How many people think that ESPN and all the other "sports" heads will be saying the NFL overtime is broken and needs to be changed?
Well it is, but we don't need this game to make it clear. But you're right, they will all be claiming that now. All as part of their vast conspiracy to irritate New York Jets fans and hold up New England on a pedestal as the epitome of all things good in this world. They're out to get you.
It should be YES, Football is about O, D and ST. I have said that each team should get 1 possession then it goes sudden death. This would allow all 3 facets of the team to have a play in the outcome of the game. A team is based on all 3 parts not on a coin.
It's all about the money. How many rule changes have been made so the game is finished faster. An OT game like the NCAA would push a game another hour at least. I doubt the networks would gain anything by replaying the same commercials another 12 times. And what kind of options are those for a poll? Troll anybody?
To be fair, yeah OT rules need to be changed. B/c if Pats won the toss and won, we would be crying for the same thing. But this will probably be the main convo 2morr besides them praising Cassel and talking about the "new QB controversey in NE".
Highway robbery. Patriots were cheated. Plus, every incompletion of Cassel's should have been an Pass Interference call. Change the turf back to grass too. Change the overtime rule to if the Pats go to OT they just win by default. That is all.
I hate the way NFL overtime works. I'd rather just see another quarter played - even if it's only a 10 minute quarter.
If you can't stop a team from making a 70 yard drive with the game on the line you don't deserve to win the game period. Letting anyone convert 3rd and 15 is sacrilege.
My opinion; just continue the game for an extra period. If you tie the game as regulation game time ends, you kick off to start the overtime.
This is a stupid thread... Pat's got hosed on that holding call on the goal line but the jets made the plays when they needed too... (expect at the end of regulation). They had to momentum.. BUT TAILS NEVER FAILS
The theory I've always liked for overtime is the first to six points rule. You get a full quarter of overtime, you score a touchdown or 2 field goals, you win. You play until the quarter ends or until a team scores 6 points. If the game ends before a team scores 6, whatever the score was would be the final. I think that would be fun.
i like that rule jetfanmack, great idea actually. you see far too many times that a team only needs to gain 30 yards to get into field goal range and end it.
There was a good article written by Mike Carlson about getting rid of OT completely, apart from sudden death play off games, of course. There were 2 good reasons he made for doing this : 1. It shows which coaches really do 'play to win' 2. It makes the end of year tie-breakers much easier as, let's say, a team finishing 10-5-1 won't need any tie-breakers to be ranked above 10-6 teams. Going back to point #1 and last night's game, when Moss scored at the end Bellichick would have had the choice of kicking the PAT and settling for a 'tie' or going for the win and attempting a 2-pt conversion. The easy option under the current system is to tie the game and go into OT; if you lose there you're deemed unlucky.
I would have liked another option, no one cares about the Pats anymore. The whole 'dynasty' thing has been and gone, and there will be NO crying about this. Hell, Mangini and BB seemed to linger a bit longer than usual.
