Why the new playoff overtime rules are beyond stupid

[Doomsday101]

Some of the OT suggestions are laughable. You simply can’t have these prolonged OT periods. Not only are teams coming off a 17 game regular season but let’s say you’re a wildcard team and have to play an extra 30 minutes to settle a playoff game. The following week you could be playing a team that’s coming off a bye. Let’s say they had one of these ridiculous OT rules that are being mentioned between the Cowboys and Bucs on Monday night. The Cowboys are forced to play a 90 minute game and if they pull out the win they’re playing a team 6 days later on the road that’s coming off a bye. We would be at a huge disadvantage.

which is why NFL allows ties during the regular season but as we know there are no ties in post season

 

[KJJ]

Tell that to an NHL player. Not uncommon to play five periods then play the following night. Or get on a plane and play a road game in two nights. Coming off an 82 game season and potentially many playoff games prior.

I don’t follow the NHL but what I do know about the sport is there’s a lot of contact but it’s not a tackle sport. It takes longer for NFL players to recover. This is why the NFL has bye weeks and no longer have two a days in training camp.

 

[OmerV]

The baseball analogy makes no sense.

If a pitcher strikes out the side, does that help the offense score when it's their chance to bat? Nope.

But in football, if a QB throws an INT early in OT, that makes it so the offense doesn't have to do anything. The defense won the game.

That's not "equal". The opposing defense didn't even get a chance.

If you allow a 75-yard TD drive, that's on you.

If you turn the ball over, that's on you.

Under the new rules, we're now giving teams a break for allowing a 75-yard TD drive. But we're still punishing teams that turn the ball over.

Coin toss matters more than it ever did before. BIG advantage to kick off first with zero risk of losing the game on the first possession.

Again, you are ignoring that even if the QB throws an INT you can't say his team never had possession of the ball and therefore never had a chance to score.

My point about baseball wasn't that it is identical to football, it was that there is no scenario in baseball where both teams don't have the opportunity to score when the game goes beyond regulation play.

 

[OmerV]

Eventually this new OT rule is going to come back and bite a team. They’ll be involved in a lengthy OT playoff game and the following week they’re going be stuck having a play a team on the road that’s coming off a bye. Now that they’re having a Monday night playoff game they may only get six days rest, while their opponent had two weeks off. You’ll have a tired team versus a well rested team. At some point the NFL may have to reassess this new OT rule. It’s going to lead to some unfair advantages as the playoffs progress.

I personally don't have a problem with that. There is no way to guarantee all teams will play every game under the same conditions with the same amount of pressure and fatigue.

 

[john van brocklin]

But what if it's the playoffs and it's still tied?

Play another shorter quarter.

 

[Vtwin]

1) Obviously this entire discussion is based on the offense scoring on their opening possession. If the offense doesn't do that, then this rule change doesn't even apply.

So you've finally acknowledged that it's an advantage for the team that kicks off first to get an extra down to work with. That's good.

2) Yes, under the regular season rules, the team that gets the ball first can win with a defensive mistake... just like the other team can win with a single OFFENSIVE mistake, like a turnover.

See how they BOTH have an opportunity to end the game with a huge play?

They've removed the offense's chance to end the game, but kept the defense's chance to do so.

That's silly. And that's why smart teams will generally kick off to start OT now. The new rules clearly favor the team that ends up kicking off.

1. The entire discussion is about the new OT rules. You can't just cherry pick one specific situation.

I "finally acknowledged..."? What? I never did not acknowledge it. One of the foundations of my argument is that there will always be some inherent flaw in any OT rules that stray from playing a timed period.

2. Football is played by both offenses and defenses. The 60 minutes of regulation time are decided by the combined effort of both offense and defense. Offenses have the advantage as they can dictate what the defense has to react to. The offense has exactly the same opportunity to end the game as they did throughout regulation time. Score and let the defense do it's job.

Under the former rules, couldn't the defense end the game just the same as they can now? How is that any more or less "fair" than the offense being able to end the game on the first drive? Maybe you prefer one over the other, fair enough. You can't logically cry foul because you have to live with other equal option though.

For the record.
My second best OT scenario, already stated in this thread, would be to alternate possessions, all starting with a kickoff. Defense gets a stop or forces a turnover, that team takes possession with a kickoff instead of a punt, or at the spot of the turnover. That's not really "fair" either, but it gives both teams the most equal opportunity to win while getting the entire team involved in the outcome. It does take the punt team out of the game but... who cares. lol

 

[Vtwin]

I don’t follow the NHL but what I do know about the sport is there’s a lot of contact but it’s not a tackle sport. It takes longer for NFL players to recover. This is why the NFL has bye weeks and no longer have two a days in training camp.

Having played both, at a much lower than pro level obviously, I am confident that the difference is much less than you might imagine.

Adding another 15 minutes, or even a full half, shouldn't be that big a deal for a NFL athlete, especially considering much of the time you're either on the sidelines or engaging in 10 second spurts of play.

 

[OmerV]

Play another shorter quarter.

I doubt they would consider that. It used to be (many decades ago) additional periods until a winner was decided, then if in regular season it was just one period and if it was tied it was tied. Then it became sudden death, and then what we have now in the regular season and the latest version for the playoffs.

I know that's a bit long winded, but my point is the league seems set on a version that doesn't allow for the possibility of it extending for multiple additional periods. I personally agree with that.

That's why I like the college format. It does allow for multiple OT's, but they are only 1 possession starting from the 25 yard line for each team. Additionally, each team that scores a TD in the 2nd OT has to go for 2, and a 3rd OT just becomes alternating 2 point attempts until one team wins. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty good compromise where each team has equal opportunity.

 

[KJJ]

I personally don't have a problem with that. There is no way to guarantee all teams will play every game under the same conditions with the same amount of pressure and fatigue.

Still, it’s a big disadvantage to have to play a playoff OT that could last 30+ minutes and have to go on the road in six days to play a team that’s coming off a bye. The league has opened the door to that happening with this new OT rule.

 

[KJJ]

Having played both, at a much lower than pro level obviously, I am confident that the difference is much less than you might imagine.

Adding another 15 minutes, or even a full half, shouldn't be that big a deal for a NFL athlete, especially considering much of the time you're either on the sidelines or engaging in 10 second spurts of play.

If it wasn’t a big deal they wouldn’t have reduced regular season OT games to 10 minutes and they would have the same OT rule in place for the regular season and playoffs.

 

[OmerV]

Still, it’s a big disadvantage to have to play a playoff OT that could last 30+ minutes and have to go on the road in six days to play a team that’s coming off a bye. The league has opened the door to that happening with this new OT rule.

I don't disagree that it's a disadvantage, but those are going to be very rare situations and no perfect OT scenarios that are absent any possible issue of any kind. The league just has to find the scenario that best minimizes issues.

 

[Nav22]

Again, you are ignoring that even if the QB throws an INT you can't say his team never had possession of the ball and therefore never had a chance to score.

My point about baseball wasn't that it is identical to football, it was that there is no scenario in baseball where both teams don't have the opportunity to score when the game goes beyond regulation play.

And you still haven't given one reason why it makes sense for the defense to be able to essentially win the game with 1 big play, but not the offense.

If a QB throws an early INT, the other QB doesn't need to do anything. He's already won.

But if a CB slips and allows a long TD, he's given a break. His team's offense STILL gets a full possession, AND with an extra down to play with!

That's not fair or equal, and I think you know it.

 

[Nav22]

1. The entire discussion is about the new OT rules. You can't just cherry pick one specific situation.

I "finally acknowledged..."? What? I never did not acknowledge it. One of the foundations of my argument is that there will always be some inherent flaw in any OT rules that stray from playing a timed period.

2. Football is played by both offenses and defenses. The 60 minutes of regulation time are decided by the combined effort of both offense and defense. Offenses have the advantage as they can dictate what the defense has to react to. The offense has exactly the same opportunity to end the game as they did throughout regulation time. Score and let the defense do it's job.

Under the former rules, couldn't the defense end the game just the same as they can now? How is that any more or less "fair" than the offense being able to end the game on the first drive? Maybe you prefer one over the other, fair enough. You can't logically cry foul because you have to live with other equal option though.

For the record.
My second best OT scenario, already stated in this thread, would be to alternate possessions, all starting with a kickoff. Defense gets a stop or forces a turnover, that team takes possession with a kickoff instead of a punt, or at the spot of the turnover. That's not really "fair" either, but it gives both teams the most equal opportunity to win while getting the entire team involved in the outcome. It does take the punt team out of the game but... who cares. lol

Offense should be able to win the game with 1 big play, just like the defense is able to win the game with 1 big play.

Common sense.

 

[Silverz1972]

Don’t get in that situation.

 

[EST_1986]

I don’t follow college football, but the last time I remember watching a college football OT game the OT seemed to go on forever. The longer an OT period lasts in the playoffs could be a detriment to the winning team the following week. You don’t want to have to play an extra quarter or two to try and settle a game. This is why they reduced the OT to only 10 minutes during the regular season. I think the new rule is fair at least both teams get an opportunity with the ball. College football doesn’t have a 17 game regular season.

Don't think its much longer than playing an entire quarter or even an abbreviated quarter of football, unless it ends on the first or 2nd drive. Its far more exciting and actually fair.

 

[KJJ]

I don't disagree that it's a disadvantage, but those are going to be very rare situations and no perfect OT scenarios that are absent any possible issue of any kind. The league just has to find the scenario that best minimizes issues.

It will be rare when it happens but eventually it’s going to happen and the NFL may have to reassess the OT rule. A Monday night playoff game that goes into a lengthy OT is going to lead to a disadvantage for the winning team. It’s already a disadvantage when you’re only getting six days rest and you’re preparing for a team coming off a bye.

 

[OmerV]

And you still haven't given one reason why it makes sense for the defense to be able to essentially win the game with 1 big play, but not the offense.

If a QB throws an early INT, the other QB doesn't need to do anything. He's already won.

But if a CB slips and allows a long TD, he's given a break. His team's offense STILL gets a full possession, AND with an extra down to play with!

That's not fair or equal, and I think you know it.

I have given you exactly that.

In that case both teams were had the opportunity to possess the ball, and the fact the defense obtained possession and the chance to score was based on actual play on the field and not a random coin flip. Earning possession and a chance to win is not the same as being granted possession and a chance to win by a random coin flip.

 

[Nav22]

I have given you exactly that.

In that case both teams were had the opportunity to possess the ball, and the fact the defense obtained possession and the chance to score was based on actual play on the field and not a random coin flip. Earning possession and a chance to win is not the same as being granted possession and a chance to win by a random coin flip.

You're in spin mode now.

Only ONE defense was given an opportunity in that scenario.

And the other offense didn't need to do anything.

It's sweet of you to blame the defense allowing 75 yards and a TD on a coin flip, though.

Silly me, I used to think that was the defense's fault!

 

[OmerV]

You're in spin mode now.

Only ONE defense was given an opportunity in that scenario.

And the other offense didn't need to do anything.

It's sweet of you to blame the defense allowing 75 yards and a TD on a coin flip, though.

Silly me, I used to think that was the defense's fault!

First, you are still ridiculously acting as if the defense, who does not have possession of the ball, has the same opportunity to score as an offense that does. Which again, contradicts your original claim that the offense who gets the ball in OT has an advantage.

The idea is for both teams to get a chance to possess the ball because a team cannot score a point or win a game without it.

There is no perfect OT scenario with zero issues, but a team earning possession and a chance to win is certainly more legitimate than a team getting that chance through a random coin flip.

 

[CrownCowboy]

Just have one extra 15 minute quarter.

Give each team a couple of timeouts a piece.