_2.gif "Time.com 50 Best Websites 2008")
Some Internet hack thinks that the NFL owners shouldn’t ponder rules changes based on weird stuff that happened last season.
Instead, they should try to identify the weird stuff that could happen in the future and try to stop the weird stuff from happening by changing the rules now.
Anyway, here’s the thing.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Good article. Even though I generally agree with your points on PFT or as “some Internet Hack” on TSN, I’ll raise an argument with one of your proposed rule changes.
Even though the suggested change in overtime format has been interesting for college football, I pose this argument to you (and the PFT community, if they wish to partake):
What is wrong with the current overtime format? If a team elects to receive the opening kick for overtime and proceeds to score (and subsequently win), the losing team failed to stop the other team in OT. It’s not an issue of fairness. It’s an issue of the losing team having a weakness on defense or simply playing poorly on defense, and it cost them. That weakness or poor play on defense shouldn’t be overlooked.
Offense, defense, and special teams. They’re all supposed to be equally important, so why overlook the fact that when a team allows the other team to score on the opening drive of OT, that team failed to perform on defense and it cost them?
Maybe a lack of defense in OT hurts a team like the Colts have had over the past several years, when they’ve generally relied on an offense so good that it often doesn’t matter how many points the defense surrenders, but it doesn’t hurt teams around the league that rely on playing better defense to win games, no? And wouldn’t such an overtime rule arguably hurt teams that rely on defense much more than offense (the Bears from the past few years come to mind) to win games? The Bears would stop teams that start on their own 30 yd line at the start of OT, but what good is defense (and a milquetoast offense) with the suggested OT format change when all teams start at, say, the 25 yd line like in college football’s OT format?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Bill,
I COMPLETELY agree with you. Our host has been off on this one for a while. Other than extra points, both teams can score on ANY play of the game. So it doesn’t matter who gets the ball first, either team can score at any moment, and everyone needs to play their best football to win.
Further, the last time I looked, the team receiving the kickoff first in OT won about 55% of the time on the FIRST drive, which is pretty close to half. Now, the receiving team (again, I’m recollecting numbers from a few years back, so I could be off) did win roughly 70% of the time, but that is when you take ALL drives into consideration.
Anyway, the OT “sudden death” rule in the NFL is perfect. There’s an element of chance in the coin toss, but then both teams have to put 11 guys on the field and try to get their guys to score before the other team’s guys.
It’s simple and perfect.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Just because few people understand why NFL OT is fair doesn’t mean it’s not fair. College OT is basically like a hockey shoot-out: not the real sport. Florio’s suggestion is not far from this.
HERE’S how you make it truly fair: At the start of the 2nd half, give the ball to whoever had it when the first half ended (via a kickoff). THEN, for overtime, give the ball to the team that kicked off at the beginning of the game.
That’s the only OT that’s 100% fair and even, IMO.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 30th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Here’s an OT that’s both fair and sudden death.
Keep all the rules the same, including the coin toss, but the team that gets the ball first has to start from their own 5 yard line.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 31st, 2008 at 12:29 am
I got it. Keep the rules as is. If team gets first and scores … tough luck. If D stops them fast, then actually, the defense has the edge because of field position. I don’t like giving the other team the ball after a score, as Florio suggested (even though it’s not that bad of a suggestion) because then it’s kind of unfair and awkward to the team that has it first. If they have it on the 3 yard line … what do they do? Kick a field goal? (And other team gets a TD.) Or go for it and miss … and other team gets a FG.
Though as is has a slight statistical advantage to team who gets it first, there is plenty of good that can be done if that team is stopped. I don’t have a problem w/ a sudden death overtime.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 31st, 2008 at 1:36 am
Since you’re proposing sweeping changes to the salary structure, how about this one: The league should reduce the salary cap to about half what it is now, and the teams should us the appx $50 million annual savings to pay a mortgage to the public entity that owns their stadium. Net outcomes: States can put the money to better use than owning a stadium. Taxpayers are happy. Owners end up owning a stadium at no additional expense. Players are half as rich, which is still pretty rich. PR windfall for the league. Owners that want to move a team have a much more complicated decision to make. Why am I writing this? I’m from MN, where in the last few years the govt. has approved a new stadium for the Twins, another one for the Gophers football team, and they are now contemplating a stadium for the Vikes. By my simple math, that’s about $1 or $2 billion dollars of public subsidy so a lot of players can be obscenely rich, and the Gophers can fail miserably in a nice empty stadium with a nice atmosphere. Times have changed, and pro sports teams can now afford to pay for their own stadiums. Of course, all this is easier said than done…
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 31st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I like OT as it is… If you lose the coin toss, you have to stop the opposing team. Just as the Giants intercepted Lord Favre in the NFC title game and vanquished him into the Hall of Fame forever. If the Pack had driven down the field and scored, I would not have been screaming for a rules change, I would have been screaming about a failed defense and a lousy kicker who missed a FG at the end of regulation.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated