Overtime Rules

[inudesu]

It's not arbitrary. Play defense. If you don't like it, win in regulation and never have to worry about it. You act like there aren't two teams out there in OT and the offense is running against a scout team.

If it isn't an advantage why do teams never elect to play D first?

And it is arbitrary. As you point out, football contains Offense, Defense, and ST. If you win the toss and kick a field goal on your first possesion, how much defense have you played?

They could just as easily use any of a hundred other methods, but they arbitrarily chose to use sudden death. They could add another 15 minute quarter (like b-ball), they could have a field goal kicking contest (like a hockey shoot-out), they could play a "short field" version like college does, they could play "first to 6" like someone mentioned in this thread (Greenberg's idea?).

And I don't understand the "well, just win it in regulation" talk. That goes for both teams. We have to have some way of settling games that are tied when regulation ends (at least we do in the playoffs), it might as well be fair.

[dhussdawg]

So call it a tie then.

If you're going to have some kind of arbitrary football-like way of picking a winner, you might as well have one that allows both teams to get the ball.

I would like the college football way much better if they didnt start at the 25 of the opponents. Of course, I realize that you cant have them start at their own 20 or kickoff because it would draw the game out too long. So, you are caught between a rock and a hard place.

It's okay for college to have this little sissy take the ball at the 25, it is a game.

For the pros, this is their job, it is sudden death and winner take all. It is the best way to do it, hands down. More exciting and more on the line. In college, the first couple of OTs are exciting, then it just gets old.

[johnnylightnin]

If it isn't an advantage why do teams never elect to play D first?

Again, college teams always elect to play D first. This isn't a convincing argument for the college system. The distinct advantage is still there, it's just on another side of the ball.

[dhussdawg]

If it isn't an advantage why do teams never elect to play D first?

And it is arbitrary. As you point out, football contains Offense, Defense, and ST. If you win the toss and kick a field goal on your first possesion, how much defense have you played?

They could just as easily use any of a hundred other methods, but they arbitrarily chose to use sudden death. They could add another 15 minute quarter (like b-ball), they could have a field goal kicking contest (like a hockey shoot-out), they could play a "short field" version like college does, they could play "first to 6" like someone mentioned in this thread (Greenberg's idea?).

And I don't understand the "well, just win it in regulation" talk. That goes for both teams. We have to have some way of settling games that are tied when regulation ends (at least we do in the playoffs), it might as well be fair.

It is fair.

[inudesu]

I think there are problems with either system, but I prefer the NFL because it seems that the OT is more representative of the way the game is actually played as opposed to some forced situational scrimmage.

Like in practice when you're only working on Offense or Defense? Those kind of scrimmages?

They could at least have the scoring team kick-off when the first team with the ball scores on its first possesion.

[johnnylightnin]

Like in practice when you're only working on Offense or Defense? Those kind of scrimmages?

Nope, because the D can get the ball back. It's not unfair...at least not any more unfair than every other system.

[Bigdog13]

If it isn't an advantage why do teams never elect to play D first?

And it is arbitrary. As you point out, football contains Offense, Defense, and ST. If you win the toss and kick a field goal on your first possesion, how much defense have you played?

They could just as easily use any of a hundred other methods, but they arbitrarily chose to use sudden death. They could add another 15 minute quarter (like b-ball), they could have a field goal kicking contest (like a hockey shoot-out), they could play a "short field" version like college does, they could play "first to 6" like someone mentioned in this thread (Greenberg's idea?).

And I don't understand the "well, just win it in regulation" talk. That goes for both teams. We have to have some way of settling games that are tied when regulation ends (at least we do in the playoffs), it might as well be fair.

As JL just pointed out having to start out with your back against the wall at the 25 isn't defense. It's all offense and ST. AND not representative of real football.

As far as your last paragraph goes like you said it does go both ways and neither team has a right to bitch. After 60 minutes both teams had many chances and blew it. Think about it if you are the Vikes right now, are you not going to the SB because you didn't have another chance in OT or because you fumbled the ball 50 times and Favre threw another int. to kill the teams drive at the end of the game?????

[dhussdawg]

If we are talking about equal possession, then why even have a clock? They should just do 12 possessions each. Hell, there are many games where one team gets one more possession than the other, do they need to let the other team have a chance at another drive even if the clock runs out?

[inudesu]

Again, college teams always elect to play D first. This isn't a convincing argument for the college system. The distinct advantage is still there, it's just on another side of the ball.

No, it's a defense against the idea that the NFL way is "fair."

If you want to argue that the college method is not "fair" then you can say "how come nobody ever picks offense first" and hash it out from there.

1. It is an advantage to start with the ball in NFL overtime.
2. The team that wins a coin-toss gets to chose whether or not they want the ball first (and always ask for the ball).
3. The team that wins a coin-toss has a marked advantage in NFL overtime.
4. Winning a coin-toss is completely random.
5. Random chance allows one team an advantage in the NFL overtime system by design. I realize that weather, injuries, and crowd noise are also random advantages. But they are not purposely built into the system in the same way (or are meant to be earned advantages - like giving home field to teams with better records).
6. A randomly generated advantage is not a fair way to determine the best team in a given football game.

[inudesu]

If we are talking about equal possession, then why even have a clock? They should just do 12 possessions each. Hell, there are many games where one team gets one more possession than the other, do they need to let the other team have a chance at another drive even if the clock runs out?

There is no clock in NFL overtime.

[Bigdog13]

No, it's a defense against the idea that the NFL way is "fair."

If you want to argue that the college method is not "fair" then you can say "how come nobody ever picks offense first" and hash it out from there.

1. It is an advantage to start with the ball in NFL overtime.
2. The team that wins a coin-toss gets to chose whether or not they want the ball first (and always ask for the ball).
3. The team that wins a coin-toss has a marked advantage in NFL overtime.
4. Winning a coin-toss is completely random.
5. Random chance allows one team an advantage in the NFL overtime system by design. I realize that weather, injuries, and crowd noise are also random advantages. But they are not purposely built into the system in the same way (or are meant to be earned advantages - like giving home field to teams with better records).
6. A randomly generated advantage is not a fair way to determine the best team in a given football game.

Yeah but at this point they have played the game and determined that one team IS NOT better then the other team. Now let's find an efficient way of getting on with it because the Simpsons are about to be on. And that is why sudden death makes the most sense.

[inudesu]

Think about it if you are the Vikes right now, are you not going to the SB because you didn't have another chance in OT or because you fumbled the ball 50 times and Favre threw another int. to kill the teams drive at the end of the game?????

Yes.

Both.

If the Vikes get the ball first they have a better chance of winning that game. I'm glad they didn't, but I still think both teams should have a chance with the ball.

[dhussdawg]

There is no clock in NFL overtime.

I am talking about regulation.

[inudesu]

Yeah but at this point they have played the game and determined that one team IS NOT better then the other team. Now let's find an efficient way of getting on with it because the Simpsons are about to be on. And that is why sudden death makes the most sense.

If it's down to that thinking, then why bother with sudden death? Why not just filp the coin? Or kick fields goals until someone misses? Or do a punt/pass/kick contest?

Neither team "deserves" to win, so why not just pick some other way of picking one?

[inudesu]

I am talking about regulation.

Well, there is the problem. We're discussing overtime rules.