Target score (aka "Elam") ending applied to NFL = Smart approach to OT

[_sturt_]

Fully understand that the snipers will number appx. 100 for every 1 person who says, "Damn. I like that."

But do I care? Question answers itself.

... and to clarify perhaps... "10 points more than the higher score at the end of regulation" is one and the same as the target score.

So, if we go to OT with a score of Cowboys 24 Eagles 20 with 3:49 left in the 4th quarter, the Cowboys having just went ahead will kick off to the Eagles, the target score will be 34 points, and the clock says 10:00.

 

[Flamma]

Aah this again. K.I.S.S. Are we familiar with that term?

I'm not saying the content in the OP is a bad idea. Just not necessary. Just like we don't need a 900 page tome on how to take the cork off the bottle. Keep it simple. First team to score anything in OT wins. Home team chooses to receive or kickoff. No coin toss. Think of it as home field advantage.

 

[_sturt_]

Aah this again. K.I.S.S. Are we familiar with that term?

I'm not saying the content in the OP is a bad idea. Just not necessary. Just like we don't need a 900 page tome on how to take the cork off the bottle. Keep it simple. First team to score anything in OT wins. Home team chooses to receive or kickoff. No coin toss. Think of it as home field advantage.

I am familiar with that term.

And I appreciate the sentiment, I really do... extending the thought, anytime you're thinking about a rule change, I begin with the premise that you need to boil down a given game to it's most fundamental elements and consider those fundamentals off-limits.

For instance, if you're trying to resolve the perceived problem in what used to be called "baseball" (now "Manfredball") regarding extra innings, you should understand that a fundamental element to that game has always been that a batter must earn his way on to base, either by getting a hit, by earning a walk, or by a passed ball on a third strike and beating a throw to first base. That, then, is blatantly offended when you choose to award runners in extra innings. There were/are other ways to achieve the desired outcome that would not have offended such a fundamental element, but no, Manfred chose a radical option, one that we're left to think had high support among baseball/Mandfredball media.

Are you familiar with reductio ad absurdum?

Because the claim was just put out there that what was explained on a single slide is the equivalent of a 900 page tome.

Then, to your credit, you seem to acknowledge change is merited... but then why would change be merited if not to make the result of a game seem more fair to both teams? How does it make sense to you to go the complete other direction and just say, "Let's just make the already-existing home field advantage even more substantial... tilt the field still further than what is naturally necessary."

So, but, we at least have a starting point, agreeing that change is merited.

And to be fair to you... though again, it goes too far to claim that the proposal above is 900 pages of complexity when, to the contrary, it all fits on a single slide... it is true that this is an out-of-the-box-thinking concept. So, though it fits on one slide, and though all of us grew up playing in the backyard "first team to score X wins [whatever game we were playing]"... it's not been applied to professional sports until recently (basketball).

Thus, it might not be "complex," and it might not be "unfamiliar," but it's definitely a new application of an old idea... and so, a little disruptive to how we've ever thought about resolving the problem.

I'm making the case that it's a highly reasonable way of putting an end to all the hand-wringing over NFL overtimes. And with a few nuances added as suggested, it's more than highly reasonable, it's about as ideal as could be imagined.

 

[Flamma]

I am familiar with that term.

And I appreciate the sentiment, I really do... extending the thought, anytime you're thinking about a rule change, I begin with the premise that you need to boil down a given game to it's most fundamental elements and consider those fundamentals off-limits.

For instance, if you're trying to resolve the perceived problem in what used to be called "baseball" (now "Manfredball") regarding extra innings, you should understand that a fundamental element to that game has always been that a batter must earn his way on to base, either by getting a hit, by earning a walk, or by a passed ball on a third strike and beating a throw to first base. That, then, is blatantly offended when you choose to award runners in extra innings. There were/are other ways to achieve the desired outcome that would not have offended such a fundamental element, but no, Manfred chose a radical option, one that we're left to think had high support among baseball/Mandfredball media.

Are you familiar with reductio ad absurdum?

Because the claim was just put out there that what was explained on a single slide is the equivalent of a 900 page tome.

Then, to your credit, you seem to acknowledge change is merited... but then why would change be merited if not to make the result of a game seem more fair to both teams? How does it make sense to you to go the complete other direction and just say, "Let's just make the already-existing home field advantage even more substantial... tilt the field still further than what is naturally necessary."

So, but, we at least have a starting point, agreeing that change is merited.

And to be fair to you... though again, it goes too far to claim that the proposal above is 900 pages of complexity when, to the contrary, it all fits on a single slide... it is true that this is an out-of-the-box-thinking concept. So, though it fits on one slide, and though all of us grew up playing in the backyard "first team to score X wins [whatever game we were playing]"... it's not been applied to professional sports until recently (basketball).

Thus, it might not be "complex," and it might not be "unfamiliar," but it's definitely a new application of an old idea... and so, a little disruptive to how we've ever thought about resolving the problem.

I'm making the case that it's a highly reasonable way of putting an end to all the hand-wringing over NFL overtimes. And with a few nuances added as suggested, it's more than highly reasonable, it's about as ideal as could be imagined.

Excellent post. I appreciate the response and enjoyed reading it. You are both obviously intelligent and comical at the same time. I enjoyed reading this post. My exaggerations aside, I agree with you. I just don't think it necessary. I don't care if it's fair. It's simple. If fair was the be all end all, every game would be played a neutral site. No need to make it more complicated than it needs to be. You are the away team. The other team gets the ball first and kicks a FG to win the game. Game over. Too bad, so sad. That's just my opinion. No need for the modified Elam ending.