• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

NFL Discussion Thread

ThotDoc

Tom Osborne
5 Year Member
Have no problem with NFL current OT rules. Don't want to see 7 OT's like in the Atm - LSU game which was ridicilous. You don't win the coin toss then do what the Rams did which was get a turnover and STOP the other team from scoring........

It was a bad call and PI should be looked at but not turn everything upside down. Saints fans need to get a grip because they LOST and it's over......... To even suggest the game should be replayed is ridiculous imo.
I agree. Even with the bad call, the Saints won the toss and had a better than 50/50 shot to win in OT.
 

Trojan Husker

Junior Varsity
5 Year Member
Have no problem with NFL current OT rules. Don't want to see 7 OT's like in the Atm - LSU game which was ridicilous. You don't win the coin toss then do what the Rams did which was get a turnover and STOP the other team from scoring........

It was a bad call and PI should be looked at but not turn everything upside down. Saints fans need to get a grip because they LOST and it's over......... To even suggest the game should be replayed is ridiculous imo.
Say what you will about the seven overtimes, but at least it was fair. The Pats-Chiefs game had four lead changes in the fourth quarter so clearly whoever won the coin toss was going to win the game.

The NFL doesn't have to do the college system. It'd be easy enough to just give both teams a possession. After the Pats scored a touchdown on their first drive, then the Chiefs get one chance to answer. As it is now, whoever wins the coin toss has a clear advantage, which is in my opinion very stupid.
 

cthusker

You talken to me?
5 Year Member
Say what you will about the seven overtimes, but at least it was fair. The Pats-Chiefs game had four lead changes in the fourth quarter so clearly whoever won the coin toss was going to win the game.

The NFL doesn't have to do the college system. It'd be easy enough to just give both teams a possession. After the Pats scored a touchdown on their first drive, then the Chiefs get one chance to answer. As it is now, whoever wins the coin toss has a clear advantage, which is in my opinion very stupid.

Since the overtime rule change in 2012, the team that wins the coin flip has a 53.1% Win rate. I really don't consider 3% better odds to be significant enough to be change the NFL OT rule. What changed the former OT winning percentage (60%) is that a team must score a TD as opposed to a FG on opening drive to win. The new OT rule (2012) comes close to making who wins the coin toss insignificant imo.

 
Last edited:

Trojan Husker

Junior Varsity
5 Year Member
Since the overtime rule change in 2012, the team that wins the coin flip has a 53.1% Win rate. I really don't consider 3% better odds to be significant enough to be change the NFL OT rule. What changed the former OT winning percentage (60%) is that a team must score a TD as opposed to a FG on opening drive to win. The new OT rule (2012) comes close to making who wins the coin toss insignificant imo.
If there’s room to make it better and more fair, why not do it?
 
Last edited:

cthusker

You talken to me?
5 Year Member
If there’s room to make it better and more fair, why not do it?
Perhaps but my bet is the NFL won't be revising the OT procedure anytime soon.... Remains to be seen if the percentage changes much for teams that win the toss over the next several years.
 

All 'N' 011808

Former Walk-on
2 Year Member
I have no dog in the fight as far as being a fan of one of the teams who played on Sunday. With that said, I have no problem with the OT rules as they are. Both teams get 4 quarters to beat the other one. Play defense and get a stop.
 

Trojan Husker

Junior Varsity
5 Year Member
I have no dog in the fight as far as being a fan of one of the teams who played on Sunday. With that said, I have no problem with the OT rules as they are. Both teams get 4 quarters to beat the other one. Play defense and get a stop.
But why is "play defense and get a stop" only for one team? The other team just has to score. It's such a clear advantage! Sorry, I know I am holding on to this too much, but I just can't get over it. And I'm a Rams fan! I'm very happy with Sunday's results. But I do think it was a tougher road for the Rams in OT because they had to force a turnover. Thankfully, they did!
 
Last edited:

All 'N' 011808

Former Walk-on
2 Year Member
But why is "play defense and get a stop" only for one team? The other team just has to score. It's such a clear advantage! Sorry, I know I am holding on to this too much, but I just can't get over it. And I'm a Rams fan! I'm very happy with Sunday's results. But I do think it was a tougher road for the Rams in OT because they had to force a turnover. Thankfully, they did!
Why play defense and get a stop?...because it's part of the game and there were four quarters of football where each team got the ball. The team with the ball has to drive the length of the field. It's not like the game only had one possession.

I just can't get behind "The Pats-Chiefs game had four lead changes in the fourth quarter so clearly whoever won the coin toss was going to win the game." If that logic is used, then after the Pats scored its touchdown, the Chiefs were certainly going to score a touchdown. If that drive takes too much time, a second OT is going to happen, and each team will just kept scoring touchdowns...unless one of the teams gets a stop. So it looks like its back to "play defense and get a stop."
 

cthusker

You talken to me?
5 Year Member
Why play defense and get a stop?...because it's part of the game and there were four quarters of football where each team got the ball. The team with the ball has to drive the length of the field. It's not like the game only had one possession.

I just can't get behind "The Pats-Chiefs game had four lead changes in the fourth quarter so clearly whoever won the coin toss was going to win the game." If that logic is used, then after the Pats scored its touchdown, the Chiefs were certainly going to score a touchdown. If that drive takes too much time, a second OT is going to happen, and each team will just kept scoring touchdowns...unless one of the teams gets a stop. So it looks like its back to "play defense and get a stop."
Exactly my feelings.... The Rams got it done on D in OT while KC didn't! All a team has to do is force the FIRST possession team to kick a FG as opposed to allowing a TD.. right? Then the team that played good D gets the ball. If they manage a TD it's over if it's a FG the game goes on. On the next ball possession change if either team kicks a FG it's over! Bottom line a team needs to play some decent defense if they don't win the coin toss in OT!

IMO the NFL isn't going to change the OT rules since there's only a 3% improved odds for the team that wins the toss. That's really insignificant in the scheme of things imo.....
 

Trojan Husker

Junior Varsity
5 Year Member
Exactly my feelings.... The Rams got it done on D in OT while KC didn't! All a team has to do is force the FIRST possession team to kick a FG as opposed to allowing a TD.. right? Then the team that played good D gets the ball. If they manage a TD it's over if it's a FG the game goes on. On the next ball possession change if either team kicks a FG it's over! Bottom line a team needs to play some decent defense if they don't win the coin toss in OT!

IMO the NFL isn't going to change the OT rules since there's only a 3% improved odds for the team that wins the toss. That's really insignificant in the scheme of things imo.....
Why play defense and get a stop?...because it's part of the game and there were four quarters of football where each team got the ball. The team with the ball has to drive the length of the field. It's not like the game only had one possession.

I just can't get behind "The Pats-Chiefs game had four lead changes in the fourth quarter so clearly whoever won the coin toss was going to win the game." If that logic is used, then after the Pats scored its touchdown, the Chiefs were certainly going to score a touchdown. If that drive takes too much time, a second OT is going to happen, and each team will just kept scoring touchdowns...unless one of the teams gets a stop. So it looks like its back to "play defense and get a stop."
You really think two drives are going to take the entire quarter? And yes, it should come down to "one of the teams gets a stop." With this system, only ONE team is forced to make the stop, not both. Just the team that's at a disadvantage for losing a freaking coin toss. The Patriots defense never even saw the field.

"Bottom line a team needs to play some decent defense if they don't win the coin toss in OT"? It should be that BOTH teams have to play decent defense to win in overtime. Why does only one team have to play decent defense to win? I guess if it were the old days when there wasn't as much scoring, I could see it as being perceived as fair, but it's not like that anymore.

It's pretty clear by everything you guys are saying that the team who gets the ball first in OT has an advantage. You're basically admitting it. The difference is... I'm not okay with it and you are. So we'll agree to disagree!
 
Last edited:

cthusker

You talken to me?
5 Year Member
You really think two drives are going to take the entire quarter? And yes, it should come down to "one of the teams gets a stop." With this system, only ONE team is forced to make the stop, not both. Just the team that's at a disadvantage for losing a freaking coin toss. The Patriots defense never even saw the field.

"Bottom line a team needs to play some decent defense if they don't win the coin toss in OT"? It should be that BOTH teams have to play decent defense to win in overtime. Why does only one team have to play decent defense to win? I guess if it were the old days when there wasn't as much scoring, I could see it as being perceived as fair, but it's not like that anymore.

It's pretty clear by everything you guys are saying that the team who gets the ball first in OT has an advantage. You're basically admitting it. The difference is... I'm not okay with it and you are. So we'll agree to disagree!
I've already said the team with the winning coin toss has about a 3% better chance which is statistically irrelevant imo. Suppose the defensive team gets a pick 6? Game over right?

Bottom line teams seldom score on every possession regardless of how good their offense might be. In some ways the kick off team has certain advantages. If they stop the other team from even making a FG they can now WIN the game with only a FG? I think that's why the difference is only 3% better for the receiving team.

We can however agree to disagree.......... :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

All 'N' 011808

Former Walk-on
2 Year Member
You really think two drives are going to take the entire quarter? And yes, it should come down to "one of the teams gets a stop." With this system, only ONE team is forced to make the stop, not both. Just the team that's at a disadvantage for losing a freaking coin toss. The Patriots defense never even saw the field.

"Bottom line a team needs to play some decent defense if they don't win the coin toss in OT"? It should be that BOTH teams have to play decent defense to win in overtime. Why does only one team have to play decent defense to win? I guess if it were the old days when there wasn't as much scoring, I could see it as being perceived as fair, but it's not like that anymore.

It's pretty clear by everything you guys are saying that the team who gets the ball first in OT has an advantage. You're basically admitting it. The difference is... I'm not okay with it and you are. So we'll agree to disagree!
I don't believe that just because a team wins the toss for OT that it will win the game. Four quarters were already played and each team had a shot to win in regulation. If my team can't stop them and get the ball back in OT, the team doesn't deserve to win.
 
Top