As sure as the sun rises ...

[Bormio]

Patriot SB wins mean it is time to change the rules.  KC wants to change the OT rules to give both teams a possession and will propose it to the competition committee.  Never mind that this proposal gives a huge advantage to the team going second.

[Coletrain06]

48 minutes ago, Bormio said:

Patriot SB wins mean it is time to change the rules.  KC wants to change the OT rules to give both teams a possession and will propose it to the competition committee.  Never mind that this proposal gives a huge advantage to the team going second.

As opposed to the even more massive advantage currently of the team going first?

[Bormio]

5 minutes ago, Coletrain06 said:

As opposed to the even more massive advantage currently of the team going first?

It is not that huge an advantage normally.  You cannot win with a FG - the second team can.  There are advantages for both sides.  However, the more likely the teams are to score a TD - the bigger the advantage to the first team.  Hence going first in NE-KC mattered, but would not in Balt-Chi.  Even so, KC had 3 third and tens where they could have stopped them and failed.  Remember the Rams went 2nd and won with a FG.

[TheMaximumHornetSting]

Of course the Patriots oppose this

[Bormio]

Just now, TheMaximumHornetSting said:

Of course the Patriots oppose this

If they change it, the Patriots would find a way to work it to their advantage - by choosing to go last

[Nolebull813]

Throwing rocks at the throne. 

 

[ThunderRam]

If shortening the OT from 15 to 10 was all about player safety -- as the NFL tried to spin it -- then just go to a college/HS format of allowing teams to start from the opponents 20 or whatever yard line they see fit and make them go for 2 each time a TD is scored to lessen the chance for ties and the game continuing. If both teams exchange FG's, next score wins.

Doing the above would eliminate KO's -- which are considered more dangerous plays -- and would shorten the field thus potentially meaning less plays.

I know purists won't like eliminating KO's and the clock, but less plays and no KO's is safer. And it's more fair since each team is guaranteed a possession. And we'd never have to settle for ties.

Or they could go all drastic and do a soccer equivalent of shootout by allowing the kickers to decide it by alternating kicks and moving backward with each make. Before you scoff at that idea, consider that it often happens at the end of regulation and OT anyway. And it's about as safe as OT can get.

IMO, anything is better than ties or a team winning outright w/o the other having a chance to answer.

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

Would a 5 minute overtime clock cure the what ails the current format?

As opposed to sudden death or college format of turns?

Serious question.

BGW

[Bormio]

1 hour ago, BUFORDGAWOLVES said:

Would a 5 minute overtime clock cure the what ails the current format?

As opposed to sudden death or college format of turns?

Serious question.

BGW

Limited OT is fine in the regular season - nothing wrong with ties.  But obviously not applicable in the playoffs.  The NFL will not go the college route - no 7 OT games are going to happen.  The current system eliminates the win the toss, kick a FG scenario.  The flaw in the current system is when the offenses are really good, a real chance the 2nd team does not see the ball.  But defense is part of the game - you need a good one and KC’s sucked.  Too bad.

[ThunderRam]

On 3/2/2019 at 5:39 AM, Bormio said:

The NFL will not go the college route - no 7 OT games are going to happen. 

 

You wouldn’t have 7 OT games under the scenario I gave — make teams go for 2 on all TD’s and if teams trade FG’s the next score wins. Doing the latter would give the team thinking about matching a FG more motivation to end it with a TD because they could lose via FG the next possession.

If teams keep trading TD’s in OT it’s unlikely that they’ll both keep making or missing the 2 pt conversion at the same time. 

[HSFBfan]

On 3/2/2019 at 8:39 AM, Bormio said:

Limited OT is fine in the regular season - nothing wrong with ties.  But obviously not applicable in the playoffs.  The NFL will not go the college route - no 7 OT games are going to happen.  The current system eliminates the win the toss, kick a FG scenario.  The flaw in the current system is when the offenses are really good, a real chance the 2nd team does not see the ball.  But defense is part of the game - you need a good one and KC’s sucked.  Too bad.

College is changing so u dont see anymore 7OT games which sucks. Play til their is a winner 

[Fred]

On 3/1/2019 at 3:05 PM, Bormio said:

It is not that huge an advantage normally.  You cannot win with a FG - the second team can.  There are advantages for both sides.  However, the more likely the teams are to score a TD - the bigger the advantage to the first team.  Hence going first in NE-KC mattered, but would not in Balt-Chi.  Even so, KC had 3 third and tens where they could have stopped them and failed.  Remember the Rams went 2nd and won with a FG.

Ah contraire.  Historically there is a mid/high 60% chance of the NFL team winning the coin toss to win the game.  A 15% bias to winning the coin toss assuming it was 65% (don't remember for sure and don't have time to look it up) is a significant advantage given capriciously to luck and not necessarily team performance.  In an era of explosive offenses it makes a difference.

[Bormio]

8 hours ago, Fred said:

Ah contraire.  Historically there is a mid/high 60% chance of the NFL team winning the coin toss to win the game.  A 15% bias to winning the coin toss assuming it was 65% (don't remember for sure and don't have time to look it up) is a significant advantage given capriciously to luck and not necessarily team performance.  In an era of explosive offenses it makes a difference.

My understanding is it is 53-47 advantage to the first team with the new rules  (cannot win with a first drive FG).  It was 50/50 in the conference championship games this year.

[Fred]

On 3/4/2019 at 8:25 PM, Bormio said:

My understanding is it is 53-47 advantage to the first team with the new rules  (cannot win with a first drive FG).  It was 50/50 in the conference championship games this year.

I did look it up and it was 60/40 for coin toss winner.  20 percentage points is a lot.

[Bormio]

18 minutes ago, Fred said:

I did look it up and it was 60/40 for coin toss winner.  20 percentage points is a lot.

That is the % from 1994-2011, when the kickoff was from the 30 and the first team could win with a FG.  Since it was made that a FG could not end the game on the first drive, the coin toss winner has won 52.7% of the time.