now matter what....c'mon HSG you know you get it back is a huge factor one way or the other....this ain't rocket science....

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
no....it's pretty simple....you KNOW you get the ball back now matter what....c'mon HSG you know knowing you get it back is a huge factor one way or the other....this ain't rocket science....
I basically said that at the end of my post - that’s “the safety net”. 

But does that really make it “fair”? If both teams score, then a team kicks a FG, is the losing team ok with the winning team getting 2 offensive possessions to their 1?

otherwise the strategy to win is the same. At some point someone has to make a stop.

 

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
I basically said that at the end of my post - that’s “the safety net”. 

But does that really make it “fair”? If both teams score, then a team kicks a FG, is the losing team ok with the winning team getting 2 offensive possessions to their 1?

otherwise the strategy to win is the same. At some point someone has to make a stop.
the fairest way is to just continue the game....but we will have to die on that hill..

as I said from the very beginning....thems the breaks...if they both go TD+2 and then the game ends on a FG next possession...thems the breaks....your defense had two chances to stop them... plus a third on the 2 pointer...and they didn't...

bottom line....unless the decide to:

A) just continue the game from point of interruption

or

B) play another full time quarter with possibility of having to play multiple quarters

then there is no perfect system that is fair and where you can have your cake and eat it too....

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gally

Footballguy
Stinkin Ref said:
not so fast....are you going to throw that hail mary if its third and one....probably not....cause you know you are going to keep playing and then all you need is a FG....

DPI never called on hail mary's....it could get picked...other team starts OT with ball....hail mary's would probably be one of the last things you see...
Unless you are the Vikings and it's Tom Brady throwing to Gronk in the endzone. 

 

babydemon90

Footballguy
Dez said:
So with the old rule you always took the ball first.  Now with the new rule I would guess teams will always take the ball last.  You will know if you need a TD or just a FG.  You will know if you have to go for it on 4th down or not.

Now the 1 draw back to taking ball 2nd is you better be prepared to go for 2 if you score after they scored and kicked the XP because you don't want them to just need a FG on the way back.
Not a drawback persay...  but yea, if you're in a high scoring affair, you take the ball 2nd. You know you get it back, and you know what you have to do. And I think there's a very good argument for going for 2 and the win in many cases.  Depends how confident you are if you tie it that you can hold them to zero points.

 

dhockster

Footballguy
I basically said that at the end of my post - that’s “the safety net”. 

But does that really make it “fair”? If both teams score, then a team kicks a FG, is the losing team ok with the winning team getting 2 offensive possessions to their 1?

otherwise the strategy to win is the same. At some point someone has to make a stop.
Yes, because the 2nd team to score a TD has a choice of kicking an extra point to tie, knowing that the other team then only needs a FG to win, or they can go for two and either win or lose on one play. Based on the strengths/weaknesses of their team and the game situation, they will pick the option that gives them the best chance to win.

 

rick6668

Footballguy
Yes, because the 2nd team to score a TD has a choice of kicking an extra point to tie, knowing that the other team then only needs a FG to win, or they can go for two and either win or lose on one play. Based on the strengths/weaknesses of their team and the game situation, they will pick the option that gives them the best chance to win.
Unless the first team goes for 2 and makes it.  Then they can only tie.

 

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
Yes, because the 2nd team to score a TD has a choice of kicking an extra point to tie, knowing that the other team then only needs a FG to win, or they can go for two and either win or lose on one play. Based on the strengths/weaknesses of their team and the game situation, they will pick the option that gives them the best chance to win.
the scenario being asked about is if they both go TD+2 on their first possessions....

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top