NFL Conference Championships

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Cringer

The guys so opposed to sudden death OT is it because you are under the impression that the first team to get the ball wins? If so you are wrong for this year. They showed the stats last night in the game, of 13 OTs only 5 teams won on the opening drive of OT this year. Oops, make that 6 of 14 now.

Team that gets the ball first historically wins 53% of the time on the first drive. 60% of the time overall.

[Kodos]

I think they should do it like soccer and settle it with a field goal kicking contest.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by rowech

Team that gets the ball first historically wins 53% of the time on the first drive. 60% of the time overall.

Where did you get that stat?

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think they should do it like soccer and settle it with a field goal kicking contest.

Except they have an OT first, so you're wrong there alien.

[Passacaglia]

Or they could replay on Wednesday, and if that's a tie, whoever scored more away points wins.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Or they could replay on Wednesday, and if that's a tie, whoever scored more away points wins.

You, sir, are fabulous.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Where did you get that stat?

Amazon.com: Mathletics: How Gamblers, Managers, and Sports Enthusiasts Use Mathematics in Baseball, Basketball, and Football (9780691139135): Wayne L. Winston: Books

[albionmoonlight]

I like OT the way it is.

But, if you were to change it, then you could make it first team to score 4 or more wins. That elimiates the Good-Kick-Return-Two-First-Downs-Long-Field-Goal ending that seems to make people the most upset.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Why not just have OT be an untimed extension of the end of the game that only kicks in when its a tie game. So Favre throws a pick, the Saints get the ball and the game goes into overtime during their possession. The play clock still exists, but there's no point to have a game clock. Each team gets a timeout whenever the ball changes possession. The first team to score in the untimed OT section wins the game. The only team that gets rewarded is theoretically whoever has the ball at the end of the game. Think of how more interesting the end of normal tie games would be (no more kneel downs to get to OT).

But this gives even less incentive to try to score at the end of the game. Instead of running your offense and either not converting and having to get rid of the ball, or risking not winning the toss for OT, it's better for a team to grind the clock away while getting a first down or two and waiting for OT to start since they'll keep possession.

Last night at least when the Saints got the ball back they took a shot at getting into FG position and a potential hail mary when that failed. Your situation has them take a knee right away.

[DaddyTorgo]

Exactly. Make it "score 4 points or more to win" and you eliminate (i would be) a very significant amount of the inequality

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by rowech

Amazon.com: Mathletics: How Gamblers, Managers, and Sports Enthusiasts Use Mathematics in Baseball, Basketball, and Football (9780691139135): Wayne L. Winston: Books

I think you are misreading it, or they don't know stats.

Prior to 1994, 52% of teams winning the coin flip won in OT, 26% on the first drive.

Since 1994, 60% of teams winning the coin flip win in OT, ~32% on the first drive.

In no statistically significant period of time have 53% of teams winning the toss scored on the first drive, let alone "historically"

In every case, the team losing the toss was actually permitted to play defense and attempt to stop the other team.

If 60% is too much bias (and it probably is) the solution is really simple - in overtime, the opening kickoff should be from the 35, not the 30. And refs should be shot for calling a personal foul on a game tying score at the end of regulation.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Logan

But this gives even less incentive to try to score at the end of the game. Instead of running your offense and either not converting and having to get rid of the ball, or risking not winning the toss for OT, it's better for a team to grind the clock away while getting a first down or two and waiting for OT to start since they'll keep possession.

Last night at least when the Saints got the ball back they took a shot at getting into FG position and a potential hail mary when that failed. Your situation has them take a knee right away.

They wouldn't take a knee -- they'd run their normal offense, as if it was the end of the 1st or 3rd quarter.

[Logan]

I definitely understand the "score more than 3 in order to win" mindset but I'm also not sure why a team should have to do more than "Get ball, drive downfield, kick FG, stop other team..." in order to be thought of as deserving the win.

Coming from someone who doesn't think the rule should be changed.

[Passacaglia]

Reading it again, maybe I misread Easy Mac's post. I thought he was saying the team with the ball would get it with the same field position, down and distance, as they had it at the end of the game. So there's still an incentive to move the ball, just not using a two-minute drill.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Logan

I definitely understand the "score more than 3 in order to win" mindset but I'm also not sure why a team should have to do more than "Get ball, drive downfield, kick FG, stop other team..." in order to be thought of as deserving the win.

Coming from someone who doesn't think the rule should be changed.

because ~ 1/3 of the time (according to samdari's stats) they don't even need to do that last step.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Why not just have OT be an untimed extension of the end of the game that only kicks in when its a tie game. So Favre throws a pick, the Saints get the ball and the game goes into overtime during their possession. The play clock still exists, but there's no point to have a game clock. Each team gets a timeout whenever the ball changes possession. The first team to score in the untimed OT section wins the game. The only team that gets rewarded is theoretically whoever has the ball at the end of the game. Think of how more interesting the end of normal tie games would be (no more kneel downs to get to OT).

Does this kick in on the change of possession? That game goes very differently if the Vikings did not have to worry about the game clock on their drive.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I think you are misreading it, or they don't know stats.

Prior to 1994, 52% of teams winning the coin flip won in OT, 26% on the first drive.

Since 1994, 60% of teams winning the coin flip win in OT, ~32% on the first drive.

In no statistically significant period of time have 53% of teams winning the toss scored on the first drive, let alone "historically"

In every case, the team losing the toss was actually permitted to play defense and attempt to stop the other team.

If 60% is too much bias (and it probably is) the solution is really simple - in overtime, the opening kickoff should be from the 35, not the 30. And refs should be shot for calling a personal foul on a game tying score at the end of regulation.

I just went and looked it up and you are correct, I read it incorrectly. My apologies. The 60% number is what is quoted...to be honest, I'm not sure where in the heck the 53% even came from as it is not in that article. I might have mixed it with something else.

That said, the fact it's a 60-40 advantage if you get the ball first is questionable at best. I actually like some of the suggestions the author listed that people have developed. My favorite being the cake cutting...

Visiting team chooses a yardline. (no side of field, just a number) Home team chooses whether they will take the ball at that yardline or give the opposing team the ball at that yardline. Examples...team A chooses 15 yard line, you probably give them the ball to start on their own 15. If they get greedy and go for say the 35, you probably take the ball.

The other one he outlined was a bidding system where the lowest yardline bid (sealed bid type situation to the officials) gets the ball.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Why not just have OT be an untimed extension of the end of the game that only kicks in when its a tie game. So Favre throws a pick, the Saints get the ball and the game goes into overtime during their possession.

I thought about that too, but you are fundamentally changing the end of the game and how teams would do play calling. You would have to treat the end of halfs the same way though and coming back out of halftime you spot the ball whereever it was at the end of the 2nd quarter.

Granted, I don't like the coin flip either. If the coin flip winner wins 'only' 53% of the time, it is still an advantage. I'd almost rather base it on yardage gained, at least that is something based on what has been happening on the field rather than some random coin flip.

[JPhillips]

What about starting OT with the ball at the ten? It would make the decision to take the ball much more difficult.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Samdari

If 60% is too much bias (and it probably is) the solution is really simple - in overtime, the opening kickoff should be from the 35, not the 30.

Yup. They moved the kickoff back (among other things) to increase offense, and surprisingly first-drive OT scoring went up. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I make a not-so-risky prediction and say that it'll be a shootout with Favre throwing an interception to seal the deal for the Saints.

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Except they have an OT first, so you're wrong there alien.

The fact that it EVER gets to a kicking contest is pathetic. Settle it on the field. Battle of wills. Who wants it more! Yada yada yada.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Mustang

I thought about that too, but you are fundamentally changing the end of the game and how teams would do play calling. You would have to treat the end of halfs the same way though and coming back out of halftime you spot the ball whereever it was at the end of the 2nd quarter.

Granted, I don't like the coin flip either. If the coin flip winner wins 'only' 53% of the time, it is still an advantage. I'd almost rather base it on yardage gained, at least that is something based on what has been happening on the field rather than some random coin flip.

You're not changing the play-calling that much. Teams already try to run out the clock when they have the ball in tie games -- they'd just be doing it a bit more often. Also, I don't think there's any rule that says you would have to treat the end of the halves the same -- you'd still have to alternate who receives the ball each half, in order to be fair.

[gstelmack]

Another interesting idea I've heard is just getting rid of field goals entirely. Make everyone go for the TD to score, period. All the time, not just OT.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by rowech

Visiting team chooses a yardline. (no side of field, just a number) Home team chooses whether they will take the ball at that yardline or give the opposing team the ball at that yardline. Examples...team A chooses 15 yard line, you probably give them the ball to start on their own 15. If they get greedy and go for say the 35, you probably take the ball.

This would backfire when every team would just start saying the same number. Eventually, everyone would figure out the highest number that allows them to have the ball first, and they'll just go with that.

Or, maybe even worse: Ideally, no visiting team should ever say a number over 19. Otherwise, the home team would just take the ball and they're in no worse shape than a touchback. So 20-49 are gone. Now it's just a matter of figuring out which number is far enough away from 20 that the home team would willingly give up the football. I think something between 10 and 15 is about right. But at that point, how many visiting teams really want to start that far back? Maybe if they have a really great offense, sure, but it's still a long way to go. If they don't get a first down, they giving the other team fantastic field position. It's lose-lose for the visiting team. Either take the ball in worse shape than a touchback or give the ball to the other team and make it about the same as a touchback. Clearly, I'm no expert, but if I could guarantee that the first possession of OT started inside the 15 yard line, I'd probably let the other team have it.

I get that this isn't the only idea to change the NFL overtime rules, but I think it's one of the least effective and unnecessarily complex ones. If we're going to get into bidding and things like that, how about this one (right off the top of my head):

Each team just decides what yard line they want to start on. Lower number gets the ball. Team A is willing to start at the 16, Team B is willing to start at the 14. B gets the ball at the 14. If it's a tie, home team gets the ball (to just keep everyone from picking 20).

Personally, I think that idea is kind of silly, too, but it's simpler.

[Kodos]

I think we need some sort of computer-generated system to decide who gets the ball first. Bring the BCS to pro football!

[jbergey22]

The only thing that bothers me about OT is that Hutchinson didnt call tails last night. Apparently he doesnt know "tails never fails."

I really have no opinion on it. If you start making it gimmicky then it loses the football feel like the college game.

If it becomes a big problem teams should start basing their teams around defense instead of offense so they are able to make that key OT stop.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What about starting OT with the ball at the ten? It would make the decision to take the ball much more difficult.

Kick returns and kick coverage aren't an important part of football?

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Another interesting idea I've heard is just getting rid of field goals entirely. Make everyone go for the TD to score, period. All the time, not just OT.

While I hope you're exaggerating about regular time, what I think is a bit lost in this is that nothing is automatic when it comes to some of these kickers recently. We saw the stat: this postseason itself, kickers have been awful, with no range being a gimme. I'm sure there were a bunch of Saints fans who were dreading the game coming down to a Hartley kick, and Vikings fans who were hoping it could hinge on his kick. Forgive the blanket statement, but I'm sure that if he did miss the kick, all those Vikings fans who a second before were pissed that NO won the toss and could line up for a potential winning FG would feel pretty happy about only having to go 30 yards to get Longwell in a position to win it for them. There's a benefit to having the more reliable kicker, which they were expecting to reap if Favre didn't pull a Favre.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

You're not changing the play-calling that much. Teams already try to run out the clock when they have the ball in tie games -- they'd just be doing it a bit more often. Also, I don't think there's any rule that says you would have to treat the end of the halves the same -- you'd still have to alternate who receives the ball each half, in order to be fair.

I think I didn't read the original suggestion then. I thought the suggestion was to continue the game at the spot they stopped on. (Like between the 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th quarters)

[Pumpy Tudors]

I guess we need to get Easy Mac back in here to clarify. To me, when he said that the untimed OT would be an extension of the end of the game, it sounds to me like the game just continues if the clock runs out and the score is tied. No coin toss, no kickoff, no change of possession. Just keep going. So it changes the playcalling wildly.

If you have the ball in a tie game, you don't worry about the clock running out. No two-minute offense. You don't have to worry about getting out of bounds or watching your timeouts. As long as you keep possession of the football, you have a chance to score the game-winning points. That would be hell on defenses, as they no longer have the clock as an ally. In every close game, it would just be a race to see who gets the ball last, in case the score is tied.

I really don't understand how the Arena Football League died, because the more I read (here and elsewhere), the more people are trying to shoehorn elements of the indoor game into the NFL. What was it that kept people away from the AFL? Was it the short field or the rebound nets?

No, those weren't serious questions.

[Logan]

Right Pump, because looking back on it, you wouldn't just be changing the last possession of the game. You'd be changing the second to last possession of the game too, for the most part because you'd be doing everything in your power to make the second to last possession of the game = the last possession of the game. Does that make sense?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Mustang

I think I didn't read the original suggestion then. I thought the suggestion was to continue the game at the spot they stopped on. (Like between the 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th quarters)

Right, that's what I thought it was, also.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Logan

Right Pump, because looking back on it, you wouldn't just be changing the last possession of the game. You'd be changing the second to last possession of the game too, for the most part because you'd be doing everything in your power to make the second to last possession of the game = the last possession of the game. Does that make sense?

Yes. I knew that because I've seen it all before... in arena football, which for some reason, nobody was watching!!!

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I guess we need to get Easy Mac back in here to clarify. To me, when he said that the untimed OT would be an extension of the end of the game, it sounds to me like the game just continues if the clock runs out and the score is tied. No coin toss, no kickoff, no change of possession. Just keep going. So it changes the playcalling wildly.

If you have the ball in a tie game, you don't worry about the clock running out. No two-minute offense. You don't have to worry about getting out of bounds or watching your timeouts. As long as you keep possession of the football, you have a chance to score the game-winning points. That would be hell on defenses, as they no longer have the clock as an ally. In every close game, it would just be a race to see who gets the ball last, in case the score is tied.

I really don't understand how the Arena Football League died, because the more I read (here and elsewhere), the more people are trying to shoehorn elements of the indoor game into the NFL. What was it that kept people away from the AFL? Was it the short field or the rebound nets?

No, those weren't serious questions.

How is it "hell on defenses" to no longer have the clock as an ally? Don't teams with the ball in tie games already try to run the clock down, leaving as little time as possible for the other team?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

How is it "hell on defenses" to no longer have the clock as an ally? Don't teams with the ball in tie games already try to run the clock down, leaving as little time as possible for the other team?

Tie game and you're on your own 15. Let's say there are 45 seconds left on the clock. What will most offenses do? Take a knee and go to overtime. Not necessary if you extend the game to allow them to keep a possession. I see your point, but I was talking about a different type of situation.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I guess we need to get Easy Mac back in here to clarify. To me, when he said that the untimed OT would be an extension of the end of the game, it sounds to me like the game just continues if the clock runs out and the score is tied. No coin toss, no kickoff, no change of possession. Just keep going. So it changes the playcalling wildly.

If you have the ball in a tie game, you don't worry about the clock running out. No two-minute offense. You don't have to worry about getting out of bounds or watching your timeouts. As long as you keep possession of the football, you have a chance to score the game-winning points. That would be hell on defenses, as they no longer have the clock as an ally. In every close game, it would just be a race to see who gets the ball last, in case the score is tied.

I really don't understand how the Arena Football League died, because the more I read (here and elsewhere), the more people are trying to shoehorn elements of the indoor game into the NFL. What was it that kept people away from the AFL? Was it the short field or the rebound nets?

No, those weren't serious questions.

That is essentially correct, regarding my proposal. However, didn't we see the Vikings employ the grind it out philosophy at the end of the game last night?the only reason favre was picked was because the penalty took them out of a planned run, so they needed to extra yards to get into field goal range. I don't know if the playcalling changes dramatically if they have a few extra plays in overtime. I disagree it would eliminate the two minute offense. It might for a tie game, but every other ge situation, a team is still going to need to run it. I don't have the stats, but I would assume the number of tie games at the two minute warning is a rather small percent of games each season.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

That is essentially correct, regarding my proposal. However, didn't we see the Vikings employ the grind it out philosophy at the end of the game last night?the only reason favre was picked was because the penalty took them out of a planned run, so they needed to extra yards to get into field goal range. I don't know if the playcalling changes dramatically if they have a few extra plays in overtime. I disagree it would eliminate the two minute offense. It might for a tie game, but every other ge situation, a team is still going to need to run it. I don't have the stats, but I would assume the number of tie games at the two minute warning is a rather small percent of games each season.

I agree that the Vikings would not have gained any great benefit last night from your proposal. I'm just thinking of it in general. It affects offenses with no timeouts in a tie game. No matter where they are on the field, they can just keep running their regular offense. If the clock says 10 seconds to go and they're at midfield, they don't need to try the quick out pattern to get into field goal range before the clock runs out. Even though they've burned all their timeouts, they get to continue their possession indefinitely. This is why I call it hell for defenses. So much of the game is governed by the clock, but the last possession changes in a tie game.

I guess part of the issue for me is that I don't like changing rules based on conditions like the score of the game. I could actually get on board with this a little quicker if this applied no matter what the score was. If the offense is winning when the clock runs out, they can just decline to continue. If the offense is losing, they can continue the drive until they lose possession. I'm not really saying I like that idea, but it "fits" better for me.

Then again, I eat paste.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I guess part of the issue for me is that I don't like changing rules based on conditions like the score of the game.

But isn't that an essential trait of overtime? If the score is tied, you go into overtime, and if the score is not tied, you don't.

[Daimyo]

I thought the Saints-Vikings game wasn't that good of a game. Minnesota dominated both sides of the ball, but then played so sloppily (turnovers) as to give the Saints the game. Saints didn't really have to do all that much to get the win. (which is not to say they weren't capable, just they never really had to show it in this game)

I'm really looking forward to the Super Bowl now though and not just because I'm a Colts fan. Saints-Colts has really been the dream matchup all season I think.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

But isn't that an essential trait of overtime? If the score is tied, you go into overtime, and if the score is not tied, you don't.

Yes, I see what you mean. So, yeah, I guess if overtime is indeed this game extension that we're talking about, it makes sense to only implement it if the score is tied. OK, I concede on that one.

[Tigercat]

A little tidbit on the early ratings numbers to coincide with the earlier points with the Saints fan-team connection:

New Orleans delivered a 63.2/82 last night, the highest local rating for a postseason NFL game ever, beating the home market rating of every team that has ever played in a Super Bowl. Viewing in New Orleans peaked at a 67.4/86 at 10:15 PM as Garrett Hartley drilled a 40-yard field goal to send the Saints to their first-ever Super Bowl.

And keep in mind that this is New Orleans, a city with plenty of nightlife even on a Sunday.

[Crapshoot]

Good for the city; I've heard stories that this is what is like in SF back in the heydey of the 49ers, but that was with far more limited media choices. Heck, I defer to JIMGA and KCChief, but am I reading that correctly that 82% of households in NO were watching this? That's fucking amazing in this age.

[Doug5984]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I defer to JIMGA and KCChief, but am I reading that correctly that 82% of households in NO were watching this? That's fucking amazing in this age.

Also take into account the 70k people at the game, and the thousands more who chose to watch it at a bar down around the quarter

[RainMaker]

The problem with allowing both teams the ball is still that the team that wins the coin toss will mathematically have a better chance of winning the game as if both teams score, they'll be next in line for a possesion. You'd hae to allow each team the same amount of possesions which essentially becomes college football.

While I don't think the current system is fair, I like it better than the college system which to me is too gimmicky. Too much like penalty kicks in soccer or hockey. It takes out huge elements of the game.

I would prefer the 10 minute overtime that starts fresh as a new half essentially. I don't think you can just extend regulation because as Pumpy stated, it takes out a huge element of late game strategy and drama. I think 10 minutes is a sufficient to find a winner most of the time and in the playoffs, I'd probably just turn it to sudden death after 10 minutes.

The other idea would be two 5-minute OT sessions where each team gets a kickoff. Problem is that it probably would take a long time to play out.

[larrymcg421]

I prefer molson's idea of keeping the current sudden death format, but letting the home team have the ball first. It's good for home teams to have an advantage in the regular season. That helps sell tickets. As for postseason, the home team has earned the right to have the ball first via a better performance during the regular season. So let's scrap the randomness of the coin toss and give the ball to the team that earned it.

[Jughead Spock]

I don't have a problem with the OT system, but if there were going to be a change, make it easy - have to win by 4.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You'd hae to allow each team the same amount of possesions which essentially becomes college football.

And that system hardly eliminates the advantage of winning the coin flip.