New NFL OT rules

81

mca47 wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

The college OT is probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen someone come up with in sports rules... How can you play 60 minutes and then entirely change how the sport is played in overtime?

This NFL rule just seems half-assed to me... If the objective is to take away the advantage of winning the coin toss, why not just make it so that if the team who gets the first possession scores, they have to kick it off? Regardless of a field goal or a touchdown, both teams get the ball. And being only a playoff rule (for now), makes no sense either...

College OT is the most fair of any of them (except for baseball).

basketball is pretty fair

81

perhaps the should start OT rugby style.

or maybe like dodge ball with the ball at the 50 yard line, and the players on the goal line. run out to get the ball.

Yellow Ledbelly

I think the new rules are ridiculous simply because the most obvious solution was ignored.
What sense does it make for there to be a difference between kicking a field goal and scoring a touchdown?
Would it be so difficult to say that both teams get at least one possession apiece and if there is still a tie then the first score after that wins?

blackredyellow

lukin2006 wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

The college OT is probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen someone come up with in sports rules... How can you play 60 minutes and then entirely change how the sport is played in overtime?

This NFL rule just seems half-assed to me... If the objective is to take away the advantage of winning the coin toss, why not just make it so that if the team who gets the first possession scores, they have to kick it off? Regardless of a field goal or a touchdown, both teams get the ball. And being only a playoff rule (for now), makes no sense either...

I agree with you about college football, but how about the NHL? You play 60 minutes, then 5 minute OT, then suddenly it's a shootout, after all hockey is a team game.

I agree about hockey, I don't like the gimmicky way to decide a winner... but compared to college football, it's not as big of an impact on the season. In the NHL, without looking at stats, most teams probably have like 10 shootouts a season. That is worth a total of 10 points (both teams automatically get the one point), so while it does impact the standings, not as much as college football, where one loss can make or break your season.

Five minutes of 4-on-4 doesn't really bother me... but on a sidenote the Olympic gold medal, full periods of 4-on-4 is stupid.

blackredyellow

mca47 wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

The college OT is probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen someone come up with in sports rules... How can you play 60 minutes and then entirely change how the sport is played in overtime?

This NFL rule just seems half-assed to me... If the objective is to take away the advantage of winning the coin toss, why not just make it so that if the team who gets the first possession scores, they have to kick it off? Regardless of a field goal or a touchdown, both teams get the ball. And being only a playoff rule (for now), makes no sense either...

College OT is the most fair of any of them (except for baseball).

I just hate college football OT... you totally take out the return game, and you alter the play calling with only working with 25 yards of the field. It is fair because each team gets the same opportunities, but it still changes how the first 60 minutes of the game are played.

All Those Yesterdays

Both teams should get a shot to score no matter what. Maybe make it so there are no extra points allowed, only 2 point conversions.

No matter what I'd rather watch college football.

IwasBit10

blackredyellow wrote:

mca47 wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

The college OT is probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen someone come up with in sports rules... How can you play 60 minutes and then entirely change how the sport is played in overtime?

This NFL rule just seems half-assed to me... If the objective is to take away the advantage of winning the coin toss, why not just make it so that if the team who gets the first possession scores, they have to kick it off? Regardless of a field goal or a touchdown, both teams get the ball. And being only a playoff rule (for now), makes no sense either...

College OT is the most fair of any of them (except for baseball).

I just hate college football OT... you totally take out the return game, and you alter the play calling with only working with 25 yards of the field. It is fair because each team gets the same opportunities, but it still changes how the first 60 minutes of the game are played.

I can't argue the fact that college OT alters the game. But I also feel that if you can't beat your opponent in 60 minutes, than an alteration where both teams get the same opportunities seems pretty reasonable.

IwasBit10

All Those Yesterdays wrote:

Both teams should get a shot to score no matter what. Maybe make it so there are no extra points allowed, only 2 point conversions.

No matter what I'd rather watch college football.

Yup.

Red Burrito

Since NHL has been brought up, which is based on a points system not a win/loss system. I think one thing that seperates the NHL in 'fairness' is that when a game goes to overtime, both teams are instantly guaranteed at least one point. So basically both teams are considered partial winners as soon as the game ends in a tie. The winner of overtime receives the other point. Just making it to overtime can have huge effects on the standings especially late in the season. A team that loses in regular gameplay gets zero points and a team thats loses in OT gets one point.

blackredyellow

Red Burrito wrote:

Since NHL has been brought up, which is based on a points system not a win/loss system. I think one thing that seperates the NHL in 'fairness' is that when a game goes to overtime, both teams are instantly guaranteed at least one point. So basically both teams are considered partial winners as soon as the game ends in a tie. The winner of overtime receives the other point. Just making it to overtime can have huge effects on the standings especially late in the season. A team that loses in regular gameplay gets zero points and a team thats loses in OT gets one point.

I go back and forth on the NHL overtime rules... I like watching shootouts, but hate that a winner of a team game is decided by a breakaway drill. I don't like the idea of a losing team getting a point in a game, but I understand them trying to rid of ties. Ties in general didn't bother me, but there is something unfulfilling about paying plopping down $75 to go to a game and leaving without seeing someone win.

While not perfect, I guess I am ok with the rules. I'd like to see maybe the AHL go to a 3 point system (3 for outright win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss) for a season just to see how things work out. That is a lot of extra points in the standings to be handed out, so I'd like to see what kind of impact it would have on things before implemented in the NHL.

Red Burrito

blackredyellow wrote:

Red Burrito wrote:

Since NHL has been brought up, which is based on a points system not a win/loss system. I think one thing that seperates the NHL in 'fairness' is that when a game goes to overtime, both teams are instantly guaranteed at least one point. So basically both teams are considered partial winners as soon as the game ends in a tie. The winner of overtime receives the other point. Just making it to overtime can have huge effects on the standings especially late in the season. A team that loses in regular gameplay gets zero points and a team thats loses in OT gets one point.

I go back and forth on the NHL overtime rules... I like watching shootouts, but hate that a winner of a team game is decided by a breakaway drill. I don't like the idea of a losing team getting a point in a game, but I understand them trying to rid of ties. Ties in general didn't bother me, but there is something unfulfilling about paying plopping down $75 to go to a game and leaving without seeing someone win.

While not perfect, I guess I am ok with the rules. I'd like to see maybe the AHL go to a 3 point system (3 for outright win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss) for a season just to see how things work out. That is a lot of extra points in the standings to be handed out, so I'd like to see what kind of impact it would have on things before implemented in the NHL.

I understand your views. The way I view it is that the regular game and overtime are two different entities. If a game ends in a tie, that's exactly what it is, both teams fought hard for 60 minutes and they came up even...so one point is given to each. Then they play a 5 minute 'mini-game' and possibly a shootout to determine who gets the remaining point that could not be awarded in 60 minutes of play. A tie + a loss = 1 point...A tie + a win = 2 points.

Though exicting, I am not a huge fan of a shootout determining a winner. But like someone mentioned in an earlier post about the NFL, hockey in an extremely tiring and phisically game for which they can't play all night like baseball. This is where the shootout comes into play.

MayDay10

NHL Overtime is a bad system.

Games should not be worth more points if they go to OT.

The shootout is garbage. If they had to have it, they should go to a 3 pts for a regulation win system.

Id be fine with ties




As far as the NFL goes, I really like the new rules and I think they are long overdue.

Red Burrito

By the way, I do like your idea for the AHL to try a 3 point system for a season. You're right that would be a lot of extra points being tossed around and teams could move up and down the standings much quicker. It would definitely keep things exciting until the end.

Heatherj43

81 wrote:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nflmeetings&prov=ap&type=lgns

basically, if the team that win the coin flip scores a fg, the other team get a chance to match or win with a TD.

IMO, it should be more like the college rule. instead of starting each possesion on the 25 yard line, you line up like normal and kick it away. each team gets a shot at the ball until a winner is decided. or put it at the 35 yard line and have at it.

as written, the new rule is pretty stupid. imo of course

I've quit watching hockey since the new rules. I think they are stupid.

BamaPJFan

moe.ron wrote:

mca47 wrote:

I think they need a version of the college system.

If you win the flip in the NFL, you instantly have a 60% chance of winning. Pretty sad to have a season determined by a coin flip.

The college system is at least fair. Both teams get a shot, have the same opportunity...
If they didn't want to DO the college system, at least give each offense and defense a shot.
Like 81 said, I think if they didn't want to put the ball on the 35, at least give both teams a chance to start from a kickoff.

i love college overtime. i was at the syracuse/v. tech game in '05 that went 3OT's. it was pretty exciting.

I favor the college OT rule. It's very exciting for the fans, but more importantly, it gives the two teams an equal chance.

blackredyellow

Heatherj43 wrote:

81 wrote:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nflmeetings&prov=ap&type=lgns

basically, if the team that win the coin flip scores a fg, the other team get a chance to match or win with a TD.

IMO, it should be more like the college rule. instead of starting each possesion on the 25 yard line, you line up like normal and kick it away. each team gets a shot at the ball until a winner is decided. or put it at the 35 yard line and have at it.

as written, the new rule is pretty stupid. imo of course

I've quit watching hockey since the new rules. I think they are stupid.

You've quit watching hockey because of a shootout that happens like once every 10 games?