Why the new playoff overtime rules are beyond stupid

[Nav22]

Glad you’re not a coach because I can’t see any team not taking the ball first if they win the toss. You want to draw first blood and put the pressure on the other team. If you receive the ball first it’s not a do or die drive. You still have a chance if you don’t put up any points. If you can put up at least three points, the other team has to at least match it or game over. If you can put up a TD that puts a lot of pressure on the other team.

You're so wrong that it's almost comical.

Several people have disagreed with my OP, and yet you're the only one who would be dense enough to actually WANT the ball first under these new rules. LOL!

 

[thunderpimp91]

Let's say the advantage under the previous system was 70/30, meaning 70% of an "advantage" to the receiving team, 30% for the kicking team.

Okay, that's not great. But at least there are pros and cons for each side.

But the NEW system has made it 100/0 in the opposite direction. Because there is zero logical benefit to starting with the ball, since your opponent will have every opportunity on Earth to match (or beat!) whatever it is you do.

Smart teams will absolutely choose to kick off to start OT in the playoffs now. It's a bigger advantage than receiving first used to be.

Let me start off by saying that you make some really strong points in this thread. The one piece I think we need to think through though is that in a lot of this you are assuming that the team that touches the ball first is going to score a TD, and that is the exact reason they wanted to change the rules to begin with.

If a team gets the ball first and gets a FG or is forced to punt the second team doesn't necessarily get to play 4 down territory the whole way. They instead have some tough decisions to make. The first team to play offense also has a little room to breathe as if they were to go 3 and out they can punt the football and rely on their defense. The second offense if they have to score has a ton of pressure on them now, and might have to open up a little more conservatively as a sack, holding penalty, etc can kill the game.

I'm with you in that they didnt completely fix the issue, just swung the pendulum in the other direction, but I'm not sure its 100-0 as you suggest either.

 

[Nav22]

I disagree with all of this.

Ideally, you put 15 minutes on the clock and play football.

Alternately you give each team an equal # of opportunities to play both offense and defense and let the players decide the game with chance having as little impact as possible.

The only time there is an advantage one way or the other on a coin toss is before the clock starts ticking and the score is zero-zero. The only advantage a team gets is to choose to kick or receive or to choose the wind at your back in the 4th quarter before a down has been played. There is still 60 minutes of offense and defense to be played which will determine the outcome.

OT coin flips are/were far more influential. Now smart teams will look at everything before choosing.

You're creating your own OT rules now?

Based on the ACTUAL new rules, it makes no sense to want the ball first in playoff OT.

 

[Doomsday101]

Once again.... neither could Kansas City's all day. The outcome was determined by a coin toss.

No there were 6 punts in the game so they were able to get stops in the game there for 4 FG attemps 3 made so again those. Football is about offense and defense, each have a job and a responsibility. If they fail so be it but there is nothing unfair about it. Is it fair the team who gets the ball 2nd has 4 downs to move the chains?

 

[thunderpimp91]

Yet if defense has pick 6 game is over? Hell I would clearly kickoff under these rules. If my defense does their job all I need is a FG, if my defense fails to do their job and we give up a TD then I know I have 4 downs to keep the chains moving while the other team does not have that advantage

No argument from me on any of those points. I'm absolutely kicking off first under the new rules too. I think the league missed the mark with the changes, but I do like it better than the previous ones.

 

[DFWJC]

No there were 6 punts in the game so they were able to get stops in the game there for 4 FG attemps 3 made so again those. Football is about offense and defense, each have a job and a responsibility. If they fail so be it but there is nothing unfair about it. Is it fair the team who gets the ball 2nd has 4 downs to move the chains?

Yes, Offense AND defesne...both. Not just one only based on a coin toss.
Most teams have one unit that is better than the other.
Let both units play at least one possession or its not really a team outcome.

 

[Doomsday101]

No argument from me on any of those points. I'm absolutely kicking off first under the new rules too. I think the league missed the mark with the changes, but I do like it better than the previous ones.

I don't then again I'm a defensive guys. I expect my defense to go out and do their job and at the least hold the other team to a FG. No matter what the NFL does someone is going to claim it is unfair.

 

[Nav22]

Let me start off by saying that you make some really strong points in this thread. The one piece I think we need to think through though is that in a lot of this you are assuming that the team that touches the ball first is going to score a TD, and that is the exact reason they wanted to change the rules to begin with.

If a team gets the ball first and gets a FG or is forced to punt the second team doesn't necessarily get to play 4 down territory the whole way. They instead have some tough decisions to make. The first team to play offense also has a little room to breathe as if they were to go 3 and out they can punt the football and rely on their defense. The second offense if they have to score has a ton of pressure on them now, and might have to open up a little more conservatively as a sack, holding penalty, etc can kill the game.

I'm with you in that they didnt completely fix the issue, just swung the pendulum in the other direction, but I'm not sure its 100-0 as you suggest either.

I just don't see any advantage for the team that gets the ball first.

The defense can essentially win the game with a quick takeaway. The defense can force a punt and then only need a FG to win.

So why can't the offense win the game with a 75-yard TD drive?

 

[Doomsday101]

Yes, Offense AND defesne...both. Not just one only based on a coin toss.
Most teams have one unit that is better than the other.
Let both units play at least one possession or its not really a team outcome.

then win the game in regulation. So we let both team have a possession and neither scores on their drive then it becomes sudden death? why does one team then get 2nd possessions to kick a FG and I only got 1 possession? lol

 

[Nav22]

Yes, Offense AND defesne...both. Not just one only based on a coin toss.
Most teams have one unit that is better than the other.
Let both units play at least one possession or its not really a team outcome.

So let's say the team that gets the ball first throws an INT on their first play.

The other team returns the INT to the 10-yard line.

FG unit immediately comes onto the field. Kick is good. Game over.

Winning team didn't need to play offense. Losing team didn't get a chance to play defense.

Is that fair?

Why should a big defensive play end the game, but a big offensive play CAN'T end the game?

 

[OmerV]

And when your defense goes out there first, they have an opportunity to get a stop and force a game-winning takeaway.

Right?

Let's say you have the '85 Bears defense. The Bears offense gets the ball first. Jim McMahon throws a pick immediately. The other team kicks a FG to win.

Is it fair that the '85 Bears defense didn't get an opportunity?

lol - you're now arguing against your own contentions. You have said yourself the receiving team has an advantage, and now your arguing as if the kicking team that has to play defense has just as much of an advantage. You're jumping back and forth across the fence to whatever suits you at the moment.

The odds are overwhelmingly that either the offense will score or punt. A missed FG is also a possibility. Even if there is a turnover it is at least as likely to occur downfield than where the defense gets the ball already in FG range.

 

[KJJ]

Overtime rule change was needed, but they should alter it even more and go to a college style OT

I don’t follow college football, but the last time I remember watching a college football OT game the OT seemed to go on forever. The longer an OT period lasts in the playoffs could be a detriment to the winning team the following week. You don’t want to have to play an extra quarter or two to try and settle a game. This is why they reduced the OT to only 10 minutes during the regular season. I think the new rule is fair at least both teams get an opportunity with the ball. College football doesn’t have a 17 game regular season.

 

[revospeed]

I like soccer rules. Play a full period and the winner at the end wins. If not, go to two point conversions until there is a winner.

 

[thunderpimp91]

then win the game in regulation. So we let both team have a possession and neither scores on their drive then it becomes sudden death? why does one team then get 2nd possessions to kick a FG and I only got 1 possession? lol

That's the best solution to any of it, and the reason I don't think the OT rules should be that big of a concern in the first place no matter which side of the argument someone is on. You get 60 minutes to show you are the better team. Once you go to OT one team is always going to have an advantage.

 

[Vtwin]

You're creating your own OT rules now?

Based on the ACTUAL new rules, it makes no sense to want the ball first in playoff OT.

How on earth could I create my own OT rules? Those are suggestions on what I believe to be the best, and most fair, and the most fan/team friendly way.

So what? Why does it have to make sense to want the ball first? The only argument I've read from you is that the team which gets the ball second can freely go for it on fourth down. Yes, that is an advantage... but... short of playing a full period there is no way to not have some sort of inequity built in, and this is by far the least amount of inequity possible.

You can't use the "defense should stop them" argument in favor of first TD wins and not apply the same logic to stopping them on fourth down.

 

[Nav22]

lol - you're now arguing against your own contentions. You have said yourself the receiving team has an advantage, and now your arguing as if the kicking team that has to play defense has just as much of an advantage. You're jumping back and forth across the fence to whatever suits you at the moment.

The odds are overwhelmingly that either the offense will score or punt. A missed FG is also a possibility. Even if there is a turnover it is at least as likely to occur downfield than where the defense gets the ball already in FG range.

You're confused.

I just laid out the "pros" to kicking off first. There used to be "cons" to that as well.

Says a lot that you couldn't muster up a response to my example about a defensive takeaway.

So the offense having success and driving 75 yards to score a TD is "based on a coin flip", but the defense getting a takeaway isn't? LOL! Sure bro.

 

[Nav22]

How on earth could I create my own OT rules? Those are suggestions on what I believe to be the best, and most fair, and the most fan/team friendly way.

So what? Why does it have to make sense to want the ball first? The only argument I've read from you is that the team which gets the ball second can freely go for it on fourth down. Yes, that is an advantage... but... short of playing a full period there is no way to not have some sort of inequity built in, and this is by far the least amount of inequity possible.

You can't use the "defense should stop them" argument in favor of first TD wins and not apply the same logic to stopping them on fourth down.

1) The extra down is a HUGE advantage.

2) The defense can essentially win the game with a quick takeaway in overtime. Why can't the offense do the same with a TD? How is that fair, on any level???

 

[OmerV]

You're so wrong that it's almost comical.

Several people have disagreed with my OP, and yet you're the only one who would be dense enough to actually WANT the ball first under these new rules. LOL!

That's a nonsensical comment. I also don't agree with his comment about it being certain that under the new rules the team winning the coin toss would take possession first.

If both teams are going to get the ball anyway, then the team that wins the toss would have to look at things like (1) which of their units (offense or defense) is likely to set a better tone for overtime, (2) if outdoors, which direction the wind is blowing, (3) if the sun or background in the stadium is a factor in seeing the ball, (4) if there is a direction they have seemed to be more comfortable and effective facing during regulation play ...

 

[Nav22]

That's a nonsensical comment. I also don't agree with his comment about it being certain that under the new rules the team winning the coin toss would take possession first.

If both teams are going to get the ball anyway, then the team that wins the toss would have to look at things like (1) which of their units (offense or defense) is likely to set a better tone for overtime, (2) if outdoors, which direction the wind is blowing, (3) if the sun or background in the stadium is a factor in seeing the ball, (4) if there is a direction they have seemed to be more comfortable and effective facing during regulation play ...

That's fair, and those are reasonable things to consider.

My OP was more based on the general strategy if all of those factors you pointed out were somewhat "equal".

 

[zack]

The soft part is letting one team win because they won a coin flip vs actually having both offenses and defenses actually have to play the game.
It's cheap and lazy

The soft part is that you can't make a defensive stand.