New OT Rule

TopCow · 02-28-2010, 10:34 AM

Actually, I kind of like the proposed NFL overtime rule. Even if there may be no stats to back up their belief, a lot of people, especially losing team fans, believe that losing a coin toss has denied them a fair chance in overtime. So, what the heck. Let's give them a pacifier if they need one. Who knows, our Saints just might profit from this some day.

I don't really care why the NFL brass are proposing a new ruling. If it is to sooth the whiners, who cares? The tears and sour grapes of ESPN and some Vikings enthusiasts in no way detract from the reality that the SAINTS are the 2010 NFL CHAMPS. No amount of whining or crying foul will change or diminish that fact. We're Number One.

Cruize · 02-28-2010, 10:37 AM

Leave the rule like it is.

Euphoria · 02-28-2010, 10:38 AM

There is nothing wrong with our system. If you want the damn ball in OT and you lost the toss then how about you stop the team or get a turnover.

So what you are saying is the Defense doesn't matter in the game of football anymore or any other unit.

LEAVE IT ALONE this isn't football for little boys. This is grown man tackle football get the game over already.

DjBlueBeast · 02-28-2010, 10:54 AM

nah, i think the game will be fine if left AS IS. no changes necessary. either win it in 60 or step up your offense / defense in overtime

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.

02-28-2010, 10:34 AM	#1
TopCow 100th Post Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 299	Re: New OT Rule Actually, I kind of like the proposed NFL overtime rule. Even if there may be no stats to back up their belief, a lot of people, especially losing team fans, believe that losing a coin toss has denied them a fair chance in overtime. So, what the heck. Let's give them a pacifier if they need one. Who knows, our Saints just might profit from this some day. I don't really care why the NFL brass are proposing a new ruling. If it is to sooth the whiners, who cares? The tears and sour grapes of ESPN and some Vikings enthusiasts in no way detract from the reality that the SAINTS are the 2010 NFL CHAMPS. No amount of whining or crying foul will change or diminish that fact. We're Number One.
TopCow 100th Post Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 299

02-28-2010, 10:37 AM	#2
Cruize 1000 Posts + Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 4,467	Re: New OT Rule Leave the rule like it is.
Cruize 1000 Posts + Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 4,467

02-28-2010, 10:38 AM	#3
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	Re: New OT Rule There is nothing wrong with our system. If you want the damn ball in OT and you lost the toss then how about you stop the team or get a turnover. So what you are saying is the Defense doesn't matter in the game of football anymore or any other unit. LEAVE IT ALONE this isn't football for little boys. This is grown man tackle football get the game over already.

02-28-2010, 10:54 AM	#4
DjBlueBeast 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 160	Re: New OT Rule nah, i think the game will be fine if left AS IS. no changes necessary. either win it in 60 or step up your offense / defense in overtime
DjBlueBeast 100th Post Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 160

02-28-2010, 01:33 PM	#5
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	#6
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	#7
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	#8
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	#9
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	#10
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