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.

OT Discussion (1 Viewer)

Liquid Tension

Footballguy
I would like to stray from the caps, drafts and CBA's to address a comment that comes from many people. "Why can't both teams have the ball at least once in overtime?" This opinion is shared by many fans, both knowledgeable and not. I along with the NFL are in the minority in that we think the NFL does it exactly the way they should. While many people think a tie is like kissing your sister, I think that if two teams tie then it should be a tie rather than giving one team a victory (the same as a blowout) in a game that was really close. However, that opinion is in the huge minority so if we must attempt to break a tie the NFL has it done correctly.

First, if you look at the history of OT, the team getting the ball first has not had any statistical advantage. The last numbers I saw since its inception were something like 50% win, 2 % tie and 48% loss. That is about as fair as possible. (granted it si possible that since rules have been tougher on defenses the numbers may be slightly different) People have selective memory when it comes to sports. They remember the times their teams defense stinking and allowing the other team to go down field and score. The real issue why the current method is the best is because the other options are far worse and will only lead to a much less fair outcome. I will address the most supported idea next.

The most supported idea is to allow both teams to get the ball at least once. This is such a shortsighted decision that I am shocked more people haven’t disregarded this already. When there is a coin flip, there are very good reasons to kick off at certain times. For example, if the wind is strong, if your defense is far greater than your offense and possibly the ineptitude of the other teams offense to set yours up. It doesn’t happen as often as it should but the choice is still present and Parcell’s did it with success many times with the Giants. If the rules were both teams getting the ball you would ALWAYS choose to get the ball 2nd because the advantage of knowing exactly what you need to play for is a huge advantage. For example, you would know whether you need to get a TD or FG and whether you need to go on 4th down. If this were present, the advantage of winning the toss would be at least 5+ percentage points. Tis by itself should be enough for people to see the difference.

The final comment I wanted to make is what a horrible idea college has. For one it eliminates a portion of the game in kicking off and special teams (not FG). In some ways this is like having HR derby decide baseball in extra innings and that isn't any more baseball than starting at the 25 yard line is in football; it is just a subset. You might as well just run a goal line offense and decide who wins…just too arbitrary. I am more and more disillusioned at the poor logic string many of us fans have. The argument that it is exciting is valid, but if you ask me, excitement is built from a fair method to decide the winning team, not an arbitrary one.

I know I am in the minority, but I am sure the way it is done now is the fairest method. People who say "the game shouldn't be decided by a coin flip in OT" just don't get it in my opinion. First, the team had 4 quarters to prove it was better and then in OT their defense must stop the other team otherwise they don't deserve to win. I just don't see how this is not so?

Other opinions? :boxing:

 

-OZ-

Footballguy
The final comment I wanted to make is what a horrible idea college has. For one it eliminates a portion of the game in kicking off and special teams (not FG). In some ways this is like having HR derby decide baseball in extra innings and that isn't any more baseball than starting at the 25 yard line is in football; it is just a subset. You might as well just run a goal line offense and decide who wins…just too arbitrary. I am more and more disillusioned at the poor logic string many of us fans have. The argument that it is exciting is valid, but if you ask me, excitement is built from a fair method to decide the winning team, not an arbitrary one.
Or like a shoot out in hockey? :D I realize there's a difference, but I personally love the way the NHL does it now.

As for the NFL, I don't have a problem with the way it's done. If you don't win the game during the game, you can't complain. I won't say this is the fairest method, you could simply add a rule where the other team gets a chance, after a kick off, to score and tie it up again. But the current method works just fine.

 

Liquid Tension

Footballguy
The final comment I wanted to make is what a horrible idea college has.  For one it eliminates a portion of the game in kicking off and special teams (not FG).  In some ways this is like having HR derby decide baseball in extra innings and that isn't any more baseball than starting at the 25 yard line is in football; it is just a subset.  You might as well just run a goal line offense and decide who wins…just too arbitrary.  I am more and more disillusioned at the poor logic string many of us fans have.  The argument that it is exciting is valid, but if you ask me, excitement is built from a fair method to decide the winning team, not an arbitrary one.
Or like a shoot out in hockey? :D I realize there's a difference, but I personally love the way the NHL does it now.

As for the NFL, I don't have a problem with the way it's done. If you don't win the game during the game, you can't complain. I won't say this is the fairest method, you could simply add a rule where the other team gets a chance, after a kick off, to score and tie it up again. But the current method works just fine.
The problem I see in having the other team get a chance to score if the first team scores is that it makes the "2nd" team have an unfair advantage.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top