Why the new playoff overtime rules are beyond stupid

[Cowpolk]

The rule change is good

 

[Motorola]

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 was not aware but just saw an article saying the rules have changed since that chiefs bills game last postseason.

Now both teams will possess the balls even if the first team scores a touchdown.

What would be the chances of this team having an overtime game, winning the toss, and choosing to receive?J

Where was the hue and cry, the outrage just three years before, when the same thing happen in the AFC Championship in 2019?
•Tied 31-31 at the end of regulation
• Patriots won the coin toss and chose to receive the OT kickoff.
• NE went on a 13-play, 75-yard drive that ended in a rush TD.
• GAME OVER....37-31...Patriots are the conference champions.

 

[Nav22]

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.

You say this as if it's twice as hard to get a stop/kick a FG as it is to drive 75 yards to score a TD.

It's not.

 

[OmerV]

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.

Why do some teams elect to recieve to start the game? Maybe they feel if they score that will put pressure on the other team.

It's odd you say there should be a "built in pro to getting the ball first, yet say the coin flip should matter as little as possible. Those are contradictory thoughts.

As for the con under the previous format of "we ar

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.

Why do teams sometimes elect to kick off to begin games? Maybe they feel their defense sets the tone and puts pressure on the opponent. Why wouldn't that apply in OT under the new format?

I find it funny that you keep saying the coin flip should matter as little as possible, yet you also say there should be a built in pro to getting the ball first. Those are contradictory ideas. Getting an advantage by getting the ball first actually makes the coin flip matter more. Hell, all your arguments contradict your claim that the coin flip should matter as little as possible. Your arguments are all based on the idea that the winner of the coin flip should get the advantage.

As for the "con" you suggest under the old format of the offense thinking "if we don't get at least a FG or we are in big trouble", how in the world is that a bigger con than the defense thinking "if we give up a TD we lose"? If receiving the ball and you fail, you are still alive in the game. If kicking the ball, and you fail to the point of giving up a TD you aren't alive - you just lose without ever having had a chance to score at all. It makes no sense to suggest a team would rather give the opponent a chance to win without ever them ever having to play defense than to give yourself a chance to win without ever having to play defense,

 

[catiii]

Just add on 30 minutes and whoever is ahead at the end wins.

 

[Smashin222]

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!

Fairness isn't decided by requiring there to be meaningful weight to a random chance event (the coin flip). Fairness is in fact neutralizing the value of random chance or apportioning the upside and downside of those random chance events evenly between both teams. The MOST fair outcome is one that doesn't differentiate the teams whatsoever which is what the rule tries to achieve.

Where you went wrong is here: "

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.

That's an unjustified assumption/conclusion. For it to be as fair as possible there should be no difference between 1 and 2, otherwise you're assigning an advantage based on the random chance event (again, the coin toss). You also haven't assigned any value to scoring first and putting immense pressure on the opposing offense to respond which is traditionally why coaches opt for the ball first in games despite the advantages you describe above applying similarly to having the ball first in the second half.

The coin toss must matter as little as possible.

This is correct - and what the current rule tries to achieve.

 

[Kevinicus]

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.

I think it's a big assumption to say that the 2nd team would go for the 2 and a win. How many drives, after a kickoff result in a FG? Is it greater than 50%? It wasn't long ago you suggested getting the kickoff was a potential con, depending on what the team did with it.

A 50/50 shot seems non-advantageous to all. Sounds good. Maybe require the teams to go for 2 on all TDs in overtime?

 

[Vtwin]

The coin toss in playoff OT matters MORE now, since there's now zero benefit to getting the ball first.

Help me understand this.

If there is "zero benefit" to winning the toss, how does that make the coin toss more of a factor? Logic leads me to the conclusion that the coin toss is essentially meaningless under the new rules, when before it was a huge factor.

My version of OT would either be a full period to let things play out under normal conditions, or alternating possessions until a winner is determined by points. The alternating possessions would all start with a kickoff. Drive the field and score, or get stopped and kickoff to the opposition and try and stop them from driving the field and scoring.

I would favor those both from a fan perspective and a player/coach perspective.

 

[OmerV]

You say this as if it's twice as hard to get a stop/kick a FG as it is to drive 75 yards to score a TD.

It's not.

It's certainly harder to require both a defensive stop and an offensive success to win than to just have an offensive success to win. Again, kicking the ball requires the success of both your offense and defense, whereas receiving your team has a chance to win without ever requiring your defense to do anything.

It's probably not twice as hard, but it is harder, and therefore the coin flip has greater impact than if both teams are guaranteed a possession.

 

[Vtwin]

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.

And there shouldn't be. It makes no sense to build in a "pro" that can determine the outcome of an entire season, on a lucky coin flip.

 

[OmerV]

And there shouldn't be. It makes no sense to build in a "pro" that can determine the outcome of an entire season, on a lucky coin flip.

Exactly, yet he is somehow arguing that by giving the recipient of the lucky coin flip an advantage that makes the coin flip less meaningful. How in the world he thinks that is logical is baffling

 

[Vtwin]

Exactly, yet he is somehow arguing that by giving the recipient of the lucky coin flip an advantage that makes the coin flip less meaningful. How in the world he thinks that is logical is baffling

It's so obvious to me that I wondered just what I could possibly be missing.

I'm open to having it explained to me but I just don't see it from here.

 

[Denim Chicken]

The coin toss in playoff OT matters MORE now, since there's now zero benefit to getting the ball first.

that doesn't make sense. If zero benefit to getting the ball first, the toss matters less as that it what determines who gets the ball.

 

[Nav22]

Why do some teams elect to recieve to start the game? Maybe they feel if they score that will put pressure on the other team.

It's odd you say there should be a "built in pro to getting the ball first, yet say the coin flip should matter as little as possible. Those are contradictory thoughts.

As for the con under the previous format of "we ar

Why do teams sometimes elect to kick off to begin games? Maybe they feel their defense sets the tone and puts pressure on the opponent. Why wouldn't that apply in OT under the new format?

I find it funny that you keep saying the coin flip should matter as little as possible, yet you also say there should be a built in pro to getting the ball first. Those are contradictory ideas. Getting an advantage by getting the ball first actually makes the coin flip matter more. Hell, all your arguments contradict your claim that the coin flip should matter as little as possible. Your arguments are all based on the idea that the winner of the coin flip should get the advantage.

As for the "con" you suggest under the old format of the offense thinking "if we don't get at least a FG or we are in big trouble", how in the world is that a bigger con than the defense thinking "if we give up a TD we lose"? If receiving the ball and you fail, you are still alive in the game. If kicking the ball, and you fail to the point of giving up a TD you aren't alive - you just lose without ever having had a chance to score at all. It makes no sense to suggest a team would rather give the opponent a chance to win without ever them ever having to play defense than to give yourself a chance to win without ever having to play defense,

The point that you keep missing is that under the regular season format, there are pros and cons to EACH situation.

Under the new playoff format, there are no "pros" to getting the ball first.

So that means the coin toss matters more now than it did before.

Zero benefit to getting the ball first.

 

[Nav22]

Fairness isn't decided by requiring there to be meaningful weight to a random chance event (the coin flip). Fairness is in fact neutralizing the value of random chance or apportioning the upside and downside of those random chance events evenly between both teams. The MOST fair outcome is one that doesn't differentiate the teams whatsoever which is what the rule tries to achieve.

Where you went wrong is here: "

That's an unjustified assumption/conclusion. For it to be as fair as possible there should be no difference between 1 and 2, otherwise you're assigning an advantage based on the random chance event (again, the coin toss). You also haven't assigned any value to scoring first and putting immense pressure on the opposing offense to respond which is traditionally why coaches opt for the ball first in games despite the advantages you describe above applying similarly to having the ball first in the second half.

This is correct - and what the current rule tries to achieve.

There is now an IMMENSE benefit to kicking off first, and ZERO benefit to getting the ball first.

That absolutely makes the coin toss a bigger factor.

"Put pressure on the defense"? LOL, you're serious? You can't even win the game with a TD, and EVEN IF you score, your opponent gets 4-down territory AND a likely 2-point conversion attempt to win if they score.

Zero benefit to getting the ball first.

 

[Vtwin]

The point that you keep missing is that under the regular season format, there are pros and cons to EACH situation.

Under the new playoff format, there are no "pros" to getting the ball first.

So that means the coin toss matters more now than it did before.

Zero benefit to getting the ball first.

Why should there be a benefit to getting the ball first in OT?

Bonus question.
How is it "fair" to create a situation in which a coin toss can play such a significant factor in the outcome of an entire season?

 

[Nav22]

I think it's a big assumption to say that the 2nd team would go for the 2 and a win. How many drives, after a kickoff result in a FG? Is it greater than 50%? It wasn't long ago you suggested getting the kickoff was a potential con, depending on what the team did with it.

A 50/50 shot seems non-advantageous to all. Sounds good. Maybe require the teams to go for 2 on all TDs in overtime?

The 2-point conversion is roughly 50/50.

Kicking the PAT and kicking off gives you LESS than a 50/50 chance of winning. It's not even debatable.

EVEN IF you have a greater than 50% chance at stopping them from kicking a FG on their ensuing possession (let's say it's 40%) you'd still need a FG of your own.

 

[Nav22]

Help me understand this.

If there is "zero benefit" to winning the toss, how does that make the coin toss more of a factor? Logic leads me to the conclusion that the coin toss is essentially meaningless under the new rules, when before it was a huge factor.

My version of OT would either be a full period to let things play out under normal conditions, or alternating possessions until a winner is determined by points. The alternating possessions would all start with a kickoff. Drive the field and score, or get stopped and kickoff to the opposition and try and stop them from driving the field and scoring.

I would favor those both from a fan perspective and a player/coach perspective.

I didn't say there's zero benefit to winning the toss.

I said there's zero benefit to GETTING THE BALL FIRST.

Smart teams will elect to kick off if they win the toss in playoff OT now.

 

[OmerV]

It's so obvious to me that I wondered just what I could possibly be missing.

I'm open to having it explained to me but I just don't see it from here.

I don't get how you don't see this.

If the team that receives the kickoff has an advantage, as you say yourself it does under the regular season rules, that means it's important to win the coin flip to get that advantage. Obviously that gives the coin flip meaning.

If the the team that wins the coin flip doesn't get an advantage by winning the coin flip, as you say yourself is the case under the new playoff rules, then the coin flip loses meaning. After all, how would it be meaningful to the game if it doesn't impact odds of one team winning the game?

In other words, the meaning of the coin flip is only in the impact it could have in influencing the outcome of the game. If it puts the odds in the favor of one team over the other, it has meaning. If it doesn't impact odds of one team winning over the other, it has no meaning other than as a way to decide which team lines up on which side of the field.

 

[Rockport]

Make it like college.