The NFL needs to change the OT rule...

[LT Profits]

Again, if that were the rule it would then really favor the second team as they would know if they have to score a TD to tie the game or whether a FG will win it/tie it for them. Knowing whether they have to go on fourth down or not etc. amongst other things, that would be a big edge for the second team. So again, thinking that would be more "fair", I disagree, in that system without question the second team would win on average way more often I believe.

Why? At worst, teams match other and then it becomes sudden death. I think you are confusing what i said with the college rule where teams always get equal possessions. What I am saying is keep things as they are EXCEPT for continuing the game if first team scores TD, just like they do with field goals.

[LT Profits]

College has the NFL beat in this one area. They do overtime the right way giving both teams a chance to possess the ball from the 25 yard line. I'm not sure there is a perfect solution but there has to be one better than one team winning because they won the coin toss.

No, college rule would be terrible for NFL, you would have 100-94 games.

[LT Profits]

exactly. and there is more than one aspect to a football game. defense is part of the team. you can start both teams at their own 40, but much like college there will be tired defenses and continued scoring by both teams. now if you do that and have to go for 2 everytime, that can be a possible resolution.

But the current issue is that only one team gets to show that it cannot play defense. By allowing the game to continue after a TD, the team that scored gets to prove that it can prevent the other team from scoring matching TD, so all is fair IMO.

[lakerboy]

Home team should get ball first. Forget coin toss. Why win home advantage? You didn't get home field too bad. Same at start of game. Coin toss only neutral field

[LT Profits]

Would destroy totals

This would not even be a consideration, the books would need to adjust to NFL rules, not the other way around.

And the change would be easily quantifiable for books to bake into their lines, maximum OT points would go from current 9 to 22 (22 will probably never happen as it would mean both teams convert 2-pt conversion after opening TD, so max 20 more realistic).

[krk1030]

Should be college rules with 2 changes.

Start from own 40.not.opponent 25.

No extra points must go for 2 from the start.

[LT Profits]

Should be college rules with 2 changes.

Start from own 40.not.opponent 25.

No extra points must go for 2 from the start.

Like I said earlier, would result in lots of obscenely high scoring games.

I don't know why this is so difficult, only necessary change from current rules is letting game continue for opponent's possession if team scores touchdown, just like current rule for field goal.

[4TH AND STUPID]

College football always has the answer that we seek.

It's all right in front of our eyes every Saturday.

Yet...on Sunday...we wonder how it should work?

Lmao. Just copy college football and this pointless discussion is over

[HockeyRocks]

So why don't teams try to improve their secondary defenses...So many NFL teams today have marshmellow secondaries....

And "Prevent Defenses" do nothing other than to allow the opposing team to score...

[MisterDog30]

Playoffs should absolutely have rules in place that each team gets one offensive possession. Both teams must go for 2. Or just adopt the college system which is amazing.

[ArunSh]

Why? At worst, teams match other and then it becomes sudden death. I think you are confusing what i said with the college rule where teams always get equal possessions. What I am saying is keep things as they are EXCEPT for continuing the game if first team scores TD, just like they do with field goals.

I understood what you meant. My point is that if that were the rule it would hugely favor the team which doesn't start with the ball as they would know on their first possession if they had to score a TD (to tie a game), whether kicking a FG would automatically win it for them (so they might kick early), and due to these issues would know if they have to go on fourth down to keep their chances alive - all information that the team with the ball first would NOT have. There is basically zero question if the rules were that way that the second team would win a much higher % of games than the first team. As is, it does seem like with the current rules that the odds of winning are roughly the same over long period between the first and second team. So why change it? Just because in this circumstance it seemed to favor the first team?

[LT Profits]

I understood what you meant. My point is that if that were the rule it would hugely favor the team which doesn't start with the ball as they would know on their first possession if they had to score a TD (to tie a game), whether kicking a FG would automatically win it for them (so they might kick early), and due to these issues would know if they have to go on fourth down to keep their chances alive - all information that the team with the ball first would NOT have. There is basically zero question if the rules were that way that the second team would win a much higher % of games than the first team. As is, it does seem like with the current rules that the odds of winning are roughly the same over long period between the first and second team. So why change it? Just because in this circumstance it seemed to favor the first team?

Because nobody (including myself) likes that if the the first team scores a TD, the second team never sees the ball. It is a pity having a championship settled by a coin toss.

[LT Profits]

There is basically zero question if the rules were that way that the second team would win a much higher % of games than the first team.

Not true at all, if the first team scores a TD, the second team would almost undoubtedly play for the tie, thus setting up sudden death.

[ArunSh]

Because nobody (including myself) likes that if the the first team scores a TD, the second team never sees the ball. It is a pity having a championship settled by a coin toss.

Not true at all, if the first team scores a TD, the second team would almost undoubtedly play for the tie, thus setting up sudden death.

I think your statement of "being settled by a coin toss" is a little extreme. KC clearly had a chance to play defense and stop the Pats from scoring a TD. They had them in three third and long situations and failed in all of them - attributing their loss entirely to them "losing the coin toss" - they have to take some responsibility in that as well.

Don't understand your second statement at all, what does that have to do with my point?? Again, whatever first team does on their possession, TD, FG, or no points, the second team has a huge advantage in knowing that.

If the first team is faced with a reasonably long 4th down at opponent's 30 yard line, they will obviously kick a field goal. But the second team may know they must score a TD to tie game and will therefore know they have to go for it. Or if first team scores a FG and then second team has 4th down at their own 30 yard line, they will know they have to go for it rather than having the luxury of punting and hoping to play defense like the first team would have done.

Those are only a couple examples, but again them having that extra information is huge, there is no question that the rules you suggest would end up hugely favoring the second team.

Simple Fact is: no matter what rules are designed, I really don't see any way that they won't be somewhat skewed - again, it can never be symmetrical as one team has to get the first possession, whatever the system. And that lack of symmetry is in certain cases going to work in one team's favor over the other. But it seems the NFL has found a system where both teams, over a long period, win roughly the same %. As such, that's as close to fair as you can be.

[LT Profits]

I think your statement of "being settled by a coin toss" is a little extreme. KC clearly had a chance to play defense and stop the Pats from scoring a TD. They had them in three third and long situations and failed in all of them - attributing their loss entirely to them "losing the coin toss" - they have to take some responsibility in that as well.

Because KC could have done the same thing to NE defense if they won the toss. That is why both teams should be given the same chance.

Don't understand your second statement at all, what does that have to do with my point?? Again, whatever first team does on their possession, TD, FG, or no points, the second team has a huge advantage in knowing that.

If the first team is faced with a reasonably long 4th down at opponent's 30 yard line, they will obviously kick a field goal. But the second team may know they must score a TD to tie game and will therefore know they have to go for it. Or if first team scores a FG and then second team has 4th down at their own 30 yard line, they will know they have to go for it rather than having the luxury of punting and hoping to play defense like the first team would have done.

Those are only a couple examples, but again them having that extra information is huge, there is no question that the rules you suggest would end up hugely favoring the second team.

Simple Fact is: no matter what rules are designed, I really don't see any way that they won't be somewhat skewed - again, it can never be symmetrical as one team has to get the first possession, whatever the system. And that lack of symmetry is in certain cases going to work in one team's favor over the other. But it seems the NFL has found a system where both teams, over a long period, win roughly the same %. As such, that's as close to fair as you can be.

You said the second team would win more often than not. That is not true, if first team scored TD and second team matches, it becomes sudden death.

[ArunSh]

Because KC could have done the same thing to NE defense if they won the toss. That is why both teams should be given the same chance.



You said the second team would win more often than not. That is not true, if first team scored TD and second team matches, it becomes sudden death.

Well to your first statement: football and pretty much everything else is not a game of "what ifs"! So not sure how that has any bearing on the fact that as is over a long period, the odds seem fairly even between who gets the ball first vs second.

Your second statement how it becomes sudden death if the two teams match each other on first possession, you feel that compensates for the disadvantage the first team has in being "out of position" on the first possession. I doubt that's the case as in old NFL overtime rules, the odds were still fairly even between who got the ball first vs second. But assuming that does compensate in favor of the first team - what is your evidence that it ends up being equitable overall? There is no data to confirm that fact. And as I said, it does seem like the data they have for current system suggests it's fairly equitable in the long-term.

[44 Mag]

To start I need to state I had neither team in the Pats/Chiefs.But you all know if the Chiefs would have won the toss I think they would have scored.Just seems an unfair end to a great game.

PLease, just because the team you wanted lost??? Now lets change the rules???? They only changed them to this a few years ago, nobody complained then.

[krk1030]

What are the stats in the playoffs?

When you have elite quarterbacks the coin flip has much more impact.

[LT Profits]

Well to your first statement: football and pretty much everything else is not a game of "what ifs"! So not sure how that has any bearing on the fact that as is over a long period, the odds seem fairly even between who gets the ball first vs second.

Your second statement how it becomes sudden death if the two teams match each other on first possession, you feel that compensates for the disadvantage the first team has in being "out of position" on the first possession. I doubt that's the case as in old NFL overtime rules, the odds were still fairly even between who got the ball first vs second. But assuming that does compensate in favor of the first team - what is your evidence that it ends up being equitable overall? There is no data to confirm that fact. And as I said, it does seem like the data they have for current system suggests it's fairly equitable in the long-term.

It has nothing to do with "what-ifs", it has to do with fairness. Neither team was stopping anyone in fourth quarter, yet only one team got a chance to score in OT. Again, too much emphasis on coin toss.

As for your second point, even with the second team knowing what needs to be done, it is still advantageous for first team to score TD, it is not as if it is a given that the second team will match. It is the same exact situation as a team down by a TD with under 2:00 left in regulation. Sure the second team knows it has to go for it on 4th and 15, but converting it is another issue. And even if it overcomes some obstacles, it would only end up in a tie game with the first team getting first crack at sudden death. So i don't see going second after a TD being as advantageous as you claim.

[44 Mag]

It has nothing to do with "what-ifs", it has to do with fairness. Neither team was stopping anyone in fourth quarter, yet only one team got a chance to score in OT. Again, too much emphasis on coin toss.

As for your second point, even with the second team knowing what needs to be done, it is still advantageous for first team to score TD, it is not as if it is a given that the second team will match. It is the same exact situation as a team down by a TD with under 2:00 left in regulation. Sure the second team knows it has to go for it on 4th and 15, but converting it is another issue. And even if it overcomes some obstacles, it would only end up in a tie game with the first team getting first crack at sudden death. So i don't see going second after a TD being as advantageous as you claim.

Cry babies.

[LT Profits]

Don't understand your second statement at all, what does that have to do with my point?? Again, whatever first team does on their possession, TD, FG, or no points, the second team has a huge advantage in knowing that.

The only scenario that would change is if first team scores TD. If it gets FG or no points, rule would be unchanged from what it is now so those situations are not even variables.

[44 Mag]

This is all because it was the Patriots who won.
Never saw another post prior to this game about the RULES ???

[LT Profits]

Cry babies.

Not at all, I am the voice of reason. How would you have felt if KC won the toss and scored TD? I think it is totally unfair that both teams don't get the ball at least once (unless there is a defensive TD or safety on opening possession of OT of course), when the league changed the rules, it did not go far enough with game only continuing after a FG.

[ArunSh]

It has nothing to do with "what-ifs", it has to do with fairness. Neither team was stopping anyone in fourth quarter, yet only one team got a chance to score in OT. Again, too much emphasis on coin toss.

As for your second point, even with the second team knowing what needs to be done, it is still advantageous for first team to score TD, it is not as if it is a given that the second team will match. It is the same exact situation as a team down by a TD with under 2:00 left in regulation. Sure the second team knows it has to go for it on 4th and 15, but converting it is another issue. And even if it overcomes some obstacles, it would only end up in a tie game with the first team getting first crack at sudden death. So i don't see going second after a TD being as advantageous as you claim.

It's all about long-term %'s. Yes, the second team still has to convert on 4th and 15, knowing they can't punt it. They also know they have to go on 4th and 5 from opponent's 30 rather than kicking FG if they must score TD to keep themselves in game. Again, without question, however difficult the conversions they might have to make might be, it is a clear edge knowing that they must go on those 4th downs rather than punting/kicking FG. You say that you don't see going second being as advantageous as I claim - well I never put a figure on it so not sure how can you come to that conclusion.

My main point is simply: over a reasonable sample size, the current OT system seems to show that going first vs second doesn't really give an advantage in general (yes obviously when you have QBs like Brady it will be advantageous likely to go first while in a 0-0 tie, likely going second would be better). Again, on the whole it seems roughly even over many years. In your system, I think second team would clearly win a higher % of the games, not sure what that % would be, but I have little doubt that it would be higher than the first team's win %. Again, I don't know what that % would be, and you can disagree with that - obviously neither of us has data to prove/disprove our position on that either way, we'll just have to agree to disagree about how much we think it will skew things.

[LT Profits]

This is all because it was the Patriots who won.
Never saw another post prior to this game about the RULES ???

Oh I have always felt NFL OTs were unjust, I commented a few years ago when the rules were changed that both teams should get a possession, I didn't like that a TD on opening drive still ends the game while a FG does not.

[ArunSh]

The only scenario that would change is if first team scores TD. If it gets FG or no points, rule would be unchanged from what it is now so those situations are not even variables.

But that's kind of the point. The second team has a clear edge if first team scores FG/doesn't score as they have that information to go on when making the decisions in their possession. The fact that the first team can win the game outright if they immediately score a TD is the compensation for that. And again, the data seems to show those two things balance each other well as the numbers seem to indicate both teams win roughly an equal % in overtime giving no inherent advantage to the team that goes first or second which is as it should be.

[pavyracer]

The championship game should be like the England FA Cup. If it's a tie then there is a replay next week. Teams need to know that there is a penalty of playing an extra game if they don't try to win. The idea is to force teams to not go for OT.

[Wrongside]

With rules helping the offense greatly, this makes overtime rules that much more unfair.

[danwinkler]

College style rule and both teams will get the ball at the 50 yard line. No punting. Keep going until there is a winner.

[44 Mag]

Not at all, I am the voice of reason. How would you have felt if KC won the toss and scored TD? I think it is totally unfair that both teams don't get the ball at least once (unless there is a defensive TD or safety on opening possession of OT of course), when the league changed the rules, it did not go far enough with game only continuing after a FG.

The voice of reason ???? They won by the rules, simple as that, and now all KC backers think the rules should change????
Show me where prior to this game, in recent history, where you or anybody else posted something regarding the rules being unfair, or where they should be altered????
I haven't seen any.......

[shocka1212]

I honestly have no issue with the OT rule... the officiating in that game was fuking embarrassing though. get the calls right and the structure of the game will flourish.

[LT Profits]

The voice of reason ???? They won by the rules, simple as that, and now all KC backers think the rules should change????
Show me where prior to this game, in recent history, where you or anybody else posted something regarding the rules being unfair, or where they should be altered????
I haven't seen any.......

I posted comments shortly after the rules were changed to current rules, I doubt the "My Posts" goes back that far. And of course Pats won by the rules, I am not disputing that. But that does not change the fact that I think the OT rules are flawed. Football is the only sport where a team could lose in OT without ever being on offense.

[LT Profits]

I posted comments shortly after the rules were changed to current rules, I doubt the "My Posts" goes back that far.

Apparently it DOES.

From 2014: https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...l#post22658079

[LT Profits]

It's all about long-term %'s. Yes, the second team still has to convert on 4th and 15, knowing they can't punt it. They also know they have to go on 4th and 5 from opponent's 30 rather than kicking FG if they must score TD to keep themselves in game. Again, without question, however difficult the conversions they might have to make might be, it is a clear edge knowing that they must go on those 4th downs rather than punting/kicking FG. You say that you don't see going second being as advantageous as I claim - well I never put a figure on it so not sure how can you come to that conclusion.

My main point is simply: over a reasonable sample size, the current OT system seems to show that going first vs second doesn't really give an advantage in general (yes obviously when you have QBs like Brady it will be advantageous likely to go first while in a 0-0 tie, likely going second would be better). Again, on the whole it seems roughly even over many years. In your system, I think second team would clearly win a higher % of the games, not sure what that % would be, but I have little doubt that it would be higher than the first team's win %. Again, I don't know what that % would be, and you can disagree with that - obviously neither of us has data to prove/disprove our position on that either way, we'll just have to agree to disagree about how much we think it will skew things.

Another point I came across but forgot about while reading my comments in that 5-year-old thread, if teams each got one possession in OT, the team winning the toss could elect to kick off. Not sure if that would sway you in any way.

[ArunSh]

Another point I came across but forgot about while reading my comments in that 5-year-old thread, if teams each got one possession in OT, the team winning the toss could elect to kick off. Not sure if that would sway you in any way.

Heh, probably not! I approach things from a very mathematical standpoint. And as I've said multiple times, the data seems to indicate that the current system is pretty fair in terms of not giving either team an inherent edge based on whether they get the ball first or not. And that to me is about the best thing you can do.

Thinking of other major sports' overtimes, in basketball and baseball say, no question the team which wins the tip in OT basketball must have a clear long-term edge in winning the game. And in baseball, surely the home team has an edge there as well (ok the home team has that inherent edge the whole game of going second, but it clearly magnifies itself in extra innings when one run often wins the game). That said, I don't hear people complaining how OT in basketball is unfair since one team happened to get the ball first despite the fact that that is almost certainly a bigger edge statistically than getting the ball first in NFL OT.