Why the new playoff overtime rules are beyond stupid

[Boysdaboys]

I forgot about this rule change. You're definitely right about getting the ball first in many instances not being an advantage.

I suppose maybe if you have a tired defense that just gave up the game tying td it could make sense if you win the coin toss to receive. Or if you're the opposing team and don't want to give your opponent a chance to regroup.

Yeah the disadvantage of getting the ball first is that there is no great way to truly give yourself an advantage.

I suppose you could get a TD and the 2 point conversion. But if you fail on the two point try, the opposition only needs a TD and XP to win.

 

[Bobhaze]

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 hate the NFLs OT rules. I would rather see them have rules similar to college OT but instead of getting the ball at the 25, you get it at midfield. Both teams would get possessions. After 1 OT if still tied, you could do a kicker shoot out or simply require teams to use 2 pt conversions. The NFL’s new OT rules are knee-jerk reactions to last year’s bills-chiefs game.

 

[LonnieElam]

First, the NFL changes the rule for the Bills, and now they're going to make damn sure they win the Super Bowl. Just watch.

 

[calico]

The NFL always over thinks and takes 100 different directions to go in a straight line.

 

[Momanpr100]

This the reason I don't like Josh Allen, I don't like Qbs that gets the rules changed, like Brady. The OT rules was perfect, this isn't college. Mahommes didn't cry when the same thing happened to him.

 

[Sydla]

Ehhhh, I honestly can't too worked up about this. The old rule was dumb.

 

[EST_1986]

Boom! College got it right. The pros not so much.

the college OT is fun to watch from a fans perspective and actually fair to both teams

 

[OmerV]

Just playing devil's advocate here but wouldn't you consider the defense having the opportunity to stop their opponent from scoring an equal opportunity to win. These 2 phases of the game equally oppose each other (in theory). If you (your team) loses in OT then the correct way to look at it is that your defense should have stopped the opposing offense and got the ball for their offense.

Seems that in this offense oriented era that folks forget these equally opposing phases of the game.

No, because you don't win when you stop the opponent. You still have to play on the other side of the ball. The team with the ball can win without ever having the burden of having to stop the opponent.

 

[aikemirv]

Under the new playoff OT rules, the coin toss matters MORE, not less.

They should have negated a bit of the advantage and made them both go for 2 on TD's in OT.

 

[Nav22]

This doesn't make sense.

You say to make OT fair there has to be pros and cons to getting the ball first, and to receiving the kick first, and that the coin toss should matter as little as possible.

Then you argue that the regular season rules are more fair, when in fact, under that format there are no pros to kicking, no cons to receiving first, and coin toss makes a massive difference.

UNDER REGULAR SEASON RULES,
* There is no pro to kicking first because it gives the opponent the chance to win without your team ever getting the ball
* There is no con to receiving first because it gives your team the chance to win without ever having to stop the opponent's offense
* In other words, the kicking team can win only if both their offense and defense performs. The receiving team only needs its offense to perform.
* It's like if in extra innings in baseball the visiting team scored and the home team was denied their turn at bat.

UNDER PLAYOFF RULES
* BOTH offense and defense have to perform for BOTH teams in order to win.
* The coin toss doesn't give one team the chance to win without it's defense having to perform
* The team that wins the coin toss still has to weigh the pros and cons of kicking or receiving first just like the winner of the coin toss does at the beginning of every game.
* This format the format that fits your own criteria.

Why on Earth would a team elect to receive under the new playoff OT rules?

There should be a built-in "pro" to getting the ball first, like "if we drive down the field and score a TD, we win the game."

The built-in "con" under the previous format to getting the ball first was "if we don't get at least a FG, we're in big trouble."

There's no longer any built-in "pro" to getting the ball first. At all. Nor are there any built-in "cons" to kicking off first, since that team is guaranteed the benefit of knowing exactly what they need to do after their opponent starts with the ball.

That means the coin toss matters more than it ever did. Teams that know what they're doing will now elect to kick off, every single time.

 

[Nav22]

They should have negated a bit of the advantage and made them both go for 2 on TD's in OT.

Great point.

 

[Kevinicus]

Exactly, I hate when people use that argument, it's a dumb one. Your defense has every opportunity to stop the opponent from scoring a touchdown. I agree, I hate the new rule change, people just wanted to see the KC-Bills game go on forever I guess, but somebody had to lose eventually.

I don't like this argument, because it doesn't incorporate both of the primary aspects of the game for both teams. Teams are built differently. They have different strengths and weaknesses.

A strong offense that's offset by a bad defense shouldn't be punished anymore than a team with a poor offense supplemented by a strong defense should be rewarded.

Two teams with strong offenses and poor defenses should have both their strengths and weaknesses in play in OT. Not just the strength of one against the weakness of other. That's bad football.

Sudden death is a poor way to handle a game that has "possessions." As is anything that potentially gives one team an opportunity to play to their strengths and not have to deal with their weaknesses, or to not have to deal with the strength of the other team.

The only truly responsible way to handle OT is some form that is at least similar to college, where both teams get equal opportunities for both their offense and defense (and a little bit of ST). There is a lot of room to work under that framework so that it doesn't make it ridiculous, like College can sometimes be, but also makes the game fair and makes both teams play the game with all strengths and weaknesses in play.

 

[Kevinicus]

Why on Earth would a team elect to receive under the new playoff OT rules?

There should be a built-in "pro" to getting the ball first, like "if we drive down the field and score a TD, we win the game."

The built-in "con" under the previous format to getting the ball first was "if we don't get at least a FG, we're in big trouble."

There's no longer any built-in "pro" to getting the ball first. At all. Nor are there any built-in "cons" to kicking off first, since that team is guaranteed the benefit of knowing exactly what they need to do after their opponent starts with the ball.

That means the coin toss matters more than it ever did. Teams that know what they're doing will now elect to kick off, every single time.

The pro would be, if both teams score and it's still tied, they get first crack at "sudden death."

The built-in pro to the old rule far outweighed the built-in con of "if we don't move the ball the other team gets it."

The con, is not even much of a con, as even if a team gains 0 yards and they have to punt, odds are they would be putting the other team close to the other 25 yard line anyway. Which would create a pretty equal scenario where they both start around the same place.

Sudden death was awful.
The recent rules were slightly better, but still extremely flawed.
The new playoff rules (which it's very stupid to have different playoff rules for this), are again, very slightly better, but still extremely flawed. But, to one of your earlier points, the coin-toss does matter slightly less now, not more as you claim. The pro-con are fairly negligent now, whereas they favored the pro far more in non-playoff games.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

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 agree with you. They should have kept it the same. Buffalo has only themselves to blame for losing that playoff game to KC last year. They had the game won if they could just hold Mahommes and KC for 13 seconds. They couldn't do it. They couldn't hold them for THIRTEEN SECONDS. Mahommes and that offense is really good, but come on. 13 seconds???????????

 

[MS17]

I hate the NFLs OT rules. I would rather see them have rules similar to college OT but instead of getting the ball at the 25, you get it at midfield. Both teams would get possessions. After 1 OT if still tied, you could do a kicker shoot out or simply require teams to use 2 pt conversions. The NFL’s new OT rules are knee-jerk reactions to last year’s bills-chiefs game.

Agree, I think the league and owners approved the post season OT rules overreacting to the Bills-Chiefs game ending.
I know Im probably in the minority on this, but believe that the post season OT rules (w/additional periods) should apply to the regular season as well. One 10 minute OT is too simplistic and a lot of fans really don't want to see a game ending in a tie.

 

[jazzcat22]

I hate they changed it to 10 minutes. However since it is 10 minutes. Just play the full 10 minutes, regardless of how much scoring happens.

 

[Miller]

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!

In big agreement with most of this. I also think it’s an advantage if you get the ball second knowing what you need because punting is never an option if you need a TD or FG. It makes you game plan over 4 plays and the other team is playing D on the edge. Some may find that silly but it allows them to be looser to get what they need.

 

[Point-of-the-Star]

No, because you don't win when you stop the opponent. You still have to play on the other side of the ball. The team with the ball can win without ever having the burden of having to stop the opponent.

technically you're right but also technically the defense can score too never requiring the offensive side to have to touch the ball. Carolina did so against us. If this was the playoffs then the Cowboy offense would have another chance to score?

Or is it that in OT both teams just need to have an offensive possession --- period?

 

[Nav22]

The pro would be, if both teams score and it's still tied, they get first crack at "sudden death."

The built-in pro to the old rule far outweighed the built-in con of "if we don't move the ball the other team gets it."

The con, is not even much of a con, as even if a team gains 0 yards and they have to punt, odds are they would be putting the other team close to the other 25 yard line anyway. Which would create a pretty equal scenario where they both start around the same place.

Sudden death was awful.
The recent rules were slightly better, but still extremely flawed.
The new playoff rules (which it's very stupid to have different playoff rules for this), are again, very slightly better, but still extremely flawed. But, to one of your earlier points, the coin-toss does matter slightly less now, not more as you claim. The pro-con are fairly negligent now, whereas they favored the pro far more in non-playoff games.

If both teams score a TD in OT, the 2nd team would/should go for 2 and the win. Because a 50/50 shot to win is better than kicking off and letting your opponent get first crack at the ball needing only a FG to win.

So that negates any "pro" of getting the ball first.

I agree that the built-in "pro" of getting the ball first under the previous rules outweighed the "con", in most cases.

But now there's no built-in "pro" at all.

 

[GORICO]

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!

you "sold me"---i hate it