Colts - "Everyone Should get a try" and and "trophy"

[redseat]

How so? The tv rights have already been paid for and the broadcasters have already run their scheduled ads before OT. How would OT changes generate extra money and how would the NFL get it?

I was just thinking IF OT rules changed the NFL would negotiate with broadcasters and get more money

 

[Manster7588]

Should play another full quarter. If you don’t have time for that, go home or change the channel.


Losing because of a coin flip should never have been an option. Ties are better than that.

OK, so you play a full extra qtr, team A scores a TD using 12.5 minutes. Team B is still out of luck

Or team A kicks a FG using 4 minutes, team B then scores a TD using 6 minutes, and team A then scores a TD using the last 5 minutes.

Tes are still bitching.

 

[broncosmitty]

OK, so you play a full extra qtr, team A scores a TD using 12.5 minutes. Team B is still out of luck

Or team A kicks a FG using 4 minutes, team B then scores a TD using 6 minutes, and team A then scores a TD using the last 5 minutes.

Tes are still bitching.

12.5 minute drives sure are common.

 

[Podunkparte]

Should play another full quarter. If you don’t have time for that, go home or change the channel.


Losing because of a coin flip should never have been an option. Ties are better than that.

This has never happened.

 

[broncosmitty]

This has never happened.

Happens all the time. NFL OT rules aren’t as awful as college, but they aren’t good.

 

[YankeeRebel]

Have no idea why they need to change it.

If you cant stop a team from going down and scoring a TD on you in the first possession of OT, you dont deserve to win.

This is such an asinine approach to a realistic issue.

Two teams played 60 minutes and forced a tie, team A wins the coin toss a DB slips and falls or gets tripped or picked the refs miss the pick and it's game over. Couple this with the league consistently tilting the tables toward the offense it's BS both teams don't get a shot. If team A wins the toss and scores then their defense should be tested as well.

I see absolutely no reason why a rule change giving both team possession could be a problem

 

[Podunkparte]

Happens all the time. NFL OT rules aren’t as awful as college, but they aren’t good.

It doesn't. That team has a defense and if they do their jobs the coinflip doesn't matter. In fact, it makes their chances of winning incredibly higher just needing a FG. Blaming it on the coinflip is a sad excuse for not being able to succeed at half of the game.

 

[PDay8810]

Happens all the time. NFL OT rules aren’t as awful as college, but they aren’t good.

Gotta agree and this is why I prefer no OT in regular season. The 1970's didn't have many ties (usually 5 or less) in a season. These rules make teams play for the tie outcome with an opportunity to win in OT

 

[Manster7588]

12.5 minute drives sure are common.

No, but they do happen.

 

[fastforward]

I see absolutely no reason why a rule change giving both team possession could be a problem

It's not a problem, but by definition it would extend games without providing a solution.
Team A scores a TD in OT. Team B scores a TD in OT to tie things up. There's only 2:20 left in OT. Now what?

 

[broncosmitty]

It doesn't. That team has a defense and if they do their jobs the coinflip doesn't matter. In fact, it makes their chances of winning incredibly higher just needing a FG. Blaming it on the coinflip is a sad excuse for not being able to succeed at half of the game.

Giving up a touchdown to start a half or quarter isn’t an automatic loss in football.


Shouldn’t be the case in OT either.

 

[Manster7588]

I say leave the OT rules as they are, but if were hell bent on changing them, here's my plan.

OT has no time limit, the first team with the ball can have three things happen.

1. Not score. The other team can then kick a FG and win

2. Kick a FG. With this the other team cannot kick a FG the must score a TD.

3. Score a TD. If team A scores a TD they must try for 2, if they get the 2 game is over, if they miss team B gets the ball and can win with a TD and PAT.

If both teams fail to score on their one possession it's a tie.

I do see where if team A kicks a FG it puts team B behind the 8 ball, but they get their shot. At least it keeps 20-20 games from being 23-23 games.

 

[YankeeRebel]

It's not a problem, but by definition it would extend games without providing a solution.
Team A scores a TD in OT. Team B scores a TD in OT to tie things up. There's only 2:20 left in OT. Now what?

TIE

 

[fastforward]

TIE

So it's 1 possession each and any time left over is ignored? That would favour getting the ball 2nd. If not who gets the 2:20 left in my example and what happens if they kick a FG?

 

[YankeeRebel]

So it's 1 possession each and any time left over is ignored? That would favour getting the ball 2nd. If not who gets the 2:20 left in my example and what happens if they kick a FG?

Are you really this confused or being obtuse? The alloted time would be played in full if both teams score a TD if team A scores a TD and then Team B time continues. If team A fails to score and team B does score game over.

 

[Manster7588]

Are you really this confused or being obtuse? The alloted time would be played in full if both teams score a TD if team A scores a TD and then Team B time continues. If team A fails to score and team B does score game over.

But what if both teams return kickoffs for scores? There's still 14.5 minutes of clock remaining.

 

[fastforward]

Are you really this confused or being obtuse? The alloted time would be played in full if both teams score a TD if team A scores a TD and then Team B time continues. If team A fails to score and team B does score game over.

I am neither confused nor obtuse. Regular season OT is 10 minutes so if both teams score a TD there will be little time left. If the team that had the ball first gets the remaining time then the team that scored 2nd still won't have a chance to win and could lose to a FG rather than a TD. What does your rule change achieve? Your change would make sense in a 20 minute, or longer, OT period, (maybe a variation of this in the postseason), but players don't want a long OT period and it's not good for tv schedules.

 

[fastforward]

But what if both teams return kickoffs for scores? There's still 14.5 minutes of clock remaining.

Effectively it would be back to the sudden death OT rules of yesteryear where the next team to get the ball just has to get 40 yards and then kick a FG to win. The team scoring 2nd in OT would still never have had the opportunity to win in OT.

 

[Manster7588]

Effectively it would be back to the sudden death OT rules of yesteryear where the next team to get the ball just has to get 40 yards and then kick a FG to win. The team scoring 2nd in OT would still never have had the opportunity to win in OT.

But then were in the same. "UNFAIR" boat we're in now.

I still say leave it as is.

 

[fastforward]

But then were in the same. "UNFAIR" boat we're in now.

I still say leave it as is.

I'd give the coin toss winner the option to kick, choose an end, or have an automatic ball placement at their own 10 yard line, (and again if both teams kick FGs). They'd still have the advantage of a TD to win and a possible extra possession but they'd have an 15 extra yards to go to even things out a bit.