NFL Playoffs Prediction Contest - Super Bowl Week!

[El Guapo]

I'm fine with the college format but for the NFL I would prefer that instead of starting at the opponent's 25yd line, each team starts with a special teams kickoff (or a change of possession). Each team gets a possession. Instead of the coin flip, the team that scored last in regulation kicks off to the other team....so it's merely just an extension of the game and eliminates the change coin flip.

In the case of the Chiefs/Bills game, the Chiefs kicked a FG to tie the game and send it into overtime. In my scenario, the Chiefs would then kickoff to Buffalo in OT. Whether Buffalo went down and scored a FG or TD, they would then have kicked off to the Chiefs to give them an opportunity. Had Buffalo committed a turnover or punted on 4th down, the Chiefs would have still gotten a possession in OT.

In college, they essentially start in the red zone which encourages some of these 4OT or even 7OT games. It's too easy to score. Having to go the length of the field greatly reduces the number of times teams will get multiple possessions in OT. As an added bonus, having to drive the field makes for more entertaining football when defenses are tired. You'll get more plays like the Minneapolis Miracle or Favre's 82yd OT winner to Jennings in 2007. It's generally not very exciting to see scoring in the red zone.

 

[Mondio]

I'm fine with the college format but for the NFL I would prefer that instead of starting at the opponent's 25yd line, each team starts with a special teams kickoff (or a change of possession). Each team gets a possession. Instead of the coin flip, the team that scored last in regulation kicks off to the other team....so it's merely just an extension of the game and eliminates the change coin flip.

In the case of the Chiefs/Bills game, the Chiefs kicked a FG to tie the game and send it into overtime. In my scenario, the Chiefs would then kickoff to Buffalo in OT. Whether Buffalo went down and scored a FG or TD, they would then have kicked off to the Chiefs to give them an opportunity. Had Buffalo committed a turnover or punted on 4th down, the Chiefs would have still gotten a possession in OT.

In college, they essentially start in the red zone which encourages some of these 4OT or even 7OT games. It's too easy to score. Having to go the length of the field greatly reduces the number of times teams will get multiple possessions in OT. As an added bonus, having to drive the field makes for more entertaining football when defenses are tired. You'll get more plays like the Minneapolis Miracle or Favre's 82yd OT winner to Jennings in 2007. It's generally not very exciting to see scoring in the red zone.

and that's all fine and dandy, but you still will have situations where team A got the ball twice and Team B got it once. Or team A gets the wind and Team B is against. Or if Team A scores the last points with 4 minutes left to go in the 3rd and they already kicked off to team B after that score, why again? so you took the coin flip out and just put it on the happenstance of who scored last in a game. is that better? or just different?

For everything you "fix" you create something else. Why is it so bad to just say, you need to win with your football team. If you're kicking, you do have advantages unless your special teams suck and your defense can't hack it. If they're good? kick to the goal line, good coverage, down at 15, 3 and out, get a punt near mid field and now you have a handful of plays on offense to make to win the game.

I think the Bills Chiefs game was fine. The bills couldn't stop points in 13 seconds, why do I need to see more of that? Man up and stop them or suffer your fate. sure maybe your defense is tired, or maybe you lost your best WR in the 4th. Maybe you have great special teams returns, but lost your return man? Maybe your offense has been on fire but a snow storm moved in and took over and your passing attack as been relegated to a running game for OT and your 2nd RB broke some ribs.

Football is all about making plays and overcoming, I happen to love sudden death overtime. Fair? Who cares, it's never going to be.

If you want to win, cover your kicks well, play defense and stop them or use your offense and score points. It's how it's done.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Very hard to win a tied game, if you never possess the ball in OT.

If you want to keep it as close to the actual game as possible, then instead of an OT where you flip a coin, kick-off and go until the time is up or there is a winner, why not just add time to the clock and start where the game left off at the end of regulation? Chiefs just tied the game at the end of regulation, they start OT by kicking the ball. Oh there is 9 seconds left in regulation, same thing....kick the ball, the Bills have the ball with 9 seconds heading into OT, but they keep the ball at the same spot and down to start the 5th Quarter.

People might say "well that messes with the exciting finishes of the 4th Quarter of a tie game." No it doesn't, it just delays it until the 5th Q. How many times have you seen a tied game with under a minute to go and one teams just takes a knee 2 times to get it OT.

 

[Mondio]

Very hard to win a tied game, if you never possess the ball in OT.

If you want to keep it as close to the actual game as possible, then instead of an OT where you flip a coin, kick-off and go until the time is up or there is a winner, why not just add time to the clock and start where the game left off at the end of regulation? Chiefs just tied the game at the end of regulation, they start OT by kicking the ball. Oh there is 9 seconds left in regulation, same thing....kick the ball, the Bills have the ball with 9 seconds heading into OT, but they keep the ball at the same spot and down to start the 5th Quarter.

People might say "well that messes with the exciting finishes of the 4th Quarter of a tie game." No it doesn't, it just delays it until the 5th Q. How many times have you seen a tied game with under a minute to go and one teams just takes a knee 2 times to get it OT.

I don't care if a team never possess it. why is it important? you want the ball? stop them. you already had an entire game to win it if you wanted to, now you have to or go home. I think it's good for the game. I don't need to see 2 teams beat each other up for as long as it takes. I think the games are long enough already and we already have a problem with player injuries. I see zero reason to add to that.

I don't see any reason a team should keep the ball as time runs out and just keeps going like nothing every happened. Time ran out, you don't just keep going. It ran out on the team that ended the first half, why doesn't it run out on the team that has it at the end of the 2nd just because they're tied. If you want to, fine, do it, but don't think it makes it more equitable. It's not going to be.

 

[El Guapo]

You're acting like offense and defense are even. This isn't the 1970s. In modern football nearly all of the advantages favor the offense. It's easy to say "if you want the ball, stop them." That's not reality in the modern game. Yes it can be done, but (random guess here) 80% of the time the offense is going to score.

It seems that your position is to just end in a tie. That's fine in the regular season but not in the playoffs. If two teams end regulation in a tie, you are fine with giving one team an unfair advantage (due to the offensive rules) based on a coin flip. I think that many of us feel that there should be more equity.

 

[Mondio]

They probably score 30 some percent of the time and less than that are TDs.

And STILL give them both a possession, now what? Unless they both get another and another and another one if at any point the team getting it first wins they’ll say it’s unfair because they had an extra possession.

Both teams already have had multiple chances on offense and defense and special teams. It’s do or die time. Get it done. Half the allure of football is lining up and confronting adversity. Why get rid of it? I get it, the bills couldn’t stop a score in 13 seconds, I don’t care they didn’t touch the ball again.

And I don’t want it to end in a tie. I’m just fine with the rules like they are.

 

[El Guapo]

It appears that 52.8% the winner of the coin toss wins. In the playoffs where it really matters, it's 90% but on a relatively small sample. I couldn't find anything showing teams that score on the first possession of OT.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[OldSchool101]

The league obviously saw the massive disparity on “sudden death” after a coin toss. I think the new rule is much more fair.

That said I’d add a wrinkle.

1. The 1st drive (1st possession only) MUST score 8 points in OT to win. Meaning a 7 point margin sends the ball to the team losing the coin toss next.
By adding the 2 point scenario, you minimize the 1st possession Winner scenario by greater %. Also the winner of the coin toss is risking missing the 2pt conversion and scoring just 6 points. That opens up a greater possibility that the second possession team (loser of the coin toss) wins. Game over on the second drive (7-6 in OT) and we all don’t go to bed at 1am.

Due to 8 being mandatory on the first possession there’s an increased probability that BOTH teams touch the ball. But the rule is only modified by a very slight 1 point from its current state. An 8 point Defeat is more definitive and hard to argue against. The losing team Defense had to both give up a big drive or big play etc.. + allow a second score from the 2 yard line.

PS. In case you’re wondering. Just ~50% of NFL teams convert a 2point play. That means there would be roughly a 50% reduction on 1st possession victories in OT on a TD. Likely more because some teams (those confident in their Defense) may opt to take 7 points and kickoff as an alternative.
2 possession objective achieved

 

[Mondio]

It appears that 52.8% the winner of the coin toss wins. In the playoffs where it really matters, it's 90% but on a relatively small sample. I couldn't find anything showing teams that score on the first possession of OT.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

So not a big margin and unless that means those that get the ball first score and win on that first possession it might not mean anything.

It appears that 52.8% the winner of the coin toss wins. In the playoffs where it really matters, it's 90% but on a relatively small sample. I couldn't find anything showing teams that score on the first possession of OT.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

The playoff pool is too small to really conclude anything. It's 7 out of 11 scored 1st drive TD's. Give me 50 games and maybe it starts to become more relevant and even more so after 100.

I can't find anything either, but I haven't looked too ******* 1st drive game enders. I'd bet it's not a lot, or they'd be hammering on it. Like most articles i've found want to focus on the 91% coin toss winners winning the game in the playoffs. It is significant to note, that in that small sample size only 7 were won on the first drive, so that's just above 60%, but they want to leave you with the impression it's above 90 so they focus on that. 2 more games on the other side would bring it down to just above 50%. when 2 teams are playing you have a 50/50 chance of winning when a winner must be declared so I wouldn't put anything near 50% on the side of the coin toss deciding the outcome. When so few games can skew the stats so much, it's not really fair to draw conclusions.

But in the regular season there have been well over 100 games and it's hardly a difference, and they don't tell you what percentage is a 1st drive win. Even if we assume all 52% were where the other team never touched the ball, it's not a significant difference.

I can easily conclude that coin toss winners win slightly more because they get an extra possession. Even if you give the other team one, the other is still getting another one. You can decide it by coin toss, first points of game scored, most turnovers caused, last points scored, prettiest head coach, home team, away team etc, but at some point you're going to decide who is getting the ball first and many times, they won't score, the other won't score and then the team who got it first gets it again and we're right back where we started, well the other team didn't get another chance.

Or they get rid of kick offs completely, but then i'm not in favor of that. Football is special teams too. Now you're handicapping teams that have put resources in time, money, players and coaches to have a strong kick off/return and punt teams and removing a liability for teams that haven't made that commitment. I like football and I want to see complete teams rewarded.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It appears that 52.8% the winner of the coin toss wins. In the playoffs where it really matters, it's 90% but on a relatively small sample. I couldn't find anything showing teams that score on the first possession of OT.

Well the more important part of that Stat is the team that loses the coin flip only wins something like 42% of the time and the other 6% end in ties. I didn't want to relook that stat up, I posted it last week.

Now, it gets even worse when you look at the playoffs and OT. Coin toss winners are 10-1, winning 90.9 percent of overtime contests. Seven of the 10 winners scored the sudden-death touchdown on the opening drive. Packer fans remember this well against the Arizona Cardinals. Defenses are gassed by the end of the game, especially in shootouts like we saw in that game and the one in KC. So yes, in OT, it is pretty obvious that the outcome of the game is very much influenced by the flip of a coin.

 

[Mondio]

Well the more important part of that Stat is the team that loses the coin flip only wins something like 42% of the time and the other 6% end in ties. I didn't want to relook that stat up, I posted it last week.

Now, it gets even worse when you look at the playoffs and OT. Coin toss winners are 10-1, winning 90.9 percent of overtime contests. Seven of the 10 winners scored the sudden-death touchdown on the opening drive. Packer fans remember this well against the Arizona Cardinals. Defenses are gasses by the end of the game, especially in shootouts like we saw in that game and the one in KC.

it gets "worse" because there are only 11 samples to look at and it is statistically irrelevant. I don't care if defenses are "gassed" maybe it was a shootout because they barely showed up in the first place. We need to see 10 more scoring drives because there is no defense?

if you ask me, the most important stat is how many times that game ends on the first drive. If it's not above 50%, it doesn't matter. They've all had plenty of opportunity in the previous 3 hours to win a football game. Find a winner.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

if you ask me, the most important stat is how many times that game ends on the first drive. If it's not above 50%, it doesn't matter.

So you are ignoring a stat that you claim is the most important?

"Seven of the 10 winners scored the sudden-death touchdown on the opening drive."

 

[Mondio]

So you are ignoring a stat that you claim is the most important?

"Seven of the 10 winners scored the sudden-death touchdown on the opening drive."

I didn't ignore it, i addressed it. In 2 different posts. if that holds up over the next 50, maybe I'll consider it. until then it's likely nothing more than a statistically anomaly based on a very small sample size.

Regardless, I don't need longer OT's from teams that can't play defense. Cheapens the intense game of confrontation if you ask me.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Cheapens the intense game of confrontation if you ask me.

Yup, you have been very clear. As have many here and the football world been very clear, on how we all feel that a mere flip of a single coin, cheapens it even worse.

 

[Mondio]

Yup, you have been very clear. As have many here and the football world been very clear, on how we all feel that a mere flip of a single coin, cheapens it even worse.

and you've failed to come up with something better. with a larger and much more statistically relevant sample size, we see a very tiny advantage, and they still don't bother to break it down if it's on the first drive or after they have both had the ball, which is relevant. Because if it's just based on who had ball first and the majority of those have been games in which both have possessed the ball, all it means is they had an extra possession along the way, and we're right back where we started. Do we really need to extend games for a paltry 2% that end in the same "inequality" as if we kept everything the same right now? why?


You may feel the coin flip decides the games. I still happen to think it's football that decides the games. Special teams, offense, defense. Play it, go win it. Be done with it. The game has been played. It's NEVER going to be fair or equal.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Pro Bowl will be testing out a new option to start the halves and I assume it is with an eye on Overtime as well.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Mondio]

Oh i'm sure. I think getting rid of special teams is a mistake, but it's coming. I see it coming and it will fundamentally change the game of football.

I don't think football is perfect, I also don't think it's broken.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You may feel the coin flip decides the games. I still happen to think it's football that decides the games.

Please stop telling me how I feel, you are incorrect anyway. Never did I say that the coin flip decides the game. What I did say is that the outcome of the game is very much influenced by the flip of a coin in OT and the stats prove that.

You saying "it's football that decides the game" is one of the silliest statements about this that I have heard. Do you think posters don't understand that it is the game of football that we are talking about?

 

[Mondio]

I guess you're right, use a statistically irrelevant stat to prove it, or use the one with a large enough sample size to be relevant that shows potential for a very small benefit. Of which many of those samples likely included exactly what many are proposing, both teams possessed the ball. But no place breaks it down, likely because it will show just that and weaken their argument.

and you're right, I don't think there are a good number on here that appreciate the game of football or the confrontation or overcoming it in life or on the field. Teams historically score points between 25-35% of the time they get the ball and people think teams on defense are at such a disadvantage.

Maybe they should bring back the first points win ending. Maybe we wouldn't see such lax protect agains the TD defenses in OT that just seem to result in more offense anyway.

 

[OldSchool101]

Or? We could just hasten this process and put it to bed. Make it an even 50/50 (no phone a friend ..RIP Revis)

The Winner of the coin toss =Winner

Sometimes we just make life so difficult. It doesn’t have to be this way… ya know?

 

[Canadian Cheddar]

Rams 23 Bengals 20

Hey, perhaps it'll be in overtime.

Thanks to the commish for everything this season.

 

[Canadian Cheddar]

https://touchdownwire.usatoday.com/2022/01/09/cowboys-51-eagles-26-scorigami-1072-in-nfl-history/

 

[Canadian Cheddar]

$20 bet for $579K payout that a guy made and got paid on for picking both conference championship games correctly, by using the two all time most common scores and picking the proper teams.

Maybe El Guapo is on to something. However, he doesn't get paid.

Unbelievable NFL Conference Championship Exact Score Parlay Wins $579,000

An online bettor on FanDuel Sportsbook turned a $20 exact score parlay bet into $579,000 on the 2022 NFL Conference Championship Games. More insight with parlay bet details, odds and and information you can bet on.

www.forbes.com

 

[Albert Park]

Bengals 27 24 Rams

 

[Voyageur]

Cincinnati Bengals 27 LA Rams 31