Posts: 11
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation:
0
I'm not really sure why I was thinking about OT the other day, but I came up with an interesting idea. No kicks. None. No kickoffs, no punts and no FGs. Just offense versus defense, removing special teams from the equation.
The winner of the coin toss would have to choose between starting with the ball at their own 25 or defending against the other team at their 25. With no punting, the team on offense needs to pick up the first down (probably multiple first downs) or the other team will start out with really good field position, but still no FGs, so they would need to score a TD.
A team couldn't just play the field position battle because there are no punts. A goal line stand by a defense wouldn't bail out the offense from having to move the ball (safety would lose the game). I could see some interesting strategies developing. Every play would be important, every penalty would be important.
This, of course, would only apply to the regular season. For the post season, they should really just play another quarter.
That's my idea, what's good and what's bad? Should FGs still be in play?
Hmm, interesting, but kinda don't like the thought of different rules for the OT. No punts, no kickoffs, no FGs? Why bench certain players for OT?
I actually think the current option is pretty good. Score a TD to win, in not, give the other team a chance on offense.
I like where you're going with the concept. In essence, the NFL has deemed the kickoffs to be the most dangerous, injury-ridden play in the game, so why not get rid of it entirely?
Plus, by moving extra-points back and making teams not win with "cheap" FG's in OT, the NFL is attempting to limit the kicking portion of scoring.
Heck, Commish Baddell probably has a new name for the game... "SafeandFairball"!
But seriously, with the average sports fan's attention span and looking for NBA-esque scores, it certainly would make the "new" game more exciting! :p
Quote: @"greediron" said:
Hmm, interesting, but kinda don't like the thought of different rules for the OT. No punts, no kickoffs, no FGs? Why bench certain players for OT?
I actually think the current option is pretty good. Score a TD to win, in not, give the other team a chance on offense.
But, as you stated, the OT rules are already different. Score a TD (or get a safety) and win. That can essentially bench an entire unit. The first drive of OT can score a FG and the game still isn't over. It's actually a pretty strange OT right now. I'm not saying it's bad or anything, but it's not the same game compared to the first 4 quarters. MLB plays an extra inning as of it is the 9th (as many as necessary), NBA plays a shortened period (as many as necessary) and the NHL goes to 3 on 3 with a shootout if no team scores. The NFL is actually pretty odd. I do like the college OT, as each team gets the same opportunity.
Quote: @"silverjoel" said:
@"greediron" said:
Hmm, interesting, but kinda don't like the thought of different rules for the OT. No punts, no kickoffs, no FGs? Why bench certain players for OT?
I actually think the current option is pretty good. Score a TD to win, in not, give the other team a chance on offense.
But, as you stated, the OT rules are already different. Score a TD (or get a safety) and win. That can essentially bench an entire unit. The first drive of OT can score a FG and the game still isn't over. It's actually a pretty strange OT right now. I'm not saying it's bad or anything, but it's not the same game compared to the first 4 quarters. MLB plays an extra inning as of it is the 9th (as many as necessary), NBA plays a shortened period (as many as necessary) and the NHL goes to 3 on 3 with a shootout if no team scores. The NFL is actually pretty odd. I do like the college OT, as each team gets the same opportunity.
The only rules that are different currently pertain to how long the OT lasts. The game is still the same game. You can punt, kick a FG, or whatever you do in regulation. The only change is what happens after a score, whether or not the OT is over. So the game is the same, with the rules governing the length of OT being the only thing added (which are necessary no matter what the setup.)
Not knocking your thoughts, just saying why I actually prefer the current setup. In yours, the coaches are forced to play by different rules, no punting on fourth down. No kicking at all.
Quote: @"greediron" said:
@"silverjoel" said:
@"greediron" said:
Hmm, interesting, but kinda don't like the thought of different rules for the OT. No punts, no kickoffs, no FGs? Why bench certain players for OT?
I actually think the current option is pretty good. Score a TD to win, in not, give the other team a chance on offense.
But, as you stated, the OT rules are already different. Score a TD (or get a safety) and win. That can essentially bench an entire unit. The first drive of OT can score a FG and the game still isn't over. It's actually a pretty strange OT right now. I'm not saying it's bad or anything, but it's not the same game compared to the first 4 quarters. MLB plays an extra inning as of it is the 9th (as many as necessary), NBA plays a shortened period (as many as necessary) and the NHL goes to 3 on 3 with a shootout if no team scores. The NFL is actually pretty odd. I do like the college OT, as each team gets the same opportunity.
The only rules that are different currently pertain to how long the OT lasts. The game is still the same game. You can punt, kick a FG, or whatever you do in regulation. The only change is what happens after a score, whether or not the OT is over. So the game is the same, with the rules governing the length of OT being the only thing added (which are necessary no matter what the setup.)
Not knocking your thoughts, just saying why I actually prefer the current setup. In yours, the coaches are forced to play by different rules, no punting on fourth down. No kicking at all.
Feel free to bash the idea, but one major thing you're missing is the winner of the coin toss wins about 2/3 of the overtime games. The coin toss has nothing to do with football, it's just a random chance that benefits the guess of heads or tails. Football is a turn based game and there shouldn't be a sudden death aspect to a turn based game because it's highly dependent on which team gets the ball first. The most fair way would be to just play another quarter (our a shortened quarter), but it doesn't seem the NFL wants to go that direction.
Quote: @"silverjoel" said:
Feel free to bash the idea, but one major thing you're missing is the winner of the coin toss wins about 2/3 of the overtime games. The coin toss has nothing to do with football, it's just a random chance that benefits the guess of heads or tails. Football is a turn based game and there shouldn't be a sudden death aspect to a turn based game because it's highly dependent on which team gets the ball first. The most fair way would be to just play another quarter (our a shortened quarter), but it doesn't seem the NFL wants to go that direction.
Is that still the case?
I too would prefer another quarter, but since football is relatively low scoring and if teams are evenly matched, another 10-15 minutes might lead to many ties. But as you say, it is a turn based game, so the sudden death is a bit unfair.
I think the current overtime rules are stupid, primarily
because each team doesn’t have the same opportunity to win, because the game
breaks to sudden death prematurely.
I think the most logical overtime methodology, would be to break
the overtime into rounds. In each round,
give the first team a chance to score, and regardless of outcome the second team
gets a chance to match or better the first teams score. At the end of the round, if one team is
winning, they win. if the scores are
even, a new round starts. At any point
if there’s a change in possession (via TO, punt, or safety, etc.) the game goes
to sudden death.
I’m pretty impartial as to whether they play regular
football or if they have some sort of abbreviated version that shortens the
field. Mostly, I want both teams to have
equal chances to win. I’d probably say
that in the playoffs, you play to regular rules, and in the regular season, you
shorten the game to just starting at the 25 or whatever to try and keep the
game moving and interesting.
Quote: @"medaille" said:
I think the current overtime rules are stupid, primarily
because each team doesn’t have the same opportunity to win, because the game
breaks to sudden death prematurely.
I think the most logical overtime methodology, would be to break
the overtime into rounds. In each round,
give the first team a chance to score, and regardless of outcome the second team
gets a chance to match or better the first teams score. At the end of the round, if one team is
winning, they win. if the scores are
even, a new round starts. At any point
if there’s a change in possession (via TO, punt, or safety, etc.) the game goes
to sudden death.
I’m pretty impartial as to whether they play regular
football or if they have some sort of abbreviated version that shortens the
field. Mostly, I want both teams to have
equal chances to win. I’d probably say
that in the playoffs, you play to regular rules, and in the regular season, you
shorten the game to just starting at the 25 or whatever to try and keep the
game moving and interesting.
I would probably like this the best, even more than the current option, however I dont like taking any aspect of the game out of the equation, so if a team has a strong special teams unit, but a weaker offense or defense... why should their strength be take out of the game. just line them up and play football, but use your approach of taking the game clock out of the equation. how about no timeouts or only giving them 1 game clock reset per round, not a full time out per se, but enough time to make personnel changes or to have a quick chat. Also if a player gets dinged and there is a game stoppage for that injury, that player is out of the game for the duration of that round and the for the next round as well, this should keep teams from having players take a dive to get the clock stopped in most cases.
I think the current OT rules are about as fair as can be. I'm against any changes that make it less like football. Removing kickoffs, punts, FGs, etc. is a no go for me.
The college OT rules greatly benefit a good offense. Not a fan of just giving teams the ball on the other team's 25 yard line.
|
