A Sea Of Red

What does everyone think?

I think it's a horrible idea. Not only was this totally unnecessary, but the concoction they came up with is kind of lame. Not as bad as the college funny-football, but still way too artificial. This whole "the game is decided by a coin-flip" is so overblown. I wish I could find the stat, but the number of games won in overtime on the first possession is well below 50%. So how is that unfair?

I think almost everyone agrees that it's dumb. Some strange unintended scenarios of the rule:

A safety on the 1st possession ends the game (The other team doesn't get the chance to match it )
A recovered onside kick counts for the receiving team's first possession even though they never got the ball.

Why would it just be for the playoffs? What about a team that is fighting for the last wild card spot? Their playoffs started in Week 15 or earlier.

What was the change? I've been out of the news for about a week now...

stupid, either do it the way college does it or just keep it the way it is...its a dumb argument anyways...if the defense can't stop the offense its their own fault, there is nothing unfair about that in my opinion

thepostman wrote:stupid, either do it the way college does it or just keep it the way it is...its a dumb argument anyways...if the defense can't stop the offense its their own fault, there is nothing unfair about that in my opinion

The college overtime format is a joke. It isn't really even football.

You may not agree, but the public perception is that winning a game on a field goal without the other team ever having an opportunity to have the ball on offense is unfair, and places too much value on the coin toss. Public perception is very important to the NFL.

honestly im glad for a change. maybe not this change, but a change was needed. because there are to many games where the team has kicked the field goal won the game and the other chance never had the opportunity to counter. if anything play another full quarter or something like that to make it fair that both teams had shots at least,... do something to make it unbiased towards the team that gets the coin toss is what im saying

Th3rd wrote:because there are to many games where the team has kicked the field goal won the game and the other chance never had the opportunity to counter.

alumnus mentioned the often quoted stat, that happens less than 50% of the time.

olldflame wrote:The college overtime format is a joke. It isn't really even football.

You may not agree, but the public perception is that winning a game on a field goal without the other team ever having an opportunity to have the ball on offense is unfair, and places too much value on the coin toss. Public perception is very important to the NFL.

Yeah, let's not even mention the college solution.

I don't really know that the public perception is that it's been unfair, I think it's more of the media's perception. If you listen to or read the sports media's reaction to this, it's been pretty uniform (which honestly in itself is something to worry about, it's like they all got the memo). And if enough guys with loud voices scream over and over again that it's not fair, then people start to believe it, including NFL owners.

LUconn wrote:

Th3rd wrote:because there are to many games where the team has kicked the field goal won the game and the other chance never had the opportunity to counter.

alumnus mentioned the often quoted stat, that happens less than 50% of the time.

I happens WAY less than 50% of the time, more like 20%. If it were anywhere near half the time this would have been passed long ago; but if your team loses one of those games those numbers don't mean much.

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html

This was done back in 2004, so it's not completely current.

Total no. of overtime games (1974–2003) 365
Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %)

Overtime games in 2002 26
Both teams had at least one possession 15 (58 %)
Team won toss and won game 16 (62 %)
Team lost toss and won game 9 (35 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 10 (38 %)
Games ending in a tie 1 (3 %)

Overtime games in 2003 23
Both teams had at least one possession 16 (70 %)
Team won toss and won game 12 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 11 (48 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 6 (26 %)
Games ending in a tie 0 (0 %)

As ironic as it is to Old's statement, the Vikings were one of the 4 teams to vote against this.

caleb, i know the number has risen over the last couple years...3 years ago the winner of the coin toss won 53% of the time. the last 3 years it was close to 60 they were saying on the radio. to be honest that is still pretty darn good if you ask me.

that said, i don't mind the rule change...it really doesn't affect me a whole lot

I think the whole purpose of overtime since the NFL started was to eliminate ties, not to make things "fair". I just hate all this artificial stupidity in the name of "fairness". You're changing the rules of how a game is won, that's a pretty big deal, and for what?

ALUmnus wrote:I think the whole purpose of overtime since the NFL started was to eliminate ties, not to make things "fair". I just hate all this artificial stupidity in the name of "fairness". You're changing the rules of how a game is won, that's a pretty big deal, and for what?

It's not to eliminate ties, it's to determine a winner, and there's a difference. If all you want to do is get rid of ties, just flip the coin.

olldflame wrote:

ALUmnus wrote:I think the whole purpose of overtime since the NFL started was to eliminate ties, not to make things "fair". I just hate all this artificial stupidity in the name of "fairness". You're changing the rules of how a game is won, that's a pretty big deal, and for what?

It's not to eliminate ties, it's to determine a winner, and there's a difference. If all you want to do is get rid of ties, just flip the coin.

I can't tell you how silly that was.

ALUmnus wrote:I think the whole purpose of overtime since the NFL started was to eliminate ties, not to make things "fair". I just hate all this artificial stupidity in the name of "fairness". You're changing the rules of how a game is won, that's a pretty big deal, and for what?

if it was to just eliminate ties then who cares what they do...ro shambo for it for all you care.

RubberMallet wrote:

ALUmnus wrote:I think the whole purpose of overtime since the NFL started was to eliminate ties, not to make things "fair". I just hate all this artificial stupidity in the name of "fairness". You're changing the rules of how a game is won, that's a pretty big deal, and for what?

if it was to just eliminate ties then who cares what they do...ro shambo for it for all you care.

Okay, then what was it for? Why not just get rid of overtime all together? And I have no idea what ro shambo is.

Ro Sham Bo is the classic children's game "Rock Paper Scissors"

BJWilliams wrote:Ro Sham Bo is the classic children's game "Rock Paper Scissors"

with a special twist.