I mean its a team sport right? The defense needs to stop the offense. I dont care if they are gassed or tired, its a team sport.
plus the defense had 13 seconds to stop the chiefs. sorry but its just dumb. Or maybe someone should cover Kelce and stop playing prevent defense.
before you know it, the game will be going on forever.
what are your thoughts?
But I think it’s reasonable to expect a defense is capable of stopping a touchdown on a drive that starts from the 25 yard line.
But I see no problem with sudden death. You are give 60 minutes to decide the game. It's enough. As a coach, or as a player, you know on the front end that if you don't win in regulation, you are leaving your chances to a coin flip. Don't let it happen.
The problem is that the team that loses the coin toss and then loses 90% of the time DID take care of their business just as well as the other team in the first 4 quarters. That's why they're in OT. The playoff winner shouldn't be decided by the flip of a coin, which is what is happening now.
But I see no problem with sudden death. You are give 60 minutes to decide the game. It's enough. As a coach, or as a player, you know on the front end that if you don't win in regulation, you are leaving your chances to a coin flip. Don't let it happen.
The overtime rules shouldn't be based on the thought of "well you did this to yourself by not winning in regulation!" Under that mantra, why not have one team attempt a 30 yard field goal and if they make it they win?
I'd like to see them simply require each team has a possession in the OT, whether you score a FG, TD or anything else. A safety could also end it.
Watching a QB drive his team down to take the lead in the final minute only to have them not even touch the ball again and lose just doesn't sit right. The 10-1 record in the playoffs tells you the coin toss is largely deciding who wins the game which is a disservice to the teams and fans.
Not a fan of the college format, but 10 minute OT I could support for playoff games. Regular season keep it as is. And I’m sure there would be griping about coin toss if still tied after the extra period.
The only difference is the game cannot end in a tie after 10 minutes in the playoffs, and that’s not what people are concerned about. They’re concerned about the first drive.
I don’t have the time to pull all the regular season data with these rules but I’m sure it’s not as lopsided as 10-1.
And statistically speaking you want a sample size in at least the 30s to show a strong trend.
I think just making sure each team gets a possession levels the playing field. If KC goes down the field and gets a TD, the Bills get a shot to match it. If they don't feel their D can hold up, you can go for 2 and try to end the game. If you kick the PAT and KC goes down the field and scores again? At least you had your shot.
I don't like the 10 minute OT rule for the playoffs because you have to just keep adding one if it ends in a tie, and at some point you are just watching guys completely gassed and risking greater injury.
In post season each time needs to touch the ball. Sunday night both defenses were spent. I guarantee that if the Bills got the ball 1st, they win.
I think just making sure each team gets a possession levels the playing field. If KC goes down the field and gets a TD, the Bills get a shot to match it. If they don't feel their D can hold up, you can go for 2 and try to end the game. If you kick the PAT and KC goes down the field and scores again? At least you had your shot.
I don't like the 10 minute OT rule for the playoffs because you have to just keep adding one if it ends in a tie, and at some point you are just watching guys completely gassed and risking greater injury.
No, you can go to sudden death after the first OT period.
Then have at it. After 2 possessions and still tied you must go for 2 after TD.
I am glad that game ended on a TD insted of a kick but we cant just keep giving out possesions. So you want Buffalo to go down and score then what is it unfair to end the next time KC scores a TD?
sorry but when will it end? this is a team sport. i mean, people mention that if they score the td and 2pt conversion, they win. but if they can score that easy a td, whats stopping them from the 2pt conversion?
you settle the game in regulation.
Quote:
.
The problem is that the team that loses the coin toss and then loses 90% of the time DID take care of their business just as well as the other team in the first 4 quarters. That's why they're in OT. The playoff winner shouldn't be decided by the flip of a coin, which is what is happening now.
You take care of business by winning the game. If it's a tie game at 0.0 on the clock, neither side did. That's what I mean.
In comment 15573484 Mike from Ohio said:
The overtime rules shouldn't be based on the thought of "well you did this to yourself by not winning in regulation!" Under that mantra, why not have one team attempt a 30 yard field goal and if they make it they win?
This is hard to reconcile sometimes when you see some coaches play it safe and close to the vest. McVay is notoriously prone to going turtle mode. In a sense, you can' do it to yourself. It's the playoffs. You've got to coach and play like it's your last stand, not play for overtime.
The fact is the only argument i have seen to keep it as is…is that it is “fine”. However, is it better? If you were designing a system from scratch I would think most would allow both teams the ball. Rules favor the offense a lot.
THIS
I think the best NFL OT rules are pretty clear (see the list below). When reading the proposed OT ruleset I list below, just IMAGINE the amazing potential for drama using this OT rule set during the playoffs (due to the chance for multiple OT's).
I don't know current CF OT rules as I don't watch the games and therefore don't know if they changed since 2002, but go back to the double OT game in 2003 (see link), and that game was so epic using that college system, even I still remember it.
1. Keep the current first part: a TD/safety to proceed further into the OT period regardless of first possession; in other words, both teams are guaranteed a first possession, and one team has to score a TD to win. FG's are eliminated from OT scoring options on the first possession for each team. Therefore, the scenario would be: first team either scores a TD or doesn't (safety works on the opposite side too), and then the other team is guaranteed a normal kick-off possession, and must score a TD to advance.
2. After the first two possessions and either both teams failed to score, or both teams scored a TD, then FG's are allowed, but sudden death is still removed as an option for the first OT.
3. With sudden death removed, the OT period plays out to the end of the period - 0:00.
4. If still tied after OT 1, another OT begins, but this time, it is sudden death because burnt out players and injuries on both sides become huge. Loser of first OT coin toss gets possession first. At some point, a TD requirement in OT just has to end. We don't want to see a half-team of backups in OT2 because the starters are injured/gassed/cramped up.
Double OT CF Championship - 2002 Season - ( New Window )
This is what happens when you legislate against defense to the point you minimize their chances of getting stops against good quarterbacks in these situations
But, I think what everyone wants is a ruleset that's "more fair" which is what I had in mind above.
Option 1: Team that wins the flip picks any position on the field (say the 10-yard line) and the other team gets to choose whether they want the ball there on offense or give possession to the team that won the flip.
Option 2: Both teams give a yard line (where they would get possession of the ball on offense) to the official and whichever team is farther from the opposing endzone gets the ball 1st.
Not that I'm in favor, think it's too dependent on non-football strategy.
So why does it need to change?
Buffalo allowed KC to go 45 yards in 10 seconds - whose fault is that? Buffalo allowed KC to drive right down the field and score in OT - whose fault is that?
Leave the rules alone
Agreed
In post season each time needs to touch the ball. Sunday night both defenses were spent. I guarantee that if the Bills got the ball 1st, they win.
Agreed
teams still need to play defense. Its part of the game. Buffalo had their chances to win the game just by playing defense. Hold a team to a FG and you get a chance.
letting a team have a chance also gives the 2nd team an unfair advantage in that they know they have to score a TD or settle for a FG to tie, so they have 4 downs to do it where the starting team really has to play a 3 down game and punt.
There is no magic solution, but the current system is fair imo. As the saying goes, defense wins championships. Buffalo played very poor defense down the stretch and lost because of it. The made a poor decision to kick it in the endzone. Hindsight is 20/20 but every decision affect the outcome.
So why does it need to change?
Buffalo allowed KC to go 45 yards in 10 seconds - whose fault is that? Buffalo allowed KC to drive right down the field and score in OT - whose fault is that?
Leave the rules alone
exactly!!!!!
I don't think there's any harm in going to a full 10 minutes. It's more like "real football" anyway, which is good.
I do think the current version is better than sudden death, because kickers have gotten so much better (as an aside, this is a big factor in the overall increase in scoring). But why not play 10 minutes of real football?
They played to prevent a touchdown when KC only needed a field goal. KC had three time outs but Buffalo still left the middle of the field wide open.
Terrible defense.
Take out (don't get there, defense should do their job ect...)
I think everyone would would the most fair option, and I think the data shows the coin flip is too much of a factor in the current system.
Nobody said you have to give up a fg in 2 plays and 13 seconds or let them complete 8 passes in a row in OT.
Play some defense.
Don't hate the rules, hate that you blew it.
It's too small of a sample size. It's under 60% in the regular season. And in the regular season, less than 25% of the teams that win the flip win with a TD on their first possession (so more than 75% of the time, both teams get a possession in OT).
And you have to have a better solution, right? Let's say that the rules were changed to require both teams to get a possession no matter the outcome of the first possession, and looking at the Buffalo vs. KC game, Buffalo would have responded with a score of their own, would anyone expect the Bills to stop KC on the next possession when they had two backbreaking opportunities to stop KC at that point and failed both times?
No matter how you do it, the team that wins the toss is either going to have more guaranteed possessions or will have the opportunity to dictate the clock to manipulate number of possessions in OT.
The coin toss is always going to be a major factor in OT because there's only one decision being made. In regulation, the team that wins the toss at the start of the game can either receive or defer, which means that they'll have an opportunity to get the ball first to start one of the halves. That's the only reason why the coin toss doesn't have as significant an impact in regulation. I don't see how you can replicate that in OT.
The only alternative I could think of is just having the home team choose (both in regulation and OT) as though they won the toss. Then it would be like baseball with the home team getting last licks. It would still be a huge advantage, but at least you can justify it based on home field advantage (and in the playoffs, that's merit-based by definition) rather than just luck.
Quote:
.
The problem is that the team that loses the coin toss and then loses 90% of the time DID take care of their business just as well as the other team in the first 4 quarters. That's why they're in OT. The playoff winner shouldn't be decided by the flip of a coin, which is what is happening now.
Ummm, letting a team drive down the field in 13 seconds to kick a FG is NOT taking care of business...
Take out (don't get there, defense should do their job ect...)
I think everyone would would the most fair option, and I think the data shows the coin flip is too much of a factor in the current system.
The college overtime is a gimmick. Starting a game at the 25 yard line is the football equivalent of putting a runner on 2nd base, or having a shootout. It's not the sport. And then alternating two-point conversions?
Take out (don't get there, defense should do their job ect...)
I think everyone would would the most fair option, and I think the data shows the coin flip is too much of a factor in the current system.
Coin flip winner is 86-77 alltime. How is it too much of a factor?
Or play defense and get a stop in overtime.
100% agree with this for the playoffs, though not reg season
I hadn't seen this one, but it's intriguing.
If you have a team on the ropes, like KC did with Buffalo, maybe you do go for two on the opening drive and just end it. But if you fail, you leave yourself open to your opponent being able to go for the win on their possession knowing that the worst case scenario is remaining tied with the ball going back the other way, but you could also go for a FG to make it 6-3 and hope for a stop.
Interesting. I still think there's an inherent advantage to winning the coin toss (so there will remain a skew in the results due to the toss), but this adds some curious strategy options.
1. it shows that the two teams are pretty even, and
2. there have probably been lucky and unlucky bounces and good and bad calls that have influenced the game more than the play of the two teams.
Basing the winner on the toss of a coin is just one more uncontrollable event in the game. At least it is 50-50.
With today's offenses, it's a lot easier to say "just make a stop" than to do it. Most teams allocate more resources to their offense, most teams have offensive-minded HC's, ad in all of the rules that benefit passing offenses, it is no surprise that offenses rule the roost.
"Just cover Kelce" is a lot harder to do when Tyreke Hill is lined up opposite him, and Andy Reid is one of the most creative play callers in NFL history (sometimes to his own detriment!).
Adding one more possession doesn't mean that the games would go one forever, it means they would probably last one more possession. You know make games last forever? Going to the college OT system, which some have called for. The current OT system is better than the one before it, but I think it would be even better by allowing the team that loses a random coin flip to have one more chance.
With today's offenses, it's a lot easier to say "just make a stop" than to do it. Most teams allocate more resources to their offense, most teams have offensive-minded HC's, ad in all of the rules that benefit passing offenses, it is no surprise that offenses rule the roost.
"Just cover Kelce" is a lot harder to do when Tyreke Hill is lined up opposite him, and Andy Reid is one of the most creative play callers in NFL history (sometimes to his own detriment!).
Adding one more possession doesn't mean that the games would go one forever, it means they would probably last one more possession. You know make games last forever? Going to the college OT system, which some have called for. The current OT system is better than the one before it, but I think it would be even better by allowing the team that loses a random coin flip to have one more chance.
Ok, but if this is the solution, does it remove any of the advantage of winning the coin toss?
Agreed, the rules favor offense. Important to note that the current rules also feel more unfair in a shootout than they do in a game where the defenses are dominating.
So both teams get a possession. Let's say they both score a TD. Now the team that won the toss gets the ball in an unencumbered sudden-death scenario. FG wins. They don't even need a TD this time around.
The coin toss would still be a huge advantage in this case.
Example, if it goes
Team 1: TD
Team 2: TD
Team 1: FG
Team 2: TD wins, FG continues the cycle, no points, Team 1 wins.
One more quarter, One more 2 minute warning and all the excitement that goes with it. If they're still tied then you can go with the sudden death rules. But maybe alot of these ties could be settled with just one extra quarter of real football. The kind of football that put the whole country on the edge of thier seats Sunday night.
+1
With stuff like that, you really have to ask yourself if the real problem was that buffalo's defensive coaching just couldn't hold up. The better team won.
Quote:
both defense and offense had a chance to succeed. Now, of course, the rules are so bent toward offense that it seems wrong not to give the other team a chance. So, I am all for expanding the rules to. make sure each team gets the ball once.
+1
Then the solution needs to fit the scenario.
With the rules so bent toward offense, giving both teams a possession and then going to sudden death if that's still a tie means that the team who wins the toss will get the ball twice unless they get stopped on their first possession, the same exact coin toss dynamic would exist.
If the point is that the team who wins the toss has a massive advantage, they'd still have that same advantage. Let's say both teams trade TDs in their first possessions, now the team who won the toss is getting the ball needing only a FG. And if the team who won the toss only gets a FG (or is stopped or turned over) on their first possession, then we're looking at the exact same situation as the current rules.
How does a guaranteed possession actually remove the coin toss advantage other than an appeal to "fairness" via optics?
There is a completely different strategy employed regarding substitutions with each one. You're not rotating out your key players as much in a playoff game, especially during crunch time. That is definitely going to affect their stamina at the end of a game and play a significant role come overtime.
To me, it's about entertainment. Who doesn't want to watch another 10 min quarter in a game that has been a war?
Take a 10 min intermission, play a 10 min quarter where they have to go for 2 after a TD, and entertain the hell out of us. Is there really anyone that would not want to have watched 10 mins more of that game?
As per the rules KC won and deserved it. Yes, it was silly that the Bills couldn't get a stop with KC having so little time left but I just don't get why the NFL has IMO such absurd OT rules in the playoffs.
Ok, but if this is the solution, does it remove any of the advantage of winning the coin toss?
Agreed, the rules favor offense. Important to note that the current rules also feel more unfair in a shootout than they do in a game where the defenses are dominating.
So both teams get a possession. Let's say they both score a TD. Now the team that won the toss gets the ball in an unencumbered sudden-death scenario. FG wins. They don't even need a TD this time around.
The coin toss would still be a huge advantage in this case.
No it definitely doesn't eliminate the advantage of winning the coin toss, but it minimizes it a bit. Even if the NFL was smart enough to adopt my scenario, you can be sure that people would complain about it the first time the losing team didn't get a matching possession. I get it, it's far from a perfect solution because there isn't a perfect solution, just less imperfect ones.
To me, it's about entertainment. Who doesn't want to watch another 10 min quarter in a game that has been a war?
Take a 10 min intermission, play a 10 min quarter where they have to go for 2 after a TD, and entertain the hell out of us. Is there really anyone that would not want to have watched 10 mins more of that game?
There are people that would have wanted to play six overtimes who wouldn't ever get enough. It's entertainment, as you said.
But what's the old adage? Leave 'em wanting more?
We got an amazing weekend of wild games. People are going to complain no matter what because complaining about stuff on twitter has become america's #1 export.
There is prevent defense and there is nonsense like this that only resulted in Buffalo losing the game...
Quote:
To me, it's about entertainment. Who doesn't want to watch another 10 min quarter in a game that has been a war?
Take a 10 min intermission, play a 10 min quarter where they have to go for 2 after a TD, and entertain the hell out of us. Is there really anyone that would not want to have watched 10 mins more of that game?
There are people that would have wanted to play six overtimes who wouldn't ever get enough. It's entertainment, as you said.
But what's the old adage? Leave 'em wanting more?
We got an amazing weekend of wild games. People are going to complain no matter what because complaining about stuff on twitter has become america's #1 export.
That is a valid counterpoint. I think you just make it sudden death after the first OT period and that would eliminate the game going on forever. But I do agree with the "Leave them wanting more".
How mad would you be if a Giants coach chose to kick after winning the OT coin toss? The nice way to describe it would be "unthinkable." If that is the case then it must be because there is a distinct advantage given based on pure luck.
If you would choose to receive the ball (All of you), then I ask you why...?
Your specific answer does not matter because it boils down to the fact that you know that it gives you an advantage. And so does every coach in the history of the league.
There is no way to eliminate all random advantages (ie weather) but this is an easy one.
How mad would you be if a Giants coach chose to kick after winning the OT coin toss? The nice way to describe it would be "unthinkable." If that is the case then it must be because there is a distinct advantage given based on pure luck.
If you would choose to receive the ball (All of you), then I ask you why...?
Your specific answer does not matter because it boils down to the fact that you know that it gives you an advantage. And so does every coach in the history of the league.
There is no way to eliminate all random advantages (ie weather) but this is an easy one.
But you still don't eliminate the inherent advantage because the coin toss only works in regulation with two halves and a full game.
Give each team one guaranteed possession? Great, now the team that won the toss is guaranteed the first crack at the first sudden-death possession and just as big of an advantage due to the coin toss.
Go to a fixed-length full quarter? Great, now the team that won the toss has the opportunity to work the clock twice to ensure that they can be playing for the win or the tie at the end of the quarter.
The issue is that the coin toss itself is inherently a huge piece of luck, but in regulation, all it does is decide which half each team receives first, not which team is guaranteed more chances to win.
For the people saying the rules now favor offense so its unfair in OT - change the rules back so they dont favor offense. Saying "we changed these rules so now we have to change those rules" is ridiculous. When does it end?
They already changed the rule so a FG doesnt win it right away. Why bother having defense on the field if they no longer matter?
I hate the college rules or any of the other gimmicks.
Most points wins.
Bam!
As someone suggested, team 2 can always match the score (if any) that team 1 did:
crackerjack465 : 11:23 am : link : reply
both teams get a possession. If both teams score a TD, it goes again until one team doesn't score.
Example, if it goes
Team 1: TD
Team 2: TD
Team 1: FG
Team 2: TD wins, FG continues the cycle, no points, Team 1 wins.
This would lead to many teams kicking, rather than receiving. In fact, knowing what team 1 did, team 2 would have an advantage since they would have 4 downs to score rather than 3.
No, its a fact
Quote:
Zero, thats how many.
How mad would you be if a Giants coach chose to kick after winning the OT coin toss? The nice way to describe it would be "unthinkable." If that is the case then it must be because there is a distinct advantage given based on pure luck.
If you would choose to receive the ball (All of you), then I ask you why...?
Your specific answer does not matter because it boils down to the fact that you know that it gives you an advantage. And so does every coach in the history of the league.
There is no way to eliminate all random advantages (ie weather) but this is an easy one.
But you still don't eliminate the inherent advantage because the coin toss only works in regulation with two halves and a full game.
Give each team one guaranteed possession? Great, now the team that won the toss is guaranteed the first crack at the first sudden-death possession and just as big of an advantage due to the coin toss.
Go to a fixed-length full quarter? Great, now the team that won the toss has the opportunity to work the clock twice to ensure that they can be playing for the win or the tie at the end of the quarter.
The issue is that the coin toss itself is inherently a huge piece of luck, but in regulation, all it does is decide which half each team receives first, not which team is guaranteed more chances to win.
Im only half kidding about this - eliminate the coin toss for OT.
Have each coach submit a "silent bid" on where they are willing to start their drive if given the ball first. The coach that bids the closest to their own goal line gets the ball first. If the bids are a tie (only whole numbers accepted) then you do it again but cannot pick the same yard line again.
Then you play it out under the current rules.
Quote:
is a logical fallacy.
No, its a fact
Facts can be a part of a logical fallacy.
By all means feel free to support this argument.
Then play football.
Quote:
In comment 15574037 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
is a logical fallacy.
No, its a fact
Facts can be a part of a logical fallacy.
Holy crap. The fact is Buffalo let KC go 45 yds in 10 seconds. The fact is Buffalo could have held KC to a FG in OT but didnt. The fact is the coin flip winner is only 86-77 alltime in OT, and most of that was when you only needed a FG to win! The fact is no one can complain that Buffalo didnt get the ball in OT
This is real life, not logics/philosophy class
Quote:
In comment 15574051 Snablats said:
Quote:
In comment 15574037 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
is a logical fallacy.
No, its a fact
Facts can be a part of a logical fallacy.
Holy crap. The fact is Buffalo let KC go 45 yds in 10 seconds. The fact is Buffalo could have held KC to a FG in OT but didnt. The fact is the coin flip winner is only 86-77 alltime in OT, and most of that was when you only needed a FG to win! The fact is no one can complain that Buffalo didnt get the ball in OT
This is real life, not logics/philosophy class
exactly!!!!!!!
you want a chance, tell your defense to stop them. period.
Quote:
In comment 15574051 Snablats said:
Quote:
In comment 15574037 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
is a logical fallacy.
No, its a fact
Facts can be a part of a logical fallacy.
Holy crap. The fact is Buffalo let KC go 45 yds in 10 seconds. The fact is Buffalo could have held KC to a FG in OT but didnt. The fact is the coin flip winner is only 86-77 alltime in OT, and most of that was when you only needed a FG to win! The fact is no one can complain that Buffalo didnt get the ball in OT
This is real life, not logics/philosophy class
I cant believe that I have to explain this to a someone with a brain stem.
The point is that you could say the exact same thing about any team that has ever play overtime in any sport so it is completely irrelevant when making rules for overtime.
By definition both teams played equally well/poorly so why should one get an advantage?
Quote:
In comment 15574059 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
In comment 15574051 Snablats said:
Quote:
In comment 15574037 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
is a logical fallacy.
No, its a fact
Facts can be a part of a logical fallacy.
Holy crap. The fact is Buffalo let KC go 45 yds in 10 seconds. The fact is Buffalo could have held KC to a FG in OT but didnt. The fact is the coin flip winner is only 86-77 alltime in OT, and most of that was when you only needed a FG to win! The fact is no one can complain that Buffalo didnt get the ball in OT
This is real life, not logics/philosophy class
exactly!!!!!!!
you want a chance, tell your defense to stop them. period.
You dont have to write period. The dot at the end of the sentence is a period.
Also, fine tell the Buffalo defense to stop them but why does the KC defense get let off the hook?
People who want the rules changed wouldn't face quite so much resistence if they didn't insist on insulting the intelligence of the rest of us.
Quote:
In comment 15574059 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
In comment 15574051 Snablats said:
Quote:
In comment 15574037 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
is a logical fallacy.
No, its a fact
Facts can be a part of a logical fallacy.
Holy crap. The fact is Buffalo let KC go 45 yds in 10 seconds. The fact is Buffalo could have held KC to a FG in OT but didnt. The fact is the coin flip winner is only 86-77 alltime in OT, and most of that was when you only needed a FG to win! The fact is no one can complain that Buffalo didnt get the ball in OT
This is real life, not logics/philosophy class
I cant believe that I have to explain this to a someone with a brain stem.
The point is that you could say the exact same thing about any team that has ever play overtime in any sport so it is completely irrelevant when making rules for overtime.
By definition both teams played equally well/poorly so why should one get an advantage?
Conversely if both teams played equally poorly/well for 4 quarters, why should both teams get more time to keep playing equally poorly/well.
6 =/= half a dozen.
The motivation to NOT leave it up to a coin flip should be enough.
Conversely if both teams played equally poorly/well for 4 quarters, why should both teams get more time to keep playing equally poorly/well.
6 =/= half a dozen.
The motivation to NOT leave it up to a coin flip should be enough.
Because its the playoffs and you need a winner.
My point is that you cant justify giving Team X a distinct advantage just because Team Y made mistakes. Team X made mistakes too.
Quote:
In comment 15574089 Snablats said:
Quote:
In comment 15574059 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
In comment 15574051 Snablats said:
Quote:
In comment 15574037 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
is a logical fallacy.
No, its a fact
Facts can be a part of a logical fallacy.
Holy crap. The fact is Buffalo let KC go 45 yds in 10 seconds. The fact is Buffalo could have held KC to a FG in OT but didnt. The fact is the coin flip winner is only 86-77 alltime in OT, and most of that was when you only needed a FG to win! The fact is no one can complain that Buffalo didnt get the ball in OT
This is real life, not logics/philosophy class
exactly!!!!!!!
you want a chance, tell your defense to stop them. period.
You dont have to write period. The dot at the end of the sentence is a period.
Also, fine tell the Buffalo defense to stop them but why does the KC defense get let off the hook?
They are off the hook because the Bills defense didnt do their job.
Again, if the change was made to a TD and 2 pt to end the game and the Chiefs did it first, Bills wouldnt have a chance. Then what? i mean when will it end.
Quote:
In comment 15573940 Capt. Don said:
Quote:
Zero, thats how many.
How mad would you be if a Giants coach chose to kick after winning the OT coin toss? The nice way to describe it would be "unthinkable." If that is the case then it must be because there is a distinct advantage given based on pure luck.
If you would choose to receive the ball (All of you), then I ask you why...?
Your specific answer does not matter because it boils down to the fact that you know that it gives you an advantage. And so does every coach in the history of the league.
There is no way to eliminate all random advantages (ie weather) but this is an easy one.
But you still don't eliminate the inherent advantage because the coin toss only works in regulation with two halves and a full game.
Give each team one guaranteed possession? Great, now the team that won the toss is guaranteed the first crack at the first sudden-death possession and just as big of an advantage due to the coin toss.
Go to a fixed-length full quarter? Great, now the team that won the toss has the opportunity to work the clock twice to ensure that they can be playing for the win or the tie at the end of the quarter.
The issue is that the coin toss itself is inherently a huge piece of luck, but in regulation, all it does is decide which half each team receives first, not which team is guaranteed more chances to win.
Im only half kidding about this - eliminate the coin toss for OT.
Have each coach submit a "silent bid" on where they are willing to start their drive if given the ball first. The coach that bids the closest to their own goal line gets the ball first. If the bids are a tie (only whole numbers accepted) then you do it again but cannot pick the same yard line again.
Then you play it out under the current rules.
This is the best option I have seen - well played Captain and thanks for stretching our thinking here! GD is right that the desire to simply give both teams a possession does nothing to change the inherent advantage of winning the coin toss.
Getting rid of the coin toss and getting back to pure sudden death in overtime makes the most sense. And in this approach that you have described, teams would have very different bidding strategies depending on their relative strengths. You could imagine the Chiefs bidding much lower than the Bills and starting at their own five yard line perhaps. Then it becomes more of a "fair fight" given the strong Buffalo defense.
You could even argue that this might also be a better approach for both the start of the game and the start of the second half if they want to reduce the number of kick offs which they have been trying to do. So perhaps the coin toss is eliminated from the game altogether.
Good stuff.
All these changes we cry about and then in 5 years the same wads will be bitching that the games are too long or too legislated or too many penalties.
The bills made their bed.
If the defense can’t do their job, they don’t deserve to win.