NFL considering two possessions in OT

460
55
Joined Aug 11, 2006
finally i always thought it was unfair game pretty much being decided on the flip of a coin due to field goals.
 
2,103
10
Joined May 8, 2006
Not in favor of two possesions.

I am in favor of making fg's nill in OT though.

require either team to score six and six only.
 
29,630
1,860
Joined Nov 4, 2003
i like first to 6 better than no field goals.

if this goes down favre is coming back.
 
102
10
Joined May 28, 2004
yupp first to 6, does not sound bad at all, but then you will be taking punters out of the game which is not fair because teams pay hefty salaries for these guys to do their job
 
6,376
432
Joined Nov 9, 2007
Im wondering if this would even be discussed if the shoe were on the other foot.
 

jpzx

Supporter
32,087
4,571
Joined Feb 7, 2008
Originally Posted by DubA169

i like first to 6 better than no field goals.

if this goes down favre is coming back.
Favre's decision hangs on a NFL overtime rule change?
 
29,630
1,860
Joined Nov 4, 2003
it doesn't hang on it. but i think he would throw it in the pro column when weighing his decision.
 
1,423
10
Joined Mar 1, 2008
I don't think the nfl is going to last long in the next couple of decades, so I say they do anything to keep the sport alive.
 
22,130
10,677
Joined Dec 23, 2009
Originally Posted by itstmac

yupp first to 6, does not sound bad at all, but then you will be taking punters out of the game which is not fair because teams pay hefty salaries for these guys to do their job
They do?


And I like the first to 6 as well.
 
12,817
4,463
Joined Jun 23, 2007
OT is fine the way it is.

But if I were to alter it I would have it like college where each team would get possessions except instead of starting at the opponent's 25 the offensive team would start wherever it is they're KR can return the kickoff to.
 
1,648
10
Joined Aug 6, 2003
OT is NOT fine the way it is. I'm glad this is finally being discussed by the decision makers. You see the stats out there that the team winning the coin toss has won 60% in recent years? That's just not right.
 
17,085
1,018
Joined Jan 8, 2005
Each team already has 4 quarters to win a game. You pay your defense MILLIONS to stop the other team just like you pay your offense to put up points.

No need to change it. OT is crunch time. You can't stop the other team then too bad.

If it aint broke, don't fix it

 
1,648
10
Joined Aug 6, 2003
The only real reason why this is acceptable is that there is less time for players to have injuries, but I can't think of any other good reasons. There are ways to actually lessen injuries if you get rid of the kickoffs. I have this right up there with pitchers batting and jump balls on my ridiculous scale.
 
1,648
10
Joined Aug 6, 2003
Originally Posted by RKO2004

If it aint broke, don't fix it

From the 2000 through 2007 regular seasons, there have been 124 overtime games. In every single game except one (I believe), the team that won the toss elected to receive. And those receiving teams won 60% of the time (and tied once). That's a relatively large advantage, particularly when compared to home field advantage.
It is broken. Some people are just too stuck in their ways and in love with dumb old traditions to realize it.
 
17,085
1,018
Joined Jan 8, 2005
Originally Posted by Banks2Pierce

Originally Posted by RKO2004

If it aint broke, don't fix it

From the 2000 through 2007 regular seasons, there have been 124 overtime games. In every single game except one (I believe), the team that won the toss elected to receive. And those receiving teams won 60% of the time (and tied once). That's a relatively large advantage, particularly when compared to home field advantage.
It is broken. Some people are just too stuck in their ways and in love with dumb old traditions to realize it.


Did they win PERIOD or IN THE FIRST POSSESSION they had the ball?

Could be a deceiving stat if its the first option.

Each team already has 4 quarters to win a game. You pay your defense MILLIONS to stop the other team just like you pay your offense to put up points.

No need to change it. OT is crunch time. You can't stop the other team then too bad.


EACH team has 4 quarters to win the game. If you can't lock it up in that 60 minutes then you have the coin flip. If you lose the coin flip, you have your 50-60 million dollar defense to get you the ball back. Its simple.
 

darthska

Staff member
33,431
12,025
Joined Apr 30, 2004
I hate 'First to...' anything.

Give both teams a chance to have the ball somehow. Put a set time up there (like 10 minutes) or make it a match game like college (I get a field goal, you get the opportunity to either get a field goal or win the game with a TD); somehow, both teams deserve a chance with the ball.

'You have 4 quarters to win the game.' True, but because of a coin flip, one team gets 4 quarters plus another coupe minutes to try and score to win the game while the other team never even had a chance to score?

'You pay your defense millions to stop the other team's offense.' True, but BOTH teams pay their defenses millions of dollars to stop the ball, but only one team has to use their defense in overtime, because the other team won a coin flip? So the team who won the coin flip is paying their defense millions also, but doesn't have to worry about using them? Because they accurately called a coin toss?

It is broke.

Fix it.
 

xtapolapacetl

Banned
6,842
126
Joined Aug 8, 2006
@ people saying it's fine as it is. Dumbest rule in history of sports. Imagine one day two great offensive teams, but bad or mediocre defensive teams meet in the Super Bowl and they go to OT. The whole season would be decided on a coin flip.
 
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now