Overtime Rules - Keep As Is? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

I genuinely wasn't trying to be flippant. Instead, I was trying to push the issue of seeing whether the other poster was genuine in his position that the coin flip has no impact on the outcome of the game and/or trying through an indirect method to relay the point that the coin flip is a significant factor in the game's outcome, though not the deciding factor. 

Understood. I just don't like it when the discussion turns to throwing out $100 bets to "settle" it. I think it's way better to use the discussion forums for discussion.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I genuinely wasn't trying to be flippant. Instead, I was trying to push the issue of seeing whether the other poster was genuine in his position that the coin flip has no impact on the outcome of the game and/or trying through an indirect method to relay the point that the coin flip is a significant factor in the game's outcome, though not the deciding factor. 

You can simply assume I’m genuine in my position by virtue of that fact that I took the time to earnestly respond to you.

I’m a genuine person who’s passionate about football, and I will always afford other posters the respect of a genuine, and occasionally thoughtful response.

You don’t need to challenge me with an irrelevant wager that proves nothing to know if I’m being genuine.  

 

[Zow]

Understood. I just don't like it when the discussion turns to throwing out $100 bets to "settle" it. I think it's way better to use the discussion forums for discussion.

Fair enough. I just didn't know what else to go with it and it seemed like we weren't hearing one another with discussions and my hope was that the other poster would contemplate why I'd be willing to do such a bet and reconsider the position that the toss is meaningless. Regardless, I'll drop it. 

 

[Zow]

You can simply assume I’m genuine in my position by virtue of that fact that I took the time to earnestly respond to you.

I’m a genuine person who’s passionate about football, and I will always afford other posters the respect of a genuine, and occasionally thoughtful response.

You don’t need to challenge me with an irrelevant wager that proves nothing to know if I’m being genuine.  

This appears to be a good example of two posters trying to be genuine on a message board without the advantage of how demeanor and body language impacts the message. This conversation and my "bet" would have gone over way differently if we did this in person with a beer in hand as I was trying to make a friendly point. If I did insult you or offend you, I am sorry. 

Anyway, I'm with Joe in dropping it. Cheers. 

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I’m with you on much of this, just not your conclusion.

I've already conceded that if the shoe was on the other foot, the same thing would have likely played out for the Bills. 

And just like how it actually did play out, if the Bills had driven down and scored, I still wouldn’t see a need for a rules change. The Chiefs failed to stop the bills, leaving 13 seconds on that insanely awesome TD to Davis. The Bills shoulda won that game in regulation on that play.

My biggest beef with your argument is the concept of “reward” and “punishment”. I didn’t really see the Bills as being punished or the Chiefs as being rewards per say. 

I saw the Chiefs earn a trip to overtime with one of the best 13 second drives in NFL history. 

I saw the Chiefs get lucky / Bills get unlucky with a coin toss.

And then I saw the Chiefs execute a brilliant drive culminating in a touchdown, earning the win. And simultaneously the Bills defense did not make a stop, thus they did not earn an offensive possession.

Using terms like “reward/punishment” seems to strip the achievements away from the players who accomplished those things, or in the Bills case, failed to do so.

In either case, I still don’t think it justifies a rules change. 

Yeah I see what you're saying, but it wasn't really "my" argument.  I was framing that in the context of the post I was responding to originally.  The post I quoted was someone basically saying that Buffalo didn't deserve to be "rewarded" with an overtime possession because of the way they'd mucked up the end of regulation defensively.  My point was simply that KC mucked up the end of regulation defensively as well and they were still "rewarded" with an overtime possession.

In general I just really dislike arguments that start with "if they hadn't <insert whatever mistake here>" then they wouldn't have been in that situation to be treated unfairly via a bad rule or bad call (the same argument is often used for blown calls as well).  Both teams make a bevy and mistakes and great plays throughout the game to get into the situation where they (should) get a fair shake at the end, imo.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This conversation and my "bet" would have gone over way differently if we did this in person with a beer in hand as I was trying to make a friendly point.

if you’re ever in the SF Bay Area, I’ll take you up on that beer. 

if I did insult you or offend you, I am sorry. 

no offense taken & no apology needed. We good.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Yeah I see what you're saying, but it wasn't really "my" argument.  I was framing that in the context of the post I was responding to originally.  The post I quoted was someone basically saying that Buffalo didn't deserve to be "rewarded" with an overtime possession because of the way they'd mucked up the end of regulation defensively.  My point was simply that KC mucked up the end of regulation defensively as well and they were still "rewarded" with an overtime possession.

In general I just really dislike arguments that start with "if they hadn't <insert whatever mistake here>" then they wouldn't have been in that situation to be treated unfairly via a bad rule or bad call (the same argument is often used for blown calls as well).  Both teams make a bevy and mistakes and great plays throughout the game to get into the situation where they (should) get a fair shake at the end, imo.

This is totally fair, and yeah - I’d missed the context of your post. I agree with all of this. 

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Getting back to the subject, forgive me if this has already been posted.

Full 15 minute OT where the home team gets the choice of kicking off or receiving. If score is still tied a 2nd OT where first score of any type wins, starting with the spot the first OT ended with. Like going from the 1st to 2nd quarter.

 

[Gally]

For those saying that each team should get the ball once and then it goes to sudden death how does that change anything from the current format?  There is still potential for one team to get the ball more than the other and win.  This doesn't really change anything other than extend the OT for a minimum of one drive.

Secondly, everyone on the "change it" side seems to absolutely know that the team getting the ball first wins because of the coin toss.  Has anybody looked up the actual win percentages of OT games with this system?  I have never seen the actual outcome percentages (team scored TD on first drive is XX% of the games, etc).  I tried looking it up but didn't really find anything that gives that info.

Does the team winning the toss win 80% of the time on the first drive?  50% of the time?  Does the team losing the coin toss win 20% of the time?  Does anybody have the actual stats readily availalble?

 

[SoBeDad]

Getting back to the subject, forgive me if this has already been posted.

Full 15 minute OT where the home team gets the choice of kicking off or receiving. If score is still tied a 2nd OT where first score of any type wins, starting with the spot the first OT ended with. Like going from the 1st to 2nd quarter.

The league went from a 15 to 10-minute overtime during the regular season due to safety concerns. I doubt if your proposal would pass. Giving each team at least one chance on offense might pass. 

 

[belljr]

As mentioned the main problem I have with both teams get a possession no matter what (especially if the first team puts up a TD) is the second team is getting 4 plays  every possession to get a first since there will be no field position decisions needed

 

[Zow]

As mentioned the main problem I have with both teams get a possession no matter what (especially if the first team puts up a TD) is the second team is getting 4 plays  every possession to get a first since there will be no field position decisions needed

Yeah that's definitely an issue and why the scales don't tip for me for making any regular season changes. 

But for the playoffs, somebody above mentioned the idea of automatically giving the home team the option (with then probably having to have a toss in the Super Bowl). I think this then fairly gives them the choice to have the advantage you identify but I think that's fair and reasonable since they've arguably earned it. This could also incentivize the visiting team going for the win instead of the tie at the end of regulation - which I also don't see as a bad or unfair thing. 

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I mean for regular seasons is it a foregone conclusion that just simply ending games in ties would result in horribly different outcomes for the playoffs?  I tend to doubt it.  

In a way it might actually help. Half game leads instead of tiebreakers.

Could be sold in combination with 10-15 minute playoff overtime periods ( since players didn't have to play overtimes in the regular season)

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Getting back to the subject, forgive me if this has already been posted.

Full 15 minute OT where the home team gets the choice of kicking off or receiving. If score is still tied a 2nd OT where first score of any type wins, starting with the spot the first OT ended with. Like going from the 1st to 2nd quarter.

IIRC this was discussed at length when the current rules changes went in, and the NFLPA balked at it for player safety concerns. 

Those guys on both sides were just gassed last night. At that point, the chances of sustaining an injury seem to increase the longer the game goes. 

Personally I'd love more football played, but I'm skeptical this would fly. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Does the team winning the toss win 80% of the time on the first drive?  50% of the time?  Does the team losing the coin toss win 20% of the time?  Does anybody have the actual stats readily availalble?

Agreed, and I made a similar point - I've seen so many games where the teams went 3-and-out, or kicked a FG, and the other team kicked a FG, then a FG won it; or a team kicked a FG & the other team scored a TD to end it, etc. I've also seen OT games decided by a defensive score. 

I haven't seen the #s, but I'm guessing it's around that 50% mark. Maybe even lower. I'd love to see the actual %, because it would definitely reinforce the point that there's a lot more to it than the coin flip. 

 

[SoBeDad]

Agreed, and I made a similar point - I've seen so many games where the teams went 3-and-out, or kicked a FG, and the other team kicked a FG, then a FG won it; or a team kicked a FG & the other team scored a TD to end it, etc. I've also seen OT games decided by a defensive score. 

I haven't seen the #s, but I'm guessing it's around that 50% mark. Maybe even lower. I'd love to see the actual %, because it would definitely reinforce the point that there's a lot more to it than the coin flip. 

Since 2010, teams win 52.8% during the regular season if they win the coin toss in OT. 90%,  10 out of 11 in the playoffs, including 7 of 10 on the opening drive of the playoffs.

Better QBs in the playoffs. And maybe OCs are more aggressive. 

https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/1485674487425155076?t=0YzCOs6TPQR-iROAG60XBg&s=19

 

[JohnnyU]

I think a good rule change would be give both teams the ball regardless, but if a team scores a TD they must go for 2.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Since 2010, teams win 52.8% during the regular season if they win the coin toss in OT. 90%,  10 out of 11 in the playoffs, including 7 of 10 on the opening drive of the playoffs.

Better QBs in the playoffs. And maybe OCs are more aggressive. 

https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/1485674487425155076?t=0YzCOs6TPQR-iROAG60XBg&s=19

So right around 50% - a 2.8% advantage. 

That, to me, doesn't scream "change the rules! it's unfair!" 

I agree with the bolded, especially the latter point - teams are more aggressive. I also wonder if home/road plays into it at all. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I think a good rule change would be give both teams the ball regardless, but if a team scores a TD they must go for 2.

Interesting suggestion. So if the team that gets the ball scores and goes for 2 the game is over? Or the other team then gets the ball and also has to score a TD and go for 2?

If the latter, how does that game out?  1st team scores, gets the 2PAT. Second team then scores, and gets the 2PAT. They keep doing this until....when?

 

[nirad3]

Definitely change

Not because the Bills lost, I have had this opinion for awhile. But I’m not exactly sure what I would like the new rule to be. 
I believe each offense should touch the ball 

This.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Clearly a small sample size, but the team that won the cointoss won the game 10 of 11 times under these playoff rules. It is certainly an advantage to win the toss and maybe a really big one. If so, that is dumb. 

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

So right around 50% - a 2.8% advantage. 

That, to me, doesn't scream "change the rules! it's unfair!" 

I agree with the bolded, especially the latter point - teams are more aggressive. I also wonder if home/road plays into it at all. 

The regular season is fine. The shorter clock and ties being in play change how overtime works substantially. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The regular season is fine. The shorter clock and ties being in play change how overtime works substantially. 

I don't agree, but we can both have our opinions. 

 

[Gally]

I think a good rule change would be give both teams the ball regardless, but if a team scores a TD they must go for 2.

I hate that idea.  XPT's aren't automatic anymore and why force a team to do something they don't want to do or maybe has a specific bad matchup for some reason.  Let them do what they want.  Why force this type of thing?

 

[Gally]

So right around 50% - a 2.8% advantage. 

That, to me, doesn't scream "change the rules! it's unfair!" 

I agree with the bolded, especially the latter point - teams are more aggressive. I also wonder if home/road plays into it at all. 

Actually in the playoffs is 7 out of 10 (opening drive wins) in the playoffs.  That seems really high but is a very small sample size.  

I don't think the rules need to change but I wouldn't be opposed to just making it be that each offense gets equal chances (minus turnovers).  I actually liked the solution mentioned earlier that a team wins when they have the lead and the ball.   To address Joe's comment about a game winning FG at the buzzer that would also lead to a win.  You played a whole quarter and now there is a team with the lead...it seems fair that team should be the winner even if they had the ball one more time than the other team.  This solution seems to be the best in my eyes (if a change is made). 

 

[Cjw_55106]

The problem with that is that it can give a huge benefit to the second team, since they know exactly what they need to do. Not saying you can't figure out a workaround, just that any system will have its flaws.

I get it, but what is worse? One teams knows it has to score a TD,  one team doesn't have a chance to score at all? There is no advantage bigger than the other team not playing offense.

 

[JohnnyU]

Interesting suggestion. So if the team that gets the ball scores and goes for 2 the game is over? Or the other team then gets the ball and also has to score a TD and go for 2?

If the latter, how does that game out?  1st team scores, gets the 2PAT. Second team then scores, and gets the 2PAT. They keep doing this until....when?

Yes, the other team gets the ball and if they also score a TD and get the 2, then they go again.  The point is that it increases tbe chance that one team gets the 2 and the other doesn't if both score a TD.  In other words, it increases the chance the game doesn't go longer.

 

[JohnnyU]

I hate that idea.  XPT's aren't automatic anymore and why force a team to do something they don't want to do or maybe has a specific bad matchup for some reason.  Let them do what they want.  Why force this type of thing?

Who the hell cares about whether they have a bad matchup?:  Make them go for 2 and it probably won't go back and forth for a long time.  If you can't get 2 yards and the other team can, then you don't deserve to win.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Yes, the other team gets the ball and if they also score a TD and get the 2, then they go again.  The point is that it increases tbe chance that one team gets the 2 and the other doesn't if both score a TD.  In other words, it increases the chance the game doesn't go longer.

If this were the rule, that KC BUF game might still be going.  

 

[dhockster]

So right around 50% - a 2.8% advantage. 

That, to me, doesn't scream "change the rules! it's unfair!" 

I agree with the bolded, especially the latter point - teams are more aggressive. I also wonder if home/road plays into it at all. 

Did you miss the 90% advantage in the playoffs? I am only advocating for changing the playoff OT rules, not the regular season.

 

[wlwiles]

Secondly, everyone on the "change it" side seems to absolutely know that the team getting the ball first wins because of the coin toss.  Has anybody looked up the actual win percentages of OT games with this system?  I have never seen the actual outcome percentages (team scored TD on first drive is XX% of the games, etc).  I tried looking it up but didn't really find anything that gives that info.

I think in this case with the way it had ended in regulation, both defenses gassed, both teams trading blows, both QB's completely en fuego, I'd have to guess >90% of people watching the coin toss had the immediate reaction of "well they're gonna go score a TD and win", no matter which team would have won the coin toss.  I know I did, and my wife who is barely a casual fan said the same thing.  It just felt like one of those "whoever has the ball last will win" kind of games.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Actually in the playoffs is 7 out of 10 (opening drive wins) in the playoffs.  That seems really high but is a very small sample size.  

Which is why I didn't only use the playoffs sample size. Way too small a sample size to be conclusive. 

 

[JohnnyU]

If this were the rule, that KC BUF game might still be going.  

Like I said, if they are forced to go for two, one team is likely not to get it sooner than later.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Did you miss the 90% advantage in the playoffs? I am only advocating for changing the playoff OT rules, not the regular season.

I didn't miss it at all. I'm just not willing to disregard the rest of the sample size in favor of 10 games. 

 

[wlwiles]

I had no dog in this game, just was in awe of both offenses.  It was extremely disappointing to think that Josh Allen led his team to TWO come-from-behind TD's within the final two minutes of the game, throwing a go-ahead TD with :13 left on the clock, and he loses the game.  And I'd feel the exact same way about Mahomes if Buffalo had won the toss and scored a TD, just like I did 3-4 years ago when the Patriots did it to the Chiefs in the AFCCG.   I can't imagine how Bills fans felt last night after the game, just sick...

I love the idea someone had upthread of just setting a 15 min period (or do it with no clock, idc) and playing like normal.  First team to have the lead and possession wins the game.  Love this idea. 

 

[Gally]

Who the hell cares about whether they have a bad matchup?:  Make them go for 2 and it probably won't go back and forth for a long time.  If you can't get 2 yards and the other team can, then you don't deserve to win.  

I just don't care if it goes back and forth.  I hate forcing a team to go for two.  I hate it in college (especially now that they just do that instead of actually playing the game).  If a team wants to go for two then great do it.  But don't force teams to do so.  It should be strategic rather than a forced action.  

 

[dhockster]

Which is why I didn't only use the playoffs sample size. Way too small a sample size to be conclusive. 

Be honest. You didn't use the playoff sample size because it didn't support your point of view.

 

[JohnnyU]

I just don't care if it goes back and forth.  I hate forcing a team to go for two.  I hate it in college (especially now that they just do that instead of actually playing the game).  If a team wants to go for two then great do it.  But don't force teams to do so.  It should be strategic rather than a forced action.  

I respectfully disagree.

 

[Zow]

If this were the rule, that KC BUF game might still be going.  

I'd be okay with that - that was incredibly enteraining!

 

[Cobbler1]

I have heard suggested that the two teams 'bid' for starting field position. Whoever agrees to take the ball closest to their own end zone gets it first. Keep the OT rules as they are.

If both are willing to take the ball at the one yard line, then go to coin-flip. But I doubt that would ever happen. 

I think something along these lines is pretty cool. Very interesting strategic proponent.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Be honest. You didn't use the playoff sample size because it didn't support your point of view.

No, I was being honest. I don't use 10 game sample sizes. This is a really crappy assertion, btw & not really a civil way to engage people if you wish them to continue discussing things with you. I certainly don't appreciate being accused of being dishonest. 

 

[fightingillini]

I just don't care if it goes back and forth.  I hate forcing a team to go for two.  I hate it in college (especially now that they just do that instead of actually playing the game).  If a team wants to go for two then great do it.  But don't force teams to do so.  It should be strategic rather than a forced action.  

This is why I like giving the team that scores the 1st TD in OT an option of kicking the XP or going for 2.....if they go for 2 and make it, game over.  If they kick the XP, ball goes to the other team who must score a TD. 

 I wonder what KC would have done yesterday if they were given the option of going for 2 to end it.

 

[belljr]

Place 5 players of each team on the respective 40 yd lines. The ref throws the ball up at the 50, whoever recovers the loose ball receives the kick

 

[SoBeDad]

Be honest. You didn't use the playoff sample size because it didn't support your point of view.

If winning the game on the first drive is a 50-50 proposition, 7 out of 10 winning first drives (or more) would be expected 17% of the time.

Winning the game 10 of 11 times (or more) would be expected 0.6% of the time, so less than 1%.

 

[eighsse]

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.

 

[Gally]

Place 5 players of each team on the respective 40 yd lines. The ref throws the ball up at the 60, whoever recovers the loose ball receives the kick

Didn't the XFL or some other league of that type try that for the opening "kick off"?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Place 5 players of each team on the respective 40 yd lines. The ref throws the ball up at the 60, whoever recovers the loose ball receives the kick

The 60?  Sounds like a CFL rule.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Place 5 players of each team on the respective 40 yd lines. The ref throws the ball up at the 60, whoever recovers the loose ball receives the kick

Where's the 60 yard line? 

 

[belljr]

The 60?  Sounds like a CFL rule.

Typeo

 

[dhockster]

No, I was being honest. I don't use 10 game sample sizes. This is a really crappy assertion, btw & not really a civil way to engage people if you wish them to continue discussing things with you. I certainly don't appreciate being accused of being dishonest. 

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.

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.