The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Do you like the way the NFL plays out OT? 

I don't I think that it should be played the same way do in collage

yes it is fair.  there is no better way to do it.

I don't like the NFL system, but I don't like the college system, either.

I think that the college system eliminates special teams.

I think that the best solution would be to just continue the game into overtime, like they do now, but instead of sudden death, when one team scores, the other team has one more drive to match it.  If they do, you keep playing.  If they don't, the game is over.  At the end of one overtime, the game is over, tied or not.  (You could even do a sudden death overtime, if both teams have scored in OT.)

I don't think that it is fair at all.  Dave I think that it should be the same, just play out the OT no suddendeath.

Yeah, I think they should just play an overtime period.  It doesn't have to be 15 minutes, maybe just 10, but play the whole overtime and whoever is ahead at the end wins.  I hate sudden death ot.

I don't think that there's any reason to keep playing if one team scores and the other team can't answer.  But the current system is incredibly favorable to the one who wins the coin toss, which can't be good.

The college system grossly alters game scores (you can have a low-scoring, defensive battle end 46-45)

I'll just keep quoting my own post anytime the overtime subject comes up...

the team that wins the coinflip wins ot about 56 percentage of the time.  not that huge of an advantage.  and since both teams have an equal chance of starting with the ball, the point is moot. 

  every team would choose to get the ball second and would give a much bigger advantage to the coinflip winner.  the team that gets the ball second would always have 4 downs to get a first down if the other team scored first.

You may not like NFL overtime - but it is totally and completely 100% fair. It's a coin toss that determines possession - there's no fair-er method to select which team gets the ball to start OT.

Overtime is fine as it is.  Football is a game of offense and defense.  The Vikings had a defense on the field, they failed to make a play.

Last night's game was the first time in a championship game that the team that won the OT coin toss won the game.

You play defense, then the coin toss doesn't matter.

The only thing I would change is that there's no opening kickoff to overtime.  A good return can end the game almost instantly.  I would say start at your own 20 so you have to go 50-60 yards minimum before you can even think about a field goal.

I was watching the game yesterday with my neighbor and before the game he mentioned how arbitrary it was for a professional sport to use a coin flip.

I don't like NFL overtime. I think both teams need possession of the ball to be fair.

The two best proposals I have seen are.....

1. the team that recieves the ball first can not kick a FG on opening drive.  (TD or nothing) after that you can win on a FG.

or

2. no kick off.  the team that wins the toss chooses the place the ball will start and direction.  The other team chooses to start on D or O.   So if the coin toss winner picks 30 yard line with the wind odds are they will be defending.  If they choose 1 yard line going into the wind, they probably start on offense. 

^^Why would you not pick the 1 yard line to place the ball?

This is a horrible plan. The first team is forced to play four downs and score a TD while the second team gets benefit of the FG option? Absolutely horrible.

Why are we not even considering that teams get to play defense?  Don't you think a team like the Jets or Ravens would thrive to have their defense on the field.

The current overtime method works.  Offense isn't always an advantage.

Maybe we should make the goal posts narrower for overtime. :)

I think the OT method is fine as is.

Nobody is saying that it's not fair in the current system.  You could just flip a coin for the winner and that would be "fair".

The current system ignores things like momentum, which is huge in football.  Plus, it's anti-climactic, in my opinion.

Cause if you go 3 and out the other team takes over in FG range.  Cause you are throwing out of your own end zone. Cause you need to go about 65 yards to get into FG range.  Cause if the QB gets sacked or fumbles the ball, the game is over and you lose.  How often do teams score if they start on the 1? 


Think it is real bad elect to kickoff. 

And you don't have to play 4 downs, you could punt.  Stop the other team and get the ball back you can win on a FG, you just can't win on a FG on your first possesion. 

If the other team scores first then you're already in the hole (and under the current system, the game would already be over).

Remember that after both teams have had a possession, it becomes sudden death.  So unless you are certain that you will score on your possession, you'd potentially be at a disadvantage to go second.

This, I like.

Well you are wrong. Sudden death would begin if the first team fails to score, the second team would only need a field goal to win.  If the first team scores a touchdown, the second team now is in 4 down territory the entire time.

Guess I misunderstood you.  I thought you said toss winner places the ball and direction and the other team chooses possession.  I think any team would choose to get the ball regardless of field position.  therefore, if i am placing the ball on the 1 yard line, they will take possession, if for no other reason than to prevent me from getting the ball 1 yard from a TD.

Brian, you're still misunderstanding it...

It's the classic "how to cut cake" solution. One guy slices, the other picks.

In this case, one team picks a yard line, the other team picks who starts with the ball. So if Team A picks the 1-yard line, Team B can choose to start with the ball on their own 1 or let Team A start with the ball on THEIR own 1.

So no one ever has 1 yard to go...

The basic principle is that you get the most "equal" splitting of the cake, provided there's a turning point. If you still say "definitely start with the ball even on my own 1", then there's no "optimally fair" solution.

Look at it the other way around. Team A gets to pick how many yards the offense will have to go to score, while Team B gets to pick which team starts on offense.

In the case where there's an "optimally fair" solution, there's going to be some yard line where a coach feels "it really doesn't matter if we start with it or they do". My guess would be around the 10.

what fyo said.

I figure most of the times it will be between the 7 and 15 yard line, 10 sounds about right.  Of course if it is tied 67 to 67 with zero punts and zero turnovers on both sides then I might take it on the one.  OTOH if it is 7-7, both defensive TDs and a grand total of 3 first downs between the 2 teams it might be closer to the 30 yard line. 

But yeah, it is the one person slices the other picks solution. 

he said one team picks yard line AND DIRECTION.  So I wanna put the ball on the 1 yard line and I wanna defend the end zone 99 yards away.  Do you want the ball or not?

Direction --- as in which direction the team that has the ball on say the 5 yard line has to go 95 yards (aginst the wind or with the wind)  not which goal post the team will defend.   

clearly this needs to be thought through.  Typically, in a coin toss, they officials determine direction by which goal they would like to defend, not which way the wind is blowing.  What if its in a dome?

So by fyo's reasoning, you'd place the ball at the 50 every time, and give them 20 yards to go and kick a FG?

No!

1. Toss the coin
2. Ref hand football to the capt of the coin winning team. 
3. Capt places the football on the field (most likily between the 5 and 15 yard line) and points in the direction that the ball will be traveling on its first possesion.
4.  Other teams chooses if they want to play defense or offense. 

One team cuts the cake.  The other team chooses which half is better. 

I think you're taking my "cake-cutting" analogy a bit too far.

I know Hoodie spelled it out, but then I thought I had as well, so I'll give it one more go...

If you and I play and I win the toss, let's say I get to choose the yard line distance-to-go. Let's say I say 99 yards. You then get to pick whether you want to play offense or defense first and the ball will then be placed on the field in such a manner that the offense (whomever that might be) has 99 yards to go.

Clearly, the 1 yard line favors the defense tremendously and most people would choose to start on D, so I'd be foolish to say "99 yards to go". More likely, I'd say something like "90" yards to go. That way, I'd feel that no matter which option you chose (O or D), I'd be OK with it. Yeah, I'd like to play O from the middle, but if I choose "50 yards to go", you're not going to let me play O first and I'd probably lose, so... "90 yards to go" it is.

EDIT: If you want to add "direction of play" to the (cake) mix, it's simple: I get to choose (in the above scenario). So I'd say "90 yards to go against the wind". If it's a really strong wind and I didn't have a VERY good running game, I'd have to push it until I felt that either option (O or D) was OK with me (equal). So maybe "80 yards to go against the strong wind".

From a rule implementation standpoint, you are wrong.

In sudden death, the first team to score wins.  This means that there is no extra-point attempt after a touchdown.

Under the rule I suggested, if the first team did not score and the second team scored a TD, the second team would still have to execute an extra-point attempt, for exactly the same reason that you (currently) still attempt a PAT if you score a winning TD with 0:00 remaining in the 4th quarter.