Fact...48% of the victories were by the team who actually won the toss and 52% of victories went to the losing team on the toss.....before they moved the kickoff back to the 30 yard line, TO ALLOW TEAMS TO SCORE MORE!!! Now that they kickoff from the 30, alot more of the games go to the team who wins the toss...had the percentages and lost them. Proposed changes, if the team who wins the toss kicks a field goal, then you have a chance to get the ball and score a touchdown and win, or kick a filed goal and go into sudden death. Now remember, the NFL TV contracts only allow you to see X amount of time into the next game and then they have to tune you into said game. So when it takes an extra 45 minutes to determine who wins, you miss it. Lets just say for example, the Colts or the Saints were into all this extra time in their respective champ games, after they won the toss and kicked a filed goal. Should be game over, but now their opponent gets their chance. They kick a filed goal and Peyton and/or Brees goes back onto the field Again, keep in mind they should have already won the game. UH OH, they are sacked and not getting up, torn ACL...now we have Jim Sorgi starting for the colts in the super bowl, or Mark Brunell starting for the Saints...Yeah, I would love to watch that game. It is going to happen, a superstar will get hurt in this extra time and then what. It is pretty simple, move the damn ball back to the 30 for overtime and your percentages return to almost 50/50. You already get 60 minutes to win...not to mention the violence of the game, and how you are lucky to get through that time un injured. What say ye???
I like the change. No reason both offenses shouldnt' be able to touch the ball in an OT. Why have it decided by a coin flip? The only thing I don't agree with is this rule is limited to playoff games? Because the NFL doesn't want to see a playoff game decided by who wins a coin toss? Well what about the other regular season games that have as much importance? Why is it ok to see 2 teams late in the season battle for making the playoffs and it to be decided by the old rule? Should be all or nothing IMO. I'm not agreeing with this. Whos' to say they can't get hurt in the first half? Or in pre season? Or on their way to the stadium? They get paid to play football. So they have to take an extra offensive series twice a year (maybe)? This whole protecting the players crap is slowly ruining the NFL.
I see what you guys are saying, but you get 60 minutes to win the game, after that it is your own fault for going to the coin toss...why not just move the kickoff back to the 30 for OT, all the stats show that makes an even playing field. I also agree, the NFL is getting a little soft when it comes to protecting the QB's. Injuries are part of the game, but when a super star goes down in the extra time, in the playoffs, they will change the rules all over again. NY, imagine your cowboys kick the field goal first in the NFC championship, then the opponent kicks their field goal. Romo now gets hurt throwing the ball on the next possesion, but you somehow manage to win the game. Now you have no chance in a super bowl after a game you should have won. I fully get that injuries are part of the game, but when the game should have been over and then one happens.....
I'm not a fan on the new rule, not a fan of the old rule either. I think it was Mike Golic, but the best idea that I heard was in case of a tie, hold a 10 minute OT and play it just like another quarter. Yes, it could create some long games, but it is the only true way to make it fair. Honestly though, how is the new rule more "fair"? If the recieving team kicks a FG the kickin team has a chance to tie with a FG or win with a TD.... thats cool.... but why should the game end on the recieving team getting a TD? Why not allow the kicking team a chance to score a TD? I don't like the fact that the rules bend one way for a TD, and another for a FG!
x2. If they had changed it to this, then I would be 100% behind it. Although the new rule is still way better than the old. This coming from a Vikes fan.
I like the rule And from what I've been hearing an NFL team has a game go into overtime once every two years (thats an average)
The new rule will take away from the flow of the game. It becomes robotic. I played under those same OT rules in college many years ago. BOOOOring. It really breaks down the game to who has a great red zone offense and field goal kicker. Really, that is it. So, I DO NOT like the rule change. Just move the kick-off point back to the 30 yard line and let it rip!
2 Lunger...what are you not buying, I am not making something up I am simply stating that if that happens it will be a horrible game. It could be a running back, a wide reciever etc. I am simply stating what could happen when you turn a pro sport into a everyone gets a chance spectacle. That is how the rest of the world is messed up now, everyone wins, feels good etc...you have 60 minutes to get it done, if you cannot do it in the alloted time, you deserve to be at the mercy of the coin. Just move the kickoff back and the argument is settled.
Oh well. I dont' think I'd be blaming any rule for him getting hurt. It would be like getting hurt at any other point in the game IMO. Yeah ..... I don't get that either. I like that they've changed the OT rule. Step in the right direction IMO, but they could definitely tweak it a little bit.
I don't really have a problem with the rule change, actually I really didnt have a problem with the old rule.
I think the new rule is stupid and here is why. A football game has 60 minutes of regulation. That means you have 60 minutes to beat the other team. If at the end of those 60 minutes, the score is tied, it's time to get the game done with. Flip of the coin. If you lose the toss, you have to either come up with an awesome special teams play or one heck of a defensive stand. If you win the toss, you have to either come up with an awesome special teams play or one heck of an offensive drive (remember, after 60 minutes of regulation play... they were tied). My thing about it is I cannot stand listening to folks whine about "It isn't fair, we didn't get to touch the ball!" Yes you did... you had 60 mintues to touch the ball and you couldn't score more points than the other team. You didn't lose on the coin toss... you lost because you let it get to the point where another coin toss was required. It's just like any combat sport (boxing, UFC whatever) if at the end of the fight, the decision goes to the judges, you don't cry when they give the win to the other guy... you should have knocked him out in regulation. Add in the fact that the current system was nearly 50-50 and I say the new rule is not needed. Just my take on it... remember, these are grown men we are talking about.
You would need an mediocre special teams play (return to the 30 yard line). And far from "heck of an offensive drive". A couple first downs and 30 yards later you have a chance at a 57 yard field goal. 40 offensive yards and the game is over. On the flipside ... yes you don have to come up with a heck of a special teams play and pin them at or inside the 20. Then you have to have a heck of a defensive stand to not let an NFL offensive team (playoff caliber) get a couple first downs or one big play and get in field goal range. I just see it much easier for an offensive to have 2 or 3 offensive series and get into field goal range and WHAM game over before the defense knew what happened. Yeah but the problem is BOTH teams didn't get it done in regulation. How can you say the team that ultimately loses should have got it done in regulation? What about the team that won? Should they not have got it done in regulation too? They were in the same boat at the end of regulation, but one got the benefit of the coin flip and being able to play offense first. How many times have you seen the team that won the coin toss for OT choose to defend? Why do you think that is?
You are correct, neither team got it done during regulation... and there was a 50/50 chance at the coin flip. One team got lucky and won the toss. They were dead even at the end of regulation therefore, we can assume that their teams were dead even. Neither was better than the other on that particular day for one reason or another. I understand why the team that wins the toss would want the ball first. I am not stupid, you don't have to talk to me like I am. The thing you obviously don't understand is that last season overtime was nearly 50/50. The team that won the toss didn't automatically win the game. Overtime shouldn't be fair, you had 60 minutes of fair to decide your own fate. Couldn't get it done. Oh well, time to end the game. Score on offense if you won the toss or come up with a defensive play or special teams play to take the ball back for your offense. Simple as that. This rule came about because Favre lost to the Saints in overtime.
The problem with overtime rules the way they are is that it is more than the one game they are playing. It is the entire season, it is millions and millions of dollars in lost income and potential contracts that the player will now not receive because they lost a coin flip. All of this based on a 50/50 chance. Sorry but that just isn't right.
No... millions and millions of dollars in lost income and potential contracts that the player will now not receive because they let it come down to another coin flip. Remember... they had 60 minutes of regulation to beat the other team.
Yep... IMO luck shouldn't be the deciding factor in a competitive game. huh? Look at it different. 2 teams equally matched on that day battling back and forth. They didnt' "get it done" because it was a great evenly matched competition. Not for lack of perfoming to win like you suggest. Why on Earth would anyone want to see what usually is a great game end on a coin flip? That's like if 2 golfers are tied at the end of regulation for the US Open and they flip a coin. The winner of the coin flip plays from the red tees and the loser plays from the blacks. Hockey they drop the puck and you have to win the faceoff. Then there are 20 different possesions offensively and defensively with multiple shots on each end. If that doesnt' decide it they go to a shootout where each team has the same exact chance to win. NBA there is an OT period. Again multiply offensive and defensive plays. Multiple scoring. If that's not enough to decide it, guess what? They do it again with equal chance. Baseball (another good example). You get to hit and play defense. If the first team that is up in extra innings scores a run they don't declare them the winner. The pitcher has to take the mound in the bottom of the inning and hold the opposing offense in order to win the game. If it's not decided in one extra inning, guess what? They play unlimited amount of innings until someone wins.
