Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JayhawkCO]

For the current OT haters, I kinda like this idea - https://arcticdark.com/fieldpositionauction/index.html.

Also, just a reminder that the Chiefs proposed an OT format where each team got the ball after they got burned against NE a couple of years ago.  They were the only team that voted for it.

[Henry]

So glad to see my hated rivals lose on Saturday, thanks to the 49ers!

Which brings up the question: Since I now live in another NFC West city (the one where Russell Wilson is, for now), I wonder who those up there will be rooting against more, because both teams can't lose? Although Rams-49ers doesn't quite carry the same vibe as, say, Dodgers-Giants, this is sure to be a very heated championship game.

As for the AFC, the Bengals are far more intriguing and have a great future ahead of them, but the Chiefs are still the class of that conference, and will probably go to their third Super Bowl in a row.

[1995hoo]

I saw a comment saying that Josh Allen guessed tails and lost the game, to which someone else responded that instead of chasing tail, he should ask for head next time.

[webny99]

Also, just a reminder that the Chiefs proposed an OT format where each team got the ball after they got burned against NE a couple of years ago.  They were the only team that voted for it.

Oh yeah... remember this?

The friend whose house we go to for the Super Bowl is a big Chiefs fan.  We were there when he broke the armrest of his sofa by punching it during a game once.  So yeah, he has a very good reason to cheer against the Buccaneers this year.  But, back in 2019, he had zero reason to choose one team over the other, yet he rooted against the Patriots anyway simply because they "always win".

Well, considering the Chiefs had just lost to the Patriots in the championship that season, isn't that reason enough to root against them?

Yeah, remember that broken sofa incident I mentioned?  Guess what day that happened...

So as much as I feel like the end of last night's game was an injustice, it is one small piece of justice that the Chiefs have been there too... that 2018 AFC title game loss was equally crushing.

The other small justice is that the teams that lost this weekend lost in the correct order... Bills>Bucs>Packers>Titans. Bills absolutely deserved to be one of the last 5 teams in the race for the Super Bowl. It's too bad for them that they had to play the Chiefs in this round, but I'm glad they at least got the final time slot.

My personal feeling is that overtime should be one 10-minute period that's just like regulation. You play all 10 minutes, if someone's ahead at the end of the 10 minutes they win, if it's still tied it becomes sudden death with any score.

[JayhawkCO]

My personal feeling is that overtime should be one 10-minute period that's just like regulation. You play all 10 minutes, if someone's ahead at the end of the 10 minutes they win, if it's still tied it becomes sudden death with any score.

But how do you determine who gets the ball for the 2nd OT?  Coin toss?  Then you get the same bitching.  (Not from you.  From others.)

[Max Rockatansky]

My personal feeling is that overtime should be one 10-minute period that's just like regulation. You play all 10 minutes, if someone's ahead at the end of the 10 minutes they win, if it's still tied it becomes sudden death with any score.

But how do you determine who gets the ball for the 2nd OT?  Coin toss?  Then you get the same bitching.  (Not from you.  From others.)

Or just play another ten minute overtime with no sudden death.  I don’t think that it is unreasonable to play until there is an actual decisive winner in the playoffs. 

[JayhawkCO]

My personal feeling is that overtime should be one 10-minute period that's just like regulation. You play all 10 minutes, if someone's ahead at the end of the 10 minutes they win, if it's still tied it becomes sudden death with any score.

But how do you determine who gets the ball for the 2nd OT?  Coin toss?  Then you get the same bitching.  (Not from you.  From others.)

Or just play another ten minute overtime with no sudden death.  I don’t think that it is unreasonable to play until there is an actual decisive winner in the playoffs.

I don't necessarily either, but then some star pulls his hamstring because of overexertion and everyone cries then too.

[jmacswimmer]

My personal feeling is that overtime should be one 10-minute period that's just like regulation. You play all 10 minutes, if someone's ahead at the end of the 10 minutes they win, if it's still tied it becomes sudden death with any score.

But how do you determine who gets the ball for the 2nd OT?  Coin toss?  Then you get the same bitching.  (Not from you.  From others.)

Or just play another ten minute overtime with no sudden death.  I don’t think that it is unreasonable to play until there is an actual decisive winner in the playoffs.

I don't necessarily either, but then some star pulls his hamstring because of overexertion and everyone cries then too.

Here's my crazy idea instead of a 2nd OT (for playoffs only):

If still tied at the end of OT, go to a soccer/hockey-style shootout: each team attempts a 2-pt conversion back-and-forth until one converts + the other doesn't.

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^

Personally I’m not a fan of shootout play.  It is a totally different dynamic than the regulation game and not a good representation of how a contest should be decided.  It actually bothers me a lot that it made into the NHL because people got upset there was regular season ties.  The college football system of overtime’s really illustrates how poorly it works in deciding a game.

My personal feeling is that overtime should be one 10-minute period that's just like regulation. You play all 10 minutes, if someone's ahead at the end of the 10 minutes they win, if it's still tied it becomes sudden death with any score.

But how do you determine who gets the ball for the 2nd OT?  Coin toss?  Then you get the same bitching.  (Not from you.  From others.)

Or just play another ten minute overtime with no sudden death.  I don’t think that it is unreasonable to play until there is an actual decisive winner in the playoffs.

I don't necessarily either, but then some star pulls his hamstring because of overexertion and everyone cries then too.

That’s the breaks I say to that.  The likeliness of an NFL game going multiple overtime’s is minimal given there is multiple ways to score. 

[JayhawkCO]

My personal feeling is that overtime should be one 10-minute period that's just like regulation. You play all 10 minutes, if someone's ahead at the end of the 10 minutes they win, if it's still tied it becomes sudden death with any score.

But how do you determine who gets the ball for the 2nd OT?  Coin toss?  Then you get the same bitching.  (Not from you.  From others.)

Or just play another ten minute overtime with no sudden death.  I don’t think that it is unreasonable to play until there is an actual decisive winner in the playoffs.

I don't necessarily either, but then some star pulls his hamstring because of overexertion and everyone cries then too.

Here's my crazy idea instead of a 2nd OT (for playoffs only):

If still tied at the end of OT, go to a soccer/hockey-style shootout: each team attempts a 2-pt conversion back-and-forth until one converts + the other doesn't.

Basically go college football at that point. 


I don't know if anyone read the link I posted above, but one person's suggestion was an auction system.  Both teams submit an auction of where they're willing to start the drive if they got the ball first.  Say McDermott says he'll take it on the 18 and Reid picks the 14.  Chiefs get the ball first since they were more aggressive.  I thought that was interesting.

The other suggestion I've seen is something the Ravens submitted where one team picks the yard line where the drive will start, and the other team picks if they want to be on offense or defense.  Kind of similar, but basically Reid says, "We'll start on the 14," and then McDermott counters with "We can score from there, we'll take ball first.".

[1995hoo]

Considering that only six NFL/AFL games have gone to a second overtime, no NFL game has gone beyond 22:40 of overtime (the 1971 Christmas Day playoff game in which Miami beat Kansas City 27–24 at 7:40 of the second overtime), and only one pro football game has ever made it to a third overtime (a 1984 USFL playoff game in which the LA Express beat the Michigan Panthers 27–21 at 3:33 of the third overtime), there's no reason not to keep playing until someone wins. You don't change the rules to eliminate the possibility of multiple overtime periods when they're that statistically rare.

It's sort of like the people who complain about unlimited overtime in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. About 15 years ago, there was a proposal from some reporters to use a shootout if a game wasn't decided by the end of the third overtime. But (as of the end of last season's playoffs) only 14 games have ever gone beyond a third overtime—barely one percent of all NHL playoff overtime games in league history—and approximately 94 percent of games are decided in the first two overtimes (and, again, those percentages refer to the percentage of total overtime games, so they're far lower than the percentage of total playoff games—which is obviously also true in the NFL example). It makes no sense to change the rules to avoid the possibility of something that is so rare.

[webny99]

My personal feeling is that overtime should be one 10-minute period that's just like regulation. You play all 10 minutes, if someone's ahead at the end of the 10 minutes they win, if it's still tied it becomes sudden death with any score.

But how do you determine who gets the ball for the 2nd OT?  Coin toss?  Then you get the same bitching.  (Not from you.  From others.)

Or just play another ten minute overtime with no sudden death.  I don’t think that it is unreasonable to play until there is an actual decisive winner in the playoffs.

Right, my overtime suggestion would be playoffs-only. I think the current format is fine for the regular season.

In the playoffs, I'd be fine with just adding 10 minutes to the clock if it's still tied after 1 OT period and keeping the game going sudden death style from wherever the teams are on the field. Can't think of any reason why that wouldn't work.

[JayhawkCO]

My personal feeling is that overtime should be one 10-minute period that's just like regulation. You play all 10 minutes, if someone's ahead at the end of the 10 minutes they win, if it's still tied it becomes sudden death with any score.

But how do you determine who gets the ball for the 2nd OT?  Coin toss?  Then you get the same bitching.  (Not from you.  From others.)

Or just play another ten minute overtime with no sudden death.  I don’t think that it is unreasonable to play until there is an actual decisive winner in the playoffs.

Right, my overtime suggestion would be playoffs-only. I think the current format is fine for the regular season.

In the playoffs, I'd be fine with just adding 10 minutes to the clock if it's still tied after 1 OT period and keeping the game going sudden death style from wherever the teams are on the field. Can't think of any reason why that wouldn't work.

Teams would stall post 8:00 in the OT period likely.  I don't know that it's a detriment, but it's something that would for sure happen.

[jeffandnicole]

If they want to reduce overtime: eliminate it entirely. If it's tied at the end of regulation, whoever was ahead most recently wins.

If the team who scored first scored on their opening drive, and were never losing after that and the game ended in a tie, they won as a result...of a coin flip.

Most other proposals either have downsides that people aren't considering that cour occur throughout a game, not just in the final few minutes, or overly complicate OT. Other than allowing both teams to have the ball in OT, regardless if the first score is a TD ot FG, I don't see any option that doesn't have a downside.

[thspfc]

Bills got screwed last night. Enough said.

How so?

The Chiefs are the big bad winners 😡 while Bills are the team that was bad for so long and has never won a title. Therefore, everyone wants the Bills to win because NFL fans have the patience of grasshoppers with ADHD, and when the Bills lose, they automatically must have gotten robbed by the refs because the big bad winners won.

Also missed the part where the game was rigged for Brady yesterday. First the Packers, then the Bucs don’t get help from the refs? Seriously, NFL?

[JayhawkCO]

Bills got screwed last night. Enough said.

How so?

The Chiefs are the big bad winners 😡 while Bills are the team that was bad for so long and has never won a title. Therefore, everyone wants the Bills to win because NFL fans have the patience of grasshoppers with ADHD, and when the Bills lose, they automatically must have gotten robbed by the refs because the big bad winners won.

Also missed the part where the game was rigged for Brady yesterday. First the Packers, then the Bucs don’t get help from the refs? Seriously, NFL?

I think I saw it on Twitter, but last night was the best reffed game I've seen this year.  Those guys should be in charge of the Superbowl.  No dumb calls.  Everything that was called was pretty obvious, not ticky tack stuff.  You maybe could argue Tyreek could have been called for taunting, but I hate that penalty so much anyway that good riddance.

[webny99]

Bills got screwed last night. Enough said.

How so?

The Chiefs are the big bad winners 😡 while Bills are the team that was bad for so long and has never won a title. Therefore, everyone wants the Bills to win because NFL fans have the patience of grasshoppers with ADHD, and when the Bills lose, they automatically must have gotten robbed by the refs because the big bad winners won.

My guess is "screwed" was referring to the overtime rules, not the refs. There really wasn't anything egregious on the reffing front.

[thspfc]

Bills got screwed last night. Enough said.

How so?

The Chiefs are the big bad winners 😡 while Bills are the team that was bad for so long and has never won a title. Therefore, everyone wants the Bills to win because NFL fans have the patience of grasshoppers with ADHD, and when the Bills lose, they automatically must have gotten robbed by the refs because the big bad winners won.

My guess is "screwed" was referring to the overtime rules, not the refs. There really wasn't anything egregious on the reffing front.

I just saw this: after the Chiefs lost to the Patriots in the '18 AFC title game, there was a proposal by the Chiefs at an owners' meeting to change the overtime rules. The Bills were reportedly against changing the rules . . .

[JayhawkCO]

Bills got screwed last night. Enough said.

How so?

The Chiefs are the big bad winners 😡 while Bills are the team that was bad for so long and has never won a title. Therefore, everyone wants the Bills to win because NFL fans have the patience of grasshoppers with ADHD, and when the Bills lose, they automatically must have gotten robbed by the refs because the big bad winners won.

My guess is "screwed" was referring to the overtime rules, not the refs. There really wasn't anything egregious on the reffing front.

I just saw this: after the Chiefs lost to the Patriots in the '18 AFC title game, there was a proposal by the Chiefs at an owners' meeting to change the overtime rules. The Bills were reportedly against changing the rules . . .

For the current OT haters, I kinda like this idea - https://arcticdark.com/fieldpositionauction/index.html.

Also, just a reminder that the Chiefs proposed an OT format where each team got the ball after they got burned against NE a couple of years ago.  They were the only team that voted for it.

[webny99]

And if Josh Allen's comments are any indication, the Bills might not support it even now. As much as I'd like to see it, I don't expect any change to the overtime rules.

Ultimately, I think you have to assume a loss if you let it get to OT, especially for a franchise as heartbreak-prone as the Bills. The Bills' chance to win was to not allow a FG with 13 seconds. As much as it pains me to say this, "13 seconds is too much time for Mahomes!" is undoubtedly going to be a much more enduring narrative than "Allen didn't get a chance in OT!".

[DenverBrian]

My personal feeling is that overtime should be one 10-minute period that's just like regulation. You play all 10 minutes, if someone's ahead at the end of the 10 minutes they win, if it's still tied it becomes sudden death with any score.

But how do you determine who gets the ball for the 2nd OT?  Coin toss?  Then you get the same bitching.  (Not from you.  From others.)

Or just play another ten minute overtime with no sudden death.  I don’t think that it is unreasonable to play until there is an actual decisive winner in the playoffs. 

Or...just have coaches who have common sense clock management and, with 13 seconds left and the lead, kick the ball off to force a return instead of kicking out of the end zone.   

The level of whining from western NY is out of control.

[NWI_Irish96]

And if Josh Allen's comments are any indication, the Bills might not support it even now. As much as I'd like to see it, I don't expect any change to the overtime rules.

Ultimately, I think you have to assume a loss if you let it get to OT, especially for a franchise as heartbreak-prone as the Bills. The Bills' chance to win was to not allow a FG with 13 seconds. As much as it pains me to say this, "13 seconds is too much time for Mahomes!" is undoubtedly going to be a much more enduring narrative than "Allen didn't get a chance in OT!".

This isn't specific to the Bills, because I haven't seen anybody try this, but the defense really ought to deliberately commit defensive holding on every play in that situation. Unlike pass interference, holding is just a 5 yard penalty. 13 seconds isn't enough time to get very far down the field in 5 yard chunks. I'd have defensive players flat out tackling every eligible receiver right at the snap.

[JayhawkCO]

And if Josh Allen's comments are any indication, the Bills might not support it even now. As much as I'd like to see it, I don't expect any change to the overtime rules.

Ultimately, I think you have to assume a loss if you let it get to OT, especially for a franchise as heartbreak-prone as the Bills. The Bills' chance to win was to not allow a FG with 13 seconds. As much as it pains me to say this, "13 seconds is too much time for Mahomes!" is undoubtedly going to be a much more enduring narrative than "Allen didn't get a chance in OT!".

This isn't specific to the Bills, because I haven't seen anybody try this, but the defense really ought to deliberately commit defensive holding on every play in that situation. Unlike pass interference, holding is just a 5 yard penalty. 13 seconds isn't enough time to get very far down the field in 5 yard chunks. I'd have defensive players flat out tackling every eligible receiver right at the snap.

You can't.  They changed the rules back in 2017 that if you commit a penalty on the same down, that the penalty yards will be enforced and then they'll bring the clock back to what it was when the play started.  You'd get a couple seconds for one penalty, but then the next penalty would not have any time run out.

The NFL did this in response to the Ravens beating the Bengals similarly in 2016.

Edit - Section 3, Article 3.

[jemacedo9]

And if Josh Allen's comments are any indication, the Bills might not support it even now. As much as I'd like to see it, I don't expect any change to the overtime rules.

Ultimately, I think you have to assume a loss if you let it get to OT, especially for a franchise as heartbreak-prone as the Bills. The Bills' chance to win was to not allow a FG with 13 seconds. As much as it pains me to say this, "13 seconds is too much time for Mahomes!" is undoubtedly going to be a much more enduring narrative than "Allen didn't get a chance in OT!".

This isn't specific to the Bills, because I haven't seen anybody try this, but the defense really ought to deliberately commit defensive holding on every play in that situation. Unlike pass interference, holding is just a 5 yard penalty. 13 seconds isn't enough time to get very far down the field in 5 yard chunks. I'd have defensive players flat out tackling every eligible receiver right at the snap.

You can't.  They changed the rules back in 2017 that if you commit a penalty on the same down, that the penalty yards will be enforced and then they'll bring the clock back to what it was when the play started.  You'd get a couple seconds for one penalty, but then the next penalty would not have any time run out.

The NFL did this in response to the Ravens beating the Bengals that way in 2016.

In addition, I believe the game cannot end on a defensive penalty by rule.

[NWI_Irish96]

And if Josh Allen's comments are any indication, the Bills might not support it even now. As much as I'd like to see it, I don't expect any change to the overtime rules.

Ultimately, I think you have to assume a loss if you let it get to OT, especially for a franchise as heartbreak-prone as the Bills. The Bills' chance to win was to not allow a FG with 13 seconds. As much as it pains me to say this, "13 seconds is too much time for Mahomes!" is undoubtedly going to be a much more enduring narrative than "Allen didn't get a chance in OT!".

This isn't specific to the Bills, because I haven't seen anybody try this, but the defense really ought to deliberately commit defensive holding on every play in that situation. Unlike pass interference, holding is just a 5 yard penalty. 13 seconds isn't enough time to get very far down the field in 5 yard chunks. I'd have defensive players flat out tackling every eligible receiver right at the snap.

You can't.  They changed the rules back in 2017 that if you commit a penalty on the same down, that the penalty yards will be enforced and then they'll bring the clock back to what it was when the play started.  You'd get a couple seconds for one penalty, but then the next penalty would not have any time run out.

The NFL did this in response to the Ravens beating the Bengals similarly in 2016.

Edit - Section 3, Article 3.

Well, then at least do it once. Chiefs would have had the ball at the 30 with 8-9 seconds left.