dhockster
Footballguy
Okay, make it more general. Why does every team elect to receive the kick in OT?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Overtime Rules - Keep As Is? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
not totally lost, as I’ve brought this up several times. You correctly identify it as an advantage for the receiving team though which I don’t think I specifically said - and you’re
spot on. Much easier to score a FG than a TD. Just have to play a little defense. That is irrelevant to my point. My point is having a guarantee of one possession each and then go to sudden death is the exact same fairness as it is right now. A team can win without having equal offensive possessions. Therefore your proposal really doesn't change anything with respect to fairness.
if you argue the current system isn't fair because one team can win without the other team getting a possession then making it so they each get only one possession prior to sudden death doesn't change that.
dhockster
Footballguy
http://www.quirkyresearch.com/football-lists/winning-ot-coin-toss-kicking/#:~:text=In 2002%2C Detroit Lions coach,done so for another decade.
This article cites 16 times teams have elected to kick off in OT. Usually due to adverse wind conditions, which make sense. Since 2000, only 7 teams have done it (2-5 record) and no times in the playoffs.
This article cites 16 times teams have elected to kick off in OT. Usually due to adverse wind conditions, which make sense. Since 2000, only 7 teams have done it (2-5 record) and no times in the playoffs.
That is incorrect. Buffalo could have won with their defense scoring. They don't need to play offense to win. It's just more conventional.
dhockster
Footballguy
It does if you factor in the 2 point conversion. If KC had scored and kicked an extra point, Buffalo would have had to score a TD, and then could make a choice, to kick an extra point to tie, knowing that it was then sudden death with KC getting the ball first, OR going for the win with a 2 point conversion, which generally has a 50/50 chance of success. So it is not the same as it is now at the start of OT
dhockster
Footballguy
24% of playoff drives ended in TD's from 2017-2020. 8% ended in turnovers. I don't know how many of those were scoring turnovers. If they all were, 3 to 1 advantage for the offensive team. If half were, 6 to 1 advantage.
It's actually less than 50-50 for an offense to drive the length of the field for a TD so harder to do than a 2 pt conversion. So Buffalo had more percent chance to stop the offense than a 2 pt conversion. I really don't agree that hrowing in the 2 pt conversion somehow now makes it more fair to have the same situation of one team getting less offensive possessions than another team.
dhockster
Footballguy
https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/12/29/10682736/nfl-overtime-rules-bill-belichick-patriots-jets-decision-wind-kick-receive
Interesting article about the receiving team in OT having an advantage
Interesting article about the receiving team in OT having an advantage
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Let's look at the past 10 years, and let's look at the first drives more than the W/L outcomes.
- NE/DEN 2013: The Pats elected to kickoff and stopped the Broncos at their own 43-yard line. The defense did their job. NE eventually won on a fluke (ball hit a blocking back on a punt and NE recovered and kicked a game winning FG).
- MIN / STL 2015: The Vikings elected to kickoff, the Rams lost 6 yards and punted, and MIN got one first down to kick the winning FG.
- NYJ/NE 2015: NE won the toss and inadvertently said they wanted to kick. Things got worse from there, as the Jets completed a 48-yard pass and NE was sunk.
- MIA/CLE 2016: CLE elected to kick and forced MIA to punt from their own 44. Win for their defense. But the Browns offense didn't do anything either (allowed a sack and got a holding penalty). MIA got the ball back and drove for a FG.
- BAL/PIT 2019: The Steelers elected to kick and forced a 3 and out. Big win for the defense. The Steelers needed about 25 yards to get in FG range. They got about halfway there and fumbled. Mr. Automatic Justin Tucker won the game on a FG a few plays later.
That's the 5 most recent games when the team winning the toss elected to kickoff. In 4 of them, the defense got the ball back. Sure, they weren't playoff games (which have heavily favored the team getting the football), but it's not the craziest notion in the world to kick if there are weather issues or if the team kicking is offensively challenged. Getting the ball and having to punt right away is not a great outcome.
dhockster
Footballguy
Obviously, some of you disagree with me, which is fine. My main point is that there is an advantage, however small, given to the team that wins the coin toss and receives the kick in OT. For many of you, that advantage is so small, that you don't think it is significant enough to change the rules. I'm okay with that. But for me, it does make a difference, especially, in light of the fact that the offenses have been getting better than the defenses over time. That will cause the advantage to get bigger as offenses will score opening drive TD's more of the time. That is part of the reason I think that the team receiving the kickoff has won 10 of 11 games in the the playoffs since they modified the OT rules in 2010. I enjoyed the discussion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sherry Nelson
Footballguy
I vote change OT. Seems to be the kicker results in OT win. I suggest a field goal kickoff. Players are exhausted, kickers are fresh. Put those two on the field and kick field goals until one misses.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I think that no matter what the OT rules are, there will never be a system where it is exactly 50/50 for each team. As already reviewed, even if both teams get a full possession, if both or neither score, then the team that received the ball first will have a much greater chance to win (2 possessions vs. 1 possession).
I'd be fine having no OT in the regular season. Let teams decide to win or lose on a conversion if they want. There's nothing wrong with ties and getting a tie can actually increase that team's playoff chances. And I'd be in favor of a 15-minute OT in the playoffs. There wouldn't be that many games like that, so play it out and keep playing if you have to with 2OT switching to sudden death. If you can't decide a game after 5 quarters, next score should win.
I'd be fine having no OT in the regular season. Let teams decide to win or lose on a conversion if they want. There's nothing wrong with ties and getting a tie can actually increase that team's playoff chances. And I'd be in favor of a 15-minute OT in the playoffs. There wouldn't be that many games like that, so play it out and keep playing if you have to with 2OT switching to sudden death. If you can't decide a game after 5 quarters, next score should win.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
No one disputes that the team that wins the coin flip has an advantage.
The question is whether it’s a fair system.
My answer is, “it’s fair enough.”
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
One thought I have long had, that I haven’t seen mentioned is to just continue the 4th quarter until sudden death.
i still favor playing an extra 15 or 10, but continuation is my next choice.
i still favor playing an extra 15 or 10, but continuation is my next choice.
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
To recap…current system is fair enough, but I prefer and have always preferred
- extra quarter with all of the drama of the end game and two minute warning
- continuation….if the score is tied….just keep playing…same down, distance etc where you left off until somebody scores
- extra quarter with all of the drama of the end game and two minute warning
- continuation….if the score is tied….just keep playing…same down, distance etc where you left off until somebody scores
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I predict the next OT in the post-season will feature a more aggressive strategy on defense. Burrow was sacked 9 times, so playoff teams can play defense.
dhockster
Footballguy
Could be. But I don't think Burrow getting sacked had to do with the Titans being aggressive. It was more the combination of a fairly immobile QB, a bad OL, and a really good pass rushing defense.
There are plenty of 6 minute drives. Wouldn't you get the same outrage if one team led a 6 minute drive that resulted in a FG at the buzzer to win the game. Then one team never got a chance with the ball. Seems like it would be the same outrage.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Re: the bolded, wouldn’t that just allow teams with possession to game the clock to ensure that they had possession through sudden death?
Why bother trying to score in regulation since that would allow the opponent the opportunity to score - just eat the ball, and when it goes to sudden death kick a FG.
I could see a lot of terrible endings to football games as a result.
Compared to the current system it would be horrible, IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
wlwiles
Footballguy
Agreed. The end of regulation means nothing if you treat the start of OT as just a continuation of the 4Q.
In the regular season, I'm 100% fine with ending the game in a tie at the end of regulation.
In the playoffs, with literally one team's season ending if they lose, I'd like to see both teams have equal possession chances. That's why I like the "gotta have the lead and the ball" option.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
under the current system both teams do have a chance at a possession.
If the 1st team’s possession ends in a punt or a FG, the other team gets a chance to win with only a FG.
Seems fair to me.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Just curious why people are insisting on an equal number of possessions for OT but not in the first 4 quarters. In the BUF / KC game, the Chiefs final drive to tie the game was an "extra" possession for the Chiefs, ie they had 10 possessions vs. 9 for the Bills. If we are into fairness and all, how is that fair?
Even if the rules were changed and both sides had to get a possession in OT, if both score and it went to sudden death, the first team would get 2 OT possessions vs. 1 for the other. There is no truly fair way to play OT, short of playing a full 15-minute period.
To me, even just extending the game with same down and distance and sudden death is better than the crazy system they have now for OT. If they did it that way, at least both sides knew where they stood approaching the end of the game. It might make tie games less exciting, but it could also make teams try to score late in the game, go for TDs instead of kicking FG, go for it on 4th downs instead of punting, and try 2-point conversions instead of kicking to get off of a tie. The way the rules are now, it seems like most teams are content to just play for a tie to get to OT. We might see MORE activity if teams knew they would have to give the ball back to the other team and not get a reprieve with the clock running out. If teams KNEW they were heading to sudden death without the ball, I think a lot of decisions would change.
Edit to add: And IMO, if they DID change the rule to ensure both teams had an offensive possession, teams would have less incentive to score in regulation as they knew they were getting another possession no matter what. So there would be LESS urgency at the end of regulation, not more.
Last edited by a moderator:
wlwiles
Footballguy
Maybe I worded it unclearly - I didn't mean equal # of possessions in OT, just mean equal chance to possess the ball at all.
Completely agree about your second point, if each getting 1 possession, then going to sudden death: All that would be is "delayed sudden death", might as well just have that up front. A full timed period could be more than necessary though, so just setting a 15:00 clock and playing to the end of it is possible overkill. That's why I like the untimed, lead + ball ends it. If it's a defensive battle, slug it out and scratch some points and then make a stop and win it. If you can trade TD's back and forth, then cool. First one to mess it up loses.
Maybe it's just recency bias with the KC/Buf game in mind. Both offenses were on fire, scoring multiple times in quick fashion (25 points all under 2:00 to end regulation, then KC with the OT TD). Both defenses looked gassed. Whichever team won the coin toss, it felt like 99.9% sure they would march right down for a TD to win it and the other team is just SOL. Both offenses in that moment were miles ahead of the other's defense, and the coin toss determined that KC's strength would go against Buffalo's weakness. It was 11 on 11 tug of war, but then someone blew a whistle, flipped a coin, and then decided that Team A gets to use a lineman while Team B gets to use a WR to continue.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
To me, this edit is the most significant part, and a reason to not go to a “fair” system ensuring both sides gets a possession as an automatic.
it would significantly change the regulation period end game & result in a weaker NFL game overall.
Because we all know that when teams are driving & there’s short time & urgency, mistakes get made. Play calling gets more aggressive & interceptions are more likely with more pressure.
It would be an awful devolution of the game.
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
Hey now. That's my idea.
And, still my favorite. Though, I also don't mind playing 10 minute OT periods until a team has the lead when 00's hit.
If the NFLPA gripes about extra plays, get rid of OT in the regular season. I'm sure that would balance it out (or lessen the total number of plays in a season) overall.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Ryan Tannehill says, "Hi."
I still don't fully understand why the defenses are the only unit that gets gassed in these situations. The players on offense are getting hit and pushed around just as much as the defense. Receivers are burning up their last bit of energy running all over the field, just like the secondary. Running backs would be battered and bruised up late in games, just like linebackers. Obviously, the way things have played out, the offense does have a decent advantage in many of these situations. But I'm not really sure why.
I know people are discussing what happens on the field of play in these situations, but teams better prepared can also gain a huge advantage before the game was even played. In the lead up to the NE / ATL Super Bowl, the Patriots completely changed what they were doing. By that point in the season, most teams (including NE) would normally forgo weight training and lifting in favor of stretching and light aerobic exercise. The rationale, they wanted to give guys a break and some down time before a big game.
Not BB. To prepare for the SB, he told his training team to have double lifting sessions and to increase the weight. He also practiced indoors with the heat cranked up to get his players accustomed to the environment it would be like at the SB in Houston. The other thing Bill did was to add way more player rotations and substitutions all game, and he insisted all his guys were well hydrated. He wanted his players ready for a physical game, and he wanted his guys in better physical condition because that would give them an advantage in crunch time. And we know how that turned out. Maybe that was just a coincidence, but there are often external things that impact games than just what meets the eye when we sit down to watch them.
dhockster
Footballguy
I liked your "lead and the ball" option until I thought about it more. If team A receives the kick in overtime and punts, and team B then scores, Team B then has to stop team A again to win the game. Whereas, Team A scores and then stops Team B, Team A wins. Team A has to stop Team B once, Team B has to stop team A twice.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Look at the Golden State Warriors as a perfect example. They are, hands down, the best conditioned team in the NBA. They’re a smaller team & their Way to get a competitive advantage is to run the bigger teams off the court.
I recently saw an insane stat for Steph Curry in terms of how many miles per game he runs over the course of one game.
excellent point.
Silver & Black
Footballguy
I feel the exact same way.
I'm an old fashioned guy. I never liked the OT rule. To me, it effects how teams play in the second half knowing they can "play for OT." Screw that. A game is 4 quarters long. If there is a tie at the end of regulation, just keep playing until someone wins. What can be fairer?
To me, if you don't want to run the risk of losing, then go out and win the game in regulation. If you don't, you can't complain about not getting the ball back and having an opportunity to win the game. You had an entire game to win. Go win in it in regulation, that, or D up, make a stop and then go win it.
Get off my lawn!!!!
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
Wow. Maybe that's it... Instead of stopping for OT, maybe the game just continues without a game clock. If team A takes the lead with 13 seconds to go, and Team B ties it up as time expires, just turn the clock off and keep going. Team B kicks off to Team A.
Similarly, if Team A ties the game up with 3:35 to go, they kick off and Team B runs out of time at midfield, just turn the clock off and let it play out.
Silver & Black
Footballguy
I don't follow. I'm simply saying, a game is 4 quarters long. If the game ends in a tie, you move on to sudden death, the way it was forever before the rules change. You still have a game and play clock etc. Just whoever scores first, wins. I never understood how anyone could complain it is unfair. You had 4 quarters to win. If you go to sudden death and don't get the ball first, man up, hike up your skirt, dry your eyes and make a stop and then go win the game. Just my two cents.
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
I may have misinterpreted: "If there is a tie at the end of regulation, just keep playing until someone wins."
But, I'm glad I did. Why stop the game at the end of regulation? If it is tied, when the clock runs out, just keep playing until next score. No coin-toss to reset the game, completely change the momentum, etc. Just keep playing without a game clock.
Anyone see any holes in this?
Silver & Black
Footballguy
I do.
Like I said, a game is 4 quarters long. After 4 quarters, if the game is tied, the game is over. Now, you move on to sudden death OT. You don't just keep going. The game ends and you go to sudden death OT.
This is how it was forever. I said it then and I say it now, if it aint broke, don't fix it. Sheesh.
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
Teams can manipulate the clock as you get to the end of regulation to make sure you don't give the other team a chance in regulation. Then you still have the ball and just kick a FG to win in "sudden death". It would make the end of regulation meaningless to some degree.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
when the clock expires at the end of regulation.....resume the overtime from where the game last ended....
in this case KC kicks off to BUF....BUF does whatever they want.....but KC gets a chance to match it or win it...so they get a possession no matter what.....
basically just keep playing the game....but in OT both offenses get to touch it....
so let's say KC tied it up with 30 seconds left....they still kick off as normal, but now BUF has to decide what they want to do....if they run a play and it is 2nd an 6 when the clock goes to zero, then it is 2nd and 6 when the OT starts....but they both get to touch it in OT.....and have to keep matching each other or win it.....
in this case KC kicks off to BUF....BUF does whatever they want.....but KC gets a chance to match it or win it...so they get a possession no matter what.....
basically just keep playing the game....but in OT both offenses get to touch it....
so let's say KC tied it up with 30 seconds left....they still kick off as normal, but now BUF has to decide what they want to do....if they run a play and it is 2nd an 6 when the clock goes to zero, then it is 2nd and 6 when the OT starts....but they both get to touch it in OT.....and have to keep matching each other or win it.....
Last edited by a moderator:
Catbird
Footballguy
With just continuing, you would lose the last anxious minutes of regulation as whoever had the ball would have no time pressure to score. Those are exciting moments to lose.
I would prefer tiebreakers for playoff games only, but understand that having a winner makes half the fans happy instead of none, so I am neutral on tiebreakers for in season games.
For at least playoff games, I favor both teams being guaranteed a possession and if still tied (whether teams scored or not) continuing from whatever the situation then is into sudden death.
There is what feels like a slight edge for the team with second possession in knowing what score they have to beat or tie, but there feels like a slight advantage to the team with first possession in the sudden death because the get possession and just can score and win. By the numbers, I don't think either of those is a significant advantage.
I would prefer tiebreakers for playoff games only, but understand that having a winner makes half the fans happy instead of none, so I am neutral on tiebreakers for in season games.
For at least playoff games, I favor both teams being guaranteed a possession and if still tied (whether teams scored or not) continuing from whatever the situation then is into sudden death.
There is what feels like a slight edge for the team with second possession in knowing what score they have to beat or tie, but there feels like a slight advantage to the team with first possession in the sudden death because the get possession and just can score and win. By the numbers, I don't think either of those is a significant advantage.
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
I think you are overthinking it. Why make any additional stipulations? Just make it sudden-death, but without the interference of stopping the game, and flipping a coin to possibly give the ball right back to the team that just barely tied it up. Just keep the back-and-forth possessions going.
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
There would certainly still be pressure. If they don't score, they turn the ball over, and if the other team scores they lose. That's still a ton of pressure.
Sam Quentin
Footballguy
Don’t they already do that? Run the clock down to three seconds and kick. Same thing without the extra step.
Stinkin Ref
IBL Representative
I think you misunderstood....no coin flip....game continues from the point it was at at the end of regulation....there is no “clock” they just keep playing.....only “stipulation” is that both teams get the ball on offense at least once....once you are in the “no clock” OT period...whatever the team with ball first does, the other team has to immediately match it or do better....once that doesn’t happen....game is over...Grigs Allmoon said:
if first team kicks a FG....you have to get a FG to keep playing or a TD to win...if they punt, and then you score you win....if you punt it back and then they score they win....at that point you don’t get to “match” it cause you already had it once...
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU
Footballguy
After reading all these posts I still think requiring a team to go for two if they score a TD is the answer. It would give both teams the ball at least once and at the same time cut down on the number of times it remains tied after a score.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I wouldn't go completely to college rules, should still have to kickoff after a TD. Just make them go for two after a TD and each team gets a turn regardless. That will solve the issue sooner than later.
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Just curious what the point of "starting at your own 40" would be? College has them start only 25 yards from the goal line, meaning teams start out in FG range to encourage teams getting points on the board.
What happens with teams starting at their own 40? If the team with the ball has a sack and a holding penalty and goes back to their own 20 yard line, what happens next? Do they go for it on 4th and 30 (I would assume yes)? I guess what I'm asking is, for Team #2, do they automatically get the ball at their own 40 yard line no matter what to start their possession? With fixed starting positions, even if the defense did really well and forced a turnover, they would go back to their own 40 to start their possession, right? Why would you want the offense to have to drive 30 yards just to get into scoring position?
Similar threads
