Overtime Rules

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

On 3/4/2021 at 12:06 PM, sith13 said:

I think sudden death was more fun but taking out the FG in the first drive sure is more fair. 

Agree.

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

On 3/4/2021 at 12:35 PM, jetlord said:

The old sudden death was unfair.  A decent return, a couple of first downs, and a field goal without the other team having a chance is not the way to decide a game.  I like the college tie breaker system, but it drags games out too long  Maybe use something like that except have teams start at their own 40 instead of the opposing 25.  That would probably mean one possession per team in most cases. 

Just like what happened in the 2018 AFC championship when we lost the toss and Brady got the ball first.

[jetlord 10,209]

5 hours ago, Fmbl2187 said:

Just like what happened in the 2018 AFC championship when we lost the toss and Brady got the ball first.

Not what I meant.  My idea, not really all that developed, was that teams would alternate like colleges except start with a much longer field.  That would eliminate the near automatic FG and lower the odds of TDs each possession.  

[Fmbl2187 2,279]

1 hour ago, jetlord said:

Not what I meant.  My idea, not really all that developed, was that teams would alternate like colleges except start with a much longer field.  That would eliminate the near automatic FG and lower the odds of TDs each possession.  

✔

[Handswarmer 645]

On 3/4/2021 at 5:32 PM, xen said:

Just use the college rules.  They're fun and we have Mahomes.

Super Bowl loss proved he cannot do it all by himself

No one can

[Handswarmer 645]

19 hours ago, Balto said:

The more I think about it Moon I actually really like the idea of just keep playing!  Just like how the NBA does it.

The problem is would the NFL ever do this?  I mean they keep trying to make the game safer and having players play an extra quarter probably won't look good for that.  Not to mention if they are still tied after that 5th QT.  Do a 6th?  Sudden death at that time, but if doing that why not just do sudden death to begin with?

 

Maybe go a 5th quarter for 8mins, which I'm sure is still well above the avg drive time.  Then if still tied go into college rules to gain some excitement back to the game.

NFL won't just keep playing, they want to be on the side of injury protection for players.

[xen 1,010,220]

1 hour ago, Handswarmer said:

Super Bowl loss proved he cannot do it all by himself

No one can

How dare you!

[Handswarmer 645]

https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/03/08/mmqb-salary-cap-squeeze-free-agency-veteran-trade-candidates

" As for Baltimore’s motivation here, part of it was to satisfy the commissioner’s quiet desire to find a way to go back to some form of sudden death. And it’s also part of an effort to interject more balance, which the Ravens found was beginning to lack in the current form of OT. Since the 2012 rule change, the receiving team has won 55% of the time in OT, and since 2017, when OT was shortened to 10 minutes, that number jumped to 58%. "

"

Their continuing conversation on what they saw as a very logical idea got amped up in 2019, after the Chiefs lost in the AFC title game to the Patriots without Patrick Mahomes touching the ball in overtime—which led Kansas City to propose a mandate that both teams get a possession in OT in 2019 and again in 2020. The problem there was the same with existing overtime, that being that the third possession could prove to give a team as much of an edge as the first possession did.

So at that point, Harbaugh went to Stern and Weiss, and asked what they thought of the Chiefs’ proposal, at which point they brought up the third-possession issue, which led to the head coach asking the young assistants, “What about that idea we talked about in 2016?”

[mex 65,581]

On 3/4/2021 at 11:35 AM, jetlord said:

The old sudden death was unfair.  A decent return, a couple of first downs, and a field goal without the other team having a chance is not the way to decide a game.  I like the college tie breaker system, but it drags games out too long  Maybe use something like that except have teams start at their own 40 instead of the opposing 25.  That would probably mean one possession per team in most cases. 

awwww does wittle jetwold need his nappy?   

[moons314 2,463]

16 minutes ago, mex said:

awwww does wittle jetwold need his nappy?   

lol.  It does blow my mind that people think the college overtime is somehow good.  It completely removes special teams from the equation.  In my mind, that's no different than telling teams they have to put a RB at QB in overtime.  Its fucking stupid.   No punts.  No returns.  Removing 1/3 of the game is just stupid. 

[Adamixoye 604]

1 minute ago, moons314 said:

lol.  It does blow my mind that people think the college overtime is somehow good.  It completely removes special teams from the equation.

The way I've always thought about it is literally the opposite.

NFL overtime, you might have a kickoff and then only one offense and defense seeing the field, if one team drives down for a TD.

In college overtime, both offenses and defenses are guaranteed to see the field (except in the case of a turnover), and you'll also probably see both kicking teams on a PAT or FG.

So college OT takes kickoffs and punts out of the equation, both of which haven't really been that interesting with the rule changes of the last few years anyway, while NFL OT in many cases takes away many more phases of the game.

It's one thing if it's not your preference, but if you're saying that the OT should include as many phases of the game as possible then really you have it backwards.

[reesebobby 5,662]

2 minutes ago, moons314 said:

lol.  It does blow my mind that people think the college overtime is somehow good.  It completely removes special teams from the equation.  In my mind, that's no different than telling teams they have to put a RB at QB in overtime.  Its fucking stupid.   No punts.  No returns.  Removing 1/3 of the game is just stupid. 

Technically field goals are a big part of college overtime.  I've never really considered special teams to be 1/3 of the game.  How many plays would they account for in a 10 minute overtime?  2 or 3?

The part I don't like about the college system is how big of an advantage the 2nd team with the ball has.  Overall, I probably prefer the current NFL system to anything that's out there, but I see the appeal of the college system and get why some would like it.  

[Adamixoye 604]

2 minutes ago, reesebobby said:

I've never really considered special teams to be 1/3 of the game.  How many plays would they account for in a 10 minute overtime?  2 or 3?

I should have added this point, I totally agree.  Just because we talk about the "three phases of the game" that doesn't mean they are or should be equally weighted.

[jetlord 10,209]

55 minutes ago, mex said:

awwww does wittle jetwold need his nappy?   

Yes, I do.  But my point was that some college overtimes go four or five possessions each because scoring is so likely.  With a seventeen game schedule plus playoffs, the pro teams don't need that much more beating each other up.  

[mex 65,581]

1 minute ago, jetlord said:

Yes, I do.  But my point was that some college overtimes go four or five possessions each because scoring is so likely.  With a seventeen game schedule plus playoffs, the pro teams don't need that much more beating each other up.  

The more football the better.

But I do agree with you that we need a college-like playoff because sudden death is completely unfair, and even the new modified rules are unfair as witnessed by the AFC Championship vs NE. 

If both teams are so close that they are tied at the end of regulation, why should you leave anything to a coin toss? That's just bullshit.

Each team gets a possession, until one team wins it.

[mex 65,581]

44 minutes ago, moons314 said:

lol.  It does blow my mind that people think the college overtime is somehow good.  It completely removes special teams from the equation.  In my mind, that's no different than telling teams they have to put a RB at QB in overtime.  Its fucking stupid.   No punts.  No returns.  Removing 1/3 of the game is just stupid. 

I agree with some of that... but where the NCAA system is better is that they don't leave the entire game in the hands of a ref's coin toss

THAT is stupid.

[jetlord 10,209]

Just now, mex said:

The more football the better.

But I do agree with you that we need a college-like playoff because sudden death is completely unfair, and even the new modified rules are unfair as witnessed by the AFC Championship vs NE. 

If both teams are so close that they are tied at the end of regulation, why should you leave anything to a coin toss? That's just bullshit.

Each team gets a possession, until one team wins it.

Exactly, and my proposal was that the teams start far enough back that scoring had more meaning than when starting from the opposing 25 like college rules.  Quit yer arguing and make more beer. 

[mex 65,581]

1 minute ago, jetlord said:

Exactly, and my proposal was that the teams start far enough back that scoring had more meaning than when starting from the opposing 25 like college rules.  Quit yer arguing and make more beer. 

 but but but Arguing is what I do.

[jetlord 10,209]

Just now, mex said:

 but but but Arguing is what I do.

Less well than you make beer. 

[mex 65,581]

Just now, jetlord said:

Less well than you make beer. 

nuh uh.

[moons314 2,463]

4 hours ago, Adamixoye said:

The way I've always thought about it is literally the opposite.

NFL overtime, you might have a kickoff and then only one offense and defense seeing the field, if one team drives down for a TD.

In college overtime, both offenses and defenses are guaranteed to see the field (except in the case of a turnover), and you'll also probably see both kicking teams on a PAT or FG.

So college OT takes kickoffs and punts out of the equation, both of which haven't really been that interesting with the rule changes of the last few years anyway, while NFL OT in many cases takes away many more phases of the game.

It's one thing if it's not your preference, but if you're saying that the OT should include as many phases of the game as possible then really you have it backwards.

In the 90s, I'm pretty sure the Chiefs beat the Raiders on an OT punt return for td... 

I'm not an advocate of the current NFL OT format.  It's hot garbage.  Being that it's hot garbage, it doesn't make other hot garbage like the college rules any better.  I still contend a timed quarter is best, because at that point there becomes actual strategy.  Could you imagine a team deferring on an OT coin toss?  Don't discount special teams.  It's not about returns only.  A muffed punt.  Fumbled kickoff return.  A blocked punt.  A 40 yard return that flips field position.  There are a ton of variables that are forgotten, and just because some things aren't common doesn't mean they should be dismissed.  

[Adamixoye 604]

1 hour ago, moons314 said:

In the 90s, I'm pretty sure the Chiefs beat the Raiders on an OT punt return for td... 

I'm not an advocate of the current NFL OT format.  It's hot garbage.  Being that it's hot garbage, it doesn't make other hot garbage like the college rules any better.  I still contend a timed quarter is best, because at that point there becomes actual strategy.  Could you imagine a team deferring on an OT coin toss?  Don't discount special teams.  It's not about returns only.  A muffed punt.  Fumbled kickoff return.  A blocked punt.  A 40 yard return that flips field position.  There are a ton of variables that are forgotten, and just because some things aren't common doesn't mean they should be dismissed.  

It was Tamarick Vanover against the Chargers on MNF.

But can you think of any others?  It is super rare.  So agree to disagree on the rest, I guess.  I actually like that the college format is really head-to-head and games aren't decided on flukey plays for the most part.  The downside is that it can drag on a little bit, but some of those games are really exciting and who doesn't want more football?  The only issue to me is the beating these guys take over the course of a season.

[jetlord 10,209]

Wasn't there a game against the Raiders in Arrowhead in the late nineties that went to overtime?  The Chiefs kicked off and the kick went out of bounds.  The Raiders started from their forty, made a first down or two and kicked a FG to win without the Chiefs ever getting a chance.  Memory is a little fuzzy, but it went something like that.  

[Adamixoye 604]

3 minutes ago, jetlord said:

Wasn't there a game against the Raiders in Arrowhead in the late nineties that went to overtime?  The Chiefs kicked off and the kick went out of bounds.  The Raiders started from their forty, made a first down or two and kicked a FG to win without the Chiefs ever getting a chance.  Memory is a little fuzzy, but it went something like that.  

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200001020kan.htm

I can't remember if the out-of-bounds kickoff was the opening kickoff of OT or the kickoff that allowed them to tie the game in the final minute to send it into OT.  This game cost us the division.

To the point of the thread here, this game was a stupid flukey result BECAUSE special teams were included.

[jetlord 10,209]

5 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200001020kan.htm

I can't remember if the out-of-bounds kickoff was the opening kickoff of OT or the kickoff that allowed them to tie the game in the final minute to send it into OT.  This game cost us the division.

To the point of the thread here, this game was a stupid flukey result BECAUSE special teams were included.

Pretty sure the Raiders won the OT toss and the Chiefs kicked it out of bounds, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.  I do remember walking out of Arrowhead all bummed out.