Playoff Overtime Rules: Love 'Em or Leave 'Em?
by Dave Cariello on Mar 23, 2010 6:00 AM CDT
Email
PrintSince everybody keeps talking about the possibility of a rule change to overtime in the playoffs and the Saints have been the most recent catalyst for this heated debate, I guess we should officially find out where everyone here stands on the subject.
In case you haven't been paying attention, here are the details you need to know: The competition committee came up with a proposal to change the rules of overtime in the playoffs. The proposal says that if Team A wins the coin toss and scores a touchdown on their opening possession, than the game is over and they win. But if Team A wins the coin toss and kicks a field goal on it's opening possession, then Team B gets the ball and a chance to score. If Team B then scores a touchdown, they would win. If Team B kicks a field goal to tie, then the game continues normally and goes straight into sudden-death format. In short, no team would ever be able to win the coin toss, get the ball and kick a field goal for the win, just as the Saints did in the NFC Championship game against the Vikings.
Yesterday during his press conference at the leagues annual meeting, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell came out in favor of the new rule change. However, it's going to take 24 out of the 32 owners to vote in it's favor for the proposal to pass and opinion is pretty divided right now. No word on whether they will hold the vote at this set of meetings or hold off until they feel it has more support.
Interestingly, Vikings owner Zygi Wilf is actually in favor of keeping the overtime rules the same, even those his team lost the coin toss and eventually the NFC Championship on a field goal without ever getting a chance to score in overtime. Wilf believes the rules of overtime should be the same regardless whether it's the regular season or overtime. Because of safety concerns, the committee is only proposing changes during the playoffs.
Right here on the home front we learned that our very own head coach, Sean Payton, would like to see the rule remain unchanged. As for me, I think I'm leaning in the other direction. Even though the Saints were the benefactor of the current overtime format during the NFC championship, I can't help but imagine myself leading the charge for reform if the situation were reversed. I understand the level of excitement associated with the current system but something just doesn't seem fair about a game or a season coming down to a simple flip of the coin.
I know it's been discussed a little already but how are you feeling about overtime rules? Do you want to see them changed? Has the NFC Championship game done anything to sway your decision either way?
119 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Here's the hard truth
You’ve just had sixty minutes, four entire quarters, to win the game, and you couldn’t do it. You had your chances. Anything that comes next, you have no grounds for complaining that it’s “unfair.” That applies to both teams.
Besides which, NFL Network showed a graphic yesterday that was very interesting. Before the 1994 rule that moved kickoffs back to the 30, only 46% of overtime games were won by the team that won the coin toss. Since then, that number is 59%…probably due to improved field position. But, still only 25% of the time is the game won by a field goal on the first possession! That means that 75% of the time, the game ends under precisely the conditions that the proposed rule is trying to bring about: either multiple possessions, or a decisive touchdown.
"Number 9, number 9, number 9..." --J.O.L.
by MtnExile on Mar 23, 2010 6:15 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
That’s one point I’ve tried to hammer home many times in debate. If the initial drive isn’t winning the game, what does it matter whether or not the team that won the toss emerges victorious? There’s inevitably some type of corrulation between the winner/loser of the opening game coin toss and the ultimate winner of the game. Suppose it’s 52/48 in favor of the team that kicks off, which isn’t inconceivable. No one’s looking to change the rules of the game based on that. The only overtime rule change I’m fully in favor of is awarding the last team to hold a lead in regulation the victory. Otherwise, I’m happy with the way it is.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
Because looking at what percent of coin-toss-winning teams win on the first possession, instead of what percent win at all, is a very good way to get burned by statistics.
For one, what does it mean? When you look at what percent win at all, you say “If this system is fair, the coin toss winner will win the OT 50% of the time, in the long run.” When you look at what percent win on the first drive, you say “If this system is fair, the coin toss winner will win the OT x% of the time, in the long run.” What’s the x?
Tracy Porter's gonna score! TRACY PORTER'S GONNA SCORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (HT Takimoto)
by AllSaintsDay on Mar 23, 2010 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Even if the two were directly corrulated, what OTHER factors might be contributing to that not-so-convincing 59% win rate? You know, like could the winning team team possibly go on to accrue more wins than the loser over the course of the entire season? This would be a pretty clear indicator that they were the better overall team regardless of the coin toss, imo. Maybe an even larger percentage were the home team, giving them the advantage of crowd noise. I’m sure there are quite a number of factors that could be skewing the percentages a couple of percentage points towards the eventual winner. To attribute that entire 9% swing — and what a huge swing that is, btw (pardon my lack of a sarcasm font) — to “who got the ball first by virtue of a coin toss” seems far more speculative than factual, imo.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
And yes, I understand that each of those factors would have their own percentages, but those factors co-exist. Meaning that of those 59-in-100 coin toss winners that go on to win the game, SOME (x-percent) are truly better, SOME (x-percent) were the home team, etc. Without all of that information, it’s like staring at an egg on the plate of a fat guy and saying “THAT’S the reason you have a chosterol problem” when in truth the effer eats five sticks of cream cheese for dessert every night.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
Btw, from what I understand, there are subsequent coin tosses at the start of every odd numbered quarter in a playoff OT. It’s just never transpired.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
Do you think any of the players would have any energy left by the start of the 3rd overtime? And would the poor punters legs be falling off?
For those who can't remember the uncapped FA rules, this link's for you.
Not if Kellen Winslow’s condition following 74 minutes of play is any indicator.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
Stick with sudden death
I agree with M-E and CP. If you don’t like overtime, win in regulation.
The current format doesn’t change the essence of the game and its strategy.
Besides, how do we know a new format wouldn’t be greater than 59% skewed?
The fact that only 25% of coin flip winners win in the first possession reveals that this push for rule changes is misguided.
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Mar 23, 2010 7:21 AM CDT reply actions
I've been thinking about it a lot
The current rule does have some level of “unfairness” to it. That can be statistically proven. WIth that said, it has the exact same statistical level of unfairness as the college rule. A coin toss has almost the exact same impact on who wins. So if you want to improve “fairness,” simply gauranteeing both teams have a possession does not do so, since statistics show a clear advantage for the team that has the ball last under the college rules. Maybe the proposed rule change will make make the game statistically less the product of a coin toss, maybe it make it more so. Who knows.
My solution, play 5 minutes of overtime. No sudden death, no different rules, just 5 minutes of more football. If a team puts together a 5 minute drive and the opposing defense can’t stop them for 5 minutes and gives up a 20 yard chip shot kick as time expires then you completely 100% deserve to lose and shouldn’t be complaining that you didn’t get a possession or a “chance to win.” If the score is still tied, then its a tie. If its a playoff game, play another 5 minutes until you have a game that ends without a tie.
But again, there is nothing to suggest that this is more or less fair than any other solution. Just my idea. And for the record I would be perfectly fine with keeping the sudden death overtime just the way it is.
"I want to hand this trophy to the MVP of the Super Bowl -- and the MVP of the entire league.''
-- Saints coach Sean Payton, handing the Vince Lombardi Trophy to Drew Brees after Super Bowl 44.
Another possibility
…do away with coin flips entirely. Visitor gets the initial choice: kick, receive, or defer. Home team gets the choice to start the third quarter, and visitor gets the choice to start any overtime. That way, everyone knows going in which team will likely get the ball if the game goes to overtime. That actually allows an element of strategy that doesn’t exist under the present rules.
(Parenthetically [hence the parentheses], does anyone know the rate at which home teams win in overtime?)
But all in all, I’d prefer they just leave the rules alone and quit tinkering every offseason.
"Number 9, number 9, number 9..." --J.O.L.
“That actually allows an element of strategy that doesn’t exist under the present rules.”
That’s the same argument I make for retroactively awarding the last team with a lead in regulation with the victory. If everyone knows that’s the rule going in, they wouldn’t be playing for the tie in the fourth quarter. A seven point deficit would be viewed as an eight point deficit, and so on. This, in and of itself, would cut down on the number of games decided in this manner considerably. The only problem then would be determining a winner of a scoreless playoff game.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
“The current rule does have some level of "unfairness" to it.”
If everything about the NFL was fair, all games would be played in domed stadiums in neutral cities. You also wouldn’t be forced to pay seven bucks for an effing hot dog.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
I agree
I’m not saying anything about the game is fair. If the NFL were all about fair then the game would be played with a perfectly round ball. As it stands right now the direction the ball bounces once it hits the ground is mostly a matter of chance.
It seems that a lot of the people arguing for a rule change are doing so on the basis of “fairness.” It does make for an interesting argument. Do we want to strive for the highest possible level of fairness in the game, or do we want to have the game of football continue to be the game of football (and anyone that doesn’t like it can go have a group hug and play tennis)?
"I want to hand this trophy to the MVP of the Super Bowl -- and the MVP of the entire league.''
-- Saints coach Sean Payton, handing the Vince Lombardi Trophy to Drew Brees after Super Bowl 44.
WIth that said, it has the exact same statistical level of unfairness as the college rule.
Do you have a source on that?
Tracy Porter's gonna score! TRACY PORTER'S GONNA SCORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (HT Takimoto)
by AllSaintsDay on Mar 23, 2010 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions
Not because I doubt you. Because saying “Some guy on a Saints message board said this” is not going to cut it.
Tracy Porter's gonna score! TRACY PORTER'S GONNA SCORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (HT Takimoto)
by AllSaintsDay on Mar 23, 2010 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions
I had found it when we were debating this subject on another thread
But now I can’t seem to find the site where I pulled it from. But if you are interested, here are the stats I copy & pasted into the other topic:
Win probability for the team that begins the over time on defense
overtime #1 0.5212
overtime #2 0.5203
overtime ≥ #3 0.5227
and my somewhat dated #s for NFL overtime:
Total no. of overtime games (1974–2003) 365
Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %)
I’ll keep trying to find the source for that, but I fear that may be lost in the dark corners of the interwebs.
"I want to hand this trophy to the MVP of the Super Bowl -- and the MVP of the entire league.''
-- Saints coach Sean Payton, handing the Vince Lombardi Trophy to Drew Brees after Super Bowl 44.
Found it
"I want to hand this trophy to the MVP of the Super Bowl -- and the MVP of the entire league.''
-- Saints coach Sean Payton, handing the Vince Lombardi Trophy to Drew Brees after Super Bowl 44.
by VAsaintsfan on Mar 24, 2010 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions
I would have been very very disappointed if the Saints had lost on an opening drive FG. I would not be beating my chest, crying, whining, and acting like a general retard like the people who are pushing this incredibly important change that MUST happen right now or we’re all gonna DIEEEE!!!! (OK sorry I got a bit carried away with mocking them).
Sorry, but if you don’t want to lose in overtime, play better in regulation. Period.
For those who can't remember the uncapped FA rules, this link's for you.
LEAVE IT ALONE !!!!
The Vikes had their chance in regulation. All they had to do was kick a field goal with seconds left on the clock to go to the Super Bowl but THEY squandered it with inepttiude and confusion. Had they won with a field goal, we would not be having this conversation or rule change. They should call any new rule…………The Anti-Saints Rule.
My Magnificent Black and Gold Warriors
by saint-sly on Mar 23, 2010 8:03 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
where did yall come up with the number of 25% (i saw 30%)
the biggest question i have is, why does everybody elect to receive when they win the toss?
60% of the victories go to the winner of the toss. thats why. 2-3% over 50% doesnt mean anything, but 10% certainly does. if the saints had lost the toss and lost the nfccg under the same circumstances, we would all be asking for a rule change too. i certainly wanted it after we lost to chicago two years ago in OT.
what if basketball came down to one possession in ot? would you all be saying “well, you should just play def and stop complaining, you had your chance in regulation”. if i were the coach, i would try to win the tipoff.
I like hamburgers!!
by DrewBreesManCrush on Mar 23, 2010 9:14 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
“60% of the victories go to the winner of the toss.”
Not on their first possession, though. Which, for all intents and purposes, renders that figure moot. Again, if statistics showed that 60% of victories went to the winner of the game-opening toss, would you be looking to change the rules governing regulation? The association is just as lucid as the one you’re drawing.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
What leads anyone to believe that the winner of the coin toss can’t POSSIBLY be the better team 60% of the time? Is it THAT inconceivable that a coin tossed 10 times would come up heads 6 times? If not, then why must something be flawed when this coincides with something theoretically just as hit-or-miss as a coin toss (two teams that just finished playing 60 minutes of football to a draw)? How do we know that if another x-number of OT games were played under the current rules, that it wouldn’t all balance out 50/50? It just isn’t enough of a discrepancy to be considered a flaw, imo. Especially when you’re not relegating the variance to the outcome of the initial possession specifically.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
Insufficient sample size. Need 10 more years of OT games to confirm a statistical trend.
Dan Blocker, Dan Blocker, Lorne Green, Michael Landon, Pernell Roberts: Hoss and Pa, Little Joe, Adam left the show.
obviously the regular season
doesnt come down to who wins the coin flip. so if im going to make a “lucid” association between the two situations, they would both be hypothetical instead of one completely false (regulation coin flips) compared to a completely hypothetical (sudden death basketball).
I like hamburgers!!
by DrewBreesManCrush on Mar 23, 2010 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions
I didn’t say anything about the regular season. I said regulation. As in the first sixty minutes of football. a.) How do you know there’s no association between who wins the opening coin toss and who wins the game? I doubt very seriously it’s exactly 50/50. Hypothetically, it could be 60/40. You’ve already suggested that a coin toss could possibly dictate the outcome of a multiple possession OT period. Why not a 60 minute regulation length game? How does the ripple effect of an “unfair” coin toss know when to stop? A team could theoretically onside kick after every score. While the success of such a stratagem is highly unlikely, there’s no outright guarantee that both teams will get an offensive possession in regulation. They’re also not guaranteed the same number of possessions. You EARN your possessions by either stopping the other team from scoring, or by fielding the live ball on the ensuing kickoff. It’s the same thing in regulation, sans the latter.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
im sorry i meant regulation
but are you really trying to argue that overtime isnt statistically flawed towards the winner of the coin toss? thats established fact. the question that the owners are asking is:
1. are we going to do something to change it?
2. how are we going to change it?
and arguing that “life isnt fair” and “you should have won in regulation” is silly considering that this is a game that is, at the very least, supposed to be fair.
I like hamburgers!!
by DrewBreesManCrush on Mar 23, 2010 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
There’s a difference between established fact based on statistical evidence, and a proven corrulation between two (or more) statistically compared factors. Case in point: more people die in automobile crashes when their glove compartments are closed, than when they are open. This is a fact. Would less people die in crashes, if we pass a law mandating that glove compartment doors remain open whenever a vehicle is in motion? My guess would be no. In fact, I’d venture to say this would cause even more accidents, because you’d have idiots leaning over, trying to catch all the crap that was falling out of their glove box every time they applied the brakes. Established fact … zero corrulation. Sound familiar? It should.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
do you really think that the outcome of the coin toss has zero corrulation?
in the last ten years, there have been 158 ot games. and the winner of the toss elected to receive in all but one (that one lost). so am i going out on a limb when i tell you that nfl coaches see a corrulation between winning the toss, recieving the kick, and winning the game? thats my proof.
<a href="http://nola169@football.cbssports.com" >my source
I like hamburgers!!
by DrewBreesManCrush on Mar 23, 2010 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
sorry link came out bad
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/02/why-nfl-overtime-needs-to-change.html
I like hamburgers!!
by DrewBreesManCrush on Mar 23, 2010 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
A corrulation with winning the game on the opening drive of OT?
Yes, I think that bears some merit.
A corrulation with winning the game, period?
No, I don’t think there’s any moreso a corrulation there, than there is under the first drive stipulation. Also, no more of a corrulation there, than there is between the opening coin toss and the eventual winner of the game, OT or not.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
60% of the time
it works every time.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on Mar 23, 2010 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions
didn't even have to click the link - SEX PANTHER
Nice, Dave. Just goes to show that I need to read every single comment on this blog…no matter what!
"I have all of the love in the world for Darren Sharper. I just don't have all the money in the world for Darren Sharper." Mickey Loomis
by Hans Petersen on Mar 23, 2010 7:03 PM CDT up reply actions
stings the nostrils
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on Mar 23, 2010 7:31 PM CDT up reply actions
in a good way
and since it’s made from bits of real panther, you know it’s good
"I have all of the love in the world for Darren Sharper. I just don't have all the money in the world for Darren Sharper." Mickey Loomis
by Hans Petersen on Mar 23, 2010 8:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Not gonna happen...
Having different sets of rule for regular season and playoffs will keep the proposal grounded… My two cents…
"Saints don't commit sins, they exorcise demons. The NFL most accurate passer was preaching, and the league MVP watched as the Game MVP delivered an impressive sermon"
Thanks for giving us another opportunity to speak to this issue again...
Why are people even discussing these stupid rule changes?
We’ve always done it that way, so it must be the best way to do it in the future.
I mean…
If it was good enough for the last 55 years, why wouldn’t it be good enough for the next 55!
And besides…
The most exciting thing about overtime is the ‘sudden death’ nature, right? (per Roger Goodell)
You know…
The fact that one team has a 30% chance of getting screwed because they lose the coin toss.
Now THAT’S exciting!!
-
…And while we’re at, let’s start a petition to get rid of instant replay.
The first 65 years of the NFL didn’t have replay.
They were smart enough to discontinue it in 1992, but somehow this new fangled technology came back to ruin the game in 1999.
Refs are human, and human error is part of the game.
If you’ve got a problem with that, GET OVER IT!
-
Heck, while we’re at let’s also get rid of AstroTurf, shoulder pads, face masks, domed stadiums… and I’d really love to see us get back to using offensive lineman as kickers.
Pigs have flown! Hell has frozen over! The Saints HAVE WON the Superbowl!!
Changing it just for the playoffs
Would just lead to more complaints in the regular season. For example, a team fighting to make the playoffs loses by an overtime field goal in the regular season and doesn’t make the playoffs. Then they complain because the rules would have been different if it were the playoffs.
I like the current format even though it might not seem fair, and not just because it helped the saints this year. Like others have said, if you can’t win in 4 quarters, then you shouldn’t complain. It’s pretty hard to score in the NFL, so if you HAVE to score a TD or 2 FG’s, a game might go on forever.
Peyton, I can eat Oreos faster than you!!!!
PFT, the greatest compromiser since Henry Clay, offers this gem of a solution
Ditch the coin flip to determine the first possession…. Since the game is premised on the inherent tug-of-war arising from competing attempts to capture and defend 100 yards of real estate, the team with the most net yards in the game should get the ball first in overtime.
Worse than Henry Clay’s worst, worse than the 2010 Republican House of Representatives. But I’ll bet the Vikings had more net yards in regulation than the Saints in the 2009 NFC title game.
I might even get a blister,
But I'm gonna have to sleep with your sister.
wow, the Wikings actually won that game
Wikings =475 net yards, Saints = 257 No wonder their fans are pissed. The pesky Saints would not give up and go away, and then used the unfair overtime rules to steal the game. That’s a shame.
Sorry about the political remark in my comment above. That was wrong. Seriously.
I might even get a blister,
But I'm gonna have to sleep with your sister.
I guess republicans have the crazy idea that
an overtime possession is not a right, but should be earned. ;)
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Mar 23, 2010 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Please, he’s already apologized, let’s not extend this any further.
For those who can't remember the uncapped FA rules, this link's for you.
I put a winking smiley face after it!
Doesn’t that make everything all-good?
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Mar 23, 2010 6:07 PM CDT up reply actions
I’ve thought about something along those lines before. What I would do is take the percentage of yards from scrimmage and make that the starting position in either direction.
Using the NFC championship game as an example:
Vikings – 475 yards from scrimmage total
Saints – 218 yards scrimmage total
Minnesota would start at the Saints’ 31 yard line, first and ten. This is based on the fact that they amassed 68.54% of the offense in regulation. The Saints would be afforded a possession starting at the very same spot, only in the opposite direction. This would award both offensive and defensive teams based on what they accomplished in regulation. In this case, the Vikings outplayed the Saints throughout based on the determining factor, so they would be the rightful beneficiaries of the field position in OT.
Of course, the Saints would be fully aware of the disparity they’d be faced with, should the game extend into OT, so maybe they don’t play for the tie in regulation. Same holds true for the Vikings. Why force a 3rd-and-long pass in regulation, when you can play it more conservatively, run the ball up the middle and be afforded a 1st-and-ten a little closer to the goal line? The flipside of that logic being that if you win it in regulation, the Saints have no opportunity to drive 69 yards in OT. It would at least make for some interesting calls down the stretch.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
It doesn't come down to a coin flip
Maybe this is simply a case of seeing the glass half empty or half full. I see no need to change the rules. For me at least, football is about a lot more than just quarterbacks, offenses, and kickers. Defenses and special teams have to show up in OT when their team loses the coin toss. All they have to do is stop the opening drive of the opposing team before they get into field goal range. It’s not all that difficult to do. I’ve tried to imagine if my feelings would be different had the Vikings won the toss and scored on a FG in OT. I don’t think they would be. I prefer to keep the sudden death rules.
"As soon as Tony (Dungy) said we had no chance, I knew we had 'em right where we wanted 'em"--Coach Sean Payton right after Super Bowl XLIV with the Lombardi Trophy firmly in hand. WHO DAT!!
by David "Satch" Kelly on Mar 23, 2010 11:26 AM CDT reply actions
I'm not in favor of this at all
Changing the OT rules for the playoffs only doesn’t solve any problems with perceived unfairness of the system. Two games in the playoffs went to sudden death overtime and only one was one by the team that won the toss. You could argue that Green Bay was robbed in their game because of a non-call, but does that invalidate my point?
If you’re on defense, stop them. Just remember that 59% is not a sweeping majority. I’d be much more concerned if that number was 75%. Would this have been as big of a deal if Brett Favre had been able to take the field and the Vikings won in OT? I don’t think nearly as many people would be raising complaints. I hate to make it about Brett Favre, but this is clearly what it is.
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.
+1
Peter King, John Clayton, and Mike Florio are just pouting over the Favre vs. Manning wet dream matchup they didn’t get. SCREW EM!!
"As soon as Tony (Dungy) said we had no chance, I knew we had 'em right where we wanted 'em"--Coach Sean Payton right after Super Bowl XLIV with the Lombardi Trophy firmly in hand. WHO DAT!!
by David "Satch" Kelly on Mar 23, 2010 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
We did screw ’em. They only got half of their matchup, and that half lost.
Why is it that most of America was charmed by the Saints, and half the media treats them like a bad smell?
Nothing lasts, change comes, and things break.
Media elitists
They fancy themselves as “winners” of society and thus develop love for teams and players that they also perceive as “winners.” When the “winners” they’ve selected do well and win the games they predict for them, it further reinforces their own “winner” mentality and self-delusions. If the Saints do well again this year, then the MSM will start viewing them as “winners” and stop treating them like something they scraped off the bottom of their shoes. I don’t remember any of them having much love for the Patriots before they went on their winning streak ten years ago. Now, they fancy Tom Brady almost as the walking incarnation of Christ and predict the Patriots to win the Super Bowl each and every year.
"As soon as Tony (Dungy) said we had no chance, I knew we had 'em right where we wanted 'em"--Coach Sean Payton right after Super Bowl XLIV with the Lombardi Trophy firmly in hand. WHO DAT!!
by David "Satch" Kelly on Mar 23, 2010 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions
But here is the question...
…and be honest: How many of you would be pissed and think it unfair if the Saints had lost the NFC Championship game because they lost the coin flip? The entire season, all the magic, all the memories could have been tainted and altered by pure blind luck. We could be sitting here right now in the same situation we were after 2006, losers of another championship game. Tell me you’d be okay with that. I wouldn’t have. In fact, standing there in Section 140 before overtime I’m thinking, “I can’t believe the wonderful roller coaster ride that has been the Saints 2009 season could possibly end on a $&%#^ coin flip.”
I get the whole, “If a team loses the coin flip, their defense is still responsible to stop them” argument. I really do. But the Saints’ defense wasn’t that great. If the Vikings had won the coin toss, there is a good chance the Saints defense would have let up a field goal. They gave up a ton of yards that night. If they couldn’t muster one more turnover in overtime, the game would have been over. But does that make the Saints the lesser team? I don’t think so. They won the Super Bowl. They beat the Colts, something I doubt the Vikings would have done.
Had the coin flip gone the other way, we could have very well watched the better team lose that night. That’s my two cents.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on Mar 23, 2010 11:58 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Gotta disagree, Boss
If that had happened, most of us would have been questioning Gregg Williams and the defense for allowing the Vikings to move down the field at such a critical moment. I would have had to call the Saints the lesser team if they had lost the game that way. It was pretty close as it was. I definitely wouldn’t say the Saints were a whole lot greater than the Vikings that game, as it turned out. It was like a heavy weight bout and we just barely had our legs under us when the Vikings collapsed.
"As soon as Tony (Dungy) said we had no chance, I knew we had 'em right where we wanted 'em"--Coach Sean Payton right after Super Bowl XLIV with the Lombardi Trophy firmly in hand. WHO DAT!!
by David "Satch" Kelly on Mar 23, 2010 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Agreed. Blame the defense, not the system. Is anyone blaming the Green Bay playoff loss on their losing the coin toss? Of course not. They blame it on Rodgers for fumbling the ball, or their line for not blocking, as they should.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
Would you have admitted that the Vikings were the better team?
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on Mar 23, 2010 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions
yes
As long as it didn’t come down to an obvious blown call. Both teams were pretty evenly matched as it was. Morstead’s huge leg could’ve forced them to start the drive at their own 20 and thereby force them to go about 45-50 yards to get into FG range. It would then have been up to Gregg Williams to earn that extra $250,000 he got.
"As soon as Tony (Dungy) said we had no chance, I knew we had 'em right where we wanted 'em"--Coach Sean Payton right after Super Bowl XLIV with the Lombardi Trophy firmly in hand. WHO DAT!!
by David "Satch" Kelly on Mar 23, 2010 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Exactly. Had we lost the game in overtime, it would have been a case of “turnovers are great, but they’re not enough to win the Super Bowl”. To a large degree, I still feel that way and I think a lot more people realize that, generally speaking, that’s going to ring true. Otherwise, far fewer people would be talking about taking a DE, DT or OLB first in the draft. “Best player available” would be our battle cry, because everything would be hunky dory on both sides of the ball.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
Both teams were pretty evenly matched as it was.
So the only thing that decided the winner was the coin toss. Fair or unfair?
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on Mar 23, 2010 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions
No
Several well-timed forced turnovers by our D is what most decided the winner.
"As soon as Tony (Dungy) said we had no chance, I knew we had 'em right where we wanted 'em"--Coach Sean Payton right after Super Bowl XLIV with the Lombardi Trophy firmly in hand. WHO DAT!!
by David "Satch" Kelly on Mar 23, 2010 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes, I would think it was unfair, but that doesn't mean it is wrong
A random event changing the course of a game is never fair. The best example I can come up with is the 1983 Egg Bowl. MS State was kicking a field goal that would have sent them home winners against arch rival Ole Miss when the winds suddenly went from calm to hurricane force and the kick pauses in mid-air and drops in the endzone. The kicker nailed the kick, but a freak natural occurance lost them the game. Of course, as an Ole Miss Alum, I offer that as proof that God (or was it Jesus1000?) likes Ole Miss better. But was it fair? Heck no. But very little in the game of football is fair. Those things will make the loser mad, give them excuses, and just plain annoy the heck out of them, but it is still part of football that everyone deals with.
Say South Florida was covered in heavy rain and wind during Super Bowl weekend. That probably would have given the edge to the team with the better running game. That could have very easily prevented the more talented team from winning. But those are the random events that you deal with in football. If you honestly and truly want to make the game as fair as possible, where do you stop? Do you take CPs sarcastic ideas from earlier and make all stadiums domes to prevent freak wind gusts? Play every game in a neutral city to prevent fans from giving a team a noise advantage? or my idea of playing with a perfectly round ball to prevent any crazy abnormal bounces? How fair does the game have to be? And how fair can you make it and still have it recognizable as the game of football?
"I want to hand this trophy to the MVP of the Super Bowl -- and the MVP of the entire league.''
-- Saints coach Sean Payton, handing the Vince Lombardi Trophy to Drew Brees after Super Bowl 44.
by VAsaintsfan on Mar 23, 2010 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions
“But does that make the Saints the lesser team?”
Yes, I think it would. A team includes the defense. In regulation, the Vikings gained more total yards on offense and they held us to fewer yards on defense. We won the turnover battle. Already, that’s a pretty strong argument for the Vikings being the better team right there. Put it this way … if OT was decided by two debate teams arguing on their team’s behalf … odds are the game would have been awarded to Minnesota. Add “won the game” to that and it’s pretty much an open and shut case as to who the better team was, imo. How Minnesota would have stacked up against Indy is truly a moot point, though I think they would have given them just as competitive a game as we did.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
actually
I can’t believe the wonderful roller coaster ride that has been the Saints 2009 season could possibly end
is what I said when the Saints D allowed the Vikes to get close to FG range at the end of regulation, before that glorious interception. You see, the Vikes had us a sudden death right then, and our defense stopped them.
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Mar 23, 2010 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions
BINGO!
I was just about to type this very thing, but I had to try to trace down the linkage of reply and reply-to-reply and had just about given up trying to unravel it when I read your reply to Dave’s reply. Do you follow? I don’t. But I agree with what you wrote. Wikings had their own little mini-overtiime and blew it.
Nothing lasts, change comes, and things break.
that's right
It’s not a contest of which team is “better”. It’s who has more points at the end, by hook or by crook.
I might even get a blister,
But I'm gonna have to sleep with your sister.
The team with more points at the end is better
That’s why they play the games.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on Mar 23, 2010 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Then no change is needed. The better team will always win.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
ALWAYS!!
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on Mar 23, 2010 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions
How about this solution
Call it right. Heads or tails. Just win the toss. That way, you win automatically, or at least thats what some people think.
Peyton, I can eat Oreos faster than you!!!!
Interesting fact...
There have been 445 regular-season overtime games from 1974-2009. Out of those 445 coin tosses, the team which won the coin toss elected to receive 436 times. That means 9 times, the team that won actually GAVE THE BALL TO THE OTHER TEAM FIRST! And actually won 4 of those games.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
Doesn’t surprise me. The weather can be a deciding factor. If no one is moving the ball on offense, what’s the point of taking the ball first, going three-and-out and risking a punt return? If your starting QB got injured in regulation, you probably want as short a field as possible to work with. Taking the field first on defense betters your odds of that happening. Also, if your defense is particularly stout, or the QB on the opposing team is struggling or injured.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
That actually leads into something I’ve brought up several times in other threads. Suppose the rules are changed and you have two outstanding defensive teams facing one another. One has Rex Grossman for a QB, the other Joey Harrington. On the first play from scrimmage, Grossman throws a pick six. Does Harrington’s team automatically win? Despite the fact that Harrington is just as worthless and Grossman’s team’s defense just as good, I mean. Wouldn’t the coin toss still have decided this game? Not based on who WON the toss, but rather by who DIDN’T? Even if Harrington is forced to take the field by rule, he’s going to kneel the ball four times to preserve the win. How does this half-baked fix all avoid this example of unfairness? Answer: it doesn’t. It merely caters to the offensive mindset, not the better team as a whole.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
I like the proposed change except for one thing.
I don’t like that the game can be extended indefinitely by team B matching team A’s field goal. So what I would do is make it all or nothing for the second team. If team A scores a FG on the opening drive of OT, team B will get a possession to score a TD and win. If they don’t, team A wins.
I like this better than the current system not only because of the fairness issue, but perhaps more importantly because it makes for a more exciting OT.
What you're seeing is team spirit. It's like the Holy Spirit, but more powerful.
-Hank Hill
The game cannot be extended indefinitely
It is all or nothing for the second team. If they don’t score anything, game over. If they score a TD, game over. If they tie with a FG…
If Team B kicks a field goal to tie, then the game continues normally and goes straight into sudden-death format.
Next team to score wins.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on Mar 23, 2010 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions
actually, keeping the game going until someone scores again IS extending the game indefinitely.
What you're seeing is team spirit. It's like the Holy Spirit, but more powerful.
-Hank Hill
I see what you're saying
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on Mar 23, 2010 10:16 PM CDT up reply actions
Roll Tide, Zoltar!
Love your avatar!
"As soon as Tony (Dungy) said we had no chance, I knew we had 'em right where we wanted 'em"--Coach Sean Payton right after Super Bowl XLIV with the Lombardi Trophy firmly in hand. WHO DAT!!
by David "Satch" Kelly on Mar 23, 2010 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions
I don’t like the idea of an OT game potentially ending on an incomplete pass. How is that any less anti-climatic than this year’s red zone failure by Indianapolis in the Super Bowl? Hockey doesn’t guarantee both teams an offensive possession in OT. You have to earn possession by winning the face off. Same thing here. You have to earn a possession by stopping your opponent. Canada beats the USA on a sudden death goal. That’s excitement. Watching an opposing QB fizzle in the clutch is fun to watch, but it isn’t exciting. When I’m paying $48 to see a game live, I want the absolute most bang for my buck, win or lose. Especially if I have to urinate away another half hour of my precious weekend to see it.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
how can you say something is fun to watch but not exciting?
And lets not use comparisons to hockey or soccer. Scoring a FG in football is very easy compared to scoring a goal. What would you think about sudden death overtime in a basketball game? It doesn’t make sense, because scoring is so easy. Football is sort of in the middle ground between those extremes.
What you're seeing is team spirit. It's like the Holy Spirit, but more powerful.
-Hank Hill
“how can you say something is fun to watch but not exciting?”
It’s fun to watch from a biased perspective. I’m rooting for the Saints in the Super Bowl, so sure, I’m giddy when Manning goes four-and-out in the red zone. It basically just sealed the deal on my team winning the game. To the casual fan, however, there’s nothing exciting about that series of events. If I’m flipping stations and see that occur in a game between Jacksonville and Detroit, I’m thinking “ok, so what’s going on here? Lions won … pfft” -flips station. I’m definitely not thinking “INCOMPLETE PASS! WHAT A DEFENSIVE STAND! OMG OMG! HANG ON, BABY … I GOTTA SEE THIS AGAIN ON REPLAY!” Granted, I’m not going apesh** over OT winning FGs of any sort, either. I’m not saying EVERY game-ending play is exciting, even in OT … just that they’ve let yet ANOTHER breed of blandcat into the building with this rule change.
“Scoring a FG in football is very easy compared to scoring a goal.”
Yeah? A FG is worth half the value of the pinnacle scoring play in its sport. Explain to me how you can score a 2 pt goal in hockey or soccer and I’ll be happy to draw that parallel every time.
“What would you think about sudden death overtime in a basketball game?”
It would take some getting used to, but ultimately I’d be fine with it, as the team that wound up losing would have had their chances to win the game in regulation. Same way I feel about any sport played for hours on end.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
You’re entitled to your opinions, but I just don’t see where you’re coming from. I mean, you basically admitted that the standard by which you’re judging the new OT rules isn’t met by the alternative. So what’s your point?
I’d also dispute your characterization of what the casual fan finds exciting.
Obviously you can’t score a 2 point goal in hockey or soccer. So what? My point was that in general teams score more frequently in football than they do in hockey/soccer. But if you want to get into it more, possession changes occur much more frequently. Sudden death makes a lot of sense in a low scoring game with frequent possession changes.
Finally, the argument that a team had a chance to win the game in regulation would be true regardless of what the OT rules are, so why even bring it up?
What you're seeing is team spirit. It's like the Holy Spirit, but more powerful.
-Hank Hill
“My point was that in general teams score more frequently in football than they do in hockey/soccer.”
Is that really true? They score more points, obviously. But more frequently? The average football score is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 21-17. That’s 3-3 in any other sport. Would you consider that an unusually high scoring hockey or soccer game? Seems fairly pedestrian, imo. I will agree with you that possessions change more frequently in those other sports. Basketball is on a whole different astral plane, when it comes to both of those factors. Still, I’d be ok with sudden death in basketball, so why not anything LESS geared towards scoring and/or possession changes?
“Finally, the argument that a team had a chance to win the game in regulation would be true regardless of what the OT rules are, so why even bring it up?”
I brought it up to quantify my position on your hypothetical basketball OT rule change. That’s the solace I would take away from such a scenario. You’re right, it’s a constant regardless, but one that is seemingly lost among those looking to tweek the OT periods. I’d personally be fine with games ending in ties in all sports. Trouble is, that can’t be facilitated in a playoff format (unless it’s in the championship game), because you have pending contests that rely on the advancement of one team or the other. I recognize that and would tolerate any changes that would continue to facilitate that. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a preference on how to handle such necessary evils. In my opinion, an extended period works best for basketball. Sudden death works best for football. All sports don’t HAVE to parallel one another. I personally prefer that they don’t, but if push comes to shove — as in hypothetical scenarios — I’d look for the silver lining in any situation. You asked what I would think and I told you.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
this will all be settled tonight
tweet
JeremyShockey Im going to have an open discussion tonight on twitter around 8est.. we will talk overtime rules cant wait to hear your thoughts.
I know it’s really Shockey because this he tweeted this earlier:
JeremyShockey The first thing was, I learned to forgive myself. Then, I told myself, “Go ahead and do whatever you want, it’s okay by me.”
I might even get a blister,
But I'm gonna have to sleep with your sister.
You're right
This could only come from the Shockmeister:
“The first thing was, I learned to forgive myself. Then, I told myself, "Go ahead and do whatever you want, it’s okay by me."
"As soon as Tony (Dungy) said we had no chance, I knew we had 'em right where we wanted 'em"--Coach Sean Payton right after Super Bowl XLIV with the Lombardi Trophy firmly in hand. WHO DAT!!
by David "Satch" Kelly on Mar 23, 2010 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions
you forgot this personal fave
im so hungry for another championship i could eat a horse.. lol
That’s front page material right there.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on Mar 23, 2010 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions
done
tweet
nfl RT @JasonLaCanfora: NFL’s OT changes for playoffs passed. press conference upcoming. check out NFL.com and NFL Network for more
I'd rather be in some dark hollow where the sun refused to shine
Than to live here in Missouri
wow
surprised
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on Mar 23, 2010 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Then why not make the same rules for the regular season? What, you’r egoing to worry about the better team of two advancing, but not the best team of “x” getting there?
Let “x” equal however many potential playoff teams are ultimately affected by the outcome of a regular season game decided by the so-called unfair sudden death rule.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
It's a safety issue
Is what they’re saying
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on Mar 23, 2010 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Ah. Player safety doesn’t matter in the playoffs. I get it now. (I do?)
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
you're getting it.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on Mar 23, 2010 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions
It's too late
for love
I'd rather be in some dark hollow where the sun refused to shine
Than to live here in Missouri
pour some sugar on me
"I have all of the love in the world for Darren Sharper. I just don't have all the money in the world for Darren Sharper." Mickey Loomis
by Hans Petersen on Mar 23, 2010 7:25 PM CDT up reply actions
Gunter glieben glauchen globen
I'd rather be in some dark hollow where the sun refused to shine
Than to live here in Missouri
ah... my fav!
Don’t take a Photography of that Animal or there will be mass Hysteria!!
Pigs have flown! Hell has frozen over! The Saints HAVE WON the Superbowl!!
that was the first one I thought of...but I had no idea how to spell it, so I went another route
"I have all of the love in the world for Darren Sharper. I just don't have all the money in the world for Darren Sharper." Mickey Loomis
by Hans Petersen on Mar 24, 2010 7:04 PM CDT up reply actions
What sucks...
is that our Saints were the last team to win a playoff game under the old rules. Will this now be called the “Saints Didn’t Deserve to go to the Super Bowl” rule? Or, the “Damn it, We Wanted Favre vs. Manning” rule? Normally, I wouldn’t care either way about this rule change. I don’t see a need for it, but if it comes, so be it. Now, everyone is gonna inevitably bring up the Saints when discussing this rule change because they were the last team to win a close OT game under the old rules. It’ll serve to somewhat delegitimize our SB win to some brain dead sports fans. I don’t like the timing.
"As soon as Tony (Dungy) said we had no chance, I knew we had 'em right where we wanted 'em"--Coach Sean Payton right after Super Bowl XLIV with the Lombardi Trophy firmly in hand. WHO DAT!!
by David "Satch" Kelly on Mar 23, 2010 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions
“What sucks is that our Saints were the last team to win a playoff game under the old rules.”
It’s better than being the last team to lose an NFC Championship prior to the Bert Emmanuel rule.
"I was not on the boat in question." -Darren Sharper
Rotoworld-Rosenthal works for Florio....GAAAA!!!!!
rotoworld.com:
Drew Brees-QB- Saints Mar. 23 – 3:17 pm et
The NFL has announced that the owners have approved the modified overtime proposal for the postseason in 2010.
The vote passed at a 28-4 margin for the postseason only, but the issue will be revisited in May with the possibility of including regular season games. Per the new rule, the team that wins the coin toss must score a touchdown to win the game, ensuring that both teams will get the ball in the majority of overtime contests. If the game is tied after both teams’ possessions, it then moves to a sudden death format.
Why didn’t they tag this to Brett Favre??? He’s the one who lost the game.
I'd rather be in some dark hollow where the sun refused to shine
Than to live here in Missouri
Yes, it is idiotic to allow one team to have all that power
and I personally want our offense to have a shot in overtime.
I am glad the rules were there when we played the Vikes but I am glad it is changing
This change
Is beyond counter-intuitive. It’s a bad decision – coupled with the fact that there’s a disconnect between what happens in the regular season as opposed to the playoffs, and you have an even dumber outcome.
"There are those that make it happen, those that watch it happen, and those that stand around and wonder what the hell happened." -- Drew Brees
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Canal Street Chronicles
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
