My NFL Overtime Rules Fix

[handicappers]

psst...so which team goes on to the SB if it happens this week...

If there is a tie in the playoffs, it goes to a "QB challenge" like there used to be on ABC. Obstacles and what not.

 

[Cincyfan78]

And yet, since the rule change, we have nearly a perfect split between the receiving team winning and the kicking team winning.

So if we know there's no perfect system, and the current system has resulted in a nearly even split, why mess with it? Why try to fix what is obviously working?

That doesn't preclude anyone, or anything, from trying to improve the game. The splits might be even, but the end results don't mean that the rules, or the system currently in place, ENSURES a fair shot by both teams.

You can point out LOTS of things that are working, or are just fine, but that doesn't stop the league (any league) from reviewing things each off-season to see what can be done to improve the game. If everyone took your line of thinking, anything that was "good enough" would never change, and nothing would ever improve except the obvious. Sometimes it's not the obvious things that bring the most actual change, but the small tweaks that really improve the game.

I'm not saying change it now, or change it all together, or whatever. I'm just saying...how about everyone at least be open minded about any way that could improve the process?

 

[Broncos6482]

That doesn't preclude anyone, or anything, from trying to improve the game. The splits might be even, but the end results don't mean that the rules, or the system currently in place, ENSURES a fair shot by both teams.

You can point out LOTS of things that are working, or are just fine, but that doesn't stop the league (any league) from reviewing things each off-season to see what can be done to improve the game. If everyone took your line of thinking, anything that was "good enough" would never change, and nothing would ever improve except the obvious. Sometimes it's not the obvious things that bring the most actual change, but the small tweaks that really improve the game.

I'm not saying change it now, or change it all together, or whatever. I'm just saying...how about everyone at least be open minded about any way that could improve the process?

But how can they improve it? If it's working to the point of a nearly even split, which is the expected outcome from two teams that are so evenly matched it requires overtime, why mess with it?

The big reason for the change a few years ago was that kickers had gotten so good that receiving the kick off meant that you were winning the vast majority of the time (I can't recall the numbers, but I believe it was over 60%). Now that we have a change, it's worked as well as any system can possibly work. You can say it's unfair, but the results say otherwise. So until we get to the point that one side is suddenly winning much more frequently than the other, why mess with it? I mean, what if you change it to make it more fair, and that unintentionally gives one team a much better chance of winning? So suddenly the new "fair" system is causing much more unfair results? Why risk that when what you have is working?

 

[Cincyfan78]

But how can they improve it? If it's working to the point of a nearly even split, which is the expected outcome from two teams that are so evenly matched it requires overtime, why mess with it?

The big reason for the change a few years ago was that kickers had gotten so good that receiving the kick off meant that you were winning the vast majority of the time (I can't recall the numbers, but I believe it was over 60%). Now that we have a change, it's worked as well as any system can possibly work. You can say it's unfair, but the results say otherwise. So until we get to the point that one side is suddenly winning much more frequently than the other, why mess with it? I mean, what if you change it to make it more fair, and that unintentionally gives one team a much better chance of winning? So suddenly the new "fair" system is causing much more unfair results? Why risk that when what you have is working?

Again, the end results don't mean that the approach is correct. It's a concept that many fail to grasps because they only think in terms of, well if the stats say it's working, then the approach must be correct. That is not always the case.

And having discussions in the off-season is a way to brain storm HOW they can improve it. Again, I'm not saying they HAVE to have change, or that the MUST change, but the rules as written are not equal to both teams regardless of the outcome.

And a good league, like any good business, will evaluate EVERYTHING it can to make sure it continues to offer the best options. Even if things are working, they should always be looked at for improvement. The minute you stop looking for ways to improve (or only focus on what 'broke') is the minute you start sliding backwards.

 

[Cincyfan78]

But how can they improve it? If it's working to the point of a nearly even split, which is the expected outcome from two teams that are so evenly matched it requires overtime, why mess with it?

The big reason for the change a few years ago was that kickers had gotten so good that receiving the kick off meant that you were winning the vast majority of the time (I can't recall the numbers, but I believe it was over 60%). Now that we have a change, it's worked as well as any system can possibly work. You can say it's unfair, but the results say otherwise. So until we get to the point that one side is suddenly winning much more frequently than the other, why mess with it? I mean, what if you change it to make it more fair, and that unintentionally gives one team a much better chance of winning? So suddenly the new "fair" system is causing much more unfair results? Why risk that when what you have is working?

Also, under the old rules, the reason the % was so high is that a FG would win the game. While the improvement now is that a FG doesn't win the game on the 1st drive, it still remains that it leaves the possibility that one team will never get a chance to field its offensive unit.

 

[Broncos6482]

Again, the end results don't mean that the approach is correct. It's a concept that many fail to grasps because they only think in terms of, well if the stats say it's working, then the approach must be correct. That is not always the case.

And having discussions in the off-season is a way to brain storm HOW they can improve it. Again, I'm not saying they HAVE to have change, or that the MUST change, but the rules as written are not equal to both teams regardless of the outcome.

And a good league, like any good business, will evaluate EVERYTHING it can to make sure it continues to offer the best options. Even if things are working, they should always be looked at for improvement. The minute you stop looking for ways to improve (or only focus on what 'broke') is the minute you start sliding backwards.

But no one has come up with a viable alternative, and if the stats say it is working as expected, well, frankly I'm going to trust the stats more than some posters on a message board whining that it's unfair.

 

[Cincyfan78]

But no one has come up with a viable alternative, and if the stats say it is working as expected, well, frankly I'm going to trust the stats more than some posters on a message board whining that it's unfair.

Coming up with a viable alternative takes discussion. Something you're unwilling to even be open minded enough about. You simply say that because the stats say it's working the approach must be fair. Simple logic tells you that just because A+B=C does not mean that C-B=A. You have to be willing to understand (or able to understand) that just because something works does not mean that the approach, or the system, is correct.

I'm not whining that it's unfair. It is unfair. That's just a fact, regardless of the outcomes. It is, exactly what it is. I accept that. However, It should be, at least, open to discussion by the NFL if there are any viable ways to improve on what is currently being done. That's it. Just because none of us on the message board can come up with a decent idea, doesn't mean that the players/coaches/GM's/Executives involved can't find a decent improvement in some way, shape, or form.

And you know what...maybe they do discuss it and leave it exactly the way it is for the rest of our lives. So be it. At least they were open minded enough to have discussion on how to improve the game.

 

[Broncos6482]

Coming up with a viable alternative takes discussion. Something you're unwilling to even be open minded enough about. You simply say that because the stats say it's working the approach must be fair. Simple logic tells you that just because A+B=C does not mean that C-B=A. You have to be willing to understand (or able to understand) that just because something works does not mean that the approach, or the system, is correct.

I'm not whining that it's unfair. It is unfair. That's just a fact, regardless of the outcomes. It is, exactly what it is. I accept that. However, It should be, at least, open to discussion by the NFL if there are any viable ways to improve on what is currently being done. That's it. Just because none of us on the message board can come up with a decent idea, doesn't mean that the players/coaches/GM's/Executives involved can't find a decent improvement in some way, shape, or form.

And you know what...maybe they do discuss it and leave it exactly the way it is for the rest of our lives. So be it. At least they were open minded enough to have discussion on how to improve the game.

We're on page 9 of this thread discussing changes to overtime rules. All of the suggestions have been dumb. It's not exactly accurate to say I've been unwilling to be open minded, but I haven't seen a single suggestion from anyone that's compelling enough to advocate for change.

You go on and on about it being unfair, well, your suggestion of a possession for each team and then sudden death is also unfair, because one team is always going to be playing a possession short. You're still inherently favoring the team that gets the ball first.

And I still reject the idea that the current system is somehow unfair. Yes, one team has to start on defense first, but that team can make a stop and then win with just a field goal. The first team with the ball can't win with a field goal, they have to score a touchdown. And if the first team only gets a field goal, well now the second team knows they have all 4 downs to move the chains, whereas the first team would be punting on 4th down. Both of those things are advantages to the second team with the football.

Now, there's an argument to be made that the advantage of getting the ball first outweighs the advantages of getting 4 downs and only needing a fg to win, but considering how it's played out to a nearly even split of wins and losses, that would be a tough argument to make.

 

[NEhomer]

First team with the ball may exhaust all 4 downs before having to punt on just their first possession.

Regardless if they get stopped, score three or score 7, the second team gets the ball and both teams have possessed it. Second team must tie or exceed the first team. If it becomes tied, the next score wins.

BOOM!

 

[Broncos6482]

First team with the ball may exhaust all 4 downs before having to punt on just their first possession.

Regardless if they get stopped, score three or score 7, the second team gets the ball and both teams have possessed it. Second team must tie or exceed the first team. If it becomes tied, the next score wins.

BOOM!

Terrible. You've changed one of the basic rules of the game by allowing the first team to get an extra down.

 

[NEhomer]

Terrible. You've changed one of the basic rules of the game by allowing the first team to get an extra down.

Wrong, I've given the starting team the same number of downs as the second team. A team down points in OT is not going to kick on 4th down....ever.

 

[NEhomer]

....hey I gotta run kids, I'll school and amaze y'all with my keen observations later!

 

[Broncos6482]

Wrong, I've given the starting team the same number of downs as the second team. A team down points in OT is not going to kick on 4th down....ever.

4 downs plus a punt is 5 downs.

 

[Manster7588]

Yeah this ^. I think the people arguing for no change to the current format are the same ones who argued that the old sudden death format shouldn't have been changed.. "if your defense can't stop the other team, you don't deserve to win". I just never understood why that nugget of wisdom should only apply to 1 team. Still don't.

So the same ones saying leave it alone are the same who said leave it alone before, therefore the ones saying it's unfair must be the same who said it was unfair before.
Thanks for validating my thoughts that the ones complaining about the fairness will continue complaining about fairness until eternity.

 

[Cincyfan78]

We're on page 9 of this thread discussing changes to overtime rules. All of the suggestions have been dumb. It's not exactly accurate to say I've been unwilling to be open minded, but I haven't seen a single suggestion from anyone that's compelling enough to advocate for change.

You go on and on about it being unfair, well, your suggestion of a possession for each team and then sudden death is also unfair, because one team is always going to be playing a possession short. You're still inherently favoring the team that gets the ball first.

And I still reject the idea that the current system is somehow unfair. Yes, one team has to start on defense first, but that team can make a stop and then win with just a field goal. The first team with the ball can't win with a field goal, they have to score a touchdown. And if the first team only gets a field goal, well now the second team knows they have all 4 downs to move the chains, whereas the first team would be punting on 4th down. Both of those things are advantages to the second team with the football.

Now, there's an argument to be made that the advantage of getting the ball first outweighs the advantages of getting 4 downs and only needing a fg to win, but considering how it's played out to a nearly even split of wins and losses, that would be a tough argument to make.

You're right...the approach of giving each team a chance on offense isn't much more fair than what is currently being used, but it does remove the hindrance of one team not getting a chance to score. While it's not inherently better than what is currently being used, it is better in that regard. Yes, it will still be unfair, and as I've said: I'm not so sure, either, that there is a fair way. Which is why we're even discussing this in the first place.

You keep saying "the stats, the stats, the stats". You need to fully understand that the stats don't mean jack. The end result does not mean that the approach, or system, is the right approach or system. Again, good business always look at ways to improve, and that includes reviewing things that seem to be working just fine, but maybe the approach could be adjusted.

 

[Manster7588]

....hey I gotta run kids, I'll school and amaze y'all with my keen observations later!

Please let us know when this schooling and amazement begins, I haven't seen it yet.

 

[handicappers]

Please let us know when this schooling and amazement begins, I haven't seen it yet.

He has to go google some more opinions of other people.

 

[Broncos6482]

You're right...the approach of giving each team a chance on offense isn't much more fair than what is currently being used, but it does remove the hindrance of one team not getting a chance to score. While it's not inherently better than what is currently being used, it is better in that regard. Yes, it will still be unfair, and as I've said: I'm not so sure, either, that there is a fair way. Which is why we're even discussing this in the first place.

You keep saying "the stats, the stats, the stats". You need to fully understand that the stats don't mean jack. The end result does not mean that the approach, or system, is the right approach or system. Again, good business always look at ways to improve, and that includes reviewing things that seem to be working just fine, but maybe the approach could be adjusted.

The stats don't necessarily mean that it's fair, but they do show that we're receiving the expected outcome. If the system is inherently unfair, eventually the stats will start to bear that out, but so far that hasn't been the case.

I just don't see the point in changing a system that has worked to the expected outcome, especially when no one can come up with a good idea of what to change it to. But I'm all ears if someone wants to wow me with a great idea. And I fear that in a rush to change things in the interest of "fairness," you may unintentionally end up making things worse.

You're right, businesses should do self evaluation and always look to improve, but that doesn't mean change for the sake of change. That's not very smart and not something that good businesses do.

 

[Cincyfan78]

The stats don't necessarily mean that it's fair, but they do show that we're receiving the expected outcome. If the system is inherently unfair, eventually the stats will start to bear that out, but so far that hasn't been the case.

I just don't see the point in changing a system that has worked to the expected outcome, especially when no one can come up with a good idea of what to change it to. But I'm all ears if someone wants to wow me with a great idea. And I fear that in a rush to change things in the interest of "fairness," you may unintentionally end up making things worse.

You're right, businesses should do self evaluation and always look to improve, but that doesn't mean change for the sake of change. That's not very smart and not something that good businesses do.

Agreed, agreed, and agreed.

Best response(s) so far on this, to me.

Like I've said, I'm not saying they SHOULD change or NEED to change...just evaluate. That's all.

I'd say, at least, a starting point for DISCUSSION is giving both teams a chance on offense, then going to the sudden death. No, it's not going to fix the fair/unfair issue (I don't think they ever will without just playing full quarters of football, which will never happen), but it does allow, at a minimum, both teams to field their offense for a chance to win the game. It's not perfect, and it may not even be worth the implementation, but it's a least worth the discussion.

Good post.

 

[night]

College football's overtime is perfect.