Modified OT Rule? - Page 2 - Jets Insider.com Forums

southside · 03-01-2010, 01:21 PM

At first, I was thinking about how much I hate this idea. Then, I thought about it and it makes sense to use the idea about needing 6 to win. And then I also recalled how we lost to Buffalo in OT on a FG so I'm definitely in favor of changing the rules. :)

I could go either way, not really that interested in it. I'd rather see changes to other rules than this one. It's like when the Pats missed the playoffs with 11 wins and the Chargers got in with 8 because they won their division... people were actually making noise about changing the rules so that the Pats would go to the playoffs. Hilarious. This rule change proposal is a knee jerk reaction, much like the Brady rule. Yeah, I went there. Pun city baby.

Ven0m · 03-01-2010, 01:23 PM

It's a TEAM game, an offense and a defense should have the same chance to win or lose the game. I don't know if this scenario would help that or not, but it sounds better then the current system at least.

patsfanken · 03-01-2010, 08:30 PM

I have always been in favor of keeping the current system, but that was when the defense had a reasonable chance of stopping the offense. You guys make fun of the so called Brady Rule, but in reality its the Pulian/Peyton (sean) rules that were made AFTER 2004 that completely changed the game into the pass happy frenzy we see today.

The balance of power is completely with the offense now. Competitively that's OK in the context of a regular game, because BOTH sides get a chance to start off WITH the ball once a half. HOWEVER giving the ball to an offense first in a sudden death situation in TODAY's game is giving TOO much of an advantage to the team that wins the toss

Now this overtime format has been a controversial one since its inception. I can remember that back in the 90's they found that the team that won the toss won the game around 53% of the time (IIRC). An advantage to the offense but still close enough to 50-50 to keep it fair. I'd be surprised if you didn't find that if you took a look at the last 4 years of OT's you'd find that the team that won the toss was winning at better than a 65% percentage rate. Now THAT's just too much of an advantage and a change like this is appropriate.

I love the idea that under the proposal you can win it with a TD the first possession. It adds a ton of strategy to the game, and for the fans, a great opportunity for second guessing play calling. Not only would it be fairer, it would more entertaining for the fans. What could be better

TheMikeIsHot · 03-01-2010, 08:43 PM

[QUOTE=BigBensAngel7;3510071]all i am saying is that if it was trent edwards that didnt get a chance to touch the ball there would not be a media outcry like there is with favre or peyton.

for those high power offense teams maybe they should learn to play better defense. you should have a balance team, one that can play both offense and defense..

i am willing to give the new rules a try[/QUOTE]

But we're not talking about Trent Edwards because he isn't a difference maker that got left on the sideline. Those QBs I mentioned are the best players on their team. It's stupid for a game to be decided without the best players having a say.

Really? They should play better defense? Well no sh!t. But in the real world, it doesn't always work out that way.

Flea Flicker · 03-02-2010, 08:38 AM

Here's a completely different option : Why have OT at all?

Obviously it would be needed in the play-offs but why is it necessary in the regular season?

It lets coaches duck out of making a decision, as they will always go for a tie and then, if they lose in OT, they're considered unlucky. Imagine the scenario being 3 points down on 4th down, in the last minute and inside the opponents 10. A coach would have to decide whether to take the FG and settle for a tie or go for the win and gamble on getting a TD.

It would also allevaite a lot of the highly complex end of season tie breakers involving strength of schedule and the like. A 9-6-1 team would obviously qualify above a 9-7 one, for example.

Thoughts?

BigBensAngel7 · 03-02-2010, 08:55 AM

[QUOTE=TheMikeIsHot;3510514]But we're not talking about Trent Edwards because he isn't a difference maker that got left on the sideline. Those QBs I mentioned are the best players on their team. It's stupid for a game to be decided without the best players having a say.

Really? They should play better defense? Well no sh!t. But in the real world, it doesn't always work out that way.[/QUOTE]
as i said before, this wouldnt be an issue if it were alex smith of the 9ers and edwards of the bills in an overtime game. the rules are what they are and everyone knows what they are. if you lose the coin toss then you better play your tail off on defense if you want your beloved peyton to get a chance. fantasy football has ruined the actual game of football now.

Wall Street · 03-02-2010, 01:40 PM

[QUOTE=Flea Flicker;3510677]Here's a completely different option : Why have OT at all?

Obviously it would be needed in the play-offs but why is it necessary in the regular season?

It lets coaches duck out of making a decision, as they will always go for a tie and then, if they lose in OT, they're considered unlucky. Imagine the scenario being 3 points down on 4th down, in the last minute and inside the opponents 10. A coach would have to decide whether to take the FG and settle for a tie or go for the win and gamble on getting a TD.

It would also allevaite a lot of the highly complex end of season tie breakers involving strength of schedule and the like. A 9-6-1 team would obviously qualify above a 9-7 one, for example.

Thoughts?[/QUOTE]
Ugh..Ties?

There is nothing worse than a tie. I would rather lose than tie anyday.
First you have the whole standings mess with 3 columns. It's just ugly.

2. If you go to a game and it ends in a tie, to me that is much worse than a loss because it is just confusing. When you lose, you feel sh*tty. When you win you feel good. When you tie? It just feels like a waste of time.

Make it first team to score 4 points.

Kicking is just a stupid part of football anyway. The only time it should be used is for change of possession. You have these unbelievable athletes at every position battling each other mano-a-mano, and then to actually put points on the board you use a nerdy dude to kick the ball 100 feet between two posts. It makes no sense. If I had my way, the Red Zone would just be called 4-down territory.

Jetsound · 03-02-2010, 01:56 PM

[QUOTE=Revi$_I$l@nd;3509361]No rules change necessary.

Favre shouldn't have thrown that pick at the end of the 4th.

They'd have been headed to the Superbowl. Problem solved.

Instead of looking at this, the league should be reviewing some of the PI calls/holding calls from that game :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Or the 9(?) other turnovers.
That was the worst game I ever saw.

crasherino · 03-02-2010, 02:04 PM

[QUOTE=jefethegreat;3509582]The problem with overtime rules is not the format of a football game. While college changes the game in overtime, the pros do not and that is really a good thing. The problem with the pro system is that whoever gets the ball in overtime is based purely on blind luck. Possession is decided by a coin flip. I think if you want to fix the overtime in the NFL get ride of the coin flip and determine possession based on momentum and talent rather than luck. The ball should be placed on the 30 yard line, the spot of the kickoff, and each team elects a player to start at the other 30 yard line at one of the two hash marks. The ref would blow the whistle and the first player to get the ball gets the ball in overtime. This way if you lose in overtime its your own fault because you at least had a chance to win. I hope people give some thought to this kind of reform rather than this 'we both need to be on offense' mantra that I hear everyday.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking a thumb wrestle at the 50 yard line would work as well. Teams would have one more consideration when filling out their rosters....guys with inordinately long thumbs would have a leg up on making the team.

TheMikeIsHot · 03-02-2010, 02:19 PM

[QUOTE=BigBensAngel7;3510684]as i said before, this wouldnt be an issue if it were alex smith of the 9ers and edwards of the bills in an overtime game. the rules are what they are and everyone knows what they are. if you lose the coin toss then you better play your tail off on defense if you want your beloved peyton to get a chance. fantasy football has ruined the actual game of football now.[/QUOTE]

Fantasy football has nothing to do with this. Why are you even bringing it up?

Alex Smith and Trent Edwards are not who fans are paying $120 a ticket to see. They want to see Philip Rivers and Drew Brees and Peyton Manning. When something as random as a coin toss is determining the outcome of a game and not the best player in the stadium, that's a problem.

This isn't the first year that the competition committee is being asked to change the OT format. Thankfully, it's finally the year that they've finally figured out that the current system is a joke and the bad publicity eventually caught up to them.

"Play Defense!!!!" is not a very good argument for the current system. Neither is "those are the rules." Enough with games being decided by a coin toss.

paule · 03-20-2010, 10:10 PM

The rule changes would apply to the playoffs only. Stupid idea. Leave it alone.

KingofNY · 03-20-2010, 10:37 PM

First to six is a great idea. I'm tired of watching close games that are decided by a damn coin flip and then a stupid penalty like pass interference penalty the ends up putting a team in FG range for the easy win.

Postseason · 03-20-2010, 10:47 PM

If didn't win the game in the first 60 minutes it is not the coins fault you lost.

124 · 03-20-2010, 11:06 PM

It is stupid and would just go towards ruining the game.

It isn't broke, don't fix it. This isn't College Football (thank god or else we'd be in the stadium for 5 hours every week) and if you want to win the game, NEWSFLASH: YOU CAN STOP THE OTHER TEAM. I heard a rumor that it has happened before.

Vinny Patrollie · 03-20-2010, 11:22 PM

[QUOTE=JetsFanInSec230;3532859]It is stupid and would just go towards ruining the game.

It isn't broke, don't fix it. This isn't College Football (thank god or else we'd be in the stadium for 5 hours every week) and if you want to win the game, NEWSFLASH: YOU CAN STOP THE OTHER TEAM. I heard a rumor that it has happened before.[/QUOTE]

+1

They've monkeyed around with the rules of the game too much as it is. Today's NFL is all about the offense. Coin flips suck (especially clandestine one's for Jet's fans...sorry, could resist the irony) but why change it? It still is about a 50/50 chance the winner of the flip wins the game.

If they WERE to change it, the current idea sux. Better ideas are an 8 minute overtime period, or when the first team scores, the opposing team gets one more possession. But I'd still rather see the current sudden death.

Chupa · 03-21-2010, 12:12 AM

The ONLY logical option is to make the first team to score 6 points win the game.

NOFX · 03-21-2010, 09:13 AM

JMO: The only change I'd like to see is an extended 8 or 10 minute quarter. Then sudden death after for playoffs if still tied. I don't want to see anything like the college system in the NFL. Play defense, don't turn the ball over, & remember that the team that takes advantage of breaks (part of football) generally wins.

WJGC · 03-21-2010, 01:37 PM

[QUOTE=Postseason;3532850]If didn't win the game in the first 60 minutes it is not the coins fault you lost.[/QUOTE]

Thank you. Win the game in regulation and you won't have to worry about the "unfair results of a coin toss"

BURGERMIKE · 03-21-2010, 06:51 PM

I opened this tread thinkin we could now post [B]O[/B]ff [B]T[/B]opic on the strip?

03-01-2010, 08:30 PM	#23
patsfanken Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: N.Attleboro, MA Posts: 3,725	I have always been in favor of keeping the current system, but that was when the defense had a reasonable chance of stopping the offense. You guys make fun of the so called Brady Rule, but in reality its the Pulian/Peyton (sean) rules that were made AFTER 2004 that completely changed the game into the pass happy frenzy we see today. The balance of power is completely with the offense now. Competitively that's OK in the context of a regular game, because BOTH sides get a chance to start off WITH the ball once a half. HOWEVER giving the ball to an offense first in a sudden death situation in TODAY's game is giving TOO much of an advantage to the team that wins the toss Now this overtime format has been a controversial one since its inception. I can remember that back in the 90's they found that the team that won the toss won the game around 53% of the time (IIRC). An advantage to the offense but still close enough to 50-50 to keep it fair. I'd be surprised if you didn't find that if you took a look at the last 4 years of OT's you'd find that the team that won the toss was winning at better than a 65% percentage rate. Now THAT's just too much of an advantage and a change like this is appropriate. I love the idea that under the proposal you can win it with a TD the first possession. It adds a ton of strategy to the game, and for the fans, a great opportunity for second guessing play calling. Not only would it be fairer, it would more entertaining for the fans. What could be better Last edited by patsfanken; 03-01-2010 at 08:33 PM.

03-21-2010, 01:37 PM	#38
WJGC .....\m/ \m/ All League Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 608	[QUOTE=Postseason;3532850]If didn't win the game in the first 60 minutes it is not the coins fault you lost.[/QUOTE] Thank you. Win the game in regulation and you won't have to worry about the "unfair results of a coin toss" Last edited by WJGC; 03-21-2010 at 01:43 PM.

03-01-2010, 01:21 PM	#21
southside Forever Awesome All Pro Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,888	At first, I was thinking about how much I hate this idea. Then, I thought about it and it makes sense to use the idea about needing 6 to win. And then I also recalled how we lost to Buffalo in OT on a FG so I'm definitely in favor of changing the rules. :) I could go either way, not really that interested in it. I'd rather see changes to other rules than this one. It's like when the Pats missed the playoffs with 11 wins and the Chargers got in with 8 because they won their division... people were actually making noise about changing the rules so that the Pats would go to the playoffs. Hilarious. This rule change proposal is a knee jerk reaction, much like the Brady rule. Yeah, I went there. Pun city baby.

03-01-2010, 01:23 PM	#22
Ven0m a shutdown poster Hall Of Fame Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NY Posts: 18,349	It's a TEAM game, an offense and a defense should have the same chance to win or lose the game. I don't know if this scenario would help that or not, but it sounds better then the current system at least.

03-01-2010, 08:43 PM	#24
TheMikeIsHot All Pro Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 7,043	[QUOTE=BigBensAngel7;3510071]all i am saying is that if it was trent edwards that didnt get a chance to touch the ball there would not be a media outcry like there is with favre or peyton. for those high power offense teams maybe they should learn to play better defense. you should have a balance team, one that can play both offense and defense.. i am willing to give the new rules a try[/QUOTE] But we're not talking about Trent Edwards because he isn't a difference maker that got left on the sideline. Those QBs I mentioned are the best players on their team. It's stupid for a game to be decided without the best players having a say. Really? They should play better defense? Well no sh!t. But in the real world, it doesn't always work out that way.

03-02-2010, 08:38 AM	#25
Flea Flicker Delving through the carnage! Undrafted Free Agent Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 20	Here's a completely different option : Why have OT at all? Obviously it would be needed in the play-offs but why is it necessary in the regular season? It lets coaches duck out of making a decision, as they will always go for a tie and then, if they lose in OT, they're considered unlucky. Imagine the scenario being 3 points down on 4th down, in the last minute and inside the opponents 10. A coach would have to decide whether to take the FG and settle for a tie or go for the win and gamble on getting a TD. It would also allevaite a lot of the highly complex end of season tie breakers involving strength of schedule and the like. A 9-6-1 team would obviously qualify above a 9-7 one, for example. Thoughts?

03-02-2010, 08:55 AM	#26
BigBensAngel7 the Seductive Temptress Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: home of the hot guy in my avatar.. oh baby! Posts: 4,462	[QUOTE=TheMikeIsHot;3510514]But we're not talking about Trent Edwards because he isn't a difference maker that got left on the sideline. Those QBs I mentioned are the best players on their team. It's stupid for a game to be decided without the best players having a say. Really? They should play better defense? Well no sh!t. But in the real world, it doesn't always work out that way.[/QUOTE] as i said before, this wouldnt be an issue if it were alex smith of the 9ers and edwards of the bills in an overtime game. the rules are what they are and everyone knows what they are. if you lose the coin toss then you better play your tail off on defense if you want your beloved peyton to get a chance. fantasy football has ruined the actual game of football now.

03-02-2010, 01:40 PM	#27
Wall Street $$$$$ Rookie Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: SI NY Posts: 823	[QUOTE=Flea Flicker;3510677]Here's a completely different option : Why have OT at all? Obviously it would be needed in the play-offs but why is it necessary in the regular season? It lets coaches duck out of making a decision, as they will always go for a tie and then, if they lose in OT, they're considered unlucky. Imagine the scenario being 3 points down on 4th down, in the last minute and inside the opponents 10. A coach would have to decide whether to take the FG and settle for a tie or go for the win and gamble on getting a TD. It would also allevaite a lot of the highly complex end of season tie breakers involving strength of schedule and the like. A 9-6-1 team would obviously qualify above a 9-7 one, for example. Thoughts?[/QUOTE] Ugh..Ties? There is nothing worse than a tie. I would rather lose than tie anyday. First you have the whole standings mess with 3 columns. It's just ugly. 2. If you go to a game and it ends in a tie, to me that is much worse than a loss because it is just confusing. When you lose, you feel sh*tty. When you win you feel good. When you tie? It just feels like a waste of time. Make it first team to score 4 points. Kicking is just a stupid part of football anyway. The only time it should be used is for change of possession. You have these unbelievable athletes at every position battling each other mano-a-mano, and then to actually put points on the board you use a nerdy dude to kick the ball 100 feet between two posts. It makes no sense. If I had my way, the Red Zone would just be called 4-down territory.

03-02-2010, 01:56 PM	#28
Jetsound thinks Tebow sucks and the Jets are a side-show. Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bayville & Sec334 Posts: 2,099	[QUOTE=Revi$_I$l@nd;3509361]No rules change necessary. Favre shouldn't have thrown that pick at the end of the 4th. They'd have been headed to the Superbowl. Problem solved. Instead of looking at this, the league should be reviewing some of the PI calls/holding calls from that game :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] Or the 9(?) other turnovers. That was the worst game I ever saw.

03-02-2010, 02:04 PM	#29
crasherino Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: NYC Posts: 16,826	[QUOTE=jefethegreat;3509582]The problem with overtime rules is not the format of a football game. While college changes the game in overtime, the pros do not and that is really a good thing. The problem with the pro system is that whoever gets the ball in overtime is based purely on blind luck. Possession is decided by a coin flip. I think if you want to fix the overtime in the NFL get ride of the coin flip and determine possession based on momentum and talent rather than luck. The ball should be placed on the 30 yard line, the spot of the kickoff, and each team elects a player to start at the other 30 yard line at one of the two hash marks. The ref would blow the whistle and the first player to get the ball gets the ball in overtime. This way if you lose in overtime its your own fault because you at least had a chance to win. I hope people give some thought to this kind of reform rather than this 'we both need to be on offense' mantra that I hear everyday.[/QUOTE] I was thinking a thumb wrestle at the 50 yard line would work as well. Teams would have one more consideration when filling out their rosters....guys with inordinately long thumbs would have a leg up on making the team.

03-02-2010, 02:19 PM	#30
TheMikeIsHot All Pro Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 7,043	[QUOTE=BigBensAngel7;3510684]as i said before, this wouldnt be an issue if it were alex smith of the 9ers and edwards of the bills in an overtime game. the rules are what they are and everyone knows what they are. if you lose the coin toss then you better play your tail off on defense if you want your beloved peyton to get a chance. fantasy football has ruined the actual game of football now.[/QUOTE] Fantasy football has nothing to do with this. Why are you even bringing it up? Alex Smith and Trent Edwards are not who fans are paying $120 a ticket to see. They want to see Philip Rivers and Drew Brees and Peyton Manning. When something as random as a coin toss is determining the outcome of a game and not the best player in the stadium, that's a problem. This isn't the first year that the competition committee is being asked to change the OT format. Thankfully, it's finally the year that they've finally figured out that the current system is a joke and the bad publicity eventually caught up to them. "Play Defense!!!!" is not a very good argument for the current system. Neither is "those are the rules." Enough with games being decided by a coin toss.

03-20-2010, 10:10 PM	#31
paule Practice Squad Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Bailey, CO Posts: 307	The rule changes would apply to the playoffs only. Stupid idea. Leave it alone.

03-20-2010, 10:37 PM	#32
KingofNY Fire Sparano, Tanny and bench Sanchez. Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Posts: 2,983	First to six is a great idea. I'm tired of watching close games that are decided by a damn coin flip and then a stupid penalty like pass interference penalty the ends up putting a team in FG range for the easy win.

03-20-2010, 10:47 PM	#33
Postseason Veteran Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,088	If didn't win the game in the first 60 minutes it is not the coins fault you lost.

03-20-2010, 11:06 PM	#34
124 There's NO reason to delay the process. Start Geno Smith. All Pro Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 7,970	It is stupid and would just go towards ruining the game. It isn't broke, don't fix it. This isn't College Football (thank god or else we'd be in the stadium for 5 hours every week) and if you want to win the game, NEWSFLASH: YOU CAN STOP THE OTHER TEAM. I heard a rumor that it has happened before.

03-20-2010, 11:22 PM	#35
Vinny Patrollie wicked smaht and onto your tricks Banned Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,894	[QUOTE=JetsFanInSec230;3532859]It is stupid and would just go towards ruining the game. It isn't broke, don't fix it. This isn't College Football (thank god or else we'd be in the stadium for 5 hours every week) and if you want to win the game, NEWSFLASH: YOU CAN STOP THE OTHER TEAM. I heard a rumor that it has happened before.[/QUOTE] +1 They've monkeyed around with the rules of the game too much as it is. Today's NFL is all about the offense. Coin flips suck (especially clandestine one's for Jet's fans...sorry, could resist the irony) but why change it? It still is about a 50/50 chance the winner of the flip wins the game. If they WERE to change it, the current idea sux. Better ideas are an 8 minute overtime period, or when the first team scores, the opposing team gets one more possession. But I'd still rather see the current sudden death.

03-21-2010, 12:12 AM	#36
Chupa All League Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 3,279	The ONLY logical option is to make the first team to score 6 points win the game.

03-21-2010, 09:13 AM	#37
NOFX All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 1,652	JMO: The only change I'd like to see is an extended 8 or 10 minute quarter. Then sudden death after for playoffs if still tied. I don't want to see anything like the college system in the NFL. Play defense, don't turn the ball over, & remember that the team that takes advantage of breaks (part of football) generally wins.

03-21-2010, 06:51 PM	#39
BURGERMIKE All Hailing the Queen of Cupholders! Hall Of Fame Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 3,771	I opened this tread thinkin we could now post [B]O[/B]ff [B]T[/B]opic on the strip?