Imagine in baseball..........

edmundfitzgerald

If your team was playing the AL or NL championship series. It was game seven. Your team battled hard but it was a 5-5
tie going into extra innings in game 7. The other team won a coin flip and was awarded to bat first. They scored. Your team
was not allowed to hit, and the other club went to the world series.

Sincerely,
Wake up NFL

ziggy29

The problem with the baseball analogy is that extra innings are just an obvious and natural extension of a baseball game with no special rules or need to change the game mechanics in OT. That's not the case in football.

Sudden death may not be perfect -- far from it -- but the other suggestions to make it more like a college overtime fundamentally alter the game and it's natural flow.

Once upon a time, statistically winning the coin toss barely mattered, if at all. I think since the early 1970s until the early 1990s, the coin toss winner won something like 51-52% of the time -- statistical noise, more or less, essentially "fair" for most purposes.

That changed when the kickoff was moved back to the 30 yard line in 1994. That change in average starting field position for the receiving team (together with more accurate and strong-legged placekickers) has resulted in the coin toss winners winning in OT about 60% of the time since '94.

So maybe part of a solution would be to change to a "neutral" field position. Since 1994, stat geeks and number crunchers have determined that the "neutral" starting field position (the one where, in sudden death, the team which first gets the ball gains no advantage) is at about the 15 yard line. Behind the 15, the team playing defense first has an advantage; beyond the 15 the advantage shifts to the team on offense first. Putting the ball on the 15 pretty much statistically evens the odds.

One possibility, then, would be for the ball to start on the offense's own 15 yard line in overtime. The winner of the coin toss could choose to play offense or defense. One neat thing about this (but probably why coaches would hate it) is that it introduces strategy and potential second-guessing of the decision by the coin toss winner. Right now when teams win the coin toss in OT, it's a no-brainer in the NFL to receive the opening kickoff in OT, and in college it's a no-brainer to go on defense first. This would make the decision interesting.

TheVon

That's cool information, Ziggy. Do you happen to know how the numbers worked out if the "receiving" team started on their own 20 instead of the15? Would that extra 5 yards make a huge difference? I ask, because it seems more natural to place the ball at the 20 given the touchback.

ymarea

In baseball, it is impossible for a team to score unless they are at-bat. In football, a team can score whether on offense or defense. The Vikings/Saints game was the 4th conference championship game to be decided in OT. In the previous 3, the team that won the coin toss after regulation lost the game in overtime. The claim that winning the toss gives an unfair advantage is just not supported by results.

I'm all in favor of scrapping sudden death and playing additional 10- or 15- minute periods to determine a winner, but losing the toss does not equate to losing the game.

Edited for the following:

Moving the kickoff spot back may indeed contribute to more toss winners winning in OT, but it may also be the result of the new, offense-friendly (particularly in the passing game) rules that took effect in the '90's. It's simply harder to stop an offense, no matter where they begin a drive.

jdip9

They would never start at the 15, but I think starting at the 20 makes a lot of sense. The offense could get 2 or even 3 first downs and still have to punt. It gives the defense a better chance of being succesful. Especially since all the rules favor the offense these days.

I think there are only 2 viable alternatives to the current format: 1. Coin-flip winner starts at own 20. 2. you need to score 6 pts win in OT. The downside to #2 is that OT would take longer than it currently does, exposing players to more plays/injury risk, and would likely result in a lot more ties.

ziggy29

As far as I can tell, the 20 skews it a bit from the 15, but most of the time, starting field position today is even farther outside the 20.

One possibility here would be that the first possession can only end the game if it ends in a TD. If the first possession of OT results in a field goal, the other team gets the ball for one last chance. If they kick a field goal to tie it, it becomes sudden death. If they score a TD, they win. (If they don't score, they lose.)

Morgoth

First team to score 6 points wins would be one solution. Mike and Mike talked about that today.

VintageCardLover

different sport, different circumstances. as has been pointed out, in baseball the team on the defense cannot score. You lose.

jdip9

I like that Ziggy...call the commissioner immediately!

RonBurgundy

It's a pretty simple solution really. Give each team one possession. If the game is still tied after that, then it's sudden death. The coin flip winner still has an advantage, but the team getting the ball second knows what they have to do and the risks inherent in giving the ball back for sudden death.

MCMLVTopps

my 2 cents...

First: I never cared for the term "sudden death", always preferred "instant win".

Second: In a game of the magnitude of playoffs such as yesterday, perhaps a special rule should come into effect. Instead of whoever scores first wins, I think there should be a 5th period, or some amount of time allowing the opponent at least a shot at scoring other than via a defensive play.

Let us not forget that the Saints got a freebie touchdown, when in fact the runners knee hit the ground and then he stretched to cross the goal line. How the line judge missed that is beyond me. The Vikings OTOH, were inept and shot themselves again and again. Favre knows better than to make the pathetic toss he did, when he fact he should have run the ball, called time out and have the kicker come in...ain't that why da kicker gets paid, to kick da ball??

All is moot, but I'll bet you my entire collection Favre would love a do over on that bone-head toss he made. Not to mention that Favre at that point was so hurt he really couldn't throw as well as a healthy Favre...why risk the interception when the potential win was at hand?

ziggy29

<< <i>Let us not forget that the Saints got a freebie touchdown, when in fact the runners knee hit the ground and then he stretched to cross the goal line. >>

Bad call, yes, but far from a "freebie" when it still should have been second and goal at about the one-half yard line. The chances of a subsequent Saints TD are still very high even if they got the call right, which is why I assume Childress opted against burning a challenge there.

SanctionII

Maybe the NBA should change its overtime rules from a 5 minute OT to a rule where the first team to score in OT wins.

That would make for some interesting OT games. The defense would have to step things up like never before while at the same time making sure that the defense did not commit a foul to give the opposing team a free throw.

Such a sudden death rule in the NBA would not work but it would be interesting to see it tried for a stretch of same 20-30 games.

BCarlton

The last time I checked the defense got paid to stop the offense, and its not as if the team that wins the toss wins every time (far from it as has already been noted). Only 29% of the time has the team who won the toss gone down and scored without the other team getting a chance to touch the ball. Overall victory for the team winning the toss is in the 55% range. To suggest a sudden revamp of the rules that have been in place for a long time seems a bit reactionary to me. The vikings had plenty of chances to win the game yesterday (the numerous fumbles, the last second interception from Favre, etc) and they couldn't stop the Saints in overtime.

While it may not seem like a perfect system, its worked well forever and gives drama to the game.

MCMLVTopps

Ziggy...

I understand your point, but if you are successful in both challenges, you get a third. Clearly this one was winable, besides, who's to say there wouldn't have been a fumble or interception on the next play? All history now.

grote15

and they couldn't stop the Saints in overtime.

Or the refs on that bogus PI penalty..

BCarlton

<< <i>and they couldn't stop the Saints in overtime.

Or the refs on that bogus PI penalty.. >>



Bad calls went both ways all game. Yeah it was but the Saints had their fair share of bad calls against them as well.

grote15

and they couldn't stop the Saints in overtime.

Or the refs on that bogus PI penalty.. >>



Bad calls went both ways all game. Yeah it was but the Saints had their fair share of bad calls against them as well.

None as significant as that one, though. That penalty basically sealed the win for NO (and I'm not a Vikings fan, either.)

ziggy29

<< <i>and they couldn't stop the Saints in overtime.

Or the refs on that bogus PI penalty.. >>

Weak penalty calls against the Saints turned what would have been a Vikings punt into a TD earlier in the game. But because it wasn't in OT, we tend to forget about that one even though those 7 points counted just as much as any other.

BCarlton

<< <i>

<< <i>and they couldn't stop the Saints in overtime.

Or the refs on that bogus PI penalty.. >>

Weak penalty calls against the Saints turned what would have been a Vikings punt into a TD earlier in the game. But because it wasn't in OT, we tend to forget about that one even though those 7 points counted just as much as any other. >>



Yep, which was my point exactly. There were calls on both teams throughout the game that they should have been upset with. If you want to pinpoint one play as the key to the loss, its not the PI call, its Favre throwing that pick late in regulation which would have prevented OT from ever happening in the first place. I'm not one to look at this play or that play, I look at the entire body of work.

ziggy29

<< <i>If you want to pinpoint one play as the key to the loss, its not the PI call, its Favre throwing that pick late in regulation which would have prevented OT from ever happening in the first place. I'm not one to look at this play or that play, I look at the entire body of work. >>

Actually, I'd go with the bonehead penalty for 12 men on the field which immediately preceded the last Favre pick. That put the Vikes on the outer limits of FG range and probably forced them to go downfield instead of running a safer play followed by a game-winning FG attempt.

MCMLVTopps

Actually, I'd go with the bonehead penalty for 12 men on the field which immediately preceded the last Favre pick. That put the Vikes on the outer limits of FG range and probably forced them to go downfield instead of running a safer play followed by a game-winning FG attempt.

True, but as I recall, Favre had some running room after the 12 man debacle, which could have put the FG back into play if only he'd run instead of throwing off balance for the pick.

I think we've just about beaten this thing to death. I'd much rather have seen Favre in the big game, but sometimes you're the bug and sometimes you're the windshield.

Kinda like the Bucky Dent and Aaron Boone homers, not to mention the Billy Bucks faux pas. Painful stuff, and the Favre toss will long be remembered methinks in Minnesota.

Boopotts

<< <i>First team to score 6 points wins would be one solution. Mike and Mike talked about that today. >>



I've heard a variant on this idea (which I like better), which requires the winning team to score 7 pts. In other words, you're basically getting rid of field goals- which in a perfect world the NFL would get rid of anyway.

WinPitcher

I like it the way it is. First team that scores either by a drop kick, safety, FG or TD wins.


Steve