Blog Entry

OT change: Why?

Posted on: March 23, 2010 4:43 pm
 

 

ORLANDO  -- Defense can win championships, but it just can't play well enough in overtime in the playoffs.

That's the message the NFL owners sent Tuesday when they voted 28-4 in favor of changing the league's overtime rules in the playoffs.

The team that wins the coin toss can't win the game on a field goal anymore on the first possession. If that team kicks a field goal, the other team would get a possession. If the team that wins the toss scores a touchdown, the game is over the other team getting no possession.

So why change things?

Some will say this is a knee-jerk reaction to the Saints beating the Vikings in the NFC Championship Game in overtime, kicking a field goal on the first possession after the coin toss.

But Rich McKay, co-chair of the league's competition committee, said that wasn't the case. Interestingly enough, the Vikings were one of the four teams that voted against it. The others were the Ravens, Bills and Bengals.

The current overtime rules had been in place since 1974, both for the regular season and the playoffs, although the playoff games hadn't been decided until the first team scores -- no matter how long the game.

There is a chance that this rule, only voted in for the playoffs, could still be implemented for the 2010 regular season. It will be discussed again at the May meetings, with a change possible but not seen as likely.

There have been 1.2 overtime postseason games since 1974. Is that enough for a change?

This is an over-reaction to those screaming loudly about the stats that favor the team winning the coin flip. The coin-flip winner won the game 59.4-percent of the time since the kickoff was moved back to the 30 in 1994. Those teams won it 37-percent of the time without the other team touching the ball.

The improved accuracy of kickers also influenced the vote, according to McKay. They've become so much better kicking the long field goal.

Here's an idea: Have the defense stop the opponent in their end. You know what happens? You get the ball back. They can't even try a long field goal.

If you stop them on the first set of downs, your team gets the ball back in good field position.

The NFL blew it on this one, yielding to the loud cries of a small, vocal minority.

Call me a traditionalist, but I liked things just the way they were.

 

Category: NFL
Comments

Since: Aug 16, 2006
Posted on: March 31, 2010 12:48 pm
 

Elminate the Coin Toss.

Continue payign the 4th quarter without end until a team scores for the lead at or beyond the 60 minute mark!

Coin toss if they reach 90 minutes. Winner gets game. Shake hands.



Since: Aug 16, 2006
Posted on: March 31, 2010 12:44 pm
 

OT change: Why?

Howw do you stop the refs and replay judges in OT from going for the home team all on ONE DRIVE!

I mean, the coin toss was nothing A tied game was decided OFF the Field ... and nothing can change this although eliminating replay would be a HUGE START! Cause there is where one gets sickened... human erros and emotions I can live with..and coin tosses too...not replay calls that are simply mind bending...LOL




Since: Oct 19, 2006
Posted on: March 26, 2010 12:46 pm
 

OT change: Why?

A vote winning  28-4 is a small vocal minority????

A lot of people don't like the old OT(I think sudden death is unfair, and stupid) and a lot don't care for this change whether it be just playoffs or reg season.  I also believe there are a lot of purists who don't like the college OT as well, although I find it exciting and like it.  
I think the only thing to do is to offer up a 1/2 period of like 7 or 8 minutes.  Whom ever has the ball can score what they want, and same for the other side.  Whatever the final score is at the end of that 1/2 period wins.  If they are still tied, then you go to a sudden death.  And for those people that say oh well they might get injuries and be tired.  Who cares, they are getting paid a lot of money to be in something for 5-10 years, and have a nice nest egg when they retire.  Most of us have to work 4 times as long to get anywhere near the money they make, so I think they could suck it up for an extra 8 minutes which they aren't even on the field for all of it.



Since: Apr 13, 2008
Posted on: March 24, 2010 6:16 pm
 

OT change: Why?

Pete, here's a counterpoint to your argument that if you can't play defense, you don't deserve to win.  If the team that wins the coin toss has a solid defense, they shouldn't have an issue stopping the other team on 1 possession if the toss winner only scores a field goal.  At least with the rule change, both defenses have to prove themselves, thus defense still would be important (but now important for both teams, and not just the loser of the toss).



Since: Jan 17, 2008
Posted on: March 24, 2010 1:15 pm
 

OT change: Why?

"I think the fairest way to do this is play the entire 15-minute quarter in both the regular season and the playoffs.  Baseball does it; basketball does it.  Why not football?"
I'm close to you on that. I have long advocated an 8-minute overtime, played in its entirety with regulation rules. In regular season, if game is tied after one overtime, the game ends. Playoffs would, of course, continue until there's a winner. (I think 15 minutes is too long — basketball's OT periods are roughly one-eighth of the game length).
This eliminates all the "problems" associated with sudden death, and makes strategy an actual factor -- proper time management (do we try to eat clock and score, making it harder on the opponent? Do we go all out and hope to build a 2-touchdown lead? Etc.)
I could even live with having a playoff format with one full 8-minute session, then sudden-death after that ... if nobody has risen above by that point, you just take your chances with "unfair" coin flip.



Since: Oct 16, 2006
Posted on: March 24, 2010 12:55 pm
 

OT change: Why?

If Goodell and the owners wanna make something happen, try to do something with the players union and get together to agree on a new CBA agreement. Saving next season is better than some sorry ass college football rule, I'm sorry. If you don't want the opposing team to score, hold your ground and shut it down. Just because of what happened in the Vikings/Saints NFC Championship game, you wanna bring college football rules to the NFL? Too bad, it's the game and that's the way it should be. If you can't stop them that's your fault. The NFL is full of shit when it comes to something like this. Don't mess the game up by implementing rules that don't apply to pro football. You even have coaches that don't like this change.



Since: Nov 20, 2006
Posted on: March 24, 2010 12:48 pm
 

OT change: Why?

Hey Moron, Ziggy Wulff, the owner of the Vikings, voted against this.

So I guess it's not a big conspiracy to dethrone the Saints..... get over yourself.
 




Since: Nov 18, 2006
Posted on: March 24, 2010 12:44 pm
 

That settles it............

If Prisco doesn't like it then we all know the NFL did the right thing. They should have made the change in the regular season too and i think that they will in time. This is a long time coming. The sudden death thing relied way to much on luck, as in who won the coin toss. It only make sense that both teams should have the ball at least once. Way to go NFL you did the right thing for once, now make sure there is no strike.



Since: Nov 27, 2006
Posted on: March 24, 2010 11:53 am
 

OT change: Why?

I think that each team should be guaranteed the same number of possessions.

1) Have a coin toss to determine possession.

2) Team 1 gets a possession

3) Team 2 gets a possession

4) If the score is still tied, repeat step 1. If the score is not tied, game over!

This goes on until someone wins!




Since: Jun 12, 2009
Posted on: March 24, 2010 11:47 am
 

OT change: Why?

That is a great way of looking at it actually.



The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com