Random NFL News - 2010

S

Superman

All-Star
#31
#31
NFL owners approve overtime change in playoffs

The new rule, which will be in effect for the NFL's postseason only, allows the team that loses the coin flip at the start of overtime to have a possession unless a touchdown is scored -- either offensively or defensively -- on the first possession.

Twenty-eight of the owners voted to approve the proposal, with four voting against it -- Buffalo, Minnesota, Baltimore and Cincinnati. Twenty-four votes were needed to approve the proposal.

The league's coaches were said to be overwhelmingly against the measure, but the owners were swayed by the weight of statistics showing that 59.8 percent of the games since 1994 -- when kickoffs were moved back to the 30-yard line -- were won by the team winning the overtime coin toss.
​
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#33
#33
I'm willing to give it a shot. I never really liked the race to a FG, this is imperfect but all things considered its probably the first thing worth trying.
 
Warhawk

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#34
#34
Should be one team gets the ball, then the other team. Just like baseball. Hate the idea that your season can be determined by a coin flip the way it is now.
 
SacKings7

SacKings7

Starter
#35
#35
I actually like this rule, only I think it should apply to regular season games as well. Something needed to get done with the OT format one way or another, and I think this is one of the better scenarios. Basically we won't be seeing many FG's kicked on 2nd downs anymore. I think a bit more strategy will have to be involved in winning OT games now, because now teams have to trust their defense to win the game for them if they do decide to kick a FG.
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#36
#36
They would never do this in the regular season because of the injury risks and (much more importantly though they would never admit it) the damage it does to the tight TV schedule they run. For that reason I think they should just call it a tie in regular season. And frankly I'd prefer they played a full extra quarter of OT, Euro-Football style, but again that won't happen because the reasons above.
 
S

Superman

All-Star
#37
#37
There's another meeting in May when the issue might be pressed to adopt the rule for the regular season, but the owners are getting a lot of pushback from the coaches right now, so I don't know what might happen then.
 
S

Superman

All-Star
#38
#38
Coaches upset with overtime vote

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/03/24/overtime-payton/index.html?hpt=T2
ORLANDO, Fla. -- Echoing the feelings of the many coaches unhappy with the new overtime rule, Super Bowl champion coach Sean Payton ripped the reform and how it was implemented at the NFL Meetings Wednesday morning.

"I hate it," Payton, speaking from the annual NFC Coaches breakfast, told me on Sirius NFL Radio. "I'm not a big fan of the rule that was implemented. I'm probably going to have to spend a half-hour explaining it to my wife."

...

"I was sitting next to what I thought was seven no's [on the golf course]," Payton said, adding that Tuesday window became "perfect timing" to call for the vote because "a handful" of the owners and owners' representatives were not very well informed on the issue.

Asked for his reaction to Payton's sharp criticism, competition committee co-chair Rich McKay of the Falcons said, "I'm fine with it. The coaches didn't want the two-point conversion. They didn't want instant replay. Both of those things turned out pretty good."

Goodell similarly minimized the complaints of coaches at his news conference late Wednesday morning. "This may not come as a news flash," he said wryly, "but the owners have the vote. ... We had a full discussion with the coaches in the room Tuesday morning. The ownership thought that [the overtime proposal] was good for the game and good for the fans."

As one longtime league official told me Wednesday morning: "Owners own, coaches coach. That's what happened here." And that is the moral of this story.
​
 
uolj

uolj

Starter
#39
#39
I'd prefer that they just made it so both teams are guaranteed one possession. That's simpler and pretty straightforward. I like what they picked better than the current rules, though.

As to doing it only in the playoffs, that's kind of strange. I'd think they'd want to do it not in the playoffs to test it out.

I don't see that it would have much impact on the length of games or injury risks. It's only a relatively small percentage of games that end on a field goal on the first possession, right?
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#40
#40
uolj said:
It's only a relatively small percentage of games that end on a field goal on the first possession, right?
Click to expand...
Nearly 60% of games are won by the team that won the toss, though I'm not sure if that statistic counts subsequent possessions.

Consider that a number of games roll 15 minutes late as it is, the networks hate this because it destroys their prime time programming on the east coast. I know Cold Case fans are a rowdy bunch :p
 
uolj

uolj

Starter
#41
#41
pdxKingsFan said:
Nearly 60% of games are won by the team that won the toss, though I'm not sure if that statistic counts subsequent possessions.

Consider that a number of games roll 15 minutes late as it is, the networks hate this because it destroys their prime time programming on the east coast. I know Cold Case fans are a rowdy bunch :p
Click to expand...
Yeah, that statistic counts subsequent possessions.

According to this 30% of overtimes end on the first possession, although I'm sure many of those would be touchdowns. So this would only affect, say 20-25% of games, and most of those games would only be longer by a possession since the other team will have to score a field goal for the game to continue.

I think the injury/length of game issue is a real one, but it affects the other overtime proposals much more and is why they picked this one.
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#42
#42
uolj said:
I think the injury/length of game issue is a real one, but it affects the other overtime proposals much more and is why they picked this one.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree. My preference is for a full period, particularly since clock management is such a key part of all football strategy. My second choice would be the college system. My third choice would be to guarantee each team one possession. All of those could potentially run 30-60 minutes late which really could be a deal breaker. So I guess I'll take this. But since it is the playoffs only, I think the time considerations should have been discarded.
 
SacKings7

SacKings7

Starter
#44
#44
pdxKingsFan said:
Yes I agree. My preference is for a full period, particularly since clock management is such a key part of all football strategy. My second choice would be the college system. My third choice would be to guarantee each team one possession. All of those could potentially run 30-60 minutes late which really could be a deal breaker. So I guess I'll take this. But since it is the playoffs only, I think the time considerations should have been discarded.
Click to expand...
Ya know what, the more I think about the new rule, the more I realize that there were much better options out there. I like your third choice a lot better than the new rule. A full period would be ideal, but that'll obviously never happen. I don't watch college football so I don't even know what the rule is there.
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#45
#45
The college system is alternating possessions from the opponent's 25. So it takes midfield defense out of the equation (presumably for time constraints) and allows every team matching possessions. If it goes into a 3rd OT session both teams must attempt 2-pt conversions if they score a TD.
 
S

Superman

All-Star
#46
#46
What you're going to see with the new overtime rules is fewer teams settling for field goals on the first possession of overtime, because a field goal doesn't win it. The way it had been, you get two or three first downs (which isn't all that hard for the elite quarterbacks in the NFL playoffs) and you're in field goal range, and now you're lining your kicker up on his preferred hash mark. Now, you'll have teams inside the 30 yard line playing for a touchdown, not settling for a field goal, and there will be more emphasis on tough to call 4th downs, because if you punt and give up a touchdown, you lose. This rule change will affect the both the offensive and defensive play-calling in overtime, because now a defense can protect their endzone the same way they were doing all game long, whereas an offense can consider themselves in four down territory once they cross midfield and stay aggressive as they push for a touchdown.

The only change I would like from this system would be a guaranteed possession for each team, but I think this is a good compromise. You'll see more action in overtime, instead of watching a kicker warm up and hearing the crew talk about how long his pre-game kicks were going in this direction. And you'll probably see that 60% number go down, too, which is the biggest issue I have with overtime. The coin toss won't be as much of a deciding factor anymore.

You're not going to get a whole quarter just because the NFL doesn't want to extend games anymore than they have to, and they want to take ties out of the equation (which was the reason for the overtime rules to begin with), and you won't get the college system, because that would extend the game indefinitely. I honestly think this is the best it's gonna be, and I think this is much better than it was.
 
uolj

uolj

Starter
#47
#47
SacKings7 said:
Ya know what, the more I think about the new rule, the more I realize that there were much better options out there. I like your third choice a lot better than the new rule. A full period would be ideal, but that'll obviously never happen. I don't watch college football so I don't even know what the rule is there.
Click to expand...
The new rule is basically that each team is guaranteed one possession, unless the first possession ends with a touchdown.

I personally think that second part just adds unnecessary complexity, so I agree with you that just the guaranteed possession would have been good enough, but the current rule isn't that much different than the third option you referred to.
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#48
#48
The whole quarter thing would be for playoff games, I am fine with ties in the regular season.

I think the coin toss will still be a huge factor - now teams may want the last possession, but they may also be inclined to pick sides rather than possession on difficult field conditions and force the other team to choose.

One good thing about alternating possessions is keeping it played on one side of the field to eliminate field condition bias.
 
uolj

uolj

Starter
#49
#49
Why would teams want the second possession? If they give up a touchdown on the first drive they lose.

I guess in theory you might be able to show that a touchdown is not very likely on a given drive, so the ability to know whether a field goal is required or not could prove more beneficial, but that's a big risk to take.
 
S

Superman

All-Star
#50
#50
pdxKingsFan said:
The whole quarter thing would be for playoff games, I am fine with ties in the regular season.
Click to expand...
The NFL is not, thus the reason they instituted overtime in the first place. Of course, that was over 30 years ago, but it's still not a popular idea. No one wants to watch or play in a game for 3+ hours only to come out tied at the end.
 
S

Superman

All-Star
#51
#51
uolj said:
Why would teams want the second possession? If they give up a touchdown on the first drive they lose.

I guess in theory you might be able to show that a touchdown is not very likely on a given drive, so the ability to know whether a field goal is required or not could prove more beneficial, but that's a big risk to take.
Click to expand...
It's harder to score a touchdown than a field goal, and if weather is a factor AND you're playing a team that struggles to score points, I could see a team electing to kick and play field position. I could see Mike Singletary putting the pressure on his defense to flip the field for the offense, then get another stop and give your offense a chance to win with a second field goal. But I don't think it's something that would happen often.
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#52
#52
I think the odds of defending against a TD vs. a FG go up significantly. In a dome, I'd want the ball no question, but on a nasty field there's all kinds of reasons, one would be the way the wind is affecting play, or on teams with multi-use fields there are usually all kinds of difficulties playing on a baseball infield. If the wind is particularly nasty it could benefit the kicking team in the field possession game - unreturnable kick, tough to pass, bad punt.

I also wouldn't be surprise to find out that teams that kick a FG on the first OT possession lose more frequently because the opponent enters 4-down mode automatically. So if you don't score the TD you may be at a disadvantage trying to hold field against a team already plotting to use all 4 downs.
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#53
#53
Superman said:
The NFL is not, thus the reason they instituted overtime in the first place. Of course, that was over 30 years ago, but it's still not a popular idea. No one wants to watch or play in a game for 3+ hours only to come out tied at the end.
Click to expand...
But they still allow ties. So unlike say the NHL which went to drastic (and frankly stupid imho) measures to end ties altogether, they aren't entirely not fine with them.
 
S

Superman

All-Star
#54
#54
pdxKingsFan said:
But they still allow ties. So unlike say the NHL which went to drastic (and frankly stupid imho) measures to end ties altogether, they aren't entirely not fine with them.
Click to expand...
True, but this new system is designed to keep going until the game is decided. I guess that's because it's only for overtime, but there's another meeting in May where they are going to push to change the rule for the regular season, and we'll see if they alter it to allow for a tie at the end of one overtime period, or if it goes indefinitely the way the playoff system is designed.

And either way, the point of having overtime was to reduce the amount of ties, period. The NFL isn't going to make a change that increases ties.
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#55
#55
I understand that, its just my comment on what I think is a stupid American obsession about ties. With certain sports overtimes work better than others, football is one where almost every solution results in more compromise.
 
S

Superman

All-Star
#56
#56
Well, depending on what they do going forward, I think that the change(s) will reduce the amount of games that end in ties and will give each team a more equal chance of winning in overtime, regardless of the coin toss. Like I said, I like the change, and I think that it's a pretty strong deterrent to playing for a field goal in overtime, which takes the excitement out of it. I don't think football is a game that should end in a tie after 3+ hours, and while some sports ARE conducive to ties, the fact that very few NFL games go into overtime -- and even fewer end tied after one overtime period -- is a testament to that "fact".

I'm not a soccer fan or a hockey fan. I don't watch too many other sports than basketball, football and baseball. Occasional tennis and golf. Call me uncultured; I probably am. But the sports I do watch, I don't think they would be well served with an increase in ties. I don't think anyone is satisfied when a game ends in a tie. And a big difference between football and hockey, if I understand correctly, is that the NHL uses points to determine playoff teams, whereas the NFL relies on win/loss records primarily, and only uses points as a last resort for a tie breaker. So increasing the amount of ties rather drastically (probably about a dozen NFL overtime games a year, whereas there's been two ties in the last 13 seasons) is not something that I'm interested in seeing, and it's not something that I think would serve the NFL well.

Considering the unlikelihood that a game would end with each team scoring only three points or zero points in a fifteen minute overtime, I think that even if the NFL instituted the new rule in the regular season with a provision for a tie at the end of one overtime, it wouldn't be very often that we'd see a tie. You don't see both teams score zero or three points in an entire quarter too often, and if you're playing for a win, it's even less likely to happen.
 
pdxKingsFan

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
#57
#57
The NHL system of "points" was just an easy way to calculate wins and ties - win = 2pts, tie = 1, loss =0. Then Bettman came along and completely shot it to hell with his stupid fixes to end ties. The first was a change to the OT format where they moved to 4 on 4 (and sadly now international hockey has adopted this stupid fix to a non issue). For some reason a win became 3pts, an OT loss or tie became 1, and a regulation loss became 0. That was just dumb and made no sense because all the sudden the point totals were not finite. Then they added shootouts and other nonsense and now there's like 4 categories in the W-L column to sort out when teams tie in points... uggh.

Soccer was the other big one with silliness, all over the world they would have ties. Then they start an American league and go to shootouts to guarantee a winner? And not even international style penalty kicks, but one on one shootouts like in hockey. It was a joke and MLS was wise enough to dump it.

I just don't understand why a tie is so uncosciounable. If two teams battle it out for 60 minutes and they are tied, they get partial credit in the standings. That isn't so bad, it can be good for both teams, or bad for both teams.

It isn't a satisfying conclusion really but in some ways can add more excitement. I remember back in the college days before they instituted OT late drives would frequently call for a play for the win or tie scenario. I thought that was great and would tell you a ton about a team and their coach.

Oh well. I guess what bothered me most about it was this whole notion that for all over the world ties are OK but in America ties don't work and we'll break the game to get rid of them. Hockey and Soccer definitely broke the game. Football borders on it, though less so. I take it as an insult to the American audience. /rant
 
SacKings7

SacKings7

Starter
#58
#58
I agree that the rule adds some more decision making to overtime now, which is why I liked it to begin with. But my issue is, like uolj said, that I think each team should be guaranteed 1 possession, TD or not. I don't think I'd have any complaints then.

As far as hockey goes, I actually like the 4 on 4 rule, it makes the game more wide open. An argument against it could be that it favors teams with 1 great center and winger, but then again there's nothing stopping teams from going with 3 forwards and only 1 defenseman. I do agree that the 4 categories in the W-L column are a mess though. Luckily the NHL ditched that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.