Why do we always vote against all major proposals??

[BILLSROCK1212]

Overtime proposal passes

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 23, 2010 3:22 PM ET
The National Football League owners have approved a change in overtime, starting with the playoffs following the 2010 season, that will modify the sudden-death format and prevent a team from winning a game with a field goal on the opening possession.

The vote was 28-4, with the Buffalo Bills, Minnesota Vikings, Baltimore Ravens and Cincinnati Bengals voting against. It needed at least 24 votes to pass.

"It was really a good discussion in the sense that there's been a lot of debate, both publicly and privately, over the rule -- which is always good," Competition Committee co-chair Rich McKay said in announcing the vote. "We've had this discussion for a number of years. We felt like this proposal, which we call 'modified sudden death,' was really an opportunity to make what we think was a pretty good rule -- sudden death -- even better."

McKay stressed that the new overtime rule, which says the team receiving the kickoff can't end the game on the first possession unless it scores a touchdown, will apply only to the playoffs.

"Part of the reason we have different rules is we have different consequences," McKay said. "The consequences in the postseason are, go home if you don't win. In the regular season, we have 15 other games."

It's the first major change in playoff overtime rules in the NFL since "The Greatest Game Ever Played," when the Baltimore Colts beat the New York Giants in the 1958 NFL Championship Game.



I understand the Bills and Bengals voting against most labor propositions, but why this rule change??

[Dicknoze69]

There were numerous reasons to vote against this proposal if you were so inclined. First, a proposal that only affects a small subset of games (the playoffs) might not be the best way to promote your product. Second, why have different rules for regular season and playoff games? And last, maybe the Bills just flat-out preferred the current approach. Quite a few head coaches were adamantly against the new OT format.

As for comparing this vote to our "No" vote on the CBA in past labor talks, it's like comparing apples to computers. Totally different things. Additionally, I think our "No" vote was validated when the owners opted out early of the CBA and essentially agreed that Ralph/Mike Brown were correct.

[T-Long]

I think they voted against it because they know we can't score touchdowns.

[Zero]

There were numerous reasons to vote against this proposal if you were so inclined. First, a proposal that only affects a small subset of games (the playoffs) might not be the best way to promote your product. Second, why have different rules for regular season and playoff games? And last, maybe the Bills just flat-out preferred the current approach. Quite a few head coaches were adamantly against the new OT format.

As for comparing this vote to our "No" vote on the CBA in past labor talks, it's like comparing apples to computers. Totally different things. Additionally, I think our "No" vote was validated when the owners opted out early of the CBA and essentially agreed that Ralph/Mike Brown were correct.


EXACTLY...

Ralph Wilson was ridiculed for voting against the last CBA and went on the record pointing out potential problems with it. It appears he was one of the few buisinessmen that actually understood how impractical it was. This is one of the few times I can remember RW being ahead of the curve.

[Dicknoze69]

Tim Graham on exactly why we voted "No" (it was Chan's decision):

http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/11905/gailey-cast-bills-no-vote-on-ot-change

Here's a very telling quote from Nix:

"I'm speaking for him and I shouldn't be, but he didn't like the rules changing when you go into the playoffs," Nix said. "They should be the same, but now your strategies are different."

"If it's a decision that involves the game and playing, then I think the coach should make it," Nix said. "To me, he's the guy that's got to deal with it."

[JCBills]

Ralph is old and set in his ways.

[Dicknoze69]

Also, after reading that article, it's pretty telling that Ralph isn't mentioned at all. We're left to assume that Ralph gave Nix complete control over the vote, who then left the decision up to Gailey.

[Philagape]

Ralph voted against the forward pass too.

[OpIv37]

Ralph voted against the forward pass too.

yeah, well, with our current crop of QB's, can you blame him?

[Oldbillsfan]

The Bills don't need to worry about playoff rule chnages

[Bufftp]

Ralph just got confused. He thought the vote was would the Bills eventually make the playoffs over time.
He voted no.

[SABURZFAN]

Also, after reading that article, it's pretty telling that Ralph isn't mentioned at all. We're left to assume that Ralph gave Nix complete control over the vote, who then left the decision up to Gailey.


we wouldn't want the old fossils to be interfered with their naps now, would we?

[Night Train]

" I'm against womens suffrage "

[Jeff1220]

The change is pretty stupid, but only because it only affects the playoffs.
If it's good enough for the playoffs, why not the regular season. Coaches won't even get a chance to practice their OT strategies until they're in their most important, everything-at-stake games of the season. If the vote was to have this change (POs only) or no change at all, I would've voted 'no' too.

[Jaybird]

Stupid Rule, I'm against it also.

Playing D is part of the game, and if you can't stop them then it's your fault. end of story