New OT Rule

ScottF · 02-28-2010, 01:33 PM

I have always thought Sudden Death was stupid. In what other situation, sports or otherwise, does only one participant get a shot?

As for game length, the longer the game, the better chance that the better team will win. This eliminates losing on a bad call or fluke play. Plus the cash-poor NFL (joking) can sell more commercial time.

gumbeau · 02-28-2010, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by ScottF

I have always thought Sudden Death was stupid. In what other situation, sports or otherwise, does only one participant get a shot?

As for game length, the longer the game, the better chance that the better team will win. This eliminates losing on a bad call or fluke play. Plus the cash-poor NFL (joking) can sell more commercial time.

Both teams have a shot at scoring in the NFL during sudden death. Lots of overtime games have ended on a defensive touchdown.

This rule change is more about bitter fans that don' think losing to a field goal is really losing.

Just remove field goals from overtime rules.

Problem solved. The winner will have scored a touchdown and we don't have silly kindergarten turn taking.

21Hilliard · 02-28-2010, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by gumbeau

Both teams have a shot at scoring in the NFL during sudden death. Lots of overtime games have ended on a defensive touchdown.

Case in point: The Arizona - Green Bay Wildcard Game from this season. The Cards defense stepped up and made the play when they needed it. Defensive touchdown. In Overtime. Game over.

Tobias-Reiper · 02-28-2010, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by ScottF

I have always thought Sudden Death was stupid. In what other situation, sports or otherwise, does only one participant get a shot?

As for game length, the longer the game, the better chance that the better team will win. This eliminates losing on a bad call or fluke play. Plus the cash-poor NFL (joking) can sell more commercial time.

What? Only one participant gets a shot at winning?
You mean the team that gets to kick has to kick it to the other team and then they can't field a defense or something?

The "better" team should've been able to win it in regulation. If they can't win it in regulation, are they really the better team?

And you are telling me an OT game cannot be lost on a bad call or fluke play?

..and speaking of TV and commercial times, games going longer than the time slotted for them will wreck havoc with network programming and advertising money, not make it better.

ScottF · 02-28-2010, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

What? Only one participant gets a shot at winning?
You mean the team that gets to kick has to kick it to the other team and then they can't field a defense or something? Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Thanks for summing it up

The "better" team should've been able to win it in regulation. If they can't win it in regulation, are they really the better team?

And you are telling me an OT game cannot be lost on a bad call or fluke play? less likely if there were two possesions

..and speaking of TV and commercial times, games going longer than the time slotted for them will wreck havoc with network programming and advertising money, not make it better.

Havoc? really?

Tobias-Reiper · 02-28-2010, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by ScottF

Havoc? really?

Your quoting got all messed up, but anyway, I don't know if you were being sarcastic or what with your "that's what I meant" comment... It is really short-sighted to say only one team has a shot at winning an OT game in the NFL. I mean really, REALLY short-sighted...maybe it was you who wrote that piece in Bleacher Reports about outlawing onside kicks to start the second half?

A bad call can happen at any time. Whether there's one possession or 2 possessions, or 10 possessions... no number of possessions is going to minimize that if that bad call happens to be what ends the game for you. Just like the Packers this year who got shafted by a bad call (or a bad non-call) or the Cardinals in SB 43 on the last play of their last drive in regulation.

And yes, games going longer than their slotted TV time can present a problem for advertisers. There are a lot of intricacies when it comes to cost rates and air time.

CantonLegend · 03-01-2010, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

What? Only one participant gets a shot at winning?
You mean the team that gets to kick has to kick it to the other team and then they can't field a defense or something?

The "better" team should've been able to win it in regulation. If they can't win it in regulation, are they really the better team?

And you are telling me an OT game cannot be lost on a bad call or fluke play?

..and speaking of TV and commercial times, games going longer than the time slotted for them will wreck havoc with network programming and advertising money, not make it better.

i cried a little when i realized i agreed with everything you said and then i got a little happier when i read the last thing you wrote

this last super bowl was the most watched television show in history

football brings some of the highest ratings of any show in the world and there are only a handful of games actually shown on TV.....and they are only shown on the weekends during football season

a longer game would not wreak havoc on a television station, only make it better because fans want to watch good football games......not blowouts

OT should be left like it is because both teams do get a chance to score....regardless of who wins the coin flip

but your argument about the TV stations getting upset doesnt really make sense to me

lynwood · 02-28-2010, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by ScottF

I have always thought Sudden Death was stupid. In what other situation, sports or otherwise, does only one participant get a shot?

Hockey has the sudden death but the puck goes back and forth. I'd rather them play the full overtime like basketball.

02-28-2010, 01:33 PM	#1
ScottF 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Atlanta Posts: 6,324	Re: New OT Rule I have always thought Sudden Death was stupid. In what other situation, sports or otherwise, does only one participant get a shot? As for game length, the longer the game, the better chance that the better team will win. This eliminates losing on a bad call or fluke play. Plus the cash-poor NFL (joking) can sell more commercial time.

02-28-2010, 01:56 PM	#2
gumbeau Where Y'at? Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: The Republic of Texas Posts: 519	Re: New OT Rule Originally Posted by ScottF I have always thought Sudden Death was stupid. In what other situation, sports or otherwise, does only one participant get a shot? As for game length, the longer the game, the better chance that the better team will win. This eliminates losing on a bad call or fluke play. Plus the cash-poor NFL (joking) can sell more commercial time. Both teams have a shot at scoring in the NFL during sudden death. Lots of overtime games have ended on a defensive touchdown. This rule change is more about bitter fans that don' think losing to a field goal is really losing. Just remove field goals from overtime rules. Problem solved. The winner will have scored a touchdown and we don't have silly kindergarten turn taking.

02-28-2010, 02:48 PM	#3
21Hilliard 100th Post Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Raised on the Bayou - living in DFW Posts: 136	Re: New OT Rule Originally Posted by gumbeau Both teams have a shot at scoring in the NFL during sudden death. Lots of overtime games have ended on a defensive touchdown. Case in point: The Arizona - Green Bay Wildcard Game from this season. The Cards defense stepped up and made the play when they needed it. Defensive touchdown. In Overtime. Game over.

02-28-2010, 03:31 PM	#4
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Re: New OT Rule Originally Posted by ScottF I have always thought Sudden Death was stupid. In what other situation, sports or otherwise, does only one participant get a shot? As for game length, the longer the game, the better chance that the better team will win. This eliminates losing on a bad call or fluke play. Plus the cash-poor NFL (joking) can sell more commercial time. What? Only one participant gets a shot at winning? You mean the team that gets to kick has to kick it to the other team and then they can't field a defense or something? The "better" team should've been able to win it in regulation. If they can't win it in regulation, are they really the better team? And you are telling me an OT game cannot be lost on a bad call or fluke play? ..and speaking of TV and commercial times, games going longer than the time slotted for them will wreck havoc with network programming and advertising money, not make it better.
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

02-28-2010, 06:49 PM	#5
ScottF 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Atlanta Posts: 6,324	Re: New OT Rule Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper What? Only one participant gets a shot at winning? You mean the team that gets to kick has to kick it to the other team and then they can't field a defense or something? Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Thanks for summing it up The "better" team should've been able to win it in regulation. If they can't win it in regulation, are they really the better team? And you are telling me an OT game cannot be lost on a bad call or fluke play? less likely if there were two possesions ..and speaking of TV and commercial times, games going longer than the time slotted for them will wreck havoc with network programming and advertising money, not make it better. Havoc? really?

02-28-2010, 07:40 PM	#6
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Re: New OT Rule Originally Posted by ScottF Havoc? really? Your quoting got all messed up, but anyway, I don't know if you were being sarcastic or what with your "that's what I meant" comment... It is really short-sighted to say only one team has a shot at winning an OT game in the NFL. I mean really, REALLY short-sighted...maybe it was you who wrote that piece in Bleacher Reports about outlawing onside kicks to start the second half? A bad call can happen at any time. Whether there's one possession or 2 possessions, or 10 possessions... no number of possessions is going to minimize that if that bad call happens to be what ends the game for you. Just like the Packers this year who got shafted by a bad call (or a bad non-call) or the Cardinals in SB 43 on the last play of their last drive in regulation. And yes, games going longer than their slotted TV time can present a problem for advertisers. There are a lot of intricacies when it comes to cost rates and air time.
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

03-01-2010, 12:06 AM	#7
CantonLegend 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,685 Blog Entries: 2	Re: New OT Rule Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper What? Only one participant gets a shot at winning? You mean the team that gets to kick has to kick it to the other team and then they can't field a defense or something? The "better" team should've been able to win it in regulation. If they can't win it in regulation, are they really the better team? And you are telling me an OT game cannot be lost on a bad call or fluke play? ..and speaking of TV and commercial times, games going longer than the time slotted for them will wreck havoc with network programming and advertising money, not make it better. i cried a little when i realized i agreed with everything you said and then i got a little happier when i read the last thing you wrote this last super bowl was the most watched television show in history football brings some of the highest ratings of any show in the world and there are only a handful of games actually shown on TV.....and they are only shown on the weekends during football season a longer game would not wreak havoc on a television station, only make it better because fans want to watch good football games......not blowouts OT should be left like it is because both teams do get a chance to score....regardless of who wins the coin flip but your argument about the TV stations getting upset doesnt really make sense to me
	"deal with it or you can go play the saints and get trounced by 30 and you won't have to worry about it."-colin cowherd

02-28-2010, 05:42 PM	#8
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	Re: New OT Rule Originally Posted by ScottF I have always thought Sudden Death was stupid. In what other situation, sports or otherwise, does only one participant get a shot? Hockey has the sudden death but the puck goes back and forth. I'd rather them play the full overtime like basketball.