Memo to NFL, please fix regular season OT rule· Page 2

wpr
Preferred Member Topic Starter

14 years ago

We are talking about 34.4% of the games. Moving the kickoff up will drop that significantly. There will be far fewer long returns and more possessions starting from the 20. My guess is it will be around 25-28%. That is not enough to justify a rule change.

Did a little research and found a couple of graphs that show it.
Beginning at the 20 means teams will score a FG about 10% of the time. A TD about 17% of the time.
These numbers are from 2009. I don't have proof but I assume they are typical.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3121/3098993205_515ff24398.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3136/3098993225_fc5aa77dd7.jpg?v=0

link

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

14 years ago

#12

If they trow for the end zone 3 times and don't make it and they end up kicking a FG I am ok with that.

"wpr" wrote:

But this almost never happens in overtime, and that is just my problem with it.

I think that both teams should get a chance to touch the ball, but for a different reason than many other people. I certainly have a strong sense of fair play, and when my team doesn't get to touch the ball, I complain just as much as the next guy. But for me, the biggest problem with sudden death in football is the way it changes the game itself. Solid, aggressive, offensive play gets sacrificed for plodding, conservative plays designed to get the offense just inside field goal range. The touchdowns -- the most exciting event in football -- are deemphasized almost to the point of nonexistence in favor of the much less thrilling field goal. I would rather see coaches settle for field goals only as a last resort, whereas under the current overtime rules, they frequently become the primary goal. No one wants to risk the public scrutiny that comes with losing the ball due to an interception or fumble.

I would rather see a fixed overtime period instituted; whether it is five minutes or 15 is neither here nor there to me. Have the teams duke it out for the entire overtime period. If they are still tied when time expires, they either play another overtime period or the game ends in a tie -- either result would be fine with me. I have never understood what is so distasteful about ties. In many sports throughout the world, ties are a normal occurrence in league play.

I think baseball probably has the fairest "overtime" procedure, but there is no way to bring a directly analogous system to football.

By the way, for those of you who think it is "so much PC garbage" that fans would object to the flipping of a coin giving (that is, chance) giving one team a statistically significant advantage in overtime, let me ask you this: Would you be equally sanguine about the league abolishing the current rules for opening kickoffs? Would it be acceptable to you if whoever won the coin toss was allowed to receive (or kick) at the beginnings of both halves? The whole point of the current system is it largely negates the advantage of the coin flip. In a game that is supposed to be much more about strategy, strength, speed and skill than luck, what is so objectionable about that?

wpr
Preferred Member Topic Starter

14 years ago

#13

If they trow for the end zone 3 times and don't make it and they end up kicking a FG I am ok with that.

Originally Posted by: wpr

But this almost never happens in overtime, and that is just my problem with it.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel

you missed my point. I was speaking of regulation play and the current desire of coaches to "play for OT instead of the win".

By the way, for those of you who think it is "so much PC garbage" that fans would object to the flipping of a coin giving (that is, chance) giving one team a statistically significant advantage in overtime, let me ask you this: Would you be equally sanguine about the league abolishing the current rules for opening kickoffs? Would it be acceptable to you if whoever won the coin toss was allowed to receive (or kick) at the beginnings of both halves? The whole point of the current system is it largely negates the advantage of the coin flip. In a game that is supposed to be much more about strategy, strength, speed and skill than luck, what is so objectionable about that?

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel

I wouldn't object if you can tell me why a game that is 4 quarters long needs to have the same team receive the ball at the start of both haves. It is not a PC issue like saying both teams need to have possession of the ball in the only OT period is.

BTW a 5 min OT would not suffice. One team can hold on to the ball that whole time.

The emphasis seems to be on offense in the OT. GB beat Seattle on Harris' int. GB lost to Arizona on the facemask-sack-fumble of Rodgers. In OT is is incumbent upon the team's defense to get the ball for their offense. If they don't do their job don't blame it on the OT system. They are professionals too and should be held accountable. In the SB after GB got the larger lead Reggie stepped it up and shut down New England. In the recent SB, the Packer defense stepped it up and forced the fumble at the start of the 4th quarter and then got the int to end the game.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

14 years ago

#14

you missed my point. I was speaking of regulation play and the current desire of coaches to "play for OT instead of the win".

Originally Posted by: wpr

Yeah, I figured that out after I hit the Submit button, sorry.

I wouldn't object if you can tell me why a game that is 4 quarters long needs to have the same team receive the ball at the start of both haves.

Originally Posted by: wpr

There is no "need." In both cases they are purely pragmatic or philosophical choices. I question whether the call to give both teams a chance at the ball stems from political correctness anyway. I think branding a call for equitable treatment "PC" is just a convenient and rather lazy way to disparage a position with which one does not agree.

BTW a 5 min OT would not suffice. One team can hold on to the ball that whole time.

Originally Posted by: wpr

As I said, it doesn't matter to me how long the OT period would be. Teams have been known to hold the ball for 10 or even 11 minutes. I have advocated a full 15-minute quarter in the past.

In OT is is incumbent upon the team's defense to get the ball for their offense.

Originally Posted by: wpr

Notice I am not directly advocating for both teams to get the ball. I am advocating for a designated time period as opposed to a sudden-death system. If one offense is good enough to keep the opposing offense off the field for the duration of the overtime period, more power to them. I don't think it would happen terribly often, though. The system would be equitable and would largely, if not entirely, eliminate the statistically significant advantage that accrues from winning the coin toss.

wpr
Preferred Member Topic Starter

14 years ago

#15

understood.

vikesrule
Registered

14 years ago

#16

I say we settle the tie game the real old fashioned way.

The two best warriors from each team meet center field for battle, winner take all.

Vikings - Packers tied at the end of regulation play.

Jared Allen kicks Clay Matthews ass.....Vikings win.

wpr
Preferred Member Topic Starter

14 years ago

#17

Originally Posted by: vikesrule

VR wake up. You are having another of your wet dreams again.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

14 years ago

#18

Originally Posted by: vikesrule

It's common knowledge that Clay > Mullet. [duh]

porky88
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#19

The Bucs had 60 minutes to take care of business and didn't get it done. People act as if offenses receive the ball at their opponent's 20-yard line. The fact is the Buccaneers have a defense and they could have stopped Detroit. They didn't and that is why they went down.

http://www.row12.com/

Greg C.
Registered

14 years ago

#20

That is such BS. They had lots of chances all game long. Score more points and it won't go into OT. With 2 minutes left and a tie game, TB had a 1-10 on Detroit's 15. They did not try to score a TD. 1 yard run to right guard. 2 yard run left end. 4 yard scramble by Freeman up middle. Kick FG.

In OT, their defense had a "chance" Man up and stop the Lions. They were the ones that failed. This concept of "let's give everyone a chance" is so much PC garbage. These guys aren't 10 year old little leaguers and we need everyone on the team to get a chance to play in the game.

You could justify just about anything with this line of reasoning. Essentially you are saying, "So what if it isn't fair, there are plenty of chances for each team to win the game." So you might as well just flip a coin to determine the winner and then everyone goes home. You seem to think that both teams deserve to lose anyway.

Also, the idea of giving each team a chance to score is not "PC garbage." It is called fairness, which is the idea behind all rules in sports. It continually amazes me that so many people endorse rules that are patently unfair.

blank

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (14h) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.

Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself

Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"

Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs

Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade

Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade

dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us

dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.

wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.

Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year

dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot

dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.

dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year

dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.

Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?

Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason

Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”

Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.

Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.

Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH

beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.

Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law

Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter

Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter

Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp

dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night

dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60

dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO

Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m

dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions

dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing

Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.

dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup

dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw

dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.

Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.

Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.

wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.

Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?

Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women

Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂

Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married

Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : Well he can always ask his brother for pointers

Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : Bo Melton taking some reps at CB as well as WR

Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : key transactions coming today at 3pm that will consume more cap in 2025

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2025 Packers Schedule

Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM

COMMANDERS

Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM

Browns

Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM

Cowboys

Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM

BENGALS

Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM

Cardinals

Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM

Steelers

Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM

PANTHERS

Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM

EAGLES

Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM

Giants

Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM

Lions

Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM

Broncos

Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM

Bears

Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM

RAVENS

Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM

Vikings