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
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
I wonder how many people who are praising the college OT rules are aware that they were changed in 2021 to turn it into a battle of two-point conversions starting in the third OT. I wasn't crazy about the old rules, but I find the new ones to be super annoying.
Regarding fairness, extending the game gives a very small advantage to the the opponent in the next game. I think George Carlin would've like the sudden death aspect of the current system:
>>In football the object is for the quarterback, also known as the field general, to be on target with his aerial assault, riddling the defense by hitting his receivers with deadly accuracy in spite of the blitz, even if he has to use the shotgun. With short bullet passes and long bombs, he marches his troops into enemy territory, balancing this aerial assault with a sustained ground attack that punches holes in the forward wall of the enemy's defensive line. In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! I hope I'll be safe at home!<<
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Agree with Nesbitt. Stop Mahomes from going 60 yards in 13 seconds and it wouldn’t have been an issue.
The last NFL OT rules change fixed it. If the Bills wanted the ball, they should have either stopped the Chiefs or held them to a FG.
But they didn’t do either of those things. So they lost.
it’s sad that one of those teams had to lose, and in such spectacular fashion, but the coin flip didn’t decide that game. The Bills defense did.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
Sorry Ivan, I promise I'm not singling you at in my posts in these strategy/rules thread but I think you frame the issue(s) well.
I'm actually fine with the current regular season OT rules as they are. Specifically, I disagree with your suggestion that we lengthen the time set for OT for two reasons. First, the players are soooo tired at this point that, especially with the addition of the extra game, these guys shouldn't be forced to increase their injury risks to any further extent. This is their livelihood.
Second, and maybe it's the soccer/hockey fan in me, but I have no problems with ties in the regular season. Way I see it is if two teams play equally "well" for 70 minutes, then neither should have a loss in the loss column. And, as is, we maybe get like 2-3 ties per year? I see that as no a problem.
But, for the playoffs, and considering again how tired the players are, the current rule (while better than the old rule), still puts too much at stake with a coin flip. I'd create a rule where each team must possess the ball once.*
*Heard a further nuance to this rule on the Bill Simmons podcast where some owner 40 years ago or something suggested adding that the second team possessing the ball needed to score at least the same amount and do so in the same number of plays or less. So, for example, if applied to the Chiefs/Bills game the Bills would get the ball and would need to score 7 points in 6 plays or less to keep the game going. While I find this interesting, I do think it's a little too complicated.
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski
Footballguy
Disagree.
It does.
Whoever won that toss had a HUGE advantage. A decided adavantage.
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
Foil and epee fencing (yes I know, no one cares about fencing, but I do) have a similar rule for overtime. At the start of overtime, they flip a coin and one fencer is given "priority". It's a sudden death 1-minute overtime, but at the end of the overtime, if no one has scored, the fencer with priority wins. It incentivizes the fencer without priority to attack offensively to the bitter end trying to score.
I still like the idea of OT, but giving the home team the "priority" advantage such that a tied game at the end of OT means the home team wins is an interesting concept.
Zow
Footballguy
I think you both are too far on either side.
I believe the current rules set it up so that the coin toss is a significant determining factor (heck, there's gotta be stats showing the win percentage for the receiving team that suggests it's greater than 50%), but certainly isn't the lone determining factor and maybe isn't even the most significant determining factor.
zamboni
Footballguy
That's true, but doesn't change the fact that even though the Bills couldn't stop Mahomes on a regular drive in OT, they didn't have a chance to retaliate on offense.
zamboni
Footballguy
I agree - the new college rule about basically two-point conversions is terrible. I do like what college has conceptually done to at least ensure that both teams get the ball. I think there is some middle ground to make sure teams drive all or most of the way down the field.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
I wouldn't want this for the NFL playoffs (I just think both teams need to touch the ball and at least one team needs to score to win such a meaningful game), but this is interesting and I wouldn't be opposed to it being used in the regular season as it would eliminate ties without risking further injury by extending the time of play.
I like the idea of keeping the rules the same in the playoffs except the higher seed gets the ball to start OT eliminating the coin toss. Gets rid of the luck of the toss argument. Still have the issue of the other teams offense not getting a shot, but at least you can then argue not only did your defense not stop the other team, but you should have taken care of business during the regular season.
I find it weird everyone is calling for the OT rules to change as if they're still the old rules. Those rules were just changed several years ago and it was an improvement.
If anything, just play another period and see who's winning. But the current set up isn't that bad. No, a coin flip didn't decide who won. No, the college rules are stupid and fine for high school but not professional football.
If anything, just play another period and see who's winning. But the current set up isn't that bad. No, a coin flip didn't decide who won. No, the college rules are stupid and fine for high school but not professional football.
Plus visiting team knows in the 4Q that they have to have the lead at end of game - or run the risk
Zow
Footballguy
It's hard to argue with this rationale and it's in large part why I wouldn't change anything for the regular season. I agree completely that it's an advantage to go second and, with the concerns remaining for player safety, it seems fair and reasonable to keep the rule where the receiving team scores a TD it's over.
But, and maybe I'm still impacted by the sole single sample size of last night's game, it seemed silly to have an OT period where one team doesn't get an offensive possession. I do want to change that somehow and if that means that teams now elect to kick rather than receive after winning the toss I'm okay with that.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
I mentioned in an earlier post that there are two issues, and I think it's clarifying to think about which you want to address.
As to what's fair, I agree with those who say the coin toss isn't unfair because the opposing D needs to be able to get a stop. So in that sense I don't think the Bills were done dirty last night.
But in terms of what's exciting, it seems pretty clear that people feel a little let down that the game had to end the way it did. What made that game great was the final few minutes when Mahomes and Allen were trading haymakers back and forth, so the way it ended made us feel like it was prematurely cut short. That's why I like @dhockster's idea of offenses getting a chance to match TDs. Give us more of what made that ending so thrilling. Inject it directly into my veins!
As to what's fair, I agree with those who say the coin toss isn't unfair because the opposing D needs to be able to get a stop. So in that sense I don't think the Bills were done dirty last night.
But in terms of what's exciting, it seems pretty clear that people feel a little let down that the game had to end the way it did. What made that game great was the final few minutes when Mahomes and Allen were trading haymakers back and forth, so the way it ended made us feel like it was prematurely cut short. That's why I like @dhockster's idea of offenses getting a chance to match TDs. Give us more of what made that ending so thrilling. Inject it directly into my veins!
ghostguy123
Footballguy
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
In that scenario getting the ball first is a disadvantage. If you want to reward the home team, give them the ball second so they know what they need.
zamboni
Footballguy
For the most part, the OT rules have seemed reasonable. But with two of the best QBs in recent memory on the top of their games, there seemed little doubt that Mahomes was going to take them down to a game-winning TD in OT, and Allen probably would have as well. If it was Jimmy G versus Dak, we probably aren't talking so much about the rule. But Mahomes vs. Allen clearly opened up a wound.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
@bostonfred did a really good job a few posts above explaining why the bold may be errant and that the advantage under your proposed rules goes to the kicking team.
fightingillini
Footballguy
I don't mind the current NFL overtime rules. This is a game where the rules are exposed since both teams have powerful offenses and both defenses are gassed.
I kind of like a wrinkle of the current rules. If the team wins the toss, takes the ball and scores a TD, then the scoring team has an option....kick the XP or go for 2. If they elect the two point conversion and make it....game over. If they kick the XP, the other team gets the ball and has to score a TD to continue. They would get the option of trying to win with a two point conversion or kick the XP to tie. After that next score wins.
The current college OT rules suck, even though it was cool to see my Illini beat Penn State in NINE overtimes!
I kind of like a wrinkle of the current rules. If the team wins the toss, takes the ball and scores a TD, then the scoring team has an option....kick the XP or go for 2. If they elect the two point conversion and make it....game over. If they kick the XP, the other team gets the ball and has to score a TD to continue. They would get the option of trying to win with a two point conversion or kick the XP to tie. After that next score wins.
The current college OT rules suck, even though it was cool to see my Illini beat Penn State in NINE overtimes!
culdeus
Footballguy
They can defer, I think strategically knowing that you get the ball a second time needing a FG to win has value.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
They did have a chance. They could have forced a punt or held them to a FG.
That’s 2 chances.
culdeus
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
Yeah, and I am genuinely trying to rationalize this without being significantly impacted by how, just as a football fan, it seemed patently unfair that Allen didn't get his shot last night. Obviously we can't create rules that apply blanketly solely to fix a rare and nuanced situation.
But, I think for me, it still does simply boil down to the idea that in the playoffs each team should possess the ball once.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
TLEF316
Footballguy
Pretty much any "solution" here is going to have issues.
I'm ok with the current rule, but if the goal is to eliminate the coin toss...I'd suggest the following. (I know this is overly convoluted, but its "fair" and allows for some strategy)
Have the 2 teams essentially play the football version of "name that tune" to decide who gets the ball first. Basically let them "bid" on how far they can go to score. Let the home team bid first....They say "we can score from the 25 yard line" Then the other team can decide to either outbid them "we can score from the 20 yard line". They both go back and forth until one team says "ok, take the ball" (if they get back to the 1 yard line, home team gets the ball). Maybe they can only bid in 5 yard increments until they get to the 5 yard line...then 1 yard increments.
Same rules apply as before. If the first team only scores a FG, the other team gets the ball. If they score a TD, its over.
This way, if you give up a TD without getting the ball, you basically have no excuse (hey...you could have had the ball 1 yard further back if you wanted it). And if the home team goes 99 yards for a TD....I'm really not crying for ya.
I'm ok with the current rule, but if the goal is to eliminate the coin toss...I'd suggest the following. (I know this is overly convoluted, but its "fair" and allows for some strategy)
Have the 2 teams essentially play the football version of "name that tune" to decide who gets the ball first. Basically let them "bid" on how far they can go to score. Let the home team bid first....They say "we can score from the 25 yard line" Then the other team can decide to either outbid them "we can score from the 20 yard line". They both go back and forth until one team says "ok, take the ball" (if they get back to the 1 yard line, home team gets the ball). Maybe they can only bid in 5 yard increments until they get to the 5 yard line...then 1 yard increments.
Same rules apply as before. If the first team only scores a FG, the other team gets the ball. If they score a TD, its over.
This way, if you give up a TD without getting the ball, you basically have no excuse (hey...you could have had the ball 1 yard further back if you wanted it). And if the home team goes 99 yards for a TD....I'm really not crying for ya.
zamboni
Footballguy
I meant on offense. Yes, the Bills defense collapsed in the last minute of regulation and that cost them a regulation win. And hten couldn't stop Mahomes in OT (who could at that point?), but still think the Bills offense should have had a chance in OT. But it is what it is.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
No, it's "pretty simple" that the coin toss decided which team had the all-important first chance to score a TD. It's not everything, but it sure as hell isn't "nothing."
Zow
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Not if the other team can play defense.
And again: the Bills had a 3 point lead with 13 seconds to go. They didn’t squib & Mahomes went 60 yards in 13 seconds. The rest, as they say, is history.
The best way to avoid the advantage a coin flip gave the Chiefs would have been to stop them 1 time. One incomplete pass. One sack. Anything other than 60 yards in 2 plays to tie the game.
At that point Butker’s made FG had more influence on the outcome of that game than the coin flip.
Make a stop, go to the conference championship game. The Bills failed. The coin had nothing to do with that.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
matuski
Footballguy
matuski
Footballguy
So we agree, last night was determined by the coin toss.
eta - I'm not a Bills fan.
Zow
Footballguy
You're conflating two issues: 1) whether the Bills capitalized on their best chance(s) to win; and 2) whether there's an impact to a team's chances to win by winning the coin toss.
Yes, the Bills failed on their chance and the coin had nothing to do with that. But, the coin had significant impact on the teams' respective winning chances at the start of OT when it landed the way it did.
Zow
Footballguy
Okay. This seems circular at this point.
Hit me up the next time this scenario plays out in the playoffs and I'll take $100 on the receiving team. This bet should be agreeable to you since your argument appears to be that the coin toss has no impact on the game's outcome.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
So we agree, last night was determined by the coin toss.
no. Bad defense determined who won.
I know! how about a punt, pass & drills competition to determine who gets the ball? Each team can have a predesignated pool of 15-17 year old HS football players & they’ll have an on-field competition. They’ll throw balls through tires, do an egg run through cones, and kick FGs from various yardages.
oh boy would that be a hoot!
JoeSteeler
Footballguy
The coin toss doesn’t determine anything but it does give an advantage….score and you win
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
The last time a game went to OT for my Niners there were 3-4 possessions before someone won.
Why would it matter if it’s the playoffs? They have the same rules for the regular season.
it isn’t automatic as you imply, and I've seen dozens of games where the receiving team was either held to a FG or was forced to punt.
It’s circular because there’s no way to avoid this reality: the coin toss determines who gets the ball 1st. The team playing defense determine whether the team with possession will score. That’s the fact. It’s not a negotiable or debatable one. The Defense failed. If the defense hadn’t failed, the Bills would have had their shot. But they failed. Cut & dry.
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
Agreed.
That said, the Bills D should have stopped the Chiefs. They didn't. All good. But, why shouldn't the Chiefs D also have to stop the Bills?
People keep making the argument that there's more to football than just offense, but this system is randomly picking one teams ST and D and putting it up against the other team's ST and O.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Well, score a TD, yes.
A FG, notsomuch. Then Bills get a drive & so on.
But I agree - a small advantage to the receiving team. A much larger one if the receiving team is Mahomes & Co.
So really what people seem to want is a special rule for Mahomes, because he’s too good for the current format.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
I'm not at all implying that it's automatic. I've directly stated that it is, nonetheless, a significant advantage. Those two statements are not the same.
Are you willing to accept my bet?
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Then I guess there’s a lot of incentive to win in regulation so it never gets to the coin flip.
13 seconds. 60 yards. Doh.
