Playoff Overtime (1 Viewer)

[Tool]

Not reading thru this but the logical playoff OT is to just simply keep playing from the spot the ballw as at when the 4th Q is over. You are going to play until someone scores regardless even if it takes 3 days for a team to score so why let a coin flip determine it...which in its current state of 'score a TD, you win and they lose', is the dumbest of dumb ideas.

Actually playing until someone scores regardless if it takes 3 days is the dumbest of dumb ideas.

 

[DropKick]

Are we really having this discussion if the Chiefs win the toss and game in the same manner?

 

[dhockster]

Are we really having this discussion if the Chiefs win the toss and game in the same manner?

Yes. Having a rule to break a tie where one team can get an opportunity to score and win the game without the other team getting an opportunity to score is dumb. It doesn't matter if we all hate New England or not.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Like a couple others in here I have always thought they should just keep playing from wherever the game ended at the end of 4 quarters and next one to score wins......

this would add so much strategy to the 4th quarter....and make for some really compelling decisions besides just taking a knee or throwing a hail mary or attempting a 65 yard FG....

if it is tied with 3 seconds left in the game and its 3 and 15 at your own 10....you ain't taking a knee...

 

[dhockster]

Like a couple others in here I have always thought they should just keep playing from wherever the game ended at the end of 4 quarters and next one to score wins......

this would add so much strategy to the 4th quarter....and make for some really compelling decisions besides just taking a knee or throwing a hail mary or attempting a 65 yard FG....

if it is tied with 3 seconds left in the game and its 3 and 15 at your own 10....you ain't taking a knee...

I don't have a problem with that. If the score is tied at the end of regulation but you have the advantage of possession at the end of regulation, in a sense, you have earned the right to score first in sudden death OT.

Of course, 95% of the coaches would be against this because then they would have to think more at the end of a tie game.

 

[Deamon]

Like a couple others in here I have always thought they should just keep playing from wherever the game ended at the end of 4 quarters and next one to score wins......

this would add so much strategy to the 4th quarter....and make for some really compelling decisions besides just taking a knee or throwing a hail mary or attempting a 65 yard FG....

if it is tied with 3 seconds left in the game and its 3 and 15 at your own 10....you ain't taking a knee...

Not sure I'm a fan of this.  Would kill the whole fun of a 2 minute drill at the end of the game.  There would be absolutely NO rush for a team with the ball and a minute left in a tie game.  They'd just slowly run their regular offense.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Not sure I'm a fan of this.  Would kill the whole fun of a 2 minute drill at the end of the game.  There would be absolutely NO rush for a team with the ball and a minute left in a tie game.  They'd just slowly run their regular offense.

I'd rather see a team earn possession of the ball at the start of "overtime" based on what was going on during the course of the game....than a coin flip.....

there would be so many crucial decisions on both sides as the game winds down that the strategy starts impacting every call....if a team just decides to play it out and not hurry up.....they run the risk of having to punt, turnover, whatever... and all it takes is a FG to beat them....

 

[DropKick]

Yes. Having a rule to break a tie where one team can get an opportunity to score and win the game without the other team getting an opportunity to score is dumb. It doesn't matter if we all hate New England or not.

(1) "Both teams didn't get an opportunity to score"

Both teams had opportunity to win during regulation.  I understand why you think each team should have the "right" to possess the ball.  But football is a team game;  If special teams and defense can't stop the other team from getting in the end zone, I believe they still had an opportunity to win but couldn't gain (or "earn") possession of the ball to give their offense that opportunity.  I have no problem with the harsh reality of sudden death.

(2) "The game was decided by a coin toss"

Tthe coin toss determined which team took possession of the ball first.  The kicking team gets to determine which side of the field to defend.  Ultimately, the players decide the game.

(3) "The team winning the toss has an unfair advantage"

Each team has a 50/50 shot at the toss.  After that, statistics say it is a small advantage.  If you can keep a team out of the end zone, the team taking second possession has the advantage of knowing what they need and can utilize all four downs in a manner the first team may not have had.

(4) "OT should be a continuation of the 4th quarter"

Undermines the strategy and drama of the final minutes.

(5) "They should follow college rules"

Too much focus on offense.  Not to mention the Vegas and fantasy wrinkle.

(6) "They should guarantee each team at least one possession and then play sudden death"

So, if it goes TD, TD, FG, doesn't the argument shift to the extra possession?

(7) "They should play a full quarter"

A full quarter can be brutal given the physicality of the game;  Big drop in drama.  Also, still a good chance one team gets an extra possession.  Could degrade into a 90+ minute game, which would be really tough on the players.
 

 

[Stinkin Ref]

(1) "Both teams didn't get an opportunity to score"

Both teams had opportunity to win during regulation.  I understand why you think each team should have the "right" to possess the ball.  But football is a team game;  If special teams and defense can't stop the other team from getting in the end zone, I believe they still had an opportunity to win but couldn't gain (or "earn") possession of the ball to give their offense that opportunity.  I have no problem with the harsh reality of sudden death.

(2) "The game was decided by a coin toss"

Tthe coin toss determined which team took possession of the ball first.  The kicking team gets to determine which side of the field to defend.  Ultimately, the players decide the game.

(3) "The team winning the toss has an unfair advantage"

Each team has a 50/50 shot at the toss.  After that, statistics say it is a small advantage.  If you can keep a team out of the end zone, the team taking second possession has the advantage of knowing what they need and can utilize all four downs in a manner the first team may not have had.

(4) "OT should be a continuation of the 4th quarter"

Undermines the strategy and drama of the final minutes.

(5) "They should follow college rules"

Too much focus on offense.  Not to mention the Vegas and fantasy wrinkle.

(6) "They should guarantee each team at least one possession and then play sudden death"

So, if it goes TD, TD, FG, doesn't the argument shift to the extra possession?

(7) "They should play a full quarter"

A full quarter can be brutal given the physicality of the game;  Big drop in drama.  Also, still a good chance one team gets an extra possession.  Could degrade into a 90+ minute game, which would be really tough on the players.
 

Only gonna comment on the ones that matter...

4. You couldn’t be more wrong....seriously you couldn’t...especially the strategy part....which leads to the drama part

6. If each team gets a possession you have the extra point decision to factor in...your reply seems to assume that they both automatically go for 1....I bet many would go for 2...

If NE knew KC could get the ball..... do you think they would have considered going for two knowing KC could score and go for two to beat them if they only went for one..?

 

[DropKick]

Only gonna comment on the ones that matter...

4. You couldn’t be more wrong....seriously you couldn’t...especially the strategy part....which leads to the drama part

6. If each team gets a possession you have the extra point decision to factor in...your reply seems to assume that they both automatically go for 1....I bet many would go for 2...

If NE knew KC could get the ball..... do you think they would have considered going for two knowing KC could score and go for two to beat them if they only went for one..?

It is a timed game.  Completely remove the element of regulation ending and teams don't have to manage time-outs or play with a sense of urgency.  I can't help you if you think that makes the game better.

I think they would kick the PAT.  Forcing a team to go for two seems like a better play than failing yourself and letting a PAT beat you.