So if each team scores a td on their 1st possessions in OT , the team that scored 1st gets the ball again. Why is that fair then? The cycle will just continue. It fine the way it is. It's big boy professional football. I equate people that want to change the OT rules to people wanting participation trophies.
We should do the same across all sports. In baseball, if the away team scores in the top half of the inning, game over. Should have pitched better. No more 3 on 3 overtime in hockey, straight shootout. And if the first player scores, game over. Goalie should have stopped the first shot. Same in soccer. Basketball, first team to score off a jump ball wins.
You've tried to make this point before. It's not the same thing.
It actually is the same thing.
Actually no.
Baseball is a game played in frames (top and bottom halves of innings). There is no running time component to that sport... so no. Playoffs in NHL is sudden death with five skaters vs five skaters... so no. Soccer has always had a shootout format that they are comfortable with... so no. Basketball points are easy to come by. A basket is much easier than a TD or FG (hence the 100+ points for either team every night)... so no.
No.
To counter this argument, Football has things called quarters they must complete before OT is necessary, so they are actually changing the rules for OT to say that they no longer care about what the time means for each quarter, but will now let luck of the coin, the refs and more luck on if the coin flip winner can score a TD instead of a FG. That would be the same as saying 9 innings is up so now we will still use innings, but the first team to score wins. Let them play out the OT quarter time. Fine if they want to change it to 10 minutes, but make the teams work for more than a coin flip and a 1 and done. The ratings would be huge for games like that so it would be a plus for the league and the teams involved, especially the hosting team and concessions profits. They should probably cap it at 2 OTs before some sort of sudden death type scenario though, or not. Could get pretty interesting past that.
So if each team scores a td on their 1st possessions in OT , the team that scored 1st gets the ball again. Why is that fair then? The cycle will just continue. It fine the way it is. It's big boy professional football. I equate people that want to change the OT rules to people wanting participation trophies.
We should do the same across all sports. In baseball, if the away team scores in the top half of the inning, game over. Should have pitched better. No more 3 on 3 overtime in hockey, straight shootout. And if the first player scores, game over. Goalie should have stopped the first shot. Same in soccer. Basketball, first team to score off a jump ball wins.
You've tried to make this point before. It's not the same thing.
It actually is the same thing.
Actually no.
Baseball is a game played in frames (top and bottom halves of innings). There is no running time component to that sport... so no. Playoffs in NHL is sudden death with five skaters vs five skaters... so no. Soccer has always had a shootout format that they are comfortable with... so no. Basketball points are easy to come by. A basket is much easier than a TD or FG (hence the 100+ points for either team every night)... so no.
No.
Baseball both teams get a chance to score. If away team scores in the top, home team gets a chance to score as well. Hockey, both teams (99% of them time) get possession of the puck with equal chance to score. Soccer, both teams get possession of the ball with equal chances to score. Basketball, both teams get possession of the ball with equal chances to score.
exactly. the way the NFL does it is the equivalent of baseball saying if the visiting team hits a home run the game is over, but any other run the other team gets an at-bat.
And for what it's worth, people dissing Belichek as not factoring in to the team being successful must not have ever suffered under poor coaching in any sport they played. An individual player in any sport can be great and lead his or her team to a successful season, but more often than not, they need a great coach to achieve a championship. I saw someone mention Phil Jackson as an example of someone benefitting from having great players, but it goes both ways. Neither the Lakers nor Bulls would have won as many championships (and weren't) without Jackson at the helm. A great coach also can't make a championship team with only 1 good player. The system Belichek created in NE works just as well as the system Jackson created in Chicago and LA worked. Lebron is a great player, but how many championships would he have if he had played for a team coached by someone like Jackson? A hell of a lot more. How about Malone and Stockton? There are examples all over sports history of players and coaches hosed by lacking the right chemistry in the locker room coupled with a great leader. We usually only hear about the players being hosed, but there are a lot of great coaches who suffered under subpar talent or egotistical stars and never got a championship before being canned or retiring.
And for what it's worth, people dissing Belichek as not factoring in to the team being successful must not have ever suffered under poor coaching in any sport they played. An individual player in any sport can be great and lead his or her team to a successful season, but more often than not, they need a great coach to achieve a championship. I saw someone mention Phil Jackson as an example of someone benefitting from having great players, but it goes both ways. Neither the Lakers nor Bulls would have won as many championships (and weren't) without Jackson at the helm. A great coach also can't make a championship team with only 1 good player. The system Belichek created in NE works just as well as the system Jackson created in Chicago and LA worked. Lebron is a great player, but how many championships would he have if he had played for a team coached by someone like Jackson? A hell of a lot more. How about Malone and Stockton? There are examples all over sports history of players and coaches hosed by lacking the right chemistry in the locker room coupled with a great leader. We usually only hear about the players being hosed, but there are a lot of great coaches who suffered under subpar talent or egotistical stars and never got a championship before being canned or retiring.
Malone and Stockton could have had jesus himself coaching and they weren't ever beating Jordan.
no one is saying Belichick is not a factor but Brady could have the same run with another coach. Belichick is not having this run without Brady. his 6 years prior to Brady taking over as starter he was 14 games under .500. Just a coincidence?
there's no need for the extra point when you've already won the game. if the NFL starts pandering to gambling, then you'll have a problem.
Starts?
have they made rule changes in the past that are obviously to the benefit of gamblers?
No, they just make or don’t make calls to benefit gamblers. And maybe? What was the rule change for not being allowed to boost yourself off of someone to block an extra point or field goal. If you say player safety, I’ve got a fully drained swamp in DC to sell you.
there's no need for the extra point when you've already won the game. if the NFL starts pandering to gambling, then you'll have a problem.
Starts?
have they made rule changes in the past that are obviously to the benefit of gamblers?
No, they just make or don’t make calls to benefit gamblers. And maybe? What was the rule change for not being allowed to boost yourself off of someone to block an extra point or field goal. If you say player safety, I’ve got a fully drained swamp in DC to sell you.
I don't know why they made that rule change. but it made sense to me either way. it doesn't seem fair to be able to use another player to jump higher than you'd normally be able to under your own power.
And for what it's worth, people dissing Belichek as not factoring in to the team being successful must not have ever suffered under poor coaching in any sport they played. An individual player in any sport can be great and lead his or her team to a successful season, but more often than not, they need a great coach to achieve a championship. I saw someone mention Phil Jackson as an example of someone benefitting from having great players, but it goes both ways. Neither the Lakers nor Bulls would have won as many championships (and weren't) without Jackson at the helm. A great coach also can't make a championship team with only 1 good player. The system Belichek created in NE works just as well as the system Jackson created in Chicago and LA worked. Lebron is a great player, but how many championships would he have if he had played for a team coached by someone like Jackson? A hell of a lot more. How about Malone and Stockton? There are examples all over sports history of players and coaches hosed by lacking the right chemistry in the locker room coupled with a great leader. We usually only hear about the players being hosed, but there are a lot of great coaches who suffered under subpar talent or egotistical stars and never got a championship before being canned or retiring.
Malone and Stockton could have had jesus himself coaching and they weren't ever beating Jordan.
they had jerry fucking sloan and he's every bit phil's equal.
phil was and is overrated.
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
How about an overtime where both teams get the ball but the first team that scores, the other team has to score in the same amount of time. First team kicks a field goal in 4:03, the other team has 4:03 to kick a field goal to tie and continue or a TD wins it. Continue play until someone wins.
How about an overtime where both teams get the ball but the first team that scores, the other team has to score in the same amount of time. First team kicks a field goal in 4:03, the other team has 4:03 to kick a field goal to tie and continue or a TD wins it. Continue play until someone wins.
Maybe the Chiefs shouldn't have settled for the FG. Maybe they should've tried one more toss or 2 to the endzone. Don't put your fate in a coin when you do have an option.
I was surprised they kicked on 2nd down with 11 seconds left. Should have taken at least one more shot at the end zone...but then again, Andy Reid, so I shouldn't have been that surprised.
And why is nobody upset about how overtime played out in the NFC game? Saints won the toss, took the ball...and lost!
Maybe the Chiefs shouldn't have settled for the FG. Maybe they should've tried one more toss or 2 to the endzone. Don't put your fate in a coin when you do have an option.
I was surprised they kicked on 2nd down with 11 seconds left. Should have taken at least one more shot at the end zone...but then again, Andy Reid, so I shouldn't have been that surprised.
And why is nobody upset about how overtime played out in the NFC game? Saints won the toss, took the ball...and lost!
It's too easy to ignore the OT of the NFC game.
Alright, alright, alright!
Tom O. "I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
-The Writer
Maybe the Chiefs shouldn't have settled for the FG. Maybe they should've tried one more toss or 2 to the endzone. Don't put your fate in a coin when you do have an option.
I was surprised they kicked on 2nd down with 11 seconds left. Should have taken at least one more shot at the end zone...but then again, Andy Reid, so I shouldn't have been that surprised.
And why is nobody upset about how overtime played out in the NFC game? Saints won the toss, took the ball...and lost!
Maybe the Chiefs shouldn't have settled for the FG. Maybe they should've tried one more toss or 2 to the endzone. Don't put your fate in a coin when you do have an option.
I was surprised they kicked on 2nd down with 11 seconds left. Should have taken at least one more shot at the end zone...but then again, Andy Reid, so I shouldn't have been that surprised.
And why is nobody upset about how overtime played out in the NFC game? Saints won the toss, took the ball...and lost!
It's too easy to ignore the OT of the NFC game.
I've been against it for a long time. Even in regular season games shockingly enough.
And there is a lot going on about that NFC game outside of the OT.
...got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul...
So if each team scores a td on their 1st possessions in OT , the team that scored 1st gets the ball again. Why is that fair then? The cycle will just continue. It fine the way it is. It's big boy professional football. I equate people that want to change the OT rules to people wanting participation trophies.
a team that win's the coin toss in overtime has a higher percentage to win than the team that loses the toss because of the rule that a TD wins it. is it fair to give one team a greater mathematical chance to win a game because of the coin toss? Especially in a playoff game? you have to be crazy to think that is ok.
The team winning the coin toss has won 52.7% of the time since they changed the rule in 2012 to require a TD to win on the opening possession. That's statistically a toss up.
So if each team scores a td on their 1st possessions in OT , the team that scored 1st gets the ball again. Why is that fair then? The cycle will just continue. It fine the way it is. It's big boy professional football. I equate people that want to change the OT rules to people wanting participation trophies.
a team that win's the coin toss in overtime has a higher percentage to win than the team that loses the toss because of the rule that a TD wins it. is it fair to give one team a greater mathematical chance to win a game because of the coin toss? Especially in a playoff game? you have to be crazy to think that is ok.
The team winning the coin toss has won 52.7% of the time since they changed the rule in 2012 to require a TD to win on the opening possession. That's statistically a toss up.
And for what it's worth, people dissing Belichek as not factoring in to the team being successful must not have ever suffered under poor coaching in any sport they played. An individual player in any sport can be great and lead his or her team to a successful season, but more often than not, they need a great coach to achieve a championship. I saw someone mention Phil Jackson as an example of someone benefitting from having great players, but it goes both ways. Neither the Lakers nor Bulls would have won as many championships (and weren't) without Jackson at the helm. A great coach also can't make a championship team with only 1 good player. The system Belichek created in NE works just as well as the system Jackson created in Chicago and LA worked. Lebron is a great player, but how many championships would he have if he had played for a team coached by someone like Jackson? A hell of a lot more. How about Malone and Stockton? There are examples all over sports history of players and coaches hosed by lacking the right chemistry in the locker room coupled with a great leader. We usually only hear about the players being hosed, but there are a lot of great coaches who suffered under subpar talent or egotistical stars and never got a championship before being canned or retiring.
This is all correct.
And there's only one person dissing Belichek here....
So if each team scores a td on their 1st possessions in OT , the team that scored 1st gets the ball again. Why is that fair then? The cycle will just continue. It fine the way it is. It's big boy professional football. I equate people that want to change the OT rules to people wanting participation trophies.
a team that win's the coin toss in overtime has a higher percentage to win than the team that loses the toss because of the rule that a TD wins it. is it fair to give one team a greater mathematical chance to win a game because of the coin toss? Especially in a playoff game? you have to be crazy to think that is ok.
The team winning the coin toss has won 52.7% of the time since they changed the rule in 2012 to require a TD to win on the opening possession. That's statistically a toss up.
would you bet your life on 2.7% of a chance? 2.7% is actually what has occurred and not the % of the team winning the coin toss has of winning. it's probably not a significantly percentage difference but even if it is around 2.7% what i said above is correct. the team winning the toss has a higher mathematical chance to win the game because of the stupid TD wins the game rule. even if it's small is that fair in a playoff game?
So if each team scores a td on their 1st possessions in OT , the team that scored 1st gets the ball again. Why is that fair then? The cycle will just continue. It fine the way it is. It's big boy professional football. I equate people that want to change the OT rules to people wanting participation trophies.
a team that win's the coin toss in overtime has a higher percentage to win than the team that loses the toss because of the rule that a TD wins it. is it fair to give one team a greater mathematical chance to win a game because of the coin toss? Especially in a playoff game? you have to be crazy to think that is ok.
The team winning the coin toss has won 52.7% of the time since they changed the rule in 2012 to require a TD to win on the opening possession. That's statistically a toss up.
Boom
Yeah I don't get all the crying about it. It could be better but I like the way it's set up now. You lose the toss? Boohoo. Don't let the other team drive all the way down the field and score a touch down. Man up and play some defense.
I have a hard time thinking of fans back in the 60's and 70's whining about sudden death...
So if each team scores a td on their 1st possessions in OT , the team that scored 1st gets the ball again. Why is that fair then? The cycle will just continue. It fine the way it is. It's big boy professional football. I equate people that want to change the OT rules to people wanting participation trophies.
a team that win's the coin toss in overtime has a higher percentage to win than the team that loses the toss because of the rule that a TD wins it. is it fair to give one team a greater mathematical chance to win a game because of the coin toss? Especially in a playoff game? you have to be crazy to think that is ok.
The team winning the coin toss has won 52.7% of the time since they changed the rule in 2012 to require a TD to win on the opening possession. That's statistically a toss up.
would you bet your life on 2.7% of a chance? 2.7% is actually what has occurred and not the % of the team winning the coin toss has of winning. it's probably not a significantly percentage difference but even if it is around 2.7% what i said above is correct. the team winning the toss has a higher mathematical chance to win the game because of the stupid TD wins the game rule. even if it's small is that fair in a playoff game?
Well one side is going to have a higher percentage, but as I said a 2.7% advantage is statistically nil. In 2 years it could possibly flip to where its 48.9% for the team winning the toss, then what?
If the "advantage" was like 20%, you'd have a valid argument.
And for what it's worth, people dissing Belichek as not factoring in to the team being successful must not have ever suffered under poor coaching in any sport they played. An individual player in any sport can be great and lead his or her team to a successful season, but more often than not, they need a great coach to achieve a championship. I saw someone mention Phil Jackson as an example of someone benefitting from having great players, but it goes both ways. Neither the Lakers nor Bulls would have won as many championships (and weren't) without Jackson at the helm. A great coach also can't make a championship team with only 1 good player. The system Belichek created in NE works just as well as the system Jackson created in Chicago and LA worked. Lebron is a great player, but how many championships would he have if he had played for a team coached by someone like Jackson? A hell of a lot more. How about Malone and Stockton? There are examples all over sports history of players and coaches hosed by lacking the right chemistry in the locker room coupled with a great leader. We usually only hear about the players being hosed, but there are a lot of great coaches who suffered under subpar talent or egotistical stars and never got a championship before being canned or retiring.
This is all correct.
And there's only one person dissing Belichek here....
where the fuck am i dissing Belichick? jeezus you got a be a fucking moron to think he's not winning more because he has the greatest QB of all fucking time. My god is this hard to fucking understand? did Phil Jackson not win more because he had Michael fucking Jordan? even you can't be that fucking dumb or stubborn to admit that. my god...
So if each team scores a td on their 1st possessions in OT , the team that scored 1st gets the ball again. Why is that fair then? The cycle will just continue. It fine the way it is. It's big boy professional football. I equate people that want to change the OT rules to people wanting participation trophies.
a team that win's the coin toss in overtime has a higher percentage to win than the team that loses the toss because of the rule that a TD wins it. is it fair to give one team a greater mathematical chance to win a game because of the coin toss? Especially in a playoff game? you have to be crazy to think that is ok.
The team winning the coin toss has won 52.7% of the time since they changed the rule in 2012 to require a TD to win on the opening possession. That's statistically a toss up.
Boom
Yeah I don't get all the crying about it. It could be better but I like the way it's set up now. You lose the toss? Boohoo. Don't let the other team drive all the way down the field and score a touch down. Man up and play some defense.
I have a hard time thinking of fans back in the 60's and 70's whining about sudden death...
Comments
Tom O.
"I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
-The Writer
Tom O.
"I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
-The Writer
Edit: Only if a td is scored on the final play of regulation.
Tom O.
"I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
-The Writer
I know what to root for or look out for during the Bowl, lol!
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
no one is saying Belichick is not a factor but Brady could have the same run with another coach. Belichick is not having this run without Brady. his 6 years prior to Brady taking over as starter he was 14 games under .500. Just a coincidence?
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
And why is nobody upset about how overtime played out in the NFC game? Saints won the toss, took the ball...and lost!
Tom O.
"I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
-The Writer
And there is a lot going on about that NFC game outside of the OT.
And there's only one person dissing Belichek here....
I have a hard time thinking of fans back in the 60's and 70's whining about sudden death...
In 2 years it could possibly flip to where its 48.9% for the team winning the toss, then what?
If the "advantage" was like 20%, you'd have a valid argument.
Trieste 14, Vienna 14, Gdynia 14, Leeds 14, Milton Keynes 14, Denver 14
Central Park 15
Fort Lauderdale 16, Miami 16, Tampa 16, Jacksonville 16, Greenville 16, Hampton 16, Columbia 16, Lexington 16, Philly1 16, Philly2 16, NYC1 16, NYC2 16, Quebec City 16, Ottawa 16, Toronto1 16, Toronto2 16, Fenway1 16, Fenway2 16, Wrigley1 16, Wrigley2 16