Someone at the Ravens has been binge-watching old game shows where contestants are asked to bid on their own knowledge. I’ll name that tune in three... If this is adopted as a new OT rule, it will quickly find equilibrium - probably spotting on your own 40 will become the choice that is equal risk-reward and then just get accepted as the norm. Even worse, some HC will probably do something crazy once and win - and then be known for the rest of their career as some master strategist.
They are way overthinking it. I say do 5 or 6 minutes extra time, no sudden death. If it's still tied, do another 5 or 6 minute period, only do the current rules (first TD wins, or sudden death after second possession).
Penalty Shootout. 5 Kicks from increasing distance - Kickers must include the QB and one player from the OL and DL.
Why not put the heaviest guy from each team who played in the game through a timed agility test to determine the winner? Or just play ten or fifteen minutes of football?
I never understood why we’re so afraid of ties, which even before overtime were not that common. And with all the concern about player health don’t know why you want to extend games. However if we must have regular season ot play a ten minute quarter with each team having one TO. If it’s still tied after that it’s a tie. Post season is sudden death ot. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If both teams are guaranteed to get the ball, the team that wins the coin toss will elect to get the ball second and have a significant advantage. It would be less fair than the current system.
I vote that after a 3 minute period or commercials that a ping-pong table be set up at midfield and each team selects one champion to represent them in ping-pong match to the death. The game must be won by a 2 pt margin after 21 points as we all know. If this margin is not reached by a total score of 70 then the match and the game shall be called a tie. If that proposal is not bloodthirsty enough for the crowd then we need to talk about a squat dancing (more popularly known as the Russian knee dance) contest between a champion from each side until somebody blows an ACL or surrenders. I will absolutely guarantee you that my second solution would draw higher ratings than any sudden death football play would.
Giving each team a possession doesn't make sense. If they swap TDs and the first team scores again, people will argue that the second team didn't get another try. Where does it end? The reality is if a team drives down the field and scores a td in OT they should win. Period. Now, if we are discussing other options for OT, what about a soccer approach. Just play the full 10 minute quarter and whoever is leading at ends wins.
It can't possibly be less fair than the current system. First of all, it isn't at all true that the team winning the toss would necessarily choose to receive, since being first after each team has gotten the ball once and the game is still tied is an obvious advantage. I would bet many teams would choose to take the ball. Either way, winning the toss certainly provides a strategic advantage, which is unavoidable; the goal is to reduce that advantage as much as possible. It would be even fairer to make sure each team gets the ball an equal number of times, no matter how many times it is (like in college), but that would take far too long (unless you use the short field the way college OT does), and would probably lead to more injuries. In either system, if the team with the ball first doesn't score a touchdown, the situation for the other team is exactly the same, so that can't change the fairness either way. The only difference is that in the current system, if the team with the ball first scores a touchdown, the other team never gets a chance to match. Allowing the other team to get a chance to match the touchdown cannot possibly be less fair than not even giving them a chance.
This is an extremely misleading use of statistics. Low marks for Tucker if he tried to do this in my class.. The question is not whether the NFL rule is fairer than the college rule; the question is whether a normal kickoff to start the series with both teams getting the ball is fairer than a normal kickoff with only one team possibly getting the ball. Since college uses the short field, if they followed the NFL rule that if the first team scores a TD the game is over, the team winning the toss would probably win 75% of the time. Thus, as is obvious, making sure each team always has the same number of chances is far fairer (with the team winning the toss only winning 55% of the time) than if they played under the NFL rule. The NFL rule is inherently less fair. Since in the NFL the team with the ball is probably getting it at their own 25, this effect is far diminished compared to in college, but it's still there; both teams getting the ball must be fairer than the possibility that only one team will. Added: I would also point out that this argument is exactly the same as one that would say that a team that scores (say) 2 runs in the top of the 10th inning should win the game automatically, with the team that bats in the bottom of the inning not getting a chance. Is there anyone who would think that that is fair?
Regardless of the point Tucker was trying to make, forget about the college number, and look at the NFL number, which is 52.7%. Do you really believe your proposal will get even closer to 50% than that, given that the team going second will have an advantage? That's the point I'm trying to make. Also, your proposal could end up being less fair than the college system because the short field in college may increase the odds of both teams getting the same result on their possessions. Which in college leads to double overtime, where the order of who gets the ball first is reversed. Now if we modify your proposal such that if it's tied after each team gets a possession, the order of possession is reversed, then it may be more fair. But if we're taking it to that level of complexity, I'd honestly prefer spot and choose.
I don't have the slightest doubt that it would get closer to 50%. I've made the logical argument why that is true, I've shown that the college OT, because of its extreme nature, shows this effect in dramatic fashion, and I've pointed out that the method corresponding to the NFL rule in baseball would be considered absurdly unfair. I've also pointed out that it simply isn't true that the second team necessarily has an advantage, since going first after the first two times would be a distinct advantage. If you want to argue that it isn't worth reducing 52.7% to say 51.7% because of time, injuries, TV money, and so on, that's fine - I in fact acknowledged every one of those issues in my original post. The only thing I actually said was that each team getting the ball once is fairer than the current rule, and that is simply true.
If the teams can’t determine a winner, it needs to come down to the kickers: They each get 4 attempts - the winner is the one who kicked the longest TOTAL of successful kicks.
If you're going to go this route then you have each kicker line up for a 40 yard kick (simultaneously with their backs to each other) and take it. If both go through you move them back 5 yards and repeat. Once the kickers are staring at each other (having been moved back to that point) you award bonus points if they hit the other kicker with their try. Nut shots at 10 yards, then 20, etc. Again this would send ratings through the roof and have people glued to their TV's for OT.
Just play football! Back to fifteen minutes of sudden death - but make it serious. No commercials! No timeouts. Running clock. Forty second play clock becomes thirty. Clock does not stop with incomplete pass. Restart after penalty is fifteen seconds, not 25. No two minute warning.
