CheramieIII

The only reason they changed it is because Baby Brett didn't make the Superbowl. Watch it will backfire on them this year and we'll make it in beccause we get the ball after the Packers. You heard it hear first folks we beat Green Bay 33-31 in overtime to advance to the Superbowl and we beat the Bengals

hitta

I thought it was stupid that they did it just because of Favre.

I think the rule needed to be changed though to something more balanced and unbiased, and not revolving around a coin flip. I do not like what they changed it to.

VillainAgain

Hence the idea of a rule change

9thWardDesire

I bet if Favre had not thrown that pick or if Hartley would have missed that kick, It wouldn't have been an issue. Period. I remember when nobody gave a rat's posterior about New England prior to Tom Brady. Ever since Brady took over for Drew Deadslow, they treat the Patriots like they're the '72 Dolphins.

For the exact same reason why the NCAA wants the major conferences to win the National Championship with the BCS, they want their stars to have their chance because it's marketable. Just like the NBA (and just about every talking head) wanted to see a LaBron/Kobe matchup. Don't get me wrong, it would have been great to see, but come the (WHAT?) on. How is the NFL's OT rule suppose to protect the integrity of the game when there's money involved? Mr. Goodell, I can see through you, potnah!!!

BRETT FAVRE (In Li'l Wayne's 'autotuned' voice):"I had done something just now that I have done the past years
and it was telling
My pass got picked off and the other team kicked a field goal in OT
Announcers and the fans were yelling, "WHAT R U DOIN, WHAT R U DOIN'??"
Oh yeah, I just lost to the Saints
...like that Giants game up in Lambeau when I played for Green Bay
Everybody sayin "IT'S OVER, IT'S OVER! OH YES, FAVRE, IT'S OVER!!!"

Saint_LB

I was agreeing right up until the end there...

SaintGup

I totally agree. The problem is, it has been said that a large percentage of teams that get the ball first win the game BUT it doesn't necessarily mean they won it on the first possession. The overtime rule does take away the value of the kickers and special teams too. And how stupid is it to have a different rule for the playoffs? Will someone please tell me why?

Saint_LB

In boxing...at least in the old days...it was kind of an unwritten rule that in order to knock off the champion, you had to soundly beat him. If the fight ended in a tie on the score-card, it was a pretty good bet that the champion would get the decision.

When teams finish in a tie for a playoff spot, they have some sort of criteria for breaking the tie. Sounds kinda stupid, but I say it is as good as any...why not let the same rules apply for settling a tie as the ones that apply for settling a tie when it comes to who get's the playoff spot...like division record, conference record, etc.

I don't know...just thinking out-loud.

Whether you think you can or think you can't...you're right!

poydras

The problem is that they fixed something that wasn't broken by extended the game. No matter how the odds stacked up after, the coin toss was 50/50. You can't get more fair than that.

CheramieIII

I just got a funny feeling about the Bengals this year. They've signed some questionable characters but with talent. If they can hold it together without any injuries the can make the playoffs and any team is dangerous in the playoffs.

HintOfLogic

Don't mind the OT rules as much as I hate the "replay" system.

I think they should bring back the old replay system. I respect the "claims" to keep the pace of the game moving and like the idea of strategically challenging plays with a limited number of replay challenges, but the modern replay system still leaves much of the game open to human error (or what I mean is human manipulation) by limiting the amount of scenarios that are NOT challengeable. They could all but eliminate any controversy with a wide opened replay system.... I've seen to many games manipulated by refs, mostly taking advantage of the many scenarios that are not challengeable. I think if they bring back relying on replay for any controversial call, especially as technology and camera coverage has evolved, could have the game unaltered by ref error and manipulation.

Another idea that isn't so far fetched given today's technology is.... they should put a chip in the balls that can track the ball at all times. Maybe it could be tied in with the "sportvision" technology. It could come in especially useful for first down placement and goal line situations... like the ball breaking the plains.

Doesn't hockey use a puck tracking system for the sake of TV viewing?

I honestly think it could be very simply applied to the NFL, but frankly, there is nothing they value more than having a certain margin for human / ref manipulation.