NFL owners will be meeting soon to vote on possible changes to the rules concerning overtime play. I hope they do the right thing and amend the overtime rules . They have a chance to make overtimes more exciting and more interesting.
Too often the most important decision made by teams in OT is whether to call heads or tails. I would like to see teams do more than win the toss and then run conservative plays so that they can get in field goal position. It just doesn't seem right to me that 2 teams battle for 60 minutes and it all comes down to a coin toss and a kick.
Guaranteeing each team one possession in OT or declaring that the first team to score a touchdown (rather than a field goal) is the winner would add much more strategy and drama to the game. I'm not really sure what changes to overtime would be the best ones, but I do believe that something should be done to add a little more drama , excitement and integrity to OT.
NFL owners have a tendency to be old school and slow to adopt change, but I hope they take a good look at improving the overtime format. Do you like the current overtime system, or does the NFL need to change it?
Monday, March 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While there may be no ‘perfect’ solution to overtime in the NFL, there are a few points that are worth noting when evaluating the merits of the current system and the proposed changes.
ReplyDelete1] I find it foolish to have one set of rules for the regular season and a different set of rules for the playoffs. If they make a change, it should be for all games. As of now, the proposed change is only for the playoffs. There is no sport that has different rules for the regular season and one for the playoffs.
2] Under the proposed change, a team will kick off to their opponent if they only score a field goal on their opening possession. What would happen if a team was to kick a field goal and then, during their kickoff, there were to successfully execute an on-sides kick? Would they win the game? It seems like there is a possible loophole in this format.
3] Since 1974, the team that has won the toss has won 52% of the time – not an overwhelming advantage. (So, it begs the question: “Because Favre did not get the ball in OT of the playoffs, is that what is causing the groundswell for change?”)
4] Moreover, from 2000 – 2007, the dreaded 'lose-the-coin-toss-never-touch-the-ball' scenario happened in 37 out of the 124 OT periods, or about 30% of all overtime games. Therefore, in 70% of the games, the team that lost the toss had a shot. Again, not a one-sided as some would have guessed.
I can go on, but the point is, the current system is not perfect, but it is not all that bad either. If they want to change the rules to make the game better, so be it. But I do not think that the current system is unfair.
Look no further than the 1987 Browns playoff game vs Denver. We won the toss and sent Herman Fontenot up the middle on third and 3….don’t get me started.
Doc. O, I had come across a stat that showed the team that won the toss had won 60% of OT games which seemed an unfair advantage. I will have to double check the accuracy of that number. I agree that the rules should be the same for regular season and playoffs. Even if only 30% of games since 2000 fell under the "lose the toss never touch the ball" category it is still too high a number for me personally. Those games would have all been more entertaining in my opinion if both teams had touched the ball. I'm not sure what the absolute best answer is but I think the OT can be improved.
ReplyDelete