MrTed46 Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 For years I've been arguing a similar proposal. I would like to see the first team to score 6 points win. I thought about this alot, On very first possession, if 6 is scored game is over. If 3 is scored, the other team has a chance to tie or go for the win (6). Anything after that wins on first point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 For years I've been arguing a similar proposal. I would like to see the first team to score 6 points win. I'd be on board with this (for what it's worth). It doesn't have to be anything like the college version. Just a little bit more even would make me happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myhousekey Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 (edited) Meh. It's fine the way it is. If you get the ball first and don't get a first down, your punting and the other team is likely going to have a short field to score. There's 3 parts of football. Offense, Defense and Special Teams. You need to be able to play all 3. Oh, and ETA: As a Saints fan, we were on both sides of that coin (no pun intended) this year. The win vs MIN in the NFC Championship game and the loss vs TB in week 16. The other OT game vs Washington the Saints played some defense, created a turnover and won the game. Edited March 2, 2010 by myhousekey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Here's an interesting article on the frequency of overtime wines by the team winning the coin toss from 200 to 1007. The numbers they came up with is 60% of which only 1/3 of those the opposing team never touched the ball. If these numbers are correct, (and I have no reason to doubt them) and my math is correct (always a possibility that it's whacked) that means that only 20% of the overtime games are decided by the coin toss. Somehow that doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to me. I agree with the "let them play a little defense if they want to win" crowd here. I don't really like the change. Note the last paragraph where they call wiegie's idea silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Here's an interesting article on the frequency of overtime wines On your website? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Note the last paragraph where they call wiegie's idea silly. Why would it be sillly? Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 (edited) On your website? Freudian slip. It was supposed to be wins and it isn't mine. Edited March 2, 2010 by Kid Cid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Why would it be sillly? Seriously. Personally, I think it would be silly because it takes the game off the field. I'm guessing that the author of the article feels similarly. Perhaps the silliest but most original idea is the field position bid. Both teams would submit a secret bid of how far back they'd be willing to start with the ball. The team that bids the deepest in its own territory would get the ball there. A football version of Name That Tune, I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Personally, I think it would be silly because it takes the game off the field. I'm guessing that the author of the article feels similarly. I just think it is another coaching decision. Makes the game more interesting from my point of view. 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.