Title: Any rule changes in 2017 worth noting? Post by: Dave Gray on February 26, 2017, 10:21:09 am I haven't played close attention to the NFL this off-season, admittedly. Normally we do a "what should change"/"what did change" in terms of NFL rule changes. Where are we in that process and what should/did change?
Title: Re: Any rule changes in 2017 worth noting? Post by: BuccaneerBrad on February 26, 2017, 11:33:06 am Overtime should be played like college football. Kansas tiebreaker where each team gets an equal chance to win each period
Title: Re: Any rule changes in 2017 worth noting? Post by: masterfins on February 26, 2017, 03:39:05 pm ^^^ I like the existing OT rules, Sudden Death if you score a touchdown.
Title: Re: Any rule changes in 2017 worth noting? Post by: Spider-Dan on February 26, 2017, 04:50:34 pm I think they should get rid of the TD provision. Each team gets one possession, if it's tied after that, sudden death.
Title: Re: Any rule changes in 2017 worth noting? Post by: MyGodWearsAHoodie on February 27, 2017, 01:46:03 pm Get rid of the anti celebration rule. If you are not on the sidelines when the kickoff is suppose to occur it is a delay of game. HOWEVER, if the networks want to show the celebration then the must give up having a commercial, no delaying the game because the network was late going to commercial. Basically players can have their dance, folks at the game get to see it, but it doesn't get televised live. (But it can be shown on the highlight shows)
Title: Re: Any rule changes in 2017 worth noting? Post by: mecadonzilla on February 27, 2017, 01:51:33 pm I think they should get rid of the TD provision. Each team gets one possession, if it's tied after that, sudden death. +1 It seems the most equitable while keeping the idea of sudden death looming. I don't like the current FG rule either. Each team should get one possession. After that, sudden death. Title: Re: Any rule changes in 2017 worth noting? Post by: MyGodWearsAHoodie on February 27, 2017, 01:55:43 pm +1 It seems the most equitable while keeping the idea of sudden death looming. I don't like the current FG rule either. Each team should get one possession. After that, sudden death. I would get rid of overtime for all non playoff games entirely. Ends in a tie it ends in a tie. Title: Re: Any rule changes in 2017 worth noting? Post by: Spider-Dan on February 27, 2017, 02:24:15 pm Football is the worst sport to do that in. With only 16 games, ties throw the already-complex tiebreaker system into complete nonsensical chaos.
Title: Re: Any rule changes in 2017 worth noting? Post by: MyGodWearsAHoodie on February 27, 2017, 05:05:31 pm Football is the worst sport to do that in. With only 16 games, ties throw the already-complex tiebreaker system into complete nonsensical chaos. Not really. You are less likely to need tiebreakers if you allow ties. A 9-6-1 team surpasses every 9-7 team and loses to every 10-6 team. If two teams in the same division tied one game and end the season with the same record it will be decided on first tiebreaker head to head (the other game) Title: Re: Any rule changes in 2017 worth noting? Post by: Spider-Dan on February 27, 2017, 07:54:33 pm Not really. You are less likely to need tiebreakers if you allow ties. A 9-6-1 team surpasses every 9-7 team and loses to every 10-6 team. If two teams in the same division tied one game and end the season with the same record it will be decided on first tiebreaker head to head (the other game) It only appears this way because of how few ties there are in the NFL.11 games went to OT last season. MIA finished 10-6, but would have been 8-6-2 under your rules, in a logjam with any team that finished 9-7. Furthermore, have you ever looked at late season playoff clinching implications when ties are involved? The scenarios are ridiculous, and having a dozen ties per season would basically make Selection Monday a reality in the NFL. Title: Re: Any rule changes in 2017 worth noting? Post by: MyGodWearsAHoodie on February 28, 2017, 01:15:53 pm Only one change would have happened, Tenn would have gotten Mia 6 seed.
However, week 17 would have been more interesting, rather than MIA NE being a pretty much meaningless game for both parties, MIA would have played to win. Title: Re: Any rule changes in 2017 worth noting? Post by: Phishfan on February 28, 2017, 01:20:51 pm Only one change would have happened, Tenn would have gotten Mia 6 seed. I'm not sure you looked at this correctly. Miami's record was 10-6. Tenn was 9-7. In no sane world can a 9-6-1 team outpoint a 10-6 team for a wildcard spot. Adding more ties into the mix does nothing to improve the NFL. OOPS. I forgot Miami played overtime. Title: Re: Any rule changes in 2017 worth noting? Post by: MyGodWearsAHoodie on February 28, 2017, 01:36:19 pm I'm not sure you looked at this correctly. Miami's record was 10-6. Tenn was 9-7. In no sane world can a 9-6-1 team outpoint a 10-6 team for a wildcard spot. Adding more ties into the mix does nothing to improve the NFL. No they would be 8 6 2 same as 9 7, Tenn beat Mia head to head Title: Re: Any rule changes in 2017 worth noting? Post by: Spider-Dan on February 28, 2017, 03:09:20 pm Only one change would have happened, Tenn would have gotten Mia 6 seed. Incorrect. 9-7 DEN lost an OT game in week 12, which would make them 9-6-1, better than TEN's 9-7 and MIA's 8-6-2. (edit: but 9-7 TEN would have won the AFCS over 8-7-1 HOU and IND)But that's not really even the point. Tiebreaker scenarios in week 17, which were almost entirely already resolved this season, would have been total chaos. You could literally have a Selection Sunday special after the SNF game. Keep in mind that the more teams you have tied in record, the more likely you are to get down into the weeds in the tiebreaker scenarios (plus you are reducing the number of head-to-head wins, which is a primary tiebreaker). Does anyone want to see playoff berths regularly coming down to the score of games like in college? The last thing the NFL needs is more ties. Title: Re: Any rule changes in 2017 worth noting? Post by: MyGodWearsAHoodie on February 28, 2017, 03:19:26 pm Incorrect. 9-7 DEN lost an OT game in week 12, which would make them 9-6-1, better than TEN's 9-7 and MIA's 8-6-2. But that's not really even the point. Tiebreaker scenarios in week 17, which were almost entirely already resolved this season, would have been total chaos. You could literally have a Selection Sunday special after the SNF game. Keep in mind that the more teams you have tied in record, the more likely you are to get down into the weeds in the tiebreaker scenarios (plus you are reducing the number of head-to-head wins, which is a primary tiebreaker). Does anyone want to see playoff berths regularly coming down to the score of games like in college? The last thing the NFL needs is more ties. I am not sure what you mean by selection Sunday. If you mean coin toss...no it wouldn't no reason to thinks ties will prevent things being determined by current tie breakers. If you mean rather than there being only 3 or 4 meaningful games week 17 there is 7 or 8 games with playoff implications then I am all for it. Best case situation the NFL could ever have is in week 17, having 8 games in which the outcome determines the winner of the division and a couple of others with wildcard implications. Worst situation is the standing being set for all 12 playoff teams. That is why I LOVE the change to having mostly divisional games week 15-17. |