January 25, 201016 yr How about this? It's just off the top of my head. I hate that a team can kick a FG and win on the first possession. -If the team that wins the toss kicks and makes a FG the other team gets a possession. If they kick a FG and get it the game continues in sudden death fashion. But if team two gets a TD they win. It would drastically change the strategy of OT and make it to where you had to score a TD more often than not to win.
January 25, 201016 yr How about this? It's just off the top of my head. I hate that a team can kick a FG and win on the first possession. -If the team that wins the toss kicks and makes a FG the other team gets a possession. If they kick a FG and get it the game continues in sudden death fashion. But if team two gets a TD they win. It would drastically change the strategy of OT and make it to where you had to score a TD more often than not to win. :thumb: I also would like to see the college OT modified as well. The team that wins the toss has a huge advantage there too. Being able to go on defense first allows you to know what you have to accomplish (either a TD or a FG). That many times gives a team an extra down. I would like to see both teams have to go for the TD on the first two series and not be allowed to kick a FG. That way each team has an equal shot.
January 25, 201016 yr How about this? It's just off the top of my head. I hate that a team can kick a FG and win on the first possession. -If the team that wins the toss kicks and makes a FG the other team gets a possession. If they kick a FG and get it the game continues in sudden death fashion. But if team two gets a TD they win. It would drastically change the strategy of OT and make it to where you had to score a TD more often than not to win. :thumb: I like that idea. I seem to remember Mike Golic saying it once on their morning show... Basically, the first team to 6 wins the game. That way, you can't win the toss, gain 40 yards and win a game on a FG. But, for me personally, it almost seems like the fairness of the OT varies from game to game. For example, I don't have a problem with last night's game because Minnesota blew their chance to win the game at the end of regulation with the penalty and then Faver's interception. So even though they didn't get a chance in OT, they have only themselves to blame for the game even getting to that point.
January 25, 201016 yr :thumb: I like that idea. I seem to remember Mike Golic saying it once on their morning show... Basically, the first team to 6 wins the game. That way, you can't win the toss, gain 40 yards and win a game on a FG. But, for me personally, it almost seems like the fairness of the OT varies from game to game. For example, I don't have a problem with last night's game because Minnesota blew their chance to win the game at the end of regulation with the penalty and then Faver's interception. So even though they didn't get a chance in OT, they have only themselves to blame for the game even getting to that point. All those fumbles were huge as well, the one just before halftime was a killer. As for the OT I feel both teams should get a chance to play offense, I agree a flip of a coin should not determine which team would have the best chance to go to the Super Bowl after playing four peroids to a tie.
January 25, 201016 yr I despise the OT rule and the argument that the other defense can't stop the team is lame IMO. Would the Saints stopped Minn had they gotten the ball? Doubt it. Neither team could stop the other for the most part. I like the college rules except maybe make them go for 2 earlier...I don't like kickers either!
January 25, 201016 yr The sudden death overtime? This is starting to get a little out of hand that the team that wins the toss is the "better" team. This game could have been a thousand times better than it already was if they went by the college rules. Not saying the better team didnt win, but the Vkes didnt even have a chance to prove themselves which has been the case twice so far (Pack/Cards). Didn't the Packers fumble the ball and the Cardinals recovered it and ran it back for 6? By College overtime rules, the game is still over when the defense scores a TD. The Cardinal O would not need to come on the field to try to score.
January 25, 201016 yr The numbers are actually really, really close. While not my favorite OT, it most likely is the best way to do it. Prior to 2004 season: http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html 2007 article: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2826668
January 25, 201016 yr I despise the OT rule and the argument that the other defense can't stop the team is lame IMO. Would the Saints stopped Minn had they gotten the ball? Doubt it. Neither team could stop the other for the most part. I like the college rules except maybe make them go for 2 earlier...I don't like kickers either! New Orleans didn't stop Minnesota the whole game...the Vikings stopped themselves. Considering how the game had gone, its not unreasonable to think Minnesota would have coughed it up again had they got the ball. I like the first team to six idea for OT, but regarding last night's game, the Vikings had their chance at the end and choked it away. And, they had their chances many times prior to that. I don't think it would be unreasonable to have a rule that states the opponent wins the game on the first possession of OT if you can't keep them out of the end zone. If you can, then you give your offense a chance to get to 6 first.
January 25, 201016 yr I heard this morning that of the 14 OT games this year, the team who won the flip only won 6 of them.
January 25, 201016 yr I thinks this game will be a stepping stone for an OT change one day but the real head scratcher will occur when Team A get the ball first has a 3rd and long on their own side of the field and throw a bomb only to see a pass interference called and move the ball to the spot of the foul, therefore, giving Team A a FG opportunity to win the game when they realistically were stopped on 3 downs inside their own territory. A game like that where the NFL's rules don't mesh well with their OT will get things in motion.
January 25, 201016 yr The only change I would make is that both teams must have at least one possession. If the team who wins the toss scores first, the other team gets a shot. If the don't, then it is whomever scores first. However, given that winning the toss does not guarantee a win by the numbers, I don't see the NFL making any changes.
January 25, 201016 yr What about letting them play a complete 15 minute quarter. That sounds interesting to me.
January 25, 201016 yr How about this? It's just off the top of my head. I hate that a team can kick a FG and win on the first possession. -If the team that wins the toss kicks and makes a FG the other team gets a possession. If they kick a FG and get it the game continues in sudden death fashion. But if team two gets a TD they win. It would drastically change the strategy of OT and make it to where you had to score a TD more often than not to win. I don't really mind the current OT setup (it's way better than the college version), but this would work for me. If for no other reason than that it brings all three elements - kicking/special teams, offense and defense - into play for both teams.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.