How would you change the overtime rules?

[44ever]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

what about in the playoffs?

we should consult mcnabb.. he's probably wondering what will happen if they tie.. round robin with the next team

what about the playoffs? OT can end in a tie. The 4th qtr. Can end in a tie. With that said all those ties would make the playoffs confusing

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by 44ever

what about the playoffs? OT can end in a tie. The 4th qtr. Can end in a tie. With that said all those ties would make the playoffs confusing

I'm not sure I completely follow... you can evaluate standings with ties

I'm just saying.. if there is no OT in the reg season, what system would he use in the playoffs?

[44ever]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

I'm not sure I completely follow... you can evaluate standings with ties

I'm just saying.. if there is no OT in the reg season, what system would he use in the playoffs?

Oh I see what your saying. Yeah your right about that. I'm retarded.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

what about in the playoffs?

we should consult mcnabb.. he's probably wondering what will happen if they tie.. round robin with the next team

i was just kidding but what about just playing the entire overtime qtr out like a 2nd 4th quarter

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

i was just kidding but what about just playing the entire overtime qtr out like a 2nd 4th quarter

In my original post that was my suggestion, though I can realize due to tiring and injuries why they wouldn't do that.

[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?

[GoSkins!]

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...

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 --

[firstdown]

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?

If I'm correct that stat also encludes games where both teams had a chance at O but the team that won the coin toss still won the game. I think its more like 53% of the time that the team that wins the coin toss wins the game in the first drive.

[WaldSkins]

Just play a 5th quarter

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

We saw it in the Colts/Bolts game. The team that wins the coin flip gets to put their offense up against a tired defense and easily win the game. The other teams offense never has a chance to answer.

I've thought about it, looked at how college does it (don't really like that), and decided on a radically new idea: Keep the current NFL format with one major exception. The defense can also win the game if they force a turnover.

Now both sides have a big incentive to play aggresive. The defenses don't have to decide to just play prevent defense and offenses have to think twice before just heaving up the ball and hoping for a lucky pass interference or miracle catch.

What is your idea?

Sorry but a turnover isn't as spectacular as a TD to show victory. I say play another quarter, maybe shortened. I doubt that'd ever happen considering more potential for injuries due to the playing time as well as being tired.

Maybe a kickoff like usual; if the first team gets a TD, the second team has to match that.. same with FGs, but a TD would win over a FG.. if the first team scores and the 2nd team doesnt, game over.. and vice versa

forget that give the ball at the 25 or whatever

[hooskins]

make it exactly like soccer then, one away and one home game and total the aggregate of the scores. Then have a field goal chip-off if tied.

[Daseal]

Gil Brandt on NFL radio brought up an interesting possibility to NFL overtime today, however I missed part of it. The basic gist was -- make teams score 6 points to win. I'm not sure if it was the first to 6 or win by 6, etc. But the idea is interesting. 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 -- personally, I like the idea. The league is slanted towards offenses now days, and one long completion (or PI penalty) puts the other team in FG range.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Gil Brandt on NFL radio brought up an interesting possibility to NFL overtime today, however I missed part of it. The basic gist was -- make teams score 6 points to win. I'm not sure if it was the first to 6 or win by 6, etc. But the idea is interesting. 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 -- personally, I like the idea. The league is slanted towards offenses now days, and one long completion (or PI penalty) puts the other team in FG range.

Ivars Peterson's MathTrek - Football's Overtime Bias

I'd say just play a whole 15 min period. I also don't mind GMScud's suggestion of giving the opponent an opportunity to match a score if the team that won the flip scored. Then go into sudden death if the winning team gave up possession. I don't hate the current system, but I do HATE the college rules. The real problem with the SD/IND game was that the refs had too much impact on the outcome. In several recent playoff overtime games that I can recall (Sea/GB a few years ago and GB/NYG last year) the team that won the toss did not win the game. Winning the toss is statistically significant in the outcome, but it is not determinative of victory. Probably not much if any more than winning the toss in college and deferring.

[CRedskinsRule]

what if you kept it like it is but just disallowed field goals in overtime?

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

what if you kept it like it is but just disallowed field goals in overtime?

You would greatly increase the number of ties. Even more than you would if you played to 6.