Front Row Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Whether Goodell hands down suspensions to the players and fines — or even the loss of draft picks — to the teams is purely speculative. But he's promised to act as swiftly as possible, and he's vowed to clean up the league's image woes. Competition committee co-chairman Rich McKay said there is some sentiment for a two-possession rule — each team being guaranteed getting the ball once — but no interest in the college system or in continuing the game from where it ended in regulation. I really like the idea of the 2 possesion OT. Don't believe we'll really see it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 I've been saying they should use the 2-posession rule for a few years. There can't be an easier way to go. I've also thought about the OT as the "first team w/ 6-points". So if you get a TD on first drive, thats it, or if you get a 2nd FG on your 2nd drive, that's it too. (I like the 2-possession rule better). I absolutely hate the college rule. As for team losing draft picks, there's no way that will happen. You cannot penalize the team for the off-field actions of a player, ESPECIALLY if you won't let the team even penalize the player significantly (under the current rules and the NFLPA chit) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 I really like the idea of the 2 possesion OT. Don't believe we'll really see it though. http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?showtopic=199710 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 I don't like the 2 posession overtime rule... People say its not fair to the team that has to kick off to start overtime... I think if a team deserved to win, they would have done so in the first four quarters. I know, im in the minority on this one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 The solution is pretty clear on the OT situation: * Since 1974, teams that won the coin flip have won 52% of the overtimes compared with 43% for teams that lost the coin flip. Another 5% of games ended in ties. Because of the roughly even ratio, the NFL has not altered the system. * But since 1994, when kickoffs were moved up 5 yards to the 30-yard line, almost one-third (32.6%) of the games have been captured by the team that won the toss and scored on its first possession. That is a considerable jump from the previous 20 seasons at 25.5%. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/m...6-martzke_x.htm Move it back 5 yards, and it will no longer be an issue, just like it wasn't an issue before 1994. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Move it back 5 yards, and it will no longer be an issue, just like it wasn't an issue before 1994. First, it's true that idea was discussed at the owners' meetings, but John Clayton said it didn't gather much favor. Second, I'd argue that a 9% advantage for the team winning the coin toss is STILL too big to declare it a non-issue. That's basically guaranteeing one team per year will win an overtime game SIMPLY because a coin fell one a certain side. One game per year being decided by pure chance is one too many. Third, this talk of "just win the game in regulation" is pure absurdity. Even Goodell said something about how the "focus needs to remain on winning the game in regulation." Why? Because devising a fair overtime system is too hard? Ridiculous. What's wrong with a tie game after 4 quarters? Sometimes, both teams play EQUALLY GREAT football throughout the game, which (rarely) ends in a tied score. So what? The idea of overtime doesn't bother me; when both teams get the ball and fight it out, overtime is fun and dramatic. I agree with Bengal Mania -- make a simple adjustment to the rules, and it'll be fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 First, it's true that idea was discussed at the owners' meetings, but John Clayton said it didn't gather much favor. Second, I'd argue that a 9% advantage for the team winning the coin toss is STILL too big to declare it a non-issue. That's basically guaranteeing one team per year will win an overtime game SIMPLY because a coin fell one a certain side. One game per year being decided by pure chance is one too many. Well, to make my point more clear: this was never an issue until the kickoff point was moved in 1994. Since then, and especially in the wake of the 2002 10 for 13 season it DID become an issue. Fluke plays and bad calls are also elements of chance. One thing to NOT do is to adopt the college version of overtime. Could you imagine some game stats? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Fluke plays and bad calls are also elements of chance. One thing to NOT do is to adopt the college version of overtime. Could you imagine some game stats? I agree about fluke plays and bad calls -- but those aren't totally preventable/changeable. In fact, in the case of bad calls, the league has gone to GREAT lengths to prevent them as much as possible. The overtime rules ARE changeable. We CAN prevent games from being decided by pure chance. The question isn't "if," it's a question of "how" and "when." I'm not an advocate of adopting the college system. It's asinine, and I don't even think the NCAA will retain it for much longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 I agree about fluke plays and bad calls -- but those aren't totally preventable/changeable. In fact, in the case of bad calls, the league has gone to GREAT lengths to prevent them as much as possible. The overtime rules ARE changeable. We CAN prevent games from being decided by pure chance. The question isn't "if," it's a question of "how" and "when." I'm not an advocate of adopting the college system. It's asinine, and I don't even think the NCAA will retain it for much longer. Nothing is perfect, but when a tweak results in a team winning the toss and game from 1 in 4 to 1 in 3, that's an enormous jump of over 30%. Let's go back to how it was before at least as a starter, because that tweak didn't work out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 That's basically guaranteeing one team per year will win an overtime game SIMPLY because a coin fell one a certain side. One game per year being decided by pure chance is one too many. You still have to move the football 40 yards to score. If you do it before the other team gets the chance, you win. And if you want to get real technical, all NFL games are generally decided by pure chance. Third, this talk of "just win the game in regulation" is pure absurdity. Even Goodell said something about how the "focus needs to remain on winning the game in regulation." Why? Because devising a fair overtime system is too hard? Ridiculous. What's wrong with a tie game after 4 quarters? Sometimes, both teams play EQUALLY GREAT football throughout the game, which (rarely) ends in a tied score. So what? The idea of overtime doesn't bother me; when both teams get the ball and fight it out, overtime is fun and dramatic. Middlesborough vs. West Ham United is on "the tube" as we speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Two options: 1) I was thinking about something like penalty shots/kicks in hockey/soccer. Maybe have the PKs line up for 30 yard FGs ... back up 5yds with each successful make ... if both guys kick five consecutive FGs all the way to 50 yarders, the either the game ends in a tie or they start moving back in two yard increments until someone misses and the other guy makes it. 2) Or, maybe put the ball on the 50 yardline ... have a coin flip and the team that wins it decides whether they want to be offense or defense first ... say they pick offense ... and the run one play ... then, they switch sides and the other team comes out to run a play (and the team that just ran an offensive play is now on defense) ... and back and forth ... until a team scores a TD. So, if you're up first and you get your QB sacked, the other team can score on a 40yd play ... or they can run the ball and get three yards (putting you on your own 37 for the next play) ... you pass the ball for 15 yards and it's on their 48 for their second play ... etc ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 How about just accepting the game is a tie and that's it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 How about just accepting the game is a tie and that's it? How about just playing one full quarter and that's it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.