View Full Version : Changes to OT Rules - no more ties!!
vabillsfan
11-12-2002, 12:40 PM
I heard this idea tossed around on the local sports radio here in D.C. the other night. Its high time the NFL do something to get rid of the lame-o TIE like we saw in Pittsburgh. Hockey has them and a has a stupid system - go to sudden death for all games. No ties in baseball, no ties in NBA - don't even get me started on soccer.
Anyway - here was the idea. At the end of regulation, don't let a random toss of a coin determine who might win the game. Let the visiting team get the ball first, on a normal kickoff and see if they can score. Then, let the home team get the ball as well, via kickoff and see if they can score (like baseball, home team gets last shot).
Why?
1. Fans pay too much damn money to go home with a tie, we like winners in our sports!
2. It adds some excitement. Imagine if the visitor drove to the 10 and had 4th and 1. Would they kick or maybe go for it, knowing if the home team drove for a touchdown on their turn they'd lose the game?
Thoughts? And the college system is lame too. Puh-leaze. They can't even pick a national champion correctly, let alone settle a tie game.
lordofgun
11-12-2002, 12:42 PM
I think the clock should be off in OT. Play until someone scores.
Who pissed in your Wheaties this morning...
:D
Dozerdog
11-12-2002, 12:53 PM
I would just let them play intil there is a winner.
Other than that, if you can't stop them., you deserve to lose.
Except for kickoff returns....:D
vabillsfan
11-12-2002, 12:54 PM
Ha! Just figured it was time to add some of my own substantive discussion here!
Come on - do thing right man!!!!
Besides Wys, you are my role model! I take my cues from you!! Aren't we supposed to say things that get other riled up?!?!?!
Shiny Chicken
11-12-2002, 01:04 PM
Anyone know the answer to this?
In the playoffs, Iknow you go into extra overtimes if no one scores after the first OT, because someone has to win, obviously, but is there a coin toss before the second OT or does it just continue on is if you were going from the first to the second quarter?
Herdwatcher
11-12-2002, 01:16 PM
keep things the way they are.
The situation is like the way I love my steak. rare!
It adds to the game,oh well, your team didn't make the playoffs because of a tie back in week five. It's a part of the game that shows it's head like a five, ten year locust. you kinda forget about until it pops up.
JWatts
11-12-2002, 01:23 PM
I think they should combine the college and NFL OT rules. The only thing I would change in the NFL OT is that each team has an equal number of positions and turn the clock off and keep playing until there is a winner. Current rules say that first team to score wins (Game over). My rules will use the Jets & Bills game. The Jets win the coin toss in OT and return it for a TD. Buffalo would get the kick off and have that position to win/tie the game. If Buffalo turns the ball over, gives it up on downs then it's game over Jets win. Buffalo scores a TD and PAT then kick off and the OT continues. What does everyone think?
BillsOwnAll
11-12-2002, 01:35 PM
does it matter theres a tie like every 5 years and if you suck that mcuh that both teams cant score a single point in 15:00 i dont think either team deserves a win.
1) What is wrong with ties? It adds some variety to the standings and doesn't happen too much.
2) Can you imagine a Monday night game that took ten overtime periods to decide because they needed to play out to a winner. I mean come on. I can see the headlines of the Tuesday evening paper being printed at 11am Tuesday: Ravens and Giants still fighting to end 0-0 tie in the meadowlands. What about the fans who have to go to work?
3) In number 2 these teams would have to come back and play the next sunday despite having played the equivalent of six games on the previous monday night. Tell me this doesn't give an unfair advantage to their oppositions in these games.
4) On the issue of both teams having the ball. What does the first team who has a posession do when they don't convert a third down, punt? They punt away and hope they can stop the other team. This means they are playing their first posession, trying to score, with a three down mentality. However, if the first team scores, the second team will be playing their first posession in OT with a four down mentality. This is a serious advantage to the second team to get the ball.
Hockey does have ties in the regular season if nobody scores after the OT period.
What's wrong with ties, anyway? It makes life interesting.
Cntrygal
11-12-2002, 06:19 PM
Welcome to the zone JWatts!! :)
Bruce is Loose
11-13-2002, 04:44 PM
Just have two more periods, with a kickoff at the start of each. Both team gets the ball... no sudden death. Repeat until no tie.
The periods may only be like 10 minutes thoguh
RedEyE
11-13-2002, 04:53 PM
I actually like the tie. The teams should have gotten it done in the regulation. Pittsburgh punted from the 33 yard line in the 4th quarter.
Bob Matthews had a pretty neat idea;
The first team gets the ball at a predetermined yardage point. I think like the 40 going in. They then try to score. After their drive, the other team gets a chance.
If they kick a FG, then if the other team gets a TD, then they win. Otherwise, they can also try for a FG. A ties pushes the game to sudden-death w/ both teams trying from the same spot until another scores anything at all. If they fail at both a TD and FG, then they lose.
That way, it essentially comes down to each team's offense for putting points up.
BillsMan80
11-13-2002, 05:55 PM
How about just put 15 minutes on the clock, coin toss, kick it off and play the damn quarter out, and may the best man win or tie.
So they both have to score the first time. Then we are right back to the arguement against the current structure of the OT period. I guess I don't see how this solves anything. Sorry.
It removes the stigma that 80% of the time that the team that wins the toss wins the game.
But you still have to decide who gets the ball first. I understand what you are saying and from that perspective it will be a little better. But the same advantage applies to the team to get the ball first if both teams score.
I really think the college OT system stinks. It's not anything like the game that was played to get into OT. As far as I am concerned its more related to a slam dunk contest or home run derby than a football game.
InTheBox
11-13-2002, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by NoCtUrNaL
I think all games should be played "Winner Take All". By that I mean, all the players pay checks are cashed, then all the money is thrown into a large wheel barrow. The team that wins the game gets the wheel barrow full of money.
In the event of a tie, the wheel barrow is placed on the 50 yard line and the fans at the game are given a count down. At zero all the fans are allowed to run out of the stands unto the field and grab and keep as much money as they still have on them once they leave the stadium.
That Would be crazy!!! can you imagine 72,000 drunk fans storming the field!!
BillsMan80
11-13-2002, 07:37 PM
Like I said, just play 1 more damn quarter...whoever leads after that quarter takes it all.
MissBuffalo
11-13-2002, 08:48 PM
IMO they should keep OT the way it is now. The coin toss may give a team an advantage, but there's something to be said for the anticipation of the D coming onto the field forcing a punt or creating a turnover. I just can't imagine OT of an NFL game being played with hockey or soccer OT rules.
Earthquake Enyart
11-13-2002, 09:34 PM
If you get scored on the first time the other team has the ball, you don't deserve to win. The way it is now is ok. The college system is stupid.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.