A few weeks ago, the NFL Rules Committee decided not to change its overtime policy. This disappointed me, because I don't like the coin-flip determining who gets the ball, because all too often it seems like the team who receives the kick ends up winning after a short drive and field goal.On the other hand, the college game doesn't have the best solution either. Yes, each team gets equal opportunities, but from 35 yards out, it's not difficult to get at least a field goal, and the 'you must go for two after touchdowns after the 2nd OT' rule seems a bit contrived, and Pop Warner to me. Gun to my head, I prefer the college rules because, again, at least both teams get a shot.
I guess the point of all this ramblings is this: What would be your ideal OT situation if you could make it up? Or do you prefer one of the existing methods as is?
If it were up to me, I'd install something of an NBA-type overtime. One 10 minute extra session, with possession being determined by a coin flip, just like the beginning of the game. If the game is tied at the end of the period, it ends in a tie. There are some down sides to this, I admit: Football is a physical game, and playing 10 extra minutes is asking a lot of players and can expose them to more risk of injury. Also, the point of OT is to break the tie, and after 70 minutes of playing, it would seems pretty empty to walk away with a tie.
At the same time, that what happens occasionally nowadays, with games ending after 15 extra minutes if no one scores. However, I see this as a good remedy, because field possession is still a factor-which it isn't in college-along with special teams. Also, each team should get at least one possession, but there isn't a threat of the game going on forever and ever, like it is in college.
Maybe it's not the best way, but let's be honest, Rog Goddell won't take the advice of this blog anyway, so who cares? Anyway, let me know what you think, and we can have our happy little ideal scenario in this corner of the internets.
4 comments:
Lancelot,
Despite the fact that it doesn't include special teams or allow teams to utilize the entire field, I'm still a fan of the college overtime format.
I realize that every so often we have these Ole Miss v. Arkansas 7 OT games that go on longer than a list of Obama Cabinet Nominees who haven't paid their taxes (hi-yo!!!), but those games are the exception rather than the rule.
As Jerome Bettis can tell you, sometimes the coin does not bounce your way, and the outcome of the game should rest upon much more than that, right Rog?
Really, I just blame Tom Coughlin and Daniel Snyder for this. Those guys suck.
I think about this every time someone says how unfair the NFL OT rules are and it's a troubling issue. Probably on par with what to do about the economy or North Korea.
As you deftly noted, neither college nor the NFL has a perfect tie-breaking policy. I don't hate the college rule since it does give both squads a chance. I also am okay with the NFL rule though since you do have a chance to stop the other team.
However, I'd probably go with one of these two options:
1. TIES. Just let the game end in a tie. This could wreak havoc on the standings and playoff scenarios (how many times have you heard someone is in with a Washington loss OR TIE...that'd really make that mean something). However, I don't think it'd happen more than once a week or so. And really, it's the most fair to both teams.
2. Revised Sudden Death. In this format you start with a coin flip and kickoff just like we do now. However, if the first teams scores it must kickoff to the other team and they would then have an opportunity to match the score. If they do we keep it going (I'd probably have to cap this at not starting another round after 10 minutes or so). If the first team turns it over or punts, the second team gets the ball where they get it and if they score they win (sudden death). This way each team gets a chance, but we won't go on forever and it isn't as different as starting at the 25.
Gentlemen,
Both good points, but I'd counter with this: JScott-ever since the Bettis debacle in Motown, the call has been made before the flip, as to alleviate any confusion while the coin is in the air.
Austin-I like scenario number 2, it gives both teams opportunity to have the ball, but puts a limit on how long the game lasts. Not a fan of scenario number one, however. Ties suck. The two sports that feature a high number of ties are hockey and soccer, and they're not doing so hot in America's sports conscious right now.
Of course, football will never sink that low in the ratings, but still-don't just let the game end in a tie.
Pants,
Thanks for the update on the Bettis-gate fallout. By the way, did you know that Jerome Bettis is from Detroit? A vastly underplayed storyline during Super Bowl XL.
I'm also a fan of the "Revised Sudden Death" scenario from the Mind of Austin Henley. Henley, cut-back on the billing for a few days at P/B, write up a nice proposal, and mail that sucker off to ol' Rog in NY.
Post a Comment