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

wpr
Preferred Member Topic Starter

13 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

13 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

13 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

13 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

13 years ago

#15

understood.

vikesrule
Registered

13 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

13 years ago

#17

Originally Posted by: vikesrule

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

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

13 years ago

#18

Originally Posted by: vikesrule

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

porky88
Veteran Member

13 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

13 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 (1h) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.

Mucky Tundra (15h) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore

packerfanoutwest (21h) : Feliz Navidad!

Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!

beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS