Football (North America: NFL, CFL, Arena Football, minor leagues)

[SP Cook]

IMHO,

- The expanded roughing the passer rule is just a symptom of over emphasis on safety.  Football is dangerous.  If you don't want to play, don't play.  The problem with this rule is that legitimate hits on QBs are now impossible. 

- The NFL ratings decline is, in part, a result of the over emphasis on safety, in part, just that everything is down as the choices get more and more; but, in part, political.    It just is what it is. 

- Games should never end in a tie.  The college system is vastly superior to the pro system for tie breaks. 

- It is early, but it looks like the focus of evil in the modern world, the Pittsburgh Steelers, are collapsing into in fighting, back stabbing, and just getting old.  More will be known after MNF this week, but we can certainly hope that a full collapse is happening. 

[hotdogPi]

Would this work as a tiebreaker?

"The most recent team to score is the winner."

[NWI_Irish96]

IMHO,

- The expanded roughing the passer rule is just a symptom of over emphasis on safety.  Football is dangerous.  If you don't want to play, don't play.  The problem with this rule is that legitimate hits on QBs are now impossible. 

- The NFL ratings decline is, in part, a result of the over emphasis on safety, in part, just that everything is down as the choices get more and more; but, in part, political.    It just is what it is. 

- Games should never end in a tie.  The college system is vastly superior to the pro system for tie breaks. 

- It is early, but it looks like the focus of evil in the modern world, the Pittsburgh Steelers, are collapsing into in fighting, back stabbing, and just getting old.  More will be known after MNF this week, but we can certainly hope that a full collapse is happening. 

If anything, the overemphasis on safety is to protect ratings.  Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees go down for the season and ratings take a nosedive for those teams. 

I have no problem with ties.  If you force there to be a winner, you end up with gimmicks that don't really measure who the better team was that day (shootouts in hockey/soccer, starting with the ball at the opponents' 25 in football, etc.)

[NWI_Irish96]

Would this work as a tiebreaker?

"The most recent team to score is the winner."

As I just noted above, I don't think ties need to be broken.  But if anything, I'd do the opposite of what you proposed.  Unless the most recent team to score was behind by 8 points, then they chose to play for the tie instead of the win.  Make it so that the most recent team to score loses, then they have to go for the TD instead of FG when behind by 3, and have to go for 2 instead of 1 when behind by 7.

[DaBigE]

Would this work as a tiebreaker?

"The most recent team to score is the winner."

I'd say no. You're rewarding the team who had a bigger 4th quarter. Would that team be more likely to score again? Arguably. But whose to say the other team won't have a sudden comeback? You might as well base the tiebreaker by which team has scored more points over the season to-date (which wouldn't work for the first game of the season).

[SP Cook]

If anything, the overemphasis on safety is to protect ratings.  Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees go down for the season and ratings take a nosedive for those teams. 

And go up for other teams.  Remember Seinfeld's famous quote that pointed out most sports fans are really rooting for laundry, and not who is wearing it.

Just look at NASCAR which has safetyed away 80% of its peak fanbase.  While football is light years beyond what NASCAR ever was, when you start changing the fundamental nature of your product you alienate those who like it. 

[triplemultiplex]

Overtime should be untimed.  Just have a play clock and keep going until someone wins.
Keep the rule about needing more than a field goal to win in OT on the first possession, though.

[english si]

As I just noted above, I don't think ties need to be broken.

Indeed - it's only necessary in a knock out competition (eg the play-offs) to do it.

Also, how overtime results get put on the win-lose record is silly - if you can't beat a team in the allotted four quarters, then you don't deserve a win and they don't deserve a loss. But as there's a culture demand to have a winner - hence overtime, then I suggest that a team that loses in overtime adds 0-0-1 to their record, while the winning team adds 1-0 to their record.

Overtime should be untimed.  Just have a play clock and keep going until someone wins.
Keep the rule about needing more than a field goal to win in OT on the first possession, though.

While needing a TD is better than just needing a score, it is unfair to the team that defends first, as their offence doesn't get a response.

A friend once put it as "it's like if, in soccer, one team takes their 5 penalties first - and if they score them all, the other team doesn't get a chance to see if they can equal that".

Soccer used to alternate penalties, and 'sudden death' if still tied after 5 penalties required there to be a difference in score after an equal number of penalties. I say 'used to alternate', as they changed the rules as they still felt the team going first gained an advantage. The order now goes ABBAABBAAB.

[Henry]

I'm all for sudden death, where the game will just keep going until one team wins. Sure, that could result in 4+ (or even 5+) hour games, but I'd rather see that than one that ends in a tie.

[NWI_Irish96]

I'm all for sudden death, where the game will just keep going until one team wins. Sure, that could result in 4+ (or even 5+) hour games, but I'd rather see that than one that ends in a tie.

That's not realistic when teams have another game to play in as few as 4 days.

[MNHighwayMan]

I'm all for sudden death, where the game will just keep going until one team wins. Sure, that could result in 4+ (or even 5+) hour games, but I'd rather see that than one that ends in a tie.

That's not realistic when teams have another game to play in as few as 4 days.

I don't think that'd really be a problem, though. Playoff games (where it's already true that a winner has to be decided) have only gone to double overtime once that I can remember.

[Big John]

I'm all for sudden death, where the game will just keep going until one team wins. Sure, that could result in 4+ (or even 5+) hour games, but I'd rather see that than one that ends in a tie.

That's not realistic when teams have another game to play in as few as 4 days.

I don't think that'd really be a problem, though. Playoff games (where it's already true that a winner has to be decided) have only gone to double overtime once that I can remember.

It has happened a few times: http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap1000000126753/double-overtime-games-in-the-postseason

[oscar]

I don't think that'd really be a problem, though. Playoff games (where it's already true that a winner has to be decided) have only gone to double overtime once that I can remember.

It has happened a few times: http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap1000000126753/double-overtime-games-in-the-postseason

In NFL playoffs, it is always at least six days between when the winner of one playoff game is determined, and the winner has to play again in the next round. In the regular season, the gap can be shorter with Thursday games (including day games on Thanksgiving) following Sunday games.

I like Mike's idea of no overtime in the regular NFL season. Maybe take it one step more, and count a tie in regulation as a loss for both teams. That would make teams try harder to win in regulation, rather than settle for a tie.

It would be interesting if an MLB wild-card playoff game went to 20 innings or more. The winner might have very little time to recover before playing the first game in the next round, though at least it will have at least two more games to recover and catch up if it loses the first game.

[NWI_Irish96]

I'm all for sudden death, where the game will just keep going until one team wins. Sure, that could result in 4+ (or even 5+) hour games, but I'd rather see that than one that ends in a tie.

That's not realistic when teams have another game to play in as few as 4 days.

I don't think that'd really be a problem, though. Playoff games (where it's already true that a winner has to be decided) have only gone to double overtime once that I can remember.

You have a sample size problem there.  11 playoff games per year vs 256 regular season games per year.  It would happen a lot more. 

[MNHighwayMan]

I don't think that'd really be a problem, though. Playoff games (where it's already true that a winner has to be decided) have only gone to double overtime once that I can remember.

It has happened a few times: http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap1000000126753/double-overtime-games-in-the-postseason

Interesting. The 2012 one is the only one I remembered. I don't remember the one in 2003 and the rest all happened before my time.

You have a sample size problem there.  11 playoff games per year vs 256 regular season games per year.  It would happen a lot more. 

While that's probably true, I still don't think this would become a major problem.

[Eth]

Soccer used to alternate penalties, and 'sudden death' if still tied after 5 penalties required there to be a difference in score after an equal number of penalties. I say 'used to alternate', as they changed the rules as they still felt the team going first gained an advantage. The order now goes ABBAABBAAB.

That must be a very recent rule change, as I seem to recall this year's World Cup still alternating like normal.

[english si]

That must be a very recent rule change, as I seem to recall this year's World Cup still alternating like normal.

Having checked, it predates this year's World Cup by a year (summer 2017), but is only in select competitions that have opted in - ie not the World Cup.

Interestingly, while looking up to see whether more than just the under-17s and -19s Euros that UEFA have doing it (not clear as they refer you to rules which allow both options), it seems that UEFA counts wins/losses by penalty shoot out as draws for club co-efficient calculations (which determine what seeding pot your team goes in in future years, and some other stuff - like the cut of the TV money revenue).

[english si]

Maybe take it one step more, and count a tie in regulation as a loss for both teams. That would make teams try harder to win in regulation, rather than settle for a tie.

Is this a problem? After all, teams tend to try hard to avoid overtime now - going for riskier 2-point conversions to get ahead by one, rather than the easier 1 point and being level-on-score with not very long left.

Then again, perhaps the tie-situation of playing more gruelling football where you'd still be risking a loss reduces the risk of going all-or-nothing for a 2-point conversion rather than playing it safe and going for a simple PAT?

And ties in American Football don't count as anything more than a tie-breaker between teams with equal numbers of wins. In Soccer leagues, they count as as a third of a win (so 4 draws are better than a win and 3 losses), so the idea of playing for a draw might make sense. But it doesn't in American Football, especially with it's clear division between offence and defence - if you can 'park the bus' with the defence, you can still go all out with offence.

[oscar]

Maybe take it one step more, and count a tie in regulation as a loss for both teams. That would make teams try harder to win in regulation, rather than settle for a tie.

Is this a problem? After all, teams tend to try hard to avoid overtime now - going for riskier 2-point conversions to get ahead by one, rather than the easier 1 point and being level-on-score with not very long left.

Then again, perhaps the tie-situation of playing more gruelling football where you'd still be risking a loss reduces the risk of going all-or-nothing for a 2-point conversion rather than playing it safe and going for a simple PAT?

When college teams go for two points for the win, rather than one to put the game into overtime, the usual reaction is to treat that as an unusual event and/or an outbreak of good sportsmanship.

Some pro or college teams go for two because their place kicker is injured or missing kicks, and/or the team is getting exhausted and so time is not on their side. But the standard "safe" strategy is to play for overtime, and hope to win the coin flip.

[jp the roadgeek]

It's over.  The beer coolers are open.  The Browns have won!!!!!   

[Buck87]

First win since 12-24-16 (a game I attended for $9 on stubhub)

Excellent job by Mayfield in his first NFL game action, and nice to see Buckeye Carlos Hyde have a big game on his birthday.

[formulanone]

Good to see the Browns break that streak.

"The Browns' first win in 635 days"

I hate misleading statistics...nobody in the league was able to win, lose, nor tie any game for roughly 400 of those days.

[mgk920]

I don't think that'd really be a problem, though. Playoff games (where it's already true that a winner has to be decided) have only gone to double overtime once that I can remember.

It has happened a few times: http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap1000000126753/double-overtime-games-in-the-postseason

In NFL playoffs, it is always at least six days between when the winner of one playoff game is determined, and the winner has to play again in the next round. In the regular season, the gap can be shorter with Thursday games (including day games on Thanksgiving) following Sunday games.

I like Mike's idea of no overtime in the regular NFL season. Maybe take it one step more, and count a tie in regulation as a loss for both teams. That would make teams try harder to win in regulation, rather than settle for a tie.

That's why I suggested going to the practice of 'points' in the standings, with three points being awarded to a team for a win and one point for a draw.  Right now, the NFL is essentially two standings points for a win and one for a draw.

Thus, after Week Two, the NFC-North would be:

Green Bay - 1 W, 1 D, 0 L - 4 points
Minnesota - 1 W, 1 D, 0 L - 4 points
Chicago - 1 W, 0 D, 1 L - 3 points
Detroit - 0 W, 0 D, 2 L - 0 points

Mike

[jp the roadgeek]

People detest ties in US sports.  It has been said that ties are like kissing your sister.   The NFL implemented overtime for the 1974 season to prevent ties.  There were 258 ties between 1920 and 1973, and have only been 24 since.  The NHL implemented the shootout to eliminate regular season ties, and of course, baseball and basketball do not have ties (there have been tie games in MLB, but they are replayed and do not count in the standings, and I'm not counting Spring Training games which end after 10 innings if tied).  I'd rather see the NCAA system implemented.

[english si]

Maybe take it one step more, and count a tie in regulation as a loss for both teams.

Thinking about this some more - while it's understandable that teams which haven't won in the allotted time don't get a win but to give teams that haven't lost in the allotted time a loss is equally bad.

Americans love winners, so either you have to treat a failure to win as a loss, or sort it out that there's a winner (and thus a loser)
Brits love pluck, so we treat not-losing as something worthy even if not winning, so want to reward that, while also not wanting to reward not defeating the opposition with a win.

Of course, there's a difference between playing negatively to get a draw, and bravely defending against the odds to deny the other team a win. We don't like the former much, while the latter is treated in the psyche as a win.

Arguably the archetypal English 'plucky draw' (in cricket, a tie is specifically when scores are equal and both teams are all out (twice in test matches), whereas a draw is when time has run out and neither team has won by getting the other team all out (twice in test matches) and scoring more runs) is the Cardiff test against Australia in 2009. England get a decent score in their first innings of 435. Australia reply by scoring and scoring. Due to rain reducing match time, and their need to get England out, they declare their innings over at 674 for 6 wickets (of 10) just before the end of the 4th day of 5. England need 239 runs to force Australia to have to bat again. Australia just needed their 10 wickets (an any surplus runs) to win. By lunch (1/3rd of the way through the day), England were 102 runs for 5 wickets and looking bleak. Collingwood batted for 5 hours, which helped a lot, but with the score 233 for 9, just under an hour left (which includes an extra half-hour if it might mean a team can win) - and Australia needing just the wicket of Anderson or Panesar, neither of whom are good with the bat (they are good with the ball) and then to smack it about carelessly and score any runs England have overtaken them by - easy for the. England overtake them, so that's 12 balls/10 minutes removed from the match to allow for the sides to change around. Even with 20 minutes to go, an Aussie win is still the most likely outcome - the England lead was so small enough to get in just a few balls. But Jimmy and Montie won't get out (I'm pretty sure it was most balls Montie Panesar ever had to face as an England player - and if his 7 runs wasn't a career best, then he never got into double digits). The time runs out. England have salvaged a draw that triumphs in the psyche more than the next match, where England beat Australia at Lords for the first time in over 70 years (I'd totally forgotten that)! We don't honor the England batters who didn't do their job well, but Collingwood who did, and Anderson and Panesar who did other's jobs of running down the clock for them.