IR Rule Change

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,598
Reaction score
694
Of course, but there's no need for a clock even being operated in playoff overtimes as a winner has to be declared. Just give every team the same amount of possessions.

Tried a couple of times to digest this, but maybe it's just too early in the morning. :)

First sentence looks like sudden death. Is that the reason there's no need for a clock?

Second sentence seems to be sudden death with a twist that actually puts the team on defense first in the catbird seat. The team that starts on offense will always have one more possession, so when they score, the other team gets a shot (in order to even up possessions?). However, if the team that starts on D scores first, game over?

Maybe a mountain out of a molehill, but I could understand either sentence in isolation, just not together.
 

gatorpack

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
1,327
Reaction score
240
Location
Florida
Of course, but there's no need for a clock even being operated in playoff overtimes as a winner has to be declared. Just give every team the same amount of possessions.
How many possessions do u give them? That's why I like 10 minutes for OT in the playoffs. Teams will still have to play All Phases of the game. If one team can't pull ahead by then next score wins
 

gatorpack

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
1,327
Reaction score
240
Location
Florida
The team to create the most turnovers in regulation gets the ball first in OT. If that's a tie then most yards gained.
 

gatorpack

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
1,327
Reaction score
240
Location
Florida
Imagine Team A has 20 more yards than team B in the 4th quarter with 30 seconds left.Team B has the ball on their own 10. OH THE DRAMA LOL
 

Sky King

158.3
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
331
Location
Out of the clear blue western skies...
Ponder this for a moment: The visiting team has the option of kicking or receiving to start the game. The home team has the same option to begin the second half. Other than the actual coin flip, the usual midfield ritual will take place, i.e., announce who will receive, side of the field the kicking team will be defending, team captains make their appearances, etc., followed by the usual five minutes of commercials.

No kickoff to start OT unless one team scored on the last play of the 4th quarter. They would then kickoff to start OT. The transition into overtime (5th quarter and beyond, if necessary) would be just the same as from 1st to 2nd or 3rd to 4th? First team that scores in OT wins.
 
OP
OP
Pokerbrat2000

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
34,178
Reaction score
9,295
Location
Madison, WI
Of course, but there's no need for a clock even being operated in playoff overtimes as a winner has to be declared. Just give every team the same amount of possessions.

I think you have to have a clock in sudden death playoff overtime. If the game lasts longer than one "normally timed period", the wind advantage should not always be with the same team.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,334
Reaction score
1,561
It seems that OT is talked about by the league as well as fans every year. Which indicates to me, it isn't being done correctly. Are there 100 % great solutions, that will please everyone? No, but there are better ways to do it and the first would be to eliminate a coin flip deciding anything and follow that with a reasonable way to give teams at least an opportunity to possess the ball once.

I would be fine with the current system without a coin flip. The team that had possession of the ball at the end of regulation, starts with the ball at their own 25 yard line. Both teams are assured of at least one offensive possession. Once that has occurred, first team to score wins. Set the clock for 10 minutes.

Another way to start overtime would be to give the team who had possession at the end of regulation the same options as they would have had if they won the coin flip, kickoff or receive.

I agree except with the current system each team is not assured of at least one offensive possession. I would be fine with your idea if they scrapped the current system of a TD wins and a FG means the other team gets a chance and I think that's what you mean as well.

For me it comes down to the fact that someone will get the ball first in OT and I don't think it matters that much as long as each team gets 1 offensive possession if they need it. Each teams offense has a chance to score and each teams defense has a chance to stop the opponent. If both offenses score you can't say that one team's defense, which may be their strength, didn't have a chance. If neither teams score it's the same way. If still tied after 1 offensive possession each then its sudden death. I don't see the advantage of continuing to make sure each team has an equal number of chances after that. Doing so would actually lessen the importance of the offense or defense since you are saying OK, if you couldn't get the job done once we will keep giving you chances until you get it right or they screw up.

As a turn on your idea I would say just the opposite. The team with possession at the end of regulation kicks off in OT or goes on defense first if you want to eliminate the KO and just start at a predetermined point. This would prevent teams from running out the clock with the ball. You have to do something with the ball. You have to at least try for the entire 60 minutes of regulation or the other team gets first chance in OT. You got the ball on your 25, its 3rd and 20 with 5 seconds left you can't just take a knee and start at the same spot with a fresh set of downs in OT. Maybe you try a hail Mary. If its successful you win the game. If its picked off the other team now has possession at the end of regulation and they have to kick off to you in OT. Maybe you punt on 3rd down so the other team has possession. Defenses would be calling timeouts trying to trap the offense into having possession. Offenses would be trying to intentionally turn the ball over with all the risks that entails, to make sure the other team has possession . You would see more long FG attempts, not from the 25 obviously but maybe from your side of the field for sure, because a miss means the defense now has possession and would have to kick off.

Alternatively the home team gets the choice or the visiting team that way each coach knows who gets the choice in OT and they can plan the end of the game accordingly.


Now, we're getting somewhere.

Here's my proposal: In the event of a tie at the end of regulation, each coach is issued a loaded dueling pistol. They stand back-to-back at the 50 yard line, take 10 steps forward, turn and fire. In the event of another tie the process is repeated using assistant coaches. Should they run out of coaches then they'll select at random from the fans wearing team jerseys (home vs. visitors) starting with the face-painters. The process is repeated until there's a clear winner. ;)

I like it except that I would start with the fans. Coaches are too important and difficult to replace.

Of course, but there's no need for a clock even being operated in playoff overtimes as a winner has to be declared. Just give every team the same amount of possessions.

You are right on the need for the clock to run as a winner has to be declared regardless of how long they play but I disagree with your idea that each team gets an equal number of possessions as I said above.

One thing I do not want is to see different rules for regular season OT and playoff OT other than the fact that in the playoffs you have to keep playing until someone wins. The thing is if its that important in the playoffs, and I know it is essential, why is it different in the regular season. If its OK to have a tie after 5 quarters in the regular season why isn't it OK to have a tie after 4, and if its not OK to have a tie after 4 why is it OK to have one after 5.

Ponder this for a moment: The visiting team has the option of kicking or receiving to start the game. The home team has the same option to begin the second half. Other than the actual coin flip, the usual midfield ritual will take place, i.e., announce who will receive, side of the field the kicking team will be defending, team captains make their appearances, etc., followed by the usual five minutes of commercials.

No kickoff to start OT unless one team scored on the last play of the 4th quarter. They would then kickoff to start OT. The transition into overtime (5th quarter and beyond, if necessary) would be just the same as from 1st to 2nd or 3rd to 4th? First team that scores in OT wins.

Your first paragraph will eliminate any deferment as the visiting team will always take the ball first if the home team gets the choice in the second half. No coach is going to kick off to start the game then have the other team be able to choose to receive to start the second half. That is giving away a possession. They could eliminate that by simply saying the visiting team (or home team if they like) gets to choose to receive the ball at the start of the game or the start of the second half. To eliminate the coin toss I would be OK with this.

As for your second paragraph I don't like different rules for whether or not they scored on the last play and I don't care for the simple continuation. As long as you have said a regulation football game will consist of 4 15 minute quarters there has to be some sort of break after those 60 minutes or what is the point of having it. I also think the urgency of the 59th minute of play should be at least as important as the 29th minute. If you went with a simple continuation like between the quarters you would have to do away with the 2 minute warning (IMO anyway) and there would be no sense of urgency to try to score. You don't see teams running the hurry up at the end of the odd quarters just because they are running out of time like they do at the end of the half or the end of the game and the team with the ball with 1 minute left will not have a sense of urgency if they can just keep playing. There would be a lot fewer last minute comebacks and if teams knew there was no chance they would have to give up the ball or significant field position to start OT they would be a lot more conservative.

My proposal.

Regular season: A tie is a tie after 4 quarters. No OT.

Playoffs: Home team gets to choose if they want to get the ball first in OT or go on defense first (part of the home team advantage) If they want the ball they receive and run an offensive series which consists of at least 1 snap of the ball. If they turn the ball over on that first snap too bad, that's your 1 offensive series you are guaranteed. If they turn the ball over on the KO that doesn't count as an offensive series and they get another chance if the visiting team scores. If the visiting team recovers an onside kick it doesn't count as an offensive series for the home team and they get another chance if the visiting team scores. If the visiting team scores a defensive TD on the home team's first offensive possession, even if it is on the first snap, the game is over even though their offense never had a series unless they really want to kick off and try to stop the other team so their offense gets a chance. If the home team scores in any way on their first offensive series they kick off and the same rules apply to the visiting team. If the visiting team fails to score an equal number of points or more the home team wins. If they score more they win if they score the same they kick off and it then becomes the first team to score wins.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Pokerbrat2000

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
34,178
Reaction score
9,295
Location
Madison, WI
I agree except with the current system each team is not assured of at least one offensive possession. I would be fine with your idea if they scrapped the current system of a TD wins and a FG means the other team gets a chance and I think that's what you mean as well.

For me it comes down to the fact that someone will get the ball first in OT and I don't think it matters that much as long as each team gets 1 offensive possession if they need it. Each teams offense has a chance to score and each teams defense has a chance to stop the opponent. If both offenses score you can't say that one team's defense, which may be their strength, didn't have a chance. If neither teams score it's the same way. If still tied after 1 offensive possession each then its sudden death. I don't see the advantage of continuing to make sure each team has an equal number of chances after that. Doing so would actually lessen the importance of the offense or defense since you are saying OK, if you couldn't get the job done once we will keep giving you chances until you get it right or they screw up.

As a turn on your idea I would say just the opposite. The team with possession at the end of regulation kicks off in OT or goes on defense first if you want to eliminate the KO and just start at a predetermined point. This would prevent teams from running out the clock with the ball. You have to do something with the ball. You have to at least try for the entire 60 minutes of regulation or the other team gets first chance in OT. You got the ball on your 25, its 3rd and 20 with 5 seconds left you can't just take a knee and start at the same spot with a fresh set of downs in OT. Maybe you try a hail Mary. If its successful you win the game. If its picked off the other team now has possession at the end of regulation and they have to kick off to you in OT. Maybe you punt on 3rd down so the other team has possession. Defenses would be calling timeouts trying to trap the offense into having possession. Offenses would be trying to intentionally turn the ball over with all the risks that entails, to make sure the other team has possession . You would see more long FG attempts, not from the 25 obviously but maybe from your side of the field for sure, because a miss means the defense now has possession and would have to kick off.

Alternatively the home team gets the choice or the visiting team that way each coach knows who gets the choice in OT and they can plan the end of the game accordingly.




I like it except that I would start with the fans. Coaches are too important and difficult to replace.



You are right on the need for the clock to run as a winner has to be declared regardless of how long they play but I disagree with your idea that each team gets an equal number of possessions as I said above.

One thing I do not want is to see different rules for regular season OT and playoff OT other than the fact that in the playoffs you have to keep playing until someone wins. The thing is if its that important in the playoffs, and I know it is essential, why is it different in the regular season. If its OK to have a tie after 5 quarters in the regular season why isn't it OK to have a tie after 4, and if its not OK to have a tie after 4 why is it OK to have one after 5.



Your first paragraph will eliminate any deferment as the visiting team will always take the ball first if the home team gets the choice in the second half. No coach is going to kick off to start the game then have the other team be able to choose to receive to start the second half. That is giving away a possession. They could eliminate that by simply saying the visiting team (or home team if they like) gets to choose to receive the ball at the start of the game or the start of the second half. To eliminate the coin toss I would be OK with this.

As for your second paragraph I don't like different rules for whether or not they scored on the last play and I don't care for the simple continuation. As long as you have said a regulation football game will consist of 4 15 minute quarters there has to be some sort of break after those 60 minutes or what is the point of having it. I also think the urgency of the 59th minute of play should be at least as important as the 29th minute. If you went with a simple continuation like between the quarters you would have to do away with the 2 minute warning (IMO anyway) and there would be no sense of urgency to try to score. You don't see teams running the hurry up at the end of the odd quarters just because they are running out of time like they do at the end of the half or the end of the game and the team with the ball with 1 minute left will not have a sense of urgency if they can just keep playing. There would be a lot fewer last minute comebacks and if teams knew there was no chance they would have to give up the ball to start OT they would be a lot more conservative.

My proposal.

Regular season: A tie is a tie after 4 quarters. No OT.

Playoffs: Home team gets to choose if they want to get the ball first in OT or go on defense first (part of the home team advantage) If they want the ball they receive and run an offensive series which consists of at least 1 snap of the ball. If they turn the ball over on the KO that doesn't count as an offensive series and they get another chance if the visiting team scores. If the visiting team recovers an onside kick it doesn't count as an offensive series for the home team and they get another chance if the visiting team scores. If the visiting team scores a defensive TD on the home team's first offensive possession, even if it is on the first snap, the game is over even though their offense never had a series unless they really want to kick off and try to stop the other team so their offense gets a chance. If the home team scores in any way they kick off and the same rules apply to the visiting team. If the visiting team fails to score an equal number of points or more the home team wins. If they score more they win if they score the same they kick off and it then becomes the first team to score wins.

I think we agree on most points. Although I would prefer regular season overtimes of at least one set time period, as opposed to ending regulation with a tie.

I definitely don't think there has to be an "equal" number of offensive possessions, once each team has had at least one. Although I would prefer one timed period to be played out fully, I would be fine with the idea that once both offenses have been on the field for at least 1 play, it would become sudden death. It seems like most of us agree that the coin flip needs to be eliminated and there are better ways to determine how overtime is started.
 

RRyder

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
192
The team to create the most turnovers in regulation gets the ball first in OT. If that's a tie then most yards gained.

Imagine Team A has 20 more yards than team B in the 4th quarter with 30 seconds left.Team B has the ball on their own 10. OH THE DRAMA LOL

This might be the best idea I've ever heard about OT reform. I'm fine with it the way it is and thought it was better with true sudden death but damn if this isn't a good idea

This gets people to stop *****ing and moaning acting like winning the coin toss damn near automatically guarantees a win on the opening possession, (it doesnt and never did), and then on top of it adds tons of drama at the end of games and also brings back the sudden death OT
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
16,892
Reaction score
7,674
How about a jump ball mid field with your two shortest players on the active roster. Everyone has to stay in their corresponding Enzone until the ball is touched.. but no players can come out from beyond the redzone until the short guy has clear possession...then it's a free for all ;)
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
First sentence looks like sudden death. Is that the reason there's no need for a clock?

Second sentence seems to be sudden death with a twist that actually puts the team on defense first in the catbird seat. The team that starts on offense will always have one more possession, so when they score, the other team gets a shot (in order to even up possessions?). However, if the team that starts on D scores first, game over?

How many possessions do u give them? That's why I like 10 minutes for OT in the playoffs. Teams will still have to play All Phases of the game. If one team can't pull ahead by then next score wins

I'm in favor of teams getting an equal amount of offensive possessions in overtime therefore there's no need to have a game clock. Once both have received the ball once either a team has scored more points and the game is over or in case it is still tied they get another possession each. A defensive score would of course end the game immediately.

I think you have to have a clock in sudden death playoff overtime. If the game lasts longer than one "normally timed period", the wind advantage should not always be with the same team.

I would be fine with letting both offenses play in the same direction in overtime.

My proposal.

Playoffs: Home team gets to choose if they want to get the ball first in OT or go on defense first (part of the home team advantage)

That hugely favors the home team as they will for sure elect to receive the ball first under the current rules.

I definitely don't think there has to be an "equal" number of offensive possessions, once each team has had at least one. Although I would prefer one timed period to be played out fully, I would be fine with the idea that once both offenses have been on the field for at least 1 play, it would become sudden death. It seems like most of us agree that the coin flip needs to be eliminated and there are better ways to determine how overtime is started.

Unfortunately as long as the league doesn't guarantee that both offenses get an equal amount of possession that puts a huge importance on the coin toss or any other method that has nothing to do with the outcome of the game to decide which team is getting the ball first.
 
OP
OP
Pokerbrat2000

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
34,178
Reaction score
9,295
Location
Madison, WI
Unfortunately as long as the league doesn't guarantee that both offenses get an equal amount of possession that puts a huge importance on the coin toss or any other method that has nothing to do with the outcome of the game to decide which team is getting the ball first.

Couldn't you say the same thing about a regular 4 quarter game? Obviously, the advantage lessons over the course of multiple possessions, but I would say the chance of a game ending at the end of 4 quarters with both teams having equal possessions to be at best 50% of the time. If you did go with "equal # of OT possessions", I think in keeping up with the desire to not subject players to too much extra play, you would have to "cut it off" at equal possessions not exceeding "X amount". Without that, you could have an OT game in the playoffs last for a very long time.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,334
Reaction score
1,561
I'm in favor of teams getting an equal amount of offensive possessions in overtime therefore there's no need to have a game clock. Once both have received the ball once either a team has scored more points and the game is over or in case it is still tied they get another possession each. A defensive score would of course end the game immediately.


We obviously disagree on the equal number of possessions thing. I just don't see the need after each team has had one. I do understand why you think it is important I just don't think it is necessary.

I would be fine with letting both offenses play in the same direction in overtime.

I don't care for it but I could live with it. It does take away strong wind advantages and the like. At one venue my nephew played at all kicks were made at one end of the field because there was a huge retention pond just beyond the opposite end zone. They didn't want the balls going in the water and it was cheaper to kick in one direction than putting up a taller fence or a net. offensive plays still went in both directions though, they just marched down to the other end if there was a FG or EP attempt.

That hugely favors the home team as they will for sure elect to receive the ball first under the current rules.

I agree, that is why my proposal does away with the current rules. In my proposal each team gets a chance regardless of what the first team does. That way the first team can't have the advantage of winning with a TD. No matter how you decide it some team will get the ball first. I know that is why you propose an equal number of possessions I just don't think it is necessary.

Unfortunately as long as the league doesn't guarantee that both offenses get an equal amount of possession that puts a huge importance on the coin toss or any other method that has nothing to do with the outcome of the game to decide which team is getting the ball first

I agree that guaranteeing an equal number of possessions will eliminate the importance of the coin toss. However, as long as each team gets at least one chance I don't see it as being a "huge importance." In fact I don't think having it first is an advantage at all and some people think having it first is a disadvantage because if you go second you know what you need to do and it makes some of you decisions easier.

I should actually edit my proposal that there still be the coin toss as I don't think its a big deal who gets the ball first if both offenses get a chance. I just took it out to make Poker happy:D

I just don't see the need to take such drastic steps to guarantee everything is completely equal in OT when it doesn't matter if they are skewed one way or the other in regulation. IMO OT should be less important than regulation and I am opposed to most changes that would make it more important. You have 60 minutes to win the game. If you can't but find yourself fortunate enough to be tied you go with the same rules you were happy to abide by for the first 60 minutes.

For the record I didn't have a problem with sudden death after the coin toss but I do realize that giving both teams an offensive possession is more fair and is more acceptable to the masses that is why I have it in my proposal. Its also why I have eliminated OTs in the regular season because I don't have a problem with ties as long as there doesn't need to be a winner.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Couldn't you say the same thing about a regular 4 quarter game? Obviously, the advantage lessons over the course of multiple possessions, but I would say the chance of a game ending at the end of 4 quarters with both teams having equal possessions to be at best 50% of the time.

I believe it's a different story in regulation though as there's a predetermined time frame to work with while that isn't the case in overtime. And if you're worried about OT taking too long adding another quarter doesn't make sense either as it's possible the game is still tied at the end of it and what would you suggest in that case???
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I agree, that is why my proposal does away with the current rules. In my proposal each team gets a chance regardless of what the first team does. That way the first team can't have the advantage of winning with a TD. No matter how you decide it some team will get the ball first. I know that is why you propose an equal number of possessions I just don't think it is necessary.



I agree that guaranteeing an equal number of possessions will eliminate the importance of the coin toss. However, as long as each team gets at least one chance I don't see it as being a "huge importance." In fact I don't think having it first is an advantage at all and some people think having it first is a disadvantage because if you go second you know what you need to do and it makes some of you decisions easier.

I should actually edit my proposal that there still be the coin toss as I don't think its a big deal who gets the ball first if both offenses get a chance.

While a team getting the ball first in overtime doesn't make a difference if the game is decided within the first two drives it is a huge advantage once the game is tied after both teams had an offensive possession as a field goal is enough to win the game at that point.
 

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
5,082
Reaction score
1,661
Maybe they should just go back to having ties. After playing a whole game and ending up even; it doesn't seem right to me to be the loser sometimes because of a coin flip and anyway in less than 10 minutes and maybe on a fluke play or pass interference call.
Those types of things decide a lot of regulation games though. A lot of games turn on one play, or one call by the refs.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,334
Reaction score
1,561
While a team getting the ball first in overtime doesn't make a difference if the game is decided within the first two drives it is a huge advantage once the game is tied after both teams had an offensive possession as a field goal is enough to win the game at that point.

The way I see it is a football game is dependent on 3 phases of the game, offense, defense and special teams and OT is a necessary evil in the playoffs. If your defense can't stop the opposing team or your offense can't score after each having 1 more chance, after already having 60 minutes to do so then the FG on the next possession doesn't bother me at all. Why should an offense keep getting chance after chance if the defense can't step up and stop the other team. Knowing you may only have 1 chance puts a sense or urgency behind it. If team 1 and team 2 alternate and each have 3 three and out series in OT but team 1 recovers a fumble and kicks a FG with 3 seconds left I see absolutely no reason to give team 2 an equal 4th possession which you would be obliged to do under your rules.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one as I doubt either one of us will change the other's mind.
 

Sky King

158.3
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
331
Location
Out of the clear blue western skies...
Players who had participated fairly in a tie game could be given identical participation trophies so that they could all go home earlier, be less injured and (equally) feeling fairly good about themselves. That would be fair. :coffee:
 

armand34

Cheesehead
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
2,056
Reaction score
273
Location
The Beach, NJ
I want to see each team have a chance, start at the 50. If one scores, the other has a chance for a possession and so on.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
The way I see it is a football game is dependent on 3 phases of the game, offense, defense and special teams and OT is a necessary evil in the playoffs. If your defense can't stop the opposing team or your offense can't score after each having 1 more chance, after already having 60 minutes to do so then the FG on the next possession doesn't bother me at all. Why should an offense keep getting chance after chance if the defense can't step up and stop the other team. If team 1 and team 2 alternate and each have 3 three and out series in OT but team 1 recovers a fumble and kicks a FG with 3 seconds left I see absolutely no reason to give team 2 an equal 4th possession which you would be obliged to do under your rules.

The problem with it being that teams are built differently with ones mostly relying on their offense to score point while others are heavily dependent on their defense.

Take last year's NFCCG as an example. There's no doubt the team getting the ball first in overtime would have had a huge advantage as there was no reason to believe any of those offenses would have been stopped.

Just to clarify a turnover, even if it happened on special teams, would of course count as an offensive possession in my proposal.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,334
Reaction score
1,561
The problem with it being that teams are built differently with ones mostly relying on their offense to score point while others are heavily dependent on their defense.

Take last year's NFCCG as an example. There's no doubt the team getting the ball first in overtime would have had a huge advantage as there was no reason to believe any of those offenses would have been stopped.

Just to clarify a turnover, even if it happened on special teams, would of course count as an offensive possession in my proposal.

Certain teams have a huge advantage anyway. You don't think the Patriots have a huge advantage over the Browns just because of their roster and their coaching staff. What should we do to make that more even...to give the Patriots less of an advantage? The way I see our difference of opinion is that you want to make OT as fair as possible for both teams while I don't want to see OT any different than regulation because I don't like the idea of OT in the first place. I just realize it is necessary in the playoffs where there has to be a winner determined so I say give each team's offense 1 chance to score and each team's defense 1 chance to stop the other team from scoring and if neither, or both, are up to the task then the next score wins. I don't like the idea of potentially unlimited chances just to keep thing even.

Taking the NFCC game last year your proposal could potentially keep giving the offenses chances until one of them screws up. Mine would force one of the defenses to step up. Sure one of them would be forced to step up first but they would also have 2 chances to do so assuming their offense would score on their second possession.

For further clarification on a turnover using my example, if team 1 has three possessions and team 2 commits a TO on their third possession that turnover would give team 1 a 4th possession correct, thus team 2 would need another possession to make it even. Now you are saying to team 1's defense it really doesn't matter that you took the ball away for your offense because we are going to give the other team another chance anyway. Am I interpreting it correctly.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Certain teams have a huge advantage anyway. You don't think the Patriots have a huge advantage over the Browns just because of their roster and their coaching staff. What should we do to make that more even...to give the Patriots less of an advantage?

For further clarification on a turnover using my example, if team 1 has three possessions and team 2 commits a TO on their third possession that turnover would give team 1 a 4th possession correct, thus team 2 would need another possession to make it even. Now you are saying to team 1's defense it really doesn't matter that you took the ball away for your offense because we are going to give the other team another chance anyway. Am I interpreting it correctly.

The Patriots don't have that advantage over the Browns because of having won a coin toss, the reason being they have assembled a superior roster. Therefore using it to argue your point about overtime is kind of silly.

In the scenario you described team 1 would immediately win if they scored on their third possession. It's true that I would allow both teams to get another possession if they didn't though as both defenses got a stop.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,334
Reaction score
1,561
In the scenario you described team 1 would immediately win if they scored on their third possession. It's true that I would allow both teams to get another possession if they didn't though as both defenses got a stop.

In my scenario team 1 scores on its 4th possession so team 2 gets another crack at it. I just don't think it is necessary to give a team chance after chance if they haven't gotten the job done so far.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I just don't think it is necessary to give a team chance after chance if they haven't gotten the job done so far.

Well, following your thought process why not have a team winning overtime just by stopping the opponent's offense without having to score on their own???
 
Top