Overtime Rules - Keep As Is? (1 Viewer)

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I did not mean to accuse you of being dishonest, I just think you have your opinion, and like most people these days (including myself) you do not want to see data that contradicts your opinion, because then you may have to re-evaluate your opinion.

I mean, saying "be honest", and following that with a statement asserting that I am only cherry picking data that supports my point seemed pretty clear.   

The fact is that I am using the full sample size so as to *not* cherry pick data over a 10 game sample. My feeling is that either we should use the overall % from the data set (52.x%) or don't use the data set. It wasn't I who segregated out those 10 games, and I am not of the belief that they are statistically significant for a variety of reasons. 

But I do appreciate your clarification. 

Let's look at yesterday's game in a different light: KC scored TD's in 4 out of 10 drives in regulation. Now 2 of those drives ended in FG attempts due to the end of the half or end of the game, so we don't know if KC would have gotten TD's on those drives. So KC scored 4 TD's on 8 drives they could have scored TD's on in regulation. That is a 50% TD rate. So KC wins the toss, and based on how they performed in regulation, they have a 50% chance of winning the game by scoring a TD on the opening drive. If they don't score a TD on the opening drive, they could kick a field FG, they could get a few first downs, punt and pin the Bills deep in their own territory, or they could go 3 and out and likely give the Bills the ball between the 25 to 45 yard line. Or perhaps they turn the ball over. The fact is whatever KC does when not scoring a TD on the opening drive, their chance to win the game at that point is not zero. Let's just say they have a 50% chance to win when they don't score an opening drive TD. They win 50% of the time when they score an opening TD, and the other 50% of the time, when they don't score an opening TD, they win 50% of the time. So the Chiefs then have a 75% chance to win the game by winning the coin toss. Even if you gave the Chiefs a 40% chance to win when not scoring an opening TD, they would still have a 70% chance to win the game by winning the coin toss. That just seems like to big an advantage for one team when both teams have played 60 minutes of football to a tie.

There are a whole lot of maybes built into your percentages though. 

In THIS game, do you really think if the Bills make a stop & get the ball in OT they aren't at least kicking a FG? If not, then that 75% suggestion is somewhat fanciful. If the Chiefs were stopped on that drive, I give the Bills a 90%+ chance to win that game in OT. 

If the Chiefs had only managed a FG, then I give the Bills a 60% chance of scoring a TD for the win, and a 90+% chance of kicking a FG for another tie. 

In which case I give the Chiefs a 75% chance of winning anyway - 90% if they had a better kicker who hadn't already had the yips in this game. 

Other factors in this specific game were weather & intensity of play. That game was balls to the wall for the entire 4th quarter. Those players were all exhausted. As a result the Chiefs probably had an even better chance to win after winning the coin toss. 

But all those hypotheticals aside, that applies to this one game under those specific circumstances. 

Other games play out differently. And I am not inclined to lobby for a wholesale rules change because something happened in one game. Especially one game like that one. Just as 10 games was way too small a sample size to draw meaningful inference from, 1 game is a ridiculously small sample size to do the same. 

 

[MrJimiT]

I'm not so sure OT rules need to be changed or modified. But thinking a bit outside of the box for a moment, what if all forms of kicking were removed from OT play? No field goal attempts, and more importantly no punting. If a team won the toss, they'd have to determine whether or not they wanted to start from their own 25 yard line (like the touchback rule) and get enough first downs in their possession to warrant the risk of starting a drive deep in their own territory. 

I realize this scheme would remove Special Teams from overtime games...but I feel the emphasis was placed on scoring touchdowns in overtime to win anyhow.

 

[Penguin]

Under the current OT rules, there have been 11 OT playoff games

Teams that won the OT coin toss have a record of 10-1 in those games - 90.9%

Only team to lose was the Saints in the 2018 NFC CG vs. Rams

7 of those teams scored the winning TD on the opening drive

 

[dhockster]

I mean, saying "be honest", and following that with a statement asserting that I am only cherry picking data that supports my point seemed pretty clear.   

The fact is that I am using the full sample size so as to *not* cherry pick data over a 10 game sample. My feeling is that either we should use the overall % from the data set (52.x%) or don't use the data set. It wasn't I who segregated out those 10 games, and I am not of the belief that they are statistically significant for a variety of reasons. 

But I do appreciate your clarification. 

There are a whole lot of maybes built into your percentages though. 

In THIS game, do you really think if the Bills make a stop & get the ball in OT they aren't at least kicking a FG? If not, then that 75% suggestion is somewhat fanciful. If the Chiefs were stopped on that drive, I give the Bills a 90%+ chance to win that game in OT. 

If the Chiefs had only managed a FG, then I give the Bills a 60% chance of scoring a TD for the win, and a 90+% chance of kicking a FG for another tie. 

In which case I give the Chiefs a 75% chance of winning anyway - 90% if they had a better kicker who hadn't already had the yips in this game. 

Other factors in this specific game were weather & intensity of play. That game was balls to the wall for the entire 4th quarter. Those players were all exhausted. As a result the Chiefs probably had an even better chance to win after winning the coin toss. 

But all those hypotheticals aside, that applies to this one game under those specific circumstances. 

Other games play out differently. And I am not inclined to lobby for a wholesale rules change because something happened in one game. Especially one game like that one. Just as 10 games was way too small a sample size to draw meaningful inference from, 1 game is a ridiculously small sample size to do the same. 

Buffalo scored on 5 out of 9 drives in this game, so saying they would kick a FG 90% of the time is just pulling a number from thin air.

 

[Zow]

Win. The. Game. In. Regulation. If not, then yes, the coin toss will give one random team a slim-to-significant advantage, depending upon the matchup. So, if you don't want to worry about the random advantage: win the game in regulation. Both teams "got a chance to possess the ball" in regulation. Don't know why people argue about this.

I don't follow this logic as it seems to be acknowledging that the playoff OT rules are sub-ideal, but then diverting the analysis away to the red herring issue of asking whether the losing team did enough in regulation rather than addressing the issue posed. Doing so doesn't answer the question and is therefore irrelevant to whether the current "random advantage" rule (a title I don't disagree with) should be changed - which is what's being discussed here. 

It's kind of like, in a discussion about whether the tax code is fair, somebody coming out and arguing that if one doesn't like the tax code then one should just make so much money where the code doesn't matter. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Buffalo scored on 5 out of 9 drives in this game, so saying they would kick a FG 90% of the time is just pulling a number from thin air.

I'm not saying I didn't pull a number out of thin air. 

But given the flow of the game, and the multiple injuries to KC's secondary, I'd give them a high % chance. I didn't say I could back it up with advanced analytics. And it doesn't really matter since it's all hypothetical. 

The point remains that a rules change isn't needed because of 1 game.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Under the current OT rules, there have been 11 OT playoff games

Teams that won the OT coin toss have a record of 10-1 in those games - 90.9%

Only team to lose was the Saints in the 2018 NFC CG vs. Rams

7 of those teams scored the winning TD on the opening drive

Sounds like awfully strong incentive to not let the game get to overtime when you have a lead with 13 seconds on the clock is all I'm reading. 

 

[Zow]

Under the current OT rules, there have been 11 OT playoff games

Teams that won the OT coin toss have a record of 10-1 in those games - 90.9%

Only team to lose was the Saints in the 2018 NFC CG vs. Rams

7 of those teams scored the winning TD on the opening drive

1. I would agree that this is arguably too small of a sample size in trying to determine the exact percentage that the current rules favor the team winning the toss. 

2. But, as somebody wisely pointed out above, this current subset should blow the notion that the "coin flip doesn't really matter" out of the water because, assuming it really doesn't, this outcome is like .6% (note, that's < 1%) likely. So, yeah, this seems to subset seem to very much matter and should be considered in a discussion about whether the coin flip is important. 

 

[Zow]

Sounds like awfully strong incentive to not let the game get to overtime when you have a lead with 13 seconds on the clock is all I'm reading. 

It sure does because of the randomness of the OT. Which is exactly what those of arguing arguing for a change keep pointing out as randomness in the playoffs should be reduced to a minimum wherever possible. 

 

[The Frankman]

The other thing I'm not sure people remember from back in the day is the league wanted to shorten games and prevent injuries as much as possible (teams are gassed and play bcomes sloppier), which is one of the reason it initially was Sudden Death. They already had a compromise to the rules by allowing the "win by TD" option, and I think it sends a horrible message to change the rules again because a team was incapable of stopping the other team on D for 3 minutes.

EDIT: It reminds me of an instance in my 16-team Fantasy League where a guy was the #3 seed. Stacked team , had a easy 1st round matchup and lost by like .52 points. He made every wrong Start-Sit decision possible, all his bench guys at WR/RB/TE outscored his starters. Instead of blaming himself or chalking it up to variance/bad luck, he ranted about how my league doesn't have playoff reseeding (it's never had that in the 8  years I've ran it) and every week after posted he would have won if the league had reseeding.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

So, yeah, this seems to subset seem to very much matter and should be considered in a discussion about whether the coin flip is important. 

i’m not sure anyone has said it’s not important. But there are degrees of importance.

if it weren’t important, you wouldn’t “win” the coin flip. 

But Buffalo (or whatever opponent) still has 2 chances to get their offinse onto the field if they lose the coin flip. 

it’s not a perfect system. But I’m not sure there is a perfect system. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It sure does because of the randomness of the OT. Which is exactly what those of arguing arguing for a change keep pointing out as randomness in the playoffs should be reduced to a minimum wherever possible. 

But any potential change will be an advantage to whomever “wins” the right to possess the ball 1st.

In order to change the rules, the proposal better be heads & shoulders above what we have now.

i’ve seen some interesting suggestions so far. I haven’t seen any that really solve the problem. 

 

[Zow]

The other thing I'm not sure people remember from back in the day is the league wanted to shorten games and prevent injuries as much as possible (teams are gassed and play bcomes sloppier), which is one of the reason it initially was Sudden Death. They already had a compromise to the rules by allowing the "win by TD" option, and I think it sends a horrible message to change the rules again because a team was incapable of stopping the other team on D for 3 minutes.

I get this and normally support this - which is why I'm not arguing for a change in the regular season. All I'm advocating is for essentially one extra possession in the playoff OTs so that each side has at least one chance to possess the ball. I would assume such an impact to the players' health would then be pretty negligible. 

Where we appear to disagree is on messaging. I don't see this as a "horrible message" as the NFL is yearly trying to change and implement new rules to improve the game. I don't see how this is any different and, if not obvious, this wouldn't be some drastic change (e.g. implementing the college rules, just giving the home team the win, etc.). 

 

[Zow]

i’m not sure anyone has said it’s not important. But there are degrees of importance.

if it weren’t important, you wouldn’t “win” the coin flip. 

But Buffalo (or whatever opponent) still has 2 chances to get their offinse onto the field if they lose the coin flip. 

it’s not a perfect system. But I’m not sure there is a perfect system. 

I doubt there is one. The issue turns on finding the system less susceptive to luck/randomness and giving a particular team an advantage due to the same in games that are the most meaningful (i.e. playoffs). Which is, obviously, still a difficult issue to resolve. 

 

[The Frankman]

I get this and normally support this - which is why I'm not arguing for a change in the regular season. All I'm advocating is for essentially one extra possession in the playoff OTs so that each side has at least one chance to possess the ball. I would assume such an impact to the players' health would then be pretty negligible. 

Where we appear to disagree is on messaging. I don't see this as a "horrible message" as the NFL is yearly trying to change and implement new rules to improve the game. I don't see how this is any different and, if not obvious, this wouldn't be some drastic change (e.g. implementing the college rules, just giving the home team the win, etc.). 

Does it need to change? Can the O not turn the ball over or fail to move the ball on the D? Can the D not force a turnover and end the game? Is Defense suddenly not a NFL unit anymore? The message of overtime is simple: you didn't win the game in OT, so now it's Sudden Death (used to be) but you get less time to score. This "both teams get a shot" nonsense just lengthens the game artificially.

 

[Anarchy99]

How much different would games play out if they decided who got the ball in OT at the start of the game? Win the opening coin toss and get the decision to start OT as well. Teams not set to get the ball first in OT would be much more likely to go for 2 at the end of regulation. So a lot of games wouldn’t even get to OT.

 

[The Frankman]

How much different would games play out if they decided who got the ball in OT at the start of the game? Win the opening coin toss and get the decision to start OT as well. Teams not set to get the ball first in OT would be much more likely to go for 2 at the end of regulation. So a lot of games wouldn’t even get to OT.

This is not a bad idea... maybe Home team gets the ball 1st in OT or something, or on the opening coin flip they attach getting the ball 1st in OT. Or, if they want to really be innovative maybe work in something like the possession arrow in college. In either instance it wouldn't artificially lengthen games.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

How much different would games play out if they decided who got the ball in OT at the start of the game? Win the opening coin toss and get the decision to start OT as well. Teams not set to get the ball first in OT would be much more likely to go for 2 at the end of regulation. So a lot of games wouldn’t even get to OT.

This is a really interesting idea. Best I’ve seen so far. 

 

[eighsse]

I don't follow this logic as it seems to be acknowledging that the playoff OT rules are sub-ideal, but then diverting the analysis away to the red herring issue of asking whether the losing team did enough in regulation rather than addressing the issue posed. Doing so doesn't answer the question and is therefore irrelevant to whether the current "random advantage" rule (a title I don't disagree with) should be changed - which is what's being discussed here. 

It's kind of like, in a discussion about whether the tax code is fair, somebody coming out and arguing that if one doesn't like the tax code then one should just make so much money where the code doesn't matter. 

These are fair points, but there are always going to be random advantages of almost limitless sorts. I see this as just one more. The thing is, to be truly "fair" (pertaining to the overtime rules situation, at least), you would have to do something open-ended, like the NCAA does.

(Explaining the last sentence above: The argument that "both teams should at least get to possess the ball once" is completely arbitrary. What if both teams score a touchdown on their first drive? Then the first team that got the ball gets the ball again, and if we say it then becomes true sudden death ... Then aren't we right back where we started? The second team "should get a chance to possess the ball" or else the first team just got a free shot to win it, following the two teams' equal touchdown rally, and the second team didn't get a chance to respond.)

If we want NCAA rules, or a similarly "symmetrical" procedure, then I guess that's what we're going to get eventually. But that's not what I want personally. I like straight-up sudden death. It's quick, and it's thrilling. Both teams know what's going to happen if they let regulation end with a tie. They know the risks. JOMO

 

[Zow]

Does it need to change? Can the O not turn the ball over or fail to move the ball on the D? Can the D not force a turnover and end the game? Is Defense suddenly not a NFL unit anymore? The message of overtime is simple: you didn't win the game in OT, so now it's Sudden Death (used to be) but you get less time to score. This "both teams get a shot" nonsense just lengthens the game artificially.

I mean if you consider the bold as nonsense unfortunately I think we're just in two separate stratospheres to further this conversation. 

 

[Gally]

I get this and normally support this - which is why I'm not arguing for a change in the regular season. All I'm advocating is for essentially one extra possession in the playoff OTs so that each side has at least one chance to possess the ball. I would assume such an impact to the players' health would then be pretty negligible. 

So if they did this wouldn't we be right back to being unfair if both teams scored TD's and then the original team scored again to end the game?

 

[Zow]

So if they did this wouldn't we be right back to being unfair if both teams scored TD's and then the original team scored again to end the game?

No, because at least then the kicking team has had the option to go for two in that scenario. This is distinguishable from the current set up because nobody knows at the end of regulation who gets the ball at the start of OT. 

 

[belljr]

A FG game of Horse imo

 

[eighsse]

A FG game of Horse imo

Carnival-style rubber duck shooting gallery competition between the head coaches?

 

[The Frankman]

Carnival-style rubber duck shooting gallery competition between the head coaches?

Punt, pass and kick competition between the head coaches.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Punt, pass and kick competition between the head coaches.

Takes too long

OTOH Rock Paper Scissors is both concise and equitable 

Best 2 outta 3 of course

 

[-OZ-]

I vote change. Yes, it's easy to say you the defense could have stopped them, but easier said than done after a long grueling game. Not that this was the case, but TDs can often happen via fluke.

Just seems like each team should have the ball at least once - a shame that a coin toss has to decide it in many cases.

I think the NCAA has the general right idea in how to handle OT.

Totally disagree with the way the NCAA does it. It’s exciting but the game has the potential to go entirely too long. 
one possession each (even if the original team scores a TD), other than in the playoffs, could work. Zow’s idea has merit imo. 

 

[dhockster]

No, because at least then the kicking team has had the option to go for two in that scenario. This is distinguishable from the current set up because nobody knows at the end of regulation who gets the ball at the start of OT. 

I like this a lot. Each team gets one possession guaranteed. Then sudden death. If the coin toss winner scores a TD and kicks the extra point, the other team still has approximately a 50% chance to win the game if they score a TD by then going for two. If the coin toss winner scores a TD and goes for 2 and gets it, well, the other team had a 50% chance to stop them on the two point conversion.

The 2 point conversion option for both teams makes this rule change fair (each has an opportunity to win) and only lengthens games by one drive for games that start with an opening drive TD, before it goes to sudden death. 

 

[dhockster]

So let's apply the rule change above to the KC-Buffalo game:

KC opens OT and scores a TD (like they did) and elect to kick the extra point which they make. Then:

• if Buffalo fails to score a TD, KC wins - FAIR TO BOTH TEAMS
  
• if Buffalo scores a TD, they have a choice: kick an extra point to tie the game, knowing that it is then sudden death and KC will get the first chance to win the game; or, go for two where they will have approximately a 50% chance to win the game - FAIR TO BOTH TEAMS
  

KC opens OT and scores a TD (like they did) and elect to go for 2, and make it. Then:

• if Buffalo fails to score a TD, KC wins - FAIR TO BOTH TEAMS
  
• if Buffalo scores a TD but doesn't make the 2 point conversion, KC wins - FAIR TO BOTH TEAMS
  
• if Buffalo scores a TD and gets the 2 point conversion to tie, the game goes to sudden death with KC getting the ball first - THIS IS FAIR TO BOTH TEAMS BECAUSE BUFFALO HAD A 50% CHANCE TO STOP KC ON THE 2 POINT CONVERSION WHERE THEY THEN COULD HAVE WON THE GAME WITH A TD AND EXTRA POINT.
  

 

[eighsse]

So let's apply the rule change above to the KC-Buffalo game:

KC opens OT and scores a TD (like they did) and elect to kick the extra point which they make. Then:

• if Buffalo fails to score a TD, KC wins - FAIR TO BOTH TEAMS
  
• if Buffalo scores a TD, they have a choice: kick an extra point to tie the game, knowing that it is then sudden death and KC will get the first chance to win the game; or, go for two where they will have approximately a 50% chance to win the game - FAIR TO BOTH TEAMS
  

KC opens OT and scores a TD (like they did) and elect to go for 2, and make it. Then:

• if Buffalo fails to score a TD, KC wins - FAIR TO BOTH TEAMS
  
• if Buffalo scores a TD but doesn't make the 2 point conversion, KC wins - FAIR TO BOTH TEAMS
  
• if Buffalo scores a TD and gets the 2 point conversion to tie, the game goes to sudden death with KC getting the ball first - THIS IS FAIR TO BOTH TEAMS BECAUSE BUFFALO HAD A 50% CHANCE TO STOP KC ON THE 2 POINT CONVERSION WHERE THEY THEN COULD HAVE WON THE GAME WITH A TD AND EXTRA POINT.
  

Didn't Buffalo have a chance to stop them from scoring the first overtime touchdown?

 

[dhockster]

Didn't Buffalo have a chance to stop them from scoring the first overtime touchdown?

Yes. But if Buffalo did stop them, would they be declared the winner? The coin toss winner can win the game without their defense doing anything. The kicking team has to have their defense prevent a touchdown, AND have their offense score a touchdown or FG to win. Based on the current OT rules one team is given an advantage to win the game based on a random coin toss. And if you argue that it is not an advantage, why does every team elect to receive in OT?

And what would be the downside of guaranteeing each team one possession? Would that be unfair? 

 

[Anarchy99]

When did we become a society that had to have everything be completely 100% fair and equal? Between the two teams, the Chiefs overtime possession was the 20th possession of the game. Overall, the Chiefs ran 76 plays, the Bills 64, and there were 28 special teams plays. Both sides had ample time to win the game during the initial 60 minutes, and both sides could have made a game changing play in overtime. The Chiefs ended up with an extra possession in regulation (they had 10 vs. 9 for the Bills). How was that fair?

If the Bills really wanted to try to gain possession of the football in OT and didn't trust their defense, they could have tried an onside kick. After one completion, the ball would have been close to where the onsides kick would have been recovered anyway.

It's the fans and the media squawking about the OT rules. Several NFL players have come out to say all the players know the rules, and that's how it is. If people want things to be fairer, just play a full 15-minute overtime period in the playoffs and dump the if this, than that happens but if that happens then this happens approach to deciding who wins in OT.

 

[dhockster]

When did we become a society that had to have everything be completely 100% fair and equal? Between the two teams, the Chiefs overtime possession was the 20th possession of the game. Overall, the Chiefs ran 76 plays, the Bills 64, and there were 28 special teams plays. Both sides had ample time to win the game during the initial 60 minutes, and both sides could have made a game changing play in overtime. The Chiefs ended up with an extra possession in regulation (they had 10 vs. 9 for the Bills). How was that fair?

If the Bills really wanted to try to gain possession of the football in OT and didn't trust their defense, they could have tried an onside kick. After one completion, the ball would have been close to where the onsides kick would have been recovered anyway.

It's the fans and the media squawking about the OT rules. Several NFL players have come out to say all the players know the rules, and that's how it is. If people want things to be fairer, just play a full 15-minute overtime period in the playoffs and dump the if this, than that happens but if that happens then this happens approach to deciding who wins in OT.

In a tie game, both teams scored the same amount of points in 60 minutes. The fact that they both had a chance to win the game is somewhat irrelevant. Neither team did. So giving one team an advantage in determining a winner in OT based on a random event (coin toss) seems like a ridiculous idea if you can avoid it. 

Change the rule so each team is guaranteed one possession. If the game is still tied after one possession each,  it is sudden death. Next score wins. Very simple.

 

[Anarchy99]

In a tie game, both teams scored the same amount of points in 60 minutes. The fact that they both had a chance to win the game is somewhat irrelevant. Neither team did. So giving one team an advantage in determining a winner in OT based on a random event (coin toss) seems like a ridiculous idea if you can avoid it. 

Change the rule so each team is guaranteed one possession. If the game is still tied after one possession each,  it is sudden death. Next score wins. Very simple.

The end of the BUF / KC game was a track meet. Let's play this out . . . Chiefs went down the field and scored, say the Bills went down the field and scored and the game remained tied. How would it be "fair" that the Chiefs could now kick a FG to win? They would have had 2 possessions in OT to only one for Buffalo?

Like others have said, basketball plays a complete OT period. Soccer plays a full overtime period. Heck, soccer actually plays home and away games in tournaments with an aggregate score determining the winner.

IMO, if you can't stop a team from going the length of the field and scoring a TD, that team has no one to blame but themselves. Force a quick turnover (a FG would win). Get a safety or a pick six (automatic win). Force a three and out (almost in FG range to win the game).

Again, the players all know this and are not the ones complaining about the rules. Coaches and defenders of the losing teams all say the same thing. They needed a stop at any point in that drive and they couldn't get one. short of playing an entire overtime period, there won't be a way to keep things exactly fair.

 

[dhockster]

The end of the BUF / KC game was a track meet. Let's play this out . . . Chiefs went down the field and scored, say the Bills went down the field and scored and the game remained tied. How would it be "fair" that the Chiefs could now kick a FG to win? They would have had 2 possessions in OT to only one for Buffalo?

Like others have said, basketball plays a complete OT period. Soccer plays a full overtime period. Heck, soccer actually plays home and away games in tournaments with an aggregate score determining the winner.

IMO, if you can't stop a team from going the length of the field and scoring a TD, that team has no one to blame but themselves. Force a quick turnover (a FG would win). Get a safety or a pick six (automatic win). Force a three and out (almost in FG range to win the game).

Again, the players all know this and are not the ones complaining about the rules. Coaches and defenders of the losing teams all say the same thing. They needed a stop at any point in that drive and they couldn't get one. short of playing an entire overtime period, there won't be a way to keep things exactly fair.

Because of the 2 point conversion. If KC scores a TD and kicks an extra point, then Buffalo scores a TD, Buffalo then could either kick an extra point to tie OR go for two to win. They decide which gives them the best chance to win. If KC scores a TD and they go for 2, they are giving Buffalo roughly a 50% chance to stop them and put Buffalo in position to win the game with a TD and extra point. Both teams will have had to play offense and defense in OT to win the game. Under the current rules, one team can just play their offense and win the game.

I agree with playing a whole quarter, but the NFL has said they don't want the game to go on too long for player safety. More likely they don't want the game to go too long so it doesn't bleed into coverage of another playoff game. Either way, playing a full quarter is the fairest way. But it won't happen.

 

[Gally]

Because of the 2 point conversion. If KC scores a TD and kicks an extra point, then Buffalo scores a TD, Buffalo then could either kick an extra point to tie OR go for two to win. They decide which gives them the best chance to win. If KC scores a TD and they go for 2, they are giving Buffalo roughly a 50% chance to stop them and put Buffalo in position to win the game with a TD and extra point. Both teams will have had to play offense and defense in OT to win the game. Under the current rules, one team can just play their offense and win the game.

I agree with playing a whole quarter, but the NFL has said they don't want the game to go on too long for player safety. More likely they don't want the game to go too long so it doesn't bleed into coverage of another playoff game. Either way, playing a full quarter is the fairest way. But it won't happen.

I don't think the opportunity to stop/get a 2 pt conversion changes the argument in any way.   Your argument is that they have a 50% chance to stop the conversion or get the conversion. so it's fair.   I would say there is a better than 50% chance to stop a drive the length of the field (teams don't score TD's on half their drives) so why is that not fair?

If you complain that it's not fair that a team gets less chances with the ball and it should be equal then it shouldn't be fair if a team gets two possessions vs one.  It's the same unfairness.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Punt, pass and kick competition between the head coaches.

Each team gets to draft a team of under 18 players from the stands. 7 on 7, first to score determines who gets possession first. 

 

[belljr]

Punt, pass and kick competition between the head coaches.

Still unfair Andy reid is a former champion

 

[dhockster]

I don't think the opportunity to stop/get a 2 pt conversion changes the argument in any way.   Your argument is that they have a 50% chance to stop the conversion or get the conversion. so it's fair.   I would say there is a better than 50% chance to stop a drive the length of the field (teams don't score TD's on half their drives) so why is that not fair?

If you complain that it's not fair that a team gets less chances with the ball and it should be equal then it shouldn't be fair if a team gets two possessions vs one.  It's the same unfairness.  

In a nutshell, because KC can win the game without their defense doing anything. Buffalo's defense has to stop KC from getting a TD, AND to win, they have to score a TD if KC kicked a FG, or score a TD or FG if KC did not score. To tie, if KC kicked a FG, they need to kick a FG.

So one team can win with just their offense performing, while the other team is required to have both offense and defense perform.

 

[dhockster]

Each team gets to draft a team of under 18 players from the stands. 7 on 7, first to score determines who gets possession first. 

I know you are on the other side of the argument from me, which is fine. If you think the overtime rules are fair to both teams right now, if you changed the rules to each team is guaranteed one possession and if still tied after one possession, it goes to sudden death, would that make the rules unfair to either side?

 

[Gally]

In a nutshell, because KC can win the game without their defense doing anything. Buffalo's defense has to stop KC from getting a TD, AND to win, they have to score a TD if KC kicked a FG, or score a TD or FG if KC did not score. To tie, if KC kicked a FG, they need to kick a FG.

So one team can win with just their offense performing, while the other team is required to have both offense and defense perform.

And Buf can win the game by stopping them and kicking a FG (no offense performing).  Or by turning the ball over and scoring (no offense performing).  

My point was you can argue both teams should get an equal chance with the ball being more fair but that argument holds no water if you say they each just need to get it once...after that the original offensive team can then win by just scoring and the other team gets not chance to match.  That is just as unfair as how it is now.  

 

[Gally]

I know you are on the other side of the argument from me, which is fine. If you think the overtime rules are fair to both teams right now, if you changed the rules to each team is guaranteed one possession and if still tied after one possession, it goes to sudden death, would that make the rules unfair to either side?

It would be exactly the same fairness as it is now.  

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Have coaches bid for the starting possession field position.  The coach who wins the coin toss starts.  "We will start our drive from the 25".  The other coach can accept that or outbid it.  He could state well "we would start from the 22-yard line".  The first coach could put them to their proof or say, well "we will take first possession from the 19".  This strategy session, this "measuring" contest would go on until one team makes a claim to the ball that they have to then back up. "Take that possession". The non-winning team would have no beef because they could have shown some more fortitude and got the ball with a more daring bid for possession.  We fans would have an insight to our team's confidence and intelligence.  An interesting and daring process.  Too much confidence and you don't move the ball on your first possession and the other team is well set up.  First score wins.

Obviously if you have an idiot coach this would not be a compelling process.  I'm looking at you Dallas.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I know you are on the other side of the argument from me, which is fine. If you think the overtime rules are fair to both teams right now, if you changed the rules to each team is guaranteed one possession and if still tied after one possession, it goes to sudden death, would that make the rules unfair to either side?

I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking.

I think the rules as is are fair. If BUF wanted a possession in OT, then they should have forced a punt or held KC to 3.  Then they’d get a possession. 

They failed to do either of those things & lost.  I’m shocked it generated this much controversy. 

 

[dhockster]

I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking.

I think the rules as is are fair. If BUF wanted a possession in OT, then they should have forced a punt or held KC to 3.  Then they’d get a possession. 

They failed to do either of those things & lost.  I’m shocked it generated this much controversy. 

In a game where both defenses sucked and both offenses were great, why does KC get the advantage of not having their defense have to do anything to win the game?

People make the argument that if was fair because Buffalo's defense could've stopped them. Except just stopping them would not have won Buffalo the game. They still would need their offense to score points. KC could win the game with just their offense performing. Buffalo, to win, would need their defense and offense to perform to win.

 

[dhockster]

It would be exactly the same fairness as it is now.  

If it is fair for both sides right now, what would you have thought if KC won the coin toss and chose to kick off?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

In a game where both defenses sucked and both offenses were great, why does KC get the advantage of not having their defense have to do anything to win the game?

People make the argument that if was fair because Buffalo's defense could've stopped them. Except just stopping them would not have won Buffalo the game. They still would need their offense to score points. KC could win the game with just their offense performing. Buffalo, to win, would need their defense and offense to perform to win.

This topic is going in circles. 

Buffalo could have won that game in regulation by not allowing the other team to drive 60 yards in 13 seconds to kick a GT FG. 

But they didn’t. So they then had to rely on a coin toss, which they lost.

So they then had to rely on their defense, who failed. 

Seens fair to me. 
 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If it is fair for both sides right now, what would you have thought if KC won the coin toss and chose to kick off?

I would have thought “wow, they’re really confident in their defense’s chances of making a stop, and really not confident in Mahomes / the offense for some reason so they want to win it with a FG.”

It seems very unlikely, but “fairness” doesn’t really come into the equation. 

 

[dhockster]

This topic is going in circles. 

Buffalo could have won that game in regulation by not allowing the other team to drive 60 yards in 13 seconds to kick a GT FG. 

But they didn’t. So they then had to rely on a coin toss, which they lost.

So they then had to rely on their defense, who failed. 

Seens fair to me. 
 

What happened in regulation is irrelevant. Both teams played 60 minutes of football and scored the same number of points. No winner was determined. A tiebreaker system should be fair to both teams and has nothing to do with whatever happened in regulation.

 

[Anarchy99]

Lost in all this is the advantage the team defending has if the team that takes the ball DOESN’T get a TD. As already outlined, plenty of good things can happy for the team playing defense. Forcing a turnover, a pick six, a three and out, a blocked kick, etc. Then that team would only need a FG to win. It’s possible the team that started with the ball could lose without even having much chance to defend at all (since a FG would now win).

That’s baked into the chances of winning by kicking the ball away. BB has done this before to take the wind or because he thought he could get a stop. It’s not all just about “fairness” . . . the odds could shift radically if the first team defending in OT actually does their job.