Why the new playoff overtime rules are beyond stupid

[John813]

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.

I don't mind ties but for the playoffs you need to gpend the game with a Victor

 

[Asklesko]

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

I don't think so. I think that some would grouse that field goals are no way to decide a game. But after thirty minutes, how could anyone argue? Plus, I think more game is better than less.

 

[Whirlwin]

I don't think so. I think that some would grouse that field goals are no way to decide a game. But after thirty minutes, how could anyone argue? Plus, I think more game is better than less.

Do you know how brutal that is on the players?

 

[pansophy]

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 think these are all artifacts that they have changed the rules so much to favor the offense it may not be realistic to expect defenses to be able to make a stop against top offenses and it therefore gives the sense of being unfair.

 

[Asklesko]

Do you know how brutal that is on the players?

fifteen more minutes is not an excessive demand for coming to a more definitive conclusion as to whom is superior on the football field.

 

[Whirlwin]

fifteen more minutes is not an excessive demand for coming to a more definitive conclusion as to whom is superior on the football field.

That’s why it’s so hard to figure out no one agrees

 

[cowboybish]

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 feel no matter how you decide to outline overtime, each team should have the opportunity to touch the ball at least once.

 

[BoyzBlaster]

I don't think this makes a lot of sense. I could easily see a team choosing to take the ball first if they are rolling on offense and want to put the pressure on the other team thinking they will score first.

 

[DandyDon52]

Who decides on these rules? You'd think they'd be better at it.

I am guessing it is the competition committee and jerrys daughter is on that.
The networks evidently dont like games to run much over regulation. They have to omit shows for that nite if it runs
too far over.
I think they should just add another qrt, a 10 min one and whoever is ahead after 10 min is up is the winner.
If still tied the 2 HC do a rock paper scissors at middle of field lol and winner wins the game.
Most times a team will be ahead, but if not it is rock paper scissors lol.

 

[Flamma]

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

By kicking it off first, you know they can't beat you on their drive. Not only for the reason you pointed out, but there's a possibility of a turnover.

 

[Flamma]

They can avoid all of this coin toss crap by just removing the coin toss in OT. Home field gets choice. Just go back to sudden death or first to 6 points.

The one thing I don't want to see is a college style OT. I turn off any college game that goes to OT. It's a gimmick. Something you make up in your backyard.

 

[diamonddelts]

It is because as a country, we have become soft. The NFL is no different....

Go to the poor side of town in your city and repeat those words.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Each team should have the chance to touch the ball at least once in OT in the playoffs, I think that is very fair.

Now if you want to make it more like college football or say you have to go for 2 after you score a TD or whatever, I am not against any changes as long as each team gets the ball at least once.

 

[Flamma]

Each team should have the chance to touch the ball at least once in OT in the playoffs, I think that is very fair.

Now if you want to make it more like college football or say you have to go for 2 after you score a TD or whatever, I am not against any changes as long as each team gets the ball at least once.

I literally doesn't do anything to make it fairer than the previous rules. If both teams score a touchdown, then we're back to square one, and all they accomplished was to waste more time. Because the team that won the coin toss just needs a FG to win from that point on.

 

[Kevinicus]

There should be pros AND cons for getting the ball first.

There should be pros AND cons for kicking off first.

That's how the coin flip loses importance.

There's no longer any "pro" to getting the ball first. That's the problem.

So now the coin flip matters more than it did before.

The goal should be insignificant pros and cons.

A hugely significant pro that only has a 70% (way less than that really) chance is WAY WAY more impactful than a miniscule (essentially 0) pro that happens 100% of the time.

 

[offlimits]

I prefer sudden death overtime. You know, like it used to be.

Completely agree. The first team to score... game over. It was much more dramatic. NFL keeps trying to fix problems that don't exist.

 

[OmerV]

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.

I didn't say rules never get tweaked, but they can't be, and aren't, tweaked every time someone complains.

It made sense in the case of that game because a coin flip resulted in only one team got a chance to score a TD.

Under that rule that possibility was in play every single OT. You're talking about something that would be very rare, and is just a factor in playing out games.

 

[kskboys]

Completely agree. The first team to score... game over. It was much more dramatic. NFL keeps trying to fix problems that don't exist.

Yup.

I have yet to see a better suggestion than the old way.

My only other thought is that maybe they need to tweak some rules in the 4th qtr to avoid OT. More 2 and 3 point plays, maybe?

 

[KJJ]

I didn't say rules never get tweaked, but they can't be, and aren't, tweaked every time someone complains.

It made sense in the case of that game because a coin flip resulted in only one team got a chance to score a TD.

Under that rule that possibility was in play every single OT. You're talking about something that would be very rare, and is just a factor in playing out games.

They changed the OT rule for the playoffs because of one exciting game where one team never got a chance with the ball. Everyone was so disappointed Buffalo never got a shot with the ball, and lead to a rule change just for the playoffs. The playoffs have changed a number of rules. The incidental contact rule came into place because of the Benny Barnes/Lynn Swann PI in the Super Bowl. Dez’s catch against the Packers in 2014 that was overturned, because of a dumb rule resulted in changing the catch rule. An OT playoff game lasting an extra 20-30 minutes would be extremely rare, it’s only happened once. However, if it ever happens again during a Monday night playoff game or even during a Sunday playoff game and it results in a serious injury to a key player or a team being tired and beat up and having to turn around and play six days later against a team coming off of bye, the rule could be changed again.

 

[coult44]

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!

A coin toss should not effect the outcome of an event at which hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake!!