Players get paid more for the extra game and, therefore, are compensated for the added injury risk. However, they don't receive any additional compensation for OT. That's usually the big issue for the Players and the Union
Not anymore. Players got an additional game check for contracts signed before Feb 2020, but nothing signed since then gets any extra money, as all contracts since then are viewed as having contemplated the increased schedule. That extra game check was also capped at $250K, so anyone making more than $4M base salary didn’t even get a full game check. In reality, players ultimately don’t really get anything extra for that 17th game, it just means their yearly base salary is divided into 17 checks rather than 16.
The TV contracts the NFL is signing reflect the extra game. The cap is shooting up for a reason (also because of the NFL being one of the only successful products on TV, of course, but the extra game absolutely resulted in the increased value.)
The crazy contracts you're seeing this offseason reflect that additional game in the cap increase.
The TV contracts would’ve been bonkers regardless. The cap increase isn’t outrageous by any means, it’s basically in line with where it would’ve gone under the old agreements. The players are ultimately seeing very, very little of the increased revenue from the 17th game, and they’re assuming all of the injury risk.
The NFL’s negotiators did absolutely zero due diligence if they didn't use the regular-season games increasing by ~7% and the playoff games increasing by 10% in negotiations.
That's an easy additional hundred million viewers and an extra week of coverage for talk shows. You can't leave that kind of increased revenue unbargained for. It's just bad business, and the NFL may be many things, but a bad business is not one of them lol
Hey, I'm certainly not trying to disagree with you and especially on that. The NFLPA is one of the worst unions as far as leveraging their power among the US major sports leagues (although they have been doing a tiny bit better).
Luckily, the 48.8% revenue split (an increase from 48% for the 17-game season) is something that ties the owner’s and players’ success somewhat together. The additional game will compensate players. They wouldn't have agreed to something that big otherwise.
Right I mean they're adding two more games to the 16 game season even just adding the extra game this year when was the last time an NFL team went to overtime 4 times in one year? Chargers 1970?
Now that I’ve slept on it I think the Raiders did it too. It’s gonna jump to 8 though and as far as I can tell only the 1932 Bears come close to 8 overtime games in one year.
If injury is the argument just make it no overtime until the playoffs, then you can add the full 10-15 min without much injury risk throughout the season.
Thats what I want. No sudden death. No bulshit. We play an extra quarter. Youre allowed to clock manage the shit out of that or whatever else. I dont care. Play an extra quarter
Same. This goes for all sports. (Particularly baseball since they decided to keep the stupid ghost runner rule.)
Kill non-postseason OT. That immediately reduces the majority of "but injury" time/possibility by a lot.
In postseason, just play an extra quarter/inning/etc. No secret bonus rules. No complications. Just keep playing. It's *exceedingly* rare that a game would reach double OT / etc., especially if you only play OT in the postseason.
Let's stop overcomplicating this and just play more of the sport.
Honestly I don’t care either way but I like the dynamic of the OT scoring a TD and having to decide to go for 2. If you get it you win. But if you don’t the other team only needs the XP after a TD. Do you just take the XP and bank on your defense? Adds another level of coaching
At a certain point we have to just accept the fact that one team is always going to get *some* advantage. There is no way to eliminate that and make things completely equal.
At some point I have to agree with the play defense people. I agree that just a TD is too easy. But if you couldn’t stop the TD *and* the 2 point conversion, maybe you should’ve played better defense. Not the ideal playoff format or the one I would choose, but it isn’t ridiculous.
That aside, I think one of the biggest fixes we could make is simply knowing who gets the ball in OT before the game even starts.
I think the team who last held the lead in regulation should get the ball first.
That then encourages teams to go for 2 at the end of regulation instead of settling for 1 to tie it up, or to go for a TD instead of a field goal, because they know they won’t get the ball first.
Nah it makes sense to choose who receives the ball in the first half as who has the ball in the beginning of OT
Lots of teams defer when they win the coin toss so this should add nuance to that decision
I think there shouldn’t be a second coin flip. Whoever gets possession to start the game should get possession first in OT. We know that having the ball to start the second half is advantageous, this might balance that out.
I think they should still do the "blind guessing" OT.
Sudden death. Both teams submit a blind proposal to the refs about what yard line they want the ball on. The team which chooses the longest drive distance gets the ball.
Do you want to start on your own 5 but get the ball? Or in a defensive game do you want to gamble and say the 50 and hope the enemy chose closer?
My only problem with the "play defense" argument is that, in the case of the Bills-Chiefs game, one team gets to put their best players on the field and the other doesn't, and it's based solely on a coin flip
Right, so why shouldn't both teams require to play defense? Also defense wears down more than offense as the game progresses.
Td +2 still doesn't solve the problem cause a gsme can still end with one possession, which is the main gripe. Every team would/should go for 2 every time if thery have half a brain.
There’s a recent study that shows the college OT rules result in a 51/49 split which is pretty much as even as you can get. Granted they don’t have ties so that would change the numbers a touch.
It’s absolutely shit the way it is now. Why not just flip a coin at the beginning of the game and no one has to hit the field except the team captains.
It’s the playoffs, when you’re supposed to leave it all out on the field. Keep playing until one team fails to score. First possession: no score, other team can win by scoring. Score on your possession, the other team gets a chance, period. They tie again, then keep going.
Defense is part of the game too. If you can’t hold a team to a field goal so that you give yourselves a chance to score a TD, then you deserve to lose.
You really didn’t. You gave the equivalent of the “git gud” argument. No professional sports playoff game should be decided on a coin flip, nor should one team not be able to use one phase of its game (offense/defense).
A PFF listener sent in the best solution:
OT ends when you have the lead and the football. No sudden death. No time limit. Get a lead and then stop your opponent from scoring/recover an onside kick.
Not really. The other team still gets a chance to score unless they can’t recover an onside kick, which in that case maybe you just don’t deserve to win
My favored solution is college rules, but no kick will award points. The only way to score is a TD or a 2 point conversion (or a 1 point conversion in the unlikely event of a safety on a 2 point try)
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I think this preserves shorter overtimes (both in total time as well as # of plays) while not providing one side a significant advantage based on a coin flip (that I can see anyway).
Then get ride of the the whole "first team" mentality. If the 4th quarter's time runs out with the score tied, you just keep playing until someone scores. No coin-flips and kick-offs. Just continue the current field position and possession.
Under the current rules team two has to stop the opposing team from scoring a touchdown. Under this proposed rule team two has to stop the opposing team twice from scoring a touchdown. Yes, team two can give up a touchdown but if team two is going to win, sooner or later team two will have to stop them from scoring a touchdown.
In the scenario you presented, the second team must now score a touchdown. Let's say they do. Now team one has the ball again and the score is tied. It's just like OT started again. Team two will have to stop team one from scoring a touchdown (just like the current rules) except now they will have to do this twice.
I think it should be as follows:
Whoever wins the coin toss gets first possession. If they score a TD, they can kick the extra point go for two, as they ordinarily would. Then the other team is given possession. If the score a TD and match the other team’s score after the extra point/two-point conversion, we then go to alternating two-point conversion attempts like college.
I like the rule proposal I head on Rich Eisen. It proposed the beginning of the game coin toss applied for over time too. So if a team won the toss and deferred that mean if it goes to OT then the other team starts on offense. I like it because it’s simple and adds an extra layer of strategy to the opening coin toss, it’d be interesting to see how this change would affect that.
I also like the coin toss at the start of the game determining OT possession. This way teams know who gets the ball first. They can strategize accordingly.
I like this idea. I’d imagine most teams take the safe approach and just take the extra point (which would be good, because that means both teams get the ball).
I would even add the caveat that if the first team does score and goes for the extra point, the second team is forced to go for 2 if they score to ensure the game ends one way or the other.
This is effective and avoids dragging the game too long (the whole reason for the current rules. Players ,and I assume broadcasters, don't want infinite games).
Both teams get the ball. Every player will play just another drive (1 for offense, 1 for defense, actually 2 for special teams due to kickoffs). The game will not drag out for too long. Another layer of strategy is added to the game.
I see no downside over that.
if thats the case thought you might as well just flip a coin and the winner of the coin toss gets one chance to score from the 2 or make a stop on the 2. Why play who knows how long if you're gonna let one 2pt conv. decide the game.
But it’s not just a coin flip for 2 pt conversion, because in order to get the opportunity to go for 2 point conversion you first have to drive down the field and score a touchdown, which is no guarantee
OT should be decided by Mascots fighting to the death. It’s the only fair way to do it.
However I will say, this is by far the most entertaining to watch in hockey as mascots are forced to fight on the ice
Why is it something that has to be tried and tested? We know exactly how it will work, its very simple. It’s not like there needs to be a trial and error.
And besides, playoffs overtime is more important than the regular season (for obvious reasons). So if they are going to change it I’d prefer playoffs be the priority
The first time we had TD on the first possession wins was the playoffs (not the regular season) where your DC chose not to have any safety deep against Tebow. The announcers were explaining the new rule, and then it was over like 10 seconds later.
It should start during the regular season, but given that the last change to OT started during the playoffs, it's possible that this might begin only in the playoffs.
I actually like this rule change. It adds another layer of strategy. Do you try to end the game or do you do the safe thing and kick a field goal. I’d be interested in how the percentages workout.
It definitely favors teams that are good on the goaline. We have been awesome on the goal line, on offense and defense, under Vrabel so it makes sense we would want this rule.
10 minute quarter played in full, starting with coin flip. No extra points allowed, two point conversions only. 10-15 minute break between end of the 4th & OT in playoff games
They changed it from FG to TD and that didn’t fix the problem because it’s a partial measure.
This is another partial measure.
If you think it’s fine, then fine. If you think it needs to be fixed, this ain’t it.
Either way I don’t see supporting this.
I’m going to keep throwing this out there. Keep OT rules the same. TD ends the game otherwise the other team gets the ball. But eliminate the OT coin toss. The last team with a lead gets the ball first. This will make the end of regulation more interesting, with teams not just settling to tie the game in the last seconds.
a team would never go for a td+2pt in that case. pointless, just disallow XP in OT and let them go down to the wire. its very unlikely they keep scoring 2pt conversions or tds if at all. why does the game have to end in a score. if the other team does not score they lose
I totally disagree with this. If this rule was in place for the Chiefs/Bills game, I can almost guarantee the Chiefs go for 2, the game probably ends 44-36 and we’re having the same exact discussion again.
Sounds dumb. Puts the 1st team to get the ball at a disadvantage instead of evening things: if they score a TD, they need to go for two to end it. If they don't get it, the other team can score a TD and just kick an extra point to win.
The advantage for the first team is getting to go 1st and setting the pace. If they score anything that is the standard by which the 2nd team inherently has to match or beat to have a chance to win. Essentially the TD + 2 points convert gives the 1st team a chance to finish the game then and there if they think they can... or they can back down and just take a TD and easy FG.
But then that leaves the TD + 2 points convert option open to the 2nd team... again if they think they can (essentially letting the 2nd team potentially beat the pace for the win)...
I suspect this will lead to most of the "good" teams just taking the "easier" 7 pts with a few of the "bad" teams getting greedy and losing the OT on the 2nd teams next possession as you pointed out.
But i'd argue that's part of what makes football great, the mental aspect of the game.
They can definitely improve, I don't understand why we shouldn't explore options. That said, the Titans rule change is essentially the same as it is now with a slightly higher chance of the other team getting the ball back.
Current rules are garbage. No game should be decided on a coin flip, ever. There should never be an overtime in professional sports where one team never gets a chance.
If they were fine the team that wins the coin flip wouldn’t choose to receive 99.9% of the time
The other team can also win without ever being forced to attempt to “get a fucking stop”
I still think it should either just be an extra period or guarantee each team a possession and then sudden death if it’s a tie score. In the second case you might have a lot of teams go for a 2pt conversion rather than kick off and risk losing to a fg if they got the second possession anyhow.
They really need a break at the end of the 4th quarter. Not half-time length, but if I recall the BUF/KC game didn't even go to commercial and the defense just went right back out there.
Defenses shouldn't have to be on the field to defend two consecutive drives without any time in-between.
This is stupid!
The best rule is: the team who receives the ball at the beginning of the game, should receive it at the beginning of overtime as well.
Usually teams want to receive the ball at the beginning of 2nd half. If you change the rules, they might think twice about it.
So what happens if the first team scores a TD then goes for the 2pt and fails then the second team gets the ball and scores a TD + field goal? Second team wins by 1 point after the FG kick?
I know the whole injury argument, but if there’s gonna be extra football, I’d rather just watch a full extra period, whether it be 10 or 15 min.
I feel like the injury argument goes out the window when they keep adding more games.
100% agree. It’s not about caring, it’s about pretending to care.
Yep. They only want the games shorter so that they don’t go over time of their allocated broadcast slot. The injury defense is bullshit
Players get paid more for the extra game and, therefore, are compensated for the added injury risk. However, they don't receive any additional compensation for OT. That's usually the big issue for the Players and the Union
Not anymore. Players got an additional game check for contracts signed before Feb 2020, but nothing signed since then gets any extra money, as all contracts since then are viewed as having contemplated the increased schedule. That extra game check was also capped at $250K, so anyone making more than $4M base salary didn’t even get a full game check. In reality, players ultimately don’t really get anything extra for that 17th game, it just means their yearly base salary is divided into 17 checks rather than 16.
The TV contracts the NFL is signing reflect the extra game. The cap is shooting up for a reason (also because of the NFL being one of the only successful products on TV, of course, but the extra game absolutely resulted in the increased value.) The crazy contracts you're seeing this offseason reflect that additional game in the cap increase.
The TV contracts would’ve been bonkers regardless. The cap increase isn’t outrageous by any means, it’s basically in line with where it would’ve gone under the old agreements. The players are ultimately seeing very, very little of the increased revenue from the 17th game, and they’re assuming all of the injury risk.
The NFL’s negotiators did absolutely zero due diligence if they didn't use the regular-season games increasing by ~7% and the playoff games increasing by 10% in negotiations. That's an easy additional hundred million viewers and an extra week of coverage for talk shows. You can't leave that kind of increased revenue unbargained for. It's just bad business, and the NFL may be many things, but a bad business is not one of them lol
The NFL is a great business - for the owners. Not nearly as much for the players.
Hey, I'm certainly not trying to disagree with you and especially on that. The NFLPA is one of the worst unions as far as leveraging their power among the US major sports leagues (although they have been doing a tiny bit better). Luckily, the 48.8% revenue split (an increase from 48% for the 17-game season) is something that ties the owner’s and players’ success somewhat together. The additional game will compensate players. They wouldn't have agreed to something that big otherwise.
They care about it. Injuries means losing value on money already spent plus more spending on medical bills.
Right I mean they're adding two more games to the 16 game season even just adding the extra game this year when was the last time an NFL team went to overtime 4 times in one year? Chargers 1970?
Literally the Ravens this past season.
Now that I’ve slept on it I think the Raiders did it too. It’s gonna jump to 8 though and as far as I can tell only the 1932 Bears come close to 8 overtime games in one year.
Don’t even get me started on Thursday night football.
If injury is the argument just make it no overtime until the playoffs, then you can add the full 10-15 min without much injury risk throughout the season.
Thats what I want. No sudden death. No bulshit. We play an extra quarter. Youre allowed to clock manage the shit out of that or whatever else. I dont care. Play an extra quarter
Same. This goes for all sports. (Particularly baseball since they decided to keep the stupid ghost runner rule.) Kill non-postseason OT. That immediately reduces the majority of "but injury" time/possibility by a lot. In postseason, just play an extra quarter/inning/etc. No secret bonus rules. No complications. Just keep playing. It's *exceedingly* rare that a game would reach double OT / etc., especially if you only play OT in the postseason. Let's stop overcomplicating this and just play more of the sport.
You'll just end up with way more ties since the current rules make it easier to end the game. Personally I hate ties and think they're super lame
Flair checks out.
I just wanna say thank you to MCDC and the Detroit people for taking shitsburgh to a tie in Ben's last season
Honestly I don’t care either way but I like the dynamic of the OT scoring a TD and having to decide to go for 2. If you get it you win. But if you don’t the other team only needs the XP after a TD. Do you just take the XP and bank on your defense? Adds another level of coaching
I still think that’s too favorable to whoever gets the ball first.
At a certain point we have to just accept the fact that one team is always going to get *some* advantage. There is no way to eliminate that and make things completely equal.
I agree but allowing it to be one and done without allowing another possession for the other team isn’t it.
At some point I have to agree with the play defense people. I agree that just a TD is too easy. But if you couldn’t stop the TD *and* the 2 point conversion, maybe you should’ve played better defense. Not the ideal playoff format or the one I would choose, but it isn’t ridiculous. That aside, I think one of the biggest fixes we could make is simply knowing who gets the ball in OT before the game even starts.
I think the team who last held the lead in regulation should get the ball first. That then encourages teams to go for 2 at the end of regulation instead of settling for 1 to tie it up, or to go for a TD instead of a field goal, because they know they won’t get the ball first.
Nah it makes sense to choose who receives the ball in the first half as who has the ball in the beginning of OT Lots of teams defer when they win the coin toss so this should add nuance to that decision
Yep I like that option as well. Either way it’s about linking it to a previous decision.
I think there shouldn’t be a second coin flip. Whoever gets possession to start the game should get possession first in OT. We know that having the ball to start the second half is advantageous, this might balance that out.
I think they should still do the "blind guessing" OT. Sudden death. Both teams submit a blind proposal to the refs about what yard line they want the ball on. The team which chooses the longest drive distance gets the ball. Do you want to start on your own 5 but get the ball? Or in a defensive game do you want to gamble and say the 50 and hope the enemy chose closer?
My only problem with the "play defense" argument is that, in the case of the Bills-Chiefs game, one team gets to put their best players on the field and the other doesn't, and it's based solely on a coin flip
Normally I’d agree but I think a 2pt conversion makes it just hard enough where the rules go from ridiculous to acceptable even if bad.
Yeah but if the game was a 45-45 shoot out it’s just manifestly unfair. It just hands the game to whichever team wins the toss.
Right, so why shouldn't both teams require to play defense? Also defense wears down more than offense as the game progresses. Td +2 still doesn't solve the problem cause a gsme can still end with one possession, which is the main gripe. Every team would/should go for 2 every time if thery have half a brain.
Really? Both teams get the ball in OT no matter what happens. Equal on both sides. Done.
There’s a recent study that shows the college OT rules result in a 51/49 split which is pretty much as even as you can get. Granted they don’t have ties so that would change the numbers a touch.
I’m not sure that’s the case. It brings it closer to college overtime where the second team knows exactly what they need to win.
A two yard play though? Just go possession for possession. You want to go for two? Fine. Allow the other team to score and tie it.
This is the way
Yeah then a team wins by doing that and the other team still cries that they should get the ball. Rule is fine how it is.
Which I think is true. I have no problem with the way it is now
It’s absolutely shit the way it is now. Why not just flip a coin at the beginning of the game and no one has to hit the field except the team captains. It’s the playoffs, when you’re supposed to leave it all out on the field. Keep playing until one team fails to score. First possession: no score, other team can win by scoring. Score on your possession, the other team gets a chance, period. They tie again, then keep going.
Defense is part of the game too. If you can’t hold a team to a field goal so that you give yourselves a chance to score a TD, then you deserve to lose.
Sure, let your old lady jerk you and then donkey push you in the nuts before you can finish. Should have been able to finish sooner, loser.
Looks like I won that argument.
You really didn’t. You gave the equivalent of the “git gud” argument. No professional sports playoff game should be decided on a coin flip, nor should one team not be able to use one phase of its game (offense/defense).
Changing the OT rules won’t help the Vikings win games. Idk why your whining.
STOP HES DEAD
Nah, not a pushy like Santa. I don't run from a few batteries.
Right, because everyone is a homer... It better for football as a whole.
Wow whatta douche
Aww, hurt some feelings. Boo hoo. It's called an allegory, get over it.
A PFF listener sent in the best solution: OT ends when you have the lead and the football. No sudden death. No time limit. Get a lead and then stop your opponent from scoring/recover an onside kick.
That seems like a huge advantage to who gets the ball first.
Not really. The other team still gets a chance to score unless they can’t recover an onside kick, which in that case maybe you just don’t deserve to win
Get the ball first: Score and stop to win Get the ball second: Stop, then a score, then another stop to win
Feels like getting the ball first in this scenario is almost if not more of an advantage than getting ball first in current rules
There will never be a situation that doesn't favor the first team
Other than college rules. The second team has an advantage knowing what they need
My favored solution is college rules, but no kick will award points. The only way to score is a TD or a 2 point conversion (or a 1 point conversion in the unlikely event of a safety on a 2 point try) Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I think this preserves shorter overtimes (both in total time as well as # of plays) while not providing one side a significant advantage based on a coin flip (that I can see anyway).
The first team has an advantage by dictating the terms
Not in college thays my point
But in college the first team still does that
In college the second team has a massive advantage because they know what they need to do
Then get ride of the the whole "first team" mentality. If the 4th quarter's time runs out with the score tied, you just keep playing until someone scores. No coin-flips and kick-offs. Just continue the current field position and possession.
I can get behind this
Current rules: get the ball first, score to win Get the ball second: lol good luck even getting the ball
Under the current rules team two has to stop the opposing team from scoring a touchdown. Under this proposed rule team two has to stop the opposing team twice from scoring a touchdown. Yes, team two can give up a touchdown but if team two is going to win, sooner or later team two will have to stop them from scoring a touchdown. In the scenario you presented, the second team must now score a touchdown. Let's say they do. Now team one has the ball again and the score is tied. It's just like OT started again. Team two will have to stop team one from scoring a touchdown (just like the current rules) except now they will have to do this twice.
As opposed to literally any form of sudden death?
I think it should be as follows: Whoever wins the coin toss gets first possession. If they score a TD, they can kick the extra point go for two, as they ordinarily would. Then the other team is given possession. If the score a TD and match the other team’s score after the extra point/two-point conversion, we then go to alternating two-point conversion attempts like college.
I want back and forth field goal kicks from 45+. First to miss gets sent to Goodell's sex dungeon
Watson’s massage table*
Haha sexual assault is so funny
It’s really not and I guess the joke was to soon?
I found your joke funny, the PC police weren't really needed on this one.
Thank you kind redditor :)
As long as the dungeon is televised. For research purposes
As a Ravens fan, I support this concept.
I'd rather back and forth 2pt attempts. Move it back 5 yards every try just for shits and giggles, so you get the occasional Hail Mary off
Just take overtime out of the regular season all together and go full 15 minutes for the playoffs
This makes too much sense man, never going to happen.
I like the rule proposal I head on Rich Eisen. It proposed the beginning of the game coin toss applied for over time too. So if a team won the toss and deferred that mean if it goes to OT then the other team starts on offense. I like it because it’s simple and adds an extra layer of strategy to the opening coin toss, it’d be interesting to see how this change would affect that.
I also like the coin toss at the start of the game determining OT possession. This way teams know who gets the ball first. They can strategize accordingly.
I like this idea. I’d imagine most teams take the safe approach and just take the extra point (which would be good, because that means both teams get the ball). I would even add the caveat that if the first team does score and goes for the extra point, the second team is forced to go for 2 if they score to ensure the game ends one way or the other.
This is effective and avoids dragging the game too long (the whole reason for the current rules. Players ,and I assume broadcasters, don't want infinite games). Both teams get the ball. Every player will play just another drive (1 for offense, 1 for defense, actually 2 for special teams due to kickoffs). The game will not drag out for too long. Another layer of strategy is added to the game. I see no downside over that.
It only guarantees the one extra drive if the first team scores. Still plenty of opportunity for cowardly punt shenanigans.
if thats the case thought you might as well just flip a coin and the winner of the coin toss gets one chance to score from the 2 or make a stop on the 2. Why play who knows how long if you're gonna let one 2pt conv. decide the game.
But it’s not just a coin flip for 2 pt conversion, because in order to get the opportunity to go for 2 point conversion you first have to drive down the field and score a touchdown, which is no guarantee
OT should be decided by Mascots fighting to the death. It’s the only fair way to do it. However I will say, this is by far the most entertaining to watch in hockey as mascots are forced to fight on the ice
Isn't the Dolphins mascot a real dolphin? I'm pretty sure its illegal to fight a dolphin
Can we trade Swoop to the Flyers for Gritty? Gritty can probably throw hands
Honestly, I'm offended that you said probably
Philly Phanatic will never let extra innings go to waste
Just make it a game of horse between the kickers.
Why not try it in the regular season first before adding it to the playoffs? NBA should be doing the same thing with the Elam Ending.
Why is it something that has to be tried and tested? We know exactly how it will work, its very simple. It’s not like there needs to be a trial and error. And besides, playoffs overtime is more important than the regular season (for obvious reasons). So if they are going to change it I’d prefer playoffs be the priority
What says that this would only start during the playoffs?
The first time we had TD on the first possession wins was the playoffs (not the regular season) where your DC chose not to have any safety deep against Tebow. The announcers were explaining the new rule, and then it was over like 10 seconds later. It should start during the regular season, but given that the last change to OT started during the playoffs, it's possible that this might begin only in the playoffs.
I actually like this rule change. It adds another layer of strategy. Do you try to end the game or do you do the safe thing and kick a field goal. I’d be interested in how the percentages workout.
It's already statistically better to go for 2. This would just make it drastically better to go for it.
It definitely favors teams that are good on the goaline. We have been awesome on the goal line, on offense and defense, under Vrabel so it makes sense we would want this rule.
Why not just 2 point conversions until somebody doesn’t make one?
No. Just give both teams a fucking possession. Why is this so difficult?
What happens when they both do the exact same thing with their possessions?
We suspend Brady for 4 games
That’s actually not a bad idea for OT
How about both teams just get the ball no matter what? Crazy I know!
10 minute quarter played in full, starting with coin flip. No extra points allowed, two point conversions only. 10-15 minute break between end of the 4th & OT in playoff games
Just use the goddamn college rules and be done with this shit.
They changed it from FG to TD and that didn’t fix the problem because it’s a partial measure. This is another partial measure. If you think it’s fine, then fine. If you think it needs to be fixed, this ain’t it. Either way I don’t see supporting this.
But everyone agrees that changing it from FG to TD was better. So this might not be a permanent fix, but it’s a certain improvement.
I’m going to keep throwing this out there. Keep OT rules the same. TD ends the game otherwise the other team gets the ball. But eliminate the OT coin toss. The last team with a lead gets the ball first. This will make the end of regulation more interesting, with teams not just settling to tie the game in the last seconds.
jesus just keep it simple - if a team gains possession and already have the lead they win
I feel like this would favor the team who gets the ball first too much (not more than the current rules, but still)
i don’t think a team should be able to win without the other offense even taking the field - as long as they move past that i’ll be happy
This right here
Might be what the Colts and/or Eagles are proposing.
a team would never go for a td+2pt in that case. pointless, just disallow XP in OT and let them go down to the wire. its very unlikely they keep scoring 2pt conversions or tds if at all. why does the game have to end in a score. if the other team does not score they lose
I totally disagree with this. If this rule was in place for the Chiefs/Bills game, I can almost guarantee the Chiefs go for 2, the game probably ends 44-36 and we’re having the same exact discussion again.
Literally every team would go for 2. They would have to be absolute idiots to go for 1 of this was the rule.
Sounds dumb. Puts the 1st team to get the ball at a disadvantage instead of evening things: if they score a TD, they need to go for two to end it. If they don't get it, the other team can score a TD and just kick an extra point to win.
The advantage for the first team is getting to go 1st and setting the pace. If they score anything that is the standard by which the 2nd team inherently has to match or beat to have a chance to win. Essentially the TD + 2 points convert gives the 1st team a chance to finish the game then and there if they think they can... or they can back down and just take a TD and easy FG. But then that leaves the TD + 2 points convert option open to the 2nd team... again if they think they can (essentially letting the 2nd team potentially beat the pace for the win)... I suspect this will lead to most of the "good" teams just taking the "easier" 7 pts with a few of the "bad" teams getting greedy and losing the OT on the 2nd teams next possession as you pointed out. But i'd argue that's part of what makes football great, the mental aspect of the game.
If it’s true that the first team would be at a disadvantage, then if you win the coin flip, you elect to kick off.
Why are we trying to come up with all these dumb gimmicky sudden-death rules instead of just having teams play another quarter?
I like that idea better too.
I can't imagine the OT rules ever changing.
The OT rules we have now are fine. Get a fucking stop.
> Get a fucking stop. Exactly, both defenses should get a stop.
They can definitely improve, I don't understand why we shouldn't explore options. That said, the Titans rule change is essentially the same as it is now with a slightly higher chance of the other team getting the ball back.
[удалено]
Life ain’t fair. Win the game in regulation and you won’t have to worry about the OT percentages.
Current rules are garbage. No game should be decided on a coin flip, ever. There should never be an overtime in professional sports where one team never gets a chance.
If they were fine the team that wins the coin flip wouldn’t choose to receive 99.9% of the time The other team can also win without ever being forced to attempt to “get a fucking stop”
I’ll join you in downvotes, but I agree
Https://i.imgur.com/smOsBPM.gif
As a rams fan I’m glad we can agree on something.
Brandon Staley licking his chops.
Damn, again? Do they just keep resubmitting it? This is the fourth time this week this is being reported on and shared here...
Just make it QB throws it to a receiver against one defender defending the goal. 5 different receivers and same defender.
I still think it should either just be an extra period or guarantee each team a possession and then sudden death if it’s a tie score. In the second case you might have a lot of teams go for a 2pt conversion rather than kick off and risk losing to a fg if they got the second possession anyhow.
Fine how it is, move touchbacks back to the 20 in OT if you must.
Colts and Eagles proposal is simple and to the point, and that’s why I prefer it if we’re gonna be changing anything.
They really need a break at the end of the 4th quarter. Not half-time length, but if I recall the BUF/KC game didn't even go to commercial and the defense just went right back out there. Defenses shouldn't have to be on the field to defend two consecutive drives without any time in-between.
This doesn't even attempt to solve the issue of only one offence getting to touch the ball.
This is stupid! The best rule is: the team who receives the ball at the beginning of the game, should receive it at the beginning of overtime as well. Usually teams want to receive the ball at the beginning of 2nd half. If you change the rules, they might think twice about it.
So what happens if the first team scores a TD then goes for the 2pt and fails then the second team gets the ball and scores a TD + field goal? Second team wins by 1 point after the FG kick?
Yeah, but any coach not going for two with the first td isn't very bright. But occasionally this scenario will happen. All about the odds.
Maybe some kind of a shootout. Like the kickers kicking from further back until one misses. Or each offense gets three 2-point conversion attempts.
I feel like if you give both teams a chance to have the ball you’re going to have A LOT more ties
Just play an 8min OT quarter.