NFL To Vote On New Playoff Overtime Proposal

Polaroid

I need a tittle
Since
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
2,890
Score
3
Tokens
0
The NFC Wildcard Round last season between the Green Bay Packers and Arizona Cardinals was memorable for a number of reasons when the Packers came back from the dead to force overtime as they overcame a 14 point deficit entering the 4th quarter. The two teams scored a combined 96 points which is a record for a postseason game and the win by the Cardinals defied the odds as they lost the coin toss in overtime but managed to win the game.

And this offseason, the NFL have proposed a change to the rules to prevent two teams battling for three hours only for the match to be decided by the luck of the coin toss as the winning side put together a few drives to get in range to set up a game ending field goal. Which is exactly what happened in the subsequent NFC Championship Game when New Orleans beat Minnesota 31-28 where the Vikings never had an opportunity to get the ball in overtime.

Overtime was first introduced to NFL regular season games in 1974 where the kickoff took place at the 35 yard line before moving to the 30 yard line, and to the advantage of the receiving team, in 1994. The change of five yards gave the receiving team, and thus the team winning the toss, a much higher advantage and making the winning of the toss significantly more important. In fact, since 1994 the team winning the toss in overtime have won 58.9% of the games as opposed to 46.8% between 1974 and 1993.


calknaacf.jpg


The new proposal is not the sudden death we're used to but slightly tweaked, more like Sudden Death V2.0. Unless a touchdown is scored on the opening possession (either by the offence or defense) then the rules would change to ensure that both teams will get the ball at least once. If no touchdown is scored then the team which lost the toss would have the opportunity to tie/win the game. If the game is tied after the first set of possessions then the game reverts to the original version of sudden death where the next team to score is the winner. Using the earlier NFC Championship Game as an example under the proposed new rule, Minnesota would have had the chance to get another possession because the The Saints didn't score a touchdown.

The competition committee of the NFL are due to meet in Orlando, Florida March 21-24 when the proposal could be put to a vote and 24 of the 32 owners would have to approve the change to the current overtime rule. However, this would only apply to the post season which seems a wasted opportunity. If NFL was as long as a baseball season of 162 games or an 82 game long basketball season, the matter of a coin toss wouldn't be so relevant since there would be a lot of ties and any luck from the coin toss would even out throughout the season. But the NFL regular season is only 16 games long and with many teams losing out on the playoffs by a single win, ensuring that the variance of the coin toss does not affect the regular season would seem equally important.


.
 
Move the kick off back 5 yards if you like, but none of this other bs.

Interesting why a team winning toss would win less than 50% prior to rule change. I'm guessing it's variance. Not enough ot games.
If it actually was a disadvantage to receive they can of course choose to kick.

And anyway nothing wrong with a little luck determining the result. It happens anyway.
 
Moving back 5 yards would seem to be the obvious answer. Or even better is letting a math major loose with the data to figure out the optimum distance to get to 50% after allowing for other variables - shouldn't be that much of a task.
 
I don't like the proposed change. It can only increase scoring and I bet nothing but UNDERS on the NFL.

If I set aside betting considerations and look at it as a fan: meh. I'm okay with it but it doesn't blow me away. I guess I would prefer it slightly over the current system but I don't hate the current system. Critics love to use phrases like "the game gets decided by a coinflip," but it is just false. It's a gross exaggeration. Whoever plays best in overtime wins the game. That's how it should be.

I remember a great proposal about an auction-type system where teams would actually bid on field position to start overtime. Like team A would bid that they will take the ball at their own 20, then team B could bid that they will take the ball at their own 19 and it would keep moving back until one team didn't want to bid anymore. Then it would be a sudden death format.

I like that a lot but it seems so good that I can't see the NFL going with it.
 
Muddy that's interesting but too radical, imo.

Just make it the first team to score at least 4 points. Simple and fair.
 
They need to do something for sure? But not the gay college way! Almost as gay as the hockey shootout? :eek1:
 
I remember a great proposal about an auction-type system where teams would actually bid on field position to start overtime. Like team A would bid that they will take the ball at their own 20, then team B could bid that they will take the ball at their own 19 and it would keep moving back until one team didn't want to bid anymore. Then it would be a sudden death format.

That is an excellent proposal but, as Jello says, it ain't going to happen. Too radical naturally, but having a auction would be a big hit for the TV viewers (or for me at least) if done the right way. Assuming that it was an efficient auction, much like a high volume betting market, then it should make it a 50/50 outcome over the long term.
 
If they change it, they should give me a royalty. I like the rules as they are, but as a comprimise, these are the exact rules I dreamt up last November over on BRS or whatever you all call it now.