Why the new playoff overtime rules are beyond stupid

[OmerV]

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.

I imagine it will happen, but I don't believe that will, or at least should, cause the NFL to reassess the rule. Again, there is no perfect OT rule that is immune from any criticism at all, and the league can't just keep changing the rule over and over and over again. The best the league can do is find a rule that has the fewest and/or most minimal issues.

 

[OmerV]

Just have one extra 15 minute quarter.

Give each team a couple of timeouts a piece.

and if it's in the playoffs and still a tie?

 

[CrownCowboy]

and if it's in the playoffs and still a tie?

If it's in the playoffs then the show must go on until there is a winner.

If people think that yet another 15 minute period is too much, alter it and play a smaller extension. I personally would play another 15 minute quarter.

 

[Nav22]

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.

Why do you ignore the fact that, historically speaking, only something like 52% of teams that get the ball first in OT have won the game?

The defense forcing an early takeaway isn't some miraculous occurence that hardly ever happens. You're pretending that's the case because your argument's lacking.

 

[tomsanders921]

The chances are 100% that any team that wins the toss in OT will choose to receive. You want to score and put the pressure on your opponent to have to score. If you put three on the board they have to put up at least three or game over.

You would be fired immediately. By kicking first you give yourself 4 downs to get in scoring range if needed.

 

[ryanbabs]

If the 2nd team scores a TD, they'd go for 2 and the win... or at least they should.

50/50 shot to win the game right then and there with the 2-point conversion.

Less than 50/50 shot to win if you kick the PAT (which isn't even a 100% lock that you make it), then kick off, when your opponent just needs a FG to beat you.

Zero benefit to getting the ball first.

I can see it both ways. It puts more pressure on the second scoring team to score on one single play (if they go for the two points).

 

[OmerV]

Why do you ignore the fact that, historically speaking, only something like 52% of teams that get the ball first in OT have won the game?

The defense forcing an early takeaway isn't some miraculous occurence that hardly ever happens. You're pretending that's the case because your argument's lacking.

"Historically speaking", It's 52.8% in the regular season, but in the playoffs it's 90%, with 70% winning in their first possession.

https://fansided.com/betsided/posts...e playoffs, it's a completely different story.


I didn't even remotely suggest it was miraculous or unheard of for a defense to force a turnover - that's just exaggeration for you to act as if your point is stronger.

I just said it's not the norm that a turnover occurs, and even less so that if it does that it will occur with the team immediately in FG position.

And, again, I've said that even if that is the case, that opportunity will have been earned on the field. Earning opportunities on the field is entirely different than being gifted opportunities by a coin flip.

 

[KJJ]

I imagine it will happen, but I don't believe that will, or at least should, cause the NFL to reassess the rule. Again, there is no perfect OT rule that is immune from any criticism at all, and the league can't just keep changing the rule over and over and over again. The best the league can do is find a rule that has the fewest and/or most minimal issues.

It took one playoff game between Buffalo and KC for the league to tweak the OT rule. I don’t think we’ve seen the end of the playoff OT rule being tweaked if they end up having an OT playoff game that never seems to end, especially if it happens on a Monday night. It would be very unfair for a team to endure a marathon playoff game on Monday night and have to play six days later on the road against a team coming off of bye. That’s my opinion.

 

[KJJ]

You would be fired immediately. By kicking first you give yourself 4 downs to get in scoring range if needed.

That’s not true. By kicking first you’re giving the opponent the opportunity to draw first blood, forcing you to have to match a FG or a TD. That adds a lot more pressure to your possession, because now you’re in a do or die situation. If you don’t score on your first possession, you can punt the ball and pin your opponent deep in their own end of the field. You could force them into a turnover, or if you stop them and force them to punt from deep in their own end you’ll likely end up with great field position and only need an FG to win.

 

[tomsanders921]

That’s not true. By kicking first you’re giving the opponent the opportunity to draw first blood, forcing you to have to match a FG or a TD. That adds a lot more pressure to your possession, because now you’re in a do or die situation. If you don’t score on your first possession, you can punt the ball and pin your opponent deep in their own end of the field. You could force them into a turnover, or if you stop them and force them to punt from deep in their own end you’ll likely end up with great field position and only need an FG to win.

True. But you always want to know what is needed in order to win.

By receiving first, you give yourself 3 downs to get a first. But if the other team scores first, you have 4 downs. I'll take that 100/100 times.

 

[Croomraider]

what a mess! At this point it should just be one extra quarter, obviously the winning coin flip team has a better chance but, one more quarter for crying out loud, this is ridiculous!

 

[Nav22]

"Historically speaking", It's 52.8% in the regular season, but in the playoffs it's 90%, with 70% winning in their first possession.

https://fansided.com/betsided/posts/overtime-record-of-nfl-teams-that-win-coin-toss-in-playoffs-is-astounding#:~:text=According to NFL Research, the current slate of,in the playoffs, it's a completely different story.


I didn't even remotely suggest it was miraculous or unheard of for a defense to force a turnover - that's just exaggeration for you to act as if your point is stronger.

I just said it's not the norm that a turnover occurs, and even less so that if it does that it will occur with the team immediately in FG position.

And, again, I've said that even if that is the case, that opportunity will have been earned on the field. Earning opportunities on the field is entirely different than being gifted opportunities by a coin flip.

Why does it count as "earning it on the field" when the defense makes a big play on the 1st possession, but not when the offense makes a big play on the 1st possession?

Also, 11 playoff OT games is a very small sample size.

 

[Nav22]

I can see it both ways. It puts more pressure on the second scoring team to score on one single play (if they go for the two points).

Just as much pressure on the defense to stop them from getting the 2.

 

[KJJ]

True. But you always want to know what is needed in order to win.

By receiving first, you give yourself 3 downs to get a first. But if the other team scores first, you have 4 downs. I'll take that 100/100 times.

No offense, but your logic makes absolutely no sense. If the other team scores first you’re putting a tremendous amount of pressure on yourself by having to go for it on fourth down if you don’t convert on third down. Your entire season is down to one play. If you lose the game you’ll be criticized for not taking the ball when you won the toss. You can play a lot more relaxed by winning the toss and taking the ball. There’s no rule that says you can’t give yourself four downs on your first possession. A lot of teams go for it on fourth down these days. However, you can punt and pin your opponent deep in their own end of the field. A good defensive stand and you’ll end up with great field position. It’s obvious we see this totally differently.

 

[Whirlwin]

They should play for 30 extra minutes and have field goal kicks like in soccer if need be

15 minutes is more than enough with the same rule you’re talking about

 

[tomsanders921]

No offense, but your logic makes absolutely no sense. If the other team scores first you’re putting a tremendous amount of pressure on yourself by having to go for it on fourth down if you don’t convert on third down. Your entire season is down to one play. If you lose the game you’ll be criticized for not taking the ball when you won the toss. You can play a lot more relaxed by winning the toss and taking the ball. There’s no rule that says you can’t give yourself four downs on your first possession. A lot of teams go for it on fourth down these days. However, you can punt and pin your opponent deep in their own end of the field. A good defensive stand and you’ll end up with great field position. It’s obvious we see this totally differently.

We will have to agree to disagree. It's the same reason college teams elect to defer in overtime. You would much rather know what you need instead of what you "might" need.

 

[KJJ]

We will have to agree to disagree. It's the same reason college teams elect to defer in overtime. You would much rather know what you need instead of what you "might" need.

I don’t follow college football. We disagree and we’ll leave it at that.

 

[Pass2Run]

Reminder: the NFL stupidly changed the playoff OT rules so that a TD on the 1st possession no longer ends the game.

It was a rash decision after the Bills-Chiefs thriller last year, in which the Bills never touched the ball in OT because KC scored on its opening possession.

WAAAAH, poor Buffalo!!!

The logic went as follows: "But this is more fair! Now both teams are guaranteed a possession!"

Actually, it's LESS fair.

In order for overtime to be as fair as possible, there needs to be pros and cons to 1) getting the ball first, and 2) kicking off first. The coin toss must matter as little as possible.

Let's examine that.

Getting the ball first in OT - Regular season rules:

PRO: A TD wins the game!

CON: If we don't even get a FG, we're in grave danger of losing. If we get a FG, we still might lose.

Kicking off first in OT - Regular season rules:

PRO: A stop puts us in a GREAT spot to win the game! Even if we allow a FG, we've still got a shot!

CON: If we allow a TD here, we lose.

Getting the ball first in OT - New playoff rules:

PRO: *crickets*

CON: If we don't even get a FG, we're in grave danger of losing. If we get a FG, we still might lose. Even if we get a TOUCHDOWN, we still might lose - the opponent would have a shot to match our TD, with the benefit of knowing they need a TD so they'll be in 4-down territory... AND they could/should go for 2 if they DO score a TD, since a 50/50 proposition to win the game right then and there would be better odds to win vs kicking off to us in a sudden death situation where even a FG beats them.

Kicking off first in OT - New playoff rules:

PRO: The sweet benefit of knowing exactly what we need to do once we get the ball, regardless of what the opponent does on their opening possession. We get a stop? GREAT! A FG wins the game! We allow a FG, or even a TD? We STILL get a shot to match that, or even top it to win the game!

CONS: *crickets*

BOTTOM LINE: There is no longer any benefit to getting the ball first in OT in the playoffs. In fact, it would make zero sense for the coin toss winner to want the ball first!

That's NOT a good thing - the goal should be for the coin toss to matter as little as possible, with pros and cons for kicking off AND receiving first. So without any benefit for receiving the ball first, the coin toss winner has a much bigger advantage, and therefore the coin toss matters more than ever - let's kick off and see how our defense does, and no matter what happens on the opening possession, we'll have a shot to win once we get the ball!

Thanks for reading, if you made it this far!

I read it all.

And I agree; it's stupid.

 

[Pass2Run]

IMO if you can't win a game in the first 60 minutes then don't complain about sudden death in the 10 minutes afterwards.

But hey, the NFL is an entertainment league

I disagree.

You should want a tie. That means it's a good game. The goal should be to make the game as fair as possible.

 

[ryanbabs]

Just as much pressure on the defense to stop them from getting the 2.

Yep, agreed. That’s why said I can see it both ways.