Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogroll
FYI...
From the 2000 through 2007 regular seasons, there have been 124 overtime games. In every single game except one (I believe), the team that won the toss elected to receive. And those receiving teams won 60% of the time (and tied once). That's a relatively large advantage, particularly when compared to home field advantage.
Home teams have only won 51% of OT games. The weakness of HFA isn't too surprising given the way it diminishes throughout a game. It's strongest in the 1st quarter and then diminishes through subsequent quarters until it's almost non-existent in OT. Fans are presumably at their most involved at this point in a game, which suggests crowd involvement is not the primary source of HFA.
I got that from here: Advanced NFL Stats: How Important is the Coin Flip in OT? |
This is the article that got me thinking about the idea really (along with the colts/chargers game). I threw out the "turnover ends the game" thing just to see if I could get people to think outside the box. It came from thinking about how offenses attack tired defenses and try to exploit penalties (if they are not Zorn) when they get the ball. The team that wins the flip just has to have a good offensive series. The team that loses the flip has to have a good defensive series and a good offensive series. Seems obviously lopsided and stats back it up.
Maybe they could use something like the college system but dis-allow field goals. Currently, is the team going second sees the team going first score a TD, they essentially get an extra down to match the TD. Take that advantage away. Like Daseal just posted...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal
Gil Brandt on NFL radio brought up...If a team elects to receive, they have to score a TD on that possession to win the game. A fiend goal won't win the game. It puts pressure on both teams --
|