Print

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

[JayhawkCO]

....

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know believe that both teams should have to play both their offense and defense in overtime in the playoffs. ....

Difference between opinion and fact noted above!

No, it is indeed a fact that, in order for the game to be decided in a fair manner (or at the very least, as close to fair as possible), both teams must play both units in overtime.

No sir.  That is still an opinion.  (Unless my sarcasm meter is broken, but I don't think it is in this case.)

[webny99]

....

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know believe that both teams should have to play both their offense and defense in overtime in the playoffs. ....

Difference between opinion and fact noted above!

No, it is indeed a fact that, in order for the game to be decided in a fair manner (or at the very least, as close to fair as possible), both teams must play both units in overtime.

No, that is very definitely your opinion. Put differently, suppose the other day Mahomes had thrown a pick-six on the first play in overtime. Buffalo would not have been required to go on offense, nor Kansas City on defense, but I don't think anyone would deem that "unfair"—yet your argument says it would have been unfair (perhaps because you'd theorize that Kansas City should likewise have had the chance to return a fumble or an interception for a touchdown to tie the game?).

Yes, it would still be unfair. It's unfair no matter how many interceptions are thrown, stops are made, or field goals are kicked. It's unfair because the rule itself is unfair, regardless of the actual outcome of the game.

7 of 11 teams that have won the coin toss in overtime in the playoffs have scored a TD on the opening possession. Great offense beats great defense. It's usually only among the best offenses that are playing in the playoffs. That makes it objectively an advantage to win the coin toss, and not as close to 50/50 as possible.

[1]

7 out of 11 isn't that far from even, especially with a small sample size.

[webny99]

7 out of 11 isn't that far from even, especially with a small sample size.

10 of 11 if you count the coin toss winner winning on their second possession.

But it was extremely predictable in all 7 of the cases where a TD was scored on the opening possession. The games where there was at least one defensive stop were much more surprising. Case in point that the team on defense needed something surprising to happen to have any chance at all... and still lost three times out of four.

[JayhawkCO]

7 out of 11 isn't that far from even, especially with a small sample size.

10 of 11 if you count the coin toss winner winning on their second possession.

But it was extremely predictable in all 7 of the cases where a TD was scored on the opening possession. The games where there was at least one defensive stop were much more surprising. Case in point: the team on defense needed something surprising to happen to have any chance at all.

Not quite true.  One of the games, BAL vs. DEN in 2013 went to a second overtime period because no one scored in the first.  The Ravens won the toss and the game, but you clearly can't say that one caused the other.

[1995hoo]

....

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know believe that both teams should have to play both their offense and defense in overtime in the playoffs. ....

Difference between opinion and fact noted above!

No, it is indeed a fact that, in order for the game to be decided in a fair manner (or at the very least, as close to fair as possible), both teams must play both units in overtime.

No, that is very definitely your opinion. Put differently, suppose the other day Mahomes had thrown a pick-six on the first play in overtime. Buffalo would not have been required to go on offense, nor Kansas City on defense, but I don't think anyone would deem that "unfair"—yet your argument says it would have been unfair (perhaps because you'd theorize that Kansas City should likewise have had the chance to return a fumble or an interception for a touchdown to tie the game?).

Yes, it would still be unfair. It's unfair no matter how many interceptions are thrown, stops are made, or field goals are kicked. It's unfair because the rule itself is unfair, regardless of the actual outcome of the game.

....

That is still only your opinion that the rule is unfair. Put differently, a lot of Europeans think sudden-death overtime is unfair and complained bitterly when FIFA adopted it for international soccer (it was later dropped), yet it's well-accepted in hockey—many European leagues have the same rule as the NHL allowing unlimited sudden-death overtime periods in the playoffs (indeed the longest NHL game ended at 16:30 of the sixth overtime—116:30 of overtime, 176:30 total game time—but the longest game ever was in the Norwegian league and ended at 17:14 of the eighth overtime—157:14 of overtime, 217:14 total game time). Recognizing, of course, that the sport is fundamentally different from gridiron football in terms of how possession and scoring chances work, I still think the fact that some people object to sudden-death overtime generally as a matter of principle and other people have no problem with it just underscores that whether a rule is "unfair" is a matter of opinion. (It sure stinks when your team is eliminated from the Stanley Cup Playoffs in sudden-death overtime, though.)

[gr8daynegb]

Maybe if these teams that were on defense first actually played defense then we'd not have so many people whine about fairness(which is peoples opinion).  The reason these teams keep losing first possession is the defending teams keep playing soft coverages because they are afraid of a quick explosive play ending the game.  The offenses aren't trying to do two minute drills here so when you play a defense playing a two minute drill prevent defense the offense is going to literally be getting 5-15 yards at will.  If you play in a not to lose fashion.....you have no right to complain about "fairness".

The Bill Belichick/Mike Vrabel clock rule(taking all those delay of games, but game clock still ran) rule change is a rule that was complained about nut changed because teams were exploiting this rule in a fashion that anyone that competes would say was bush league and against competitive spirit. So are teams exploiting others and competitive spirit by scoring touchdowns?

[JayhawkCO]

[Henry]

The conference championships have lots of possibilities galore, especially the NFC one, because if the Rams win, it'll be the second straight year that a team plays the Super Bowl in its own home stadium. But if the 49ers come out victorious, they'd be headed for a Super Bowl rematch with either the Bengals (who they beat in both meetings) or the Chiefs (who beat them two years ago). Neither AFC opponent has faced the Rams in the Super Bowl, and because the Rams moved back to L.A. in 2016, this means that there won't be a Show-Me (or I-70 for the roadgeeks) matchup against the Chiefs.

[ethanhopkin14]

The conference championships have lots of possibilities galore, especially the NFC one, because if the Rams win, it'll be the second straight year that a team plays the Super Bowl in its own home stadium. But if the 49ers come out victorious, they'd be headed for a Super Bowl rematch with either the Bengals (who they beat in both meetings) or the Chiefs (who beat them two years ago). Neither AFC opponent has faced the Rams in the Super Bowl, and because the Rams moved back to L.A. in 2016, this means that there won't be a Show-Me (or I-70 for the roadgeeks) matchup against the Chiefs.

That would be a trip to have back-to-back teams playing in their home stadiums for the Super Bowl after going 54 Super Bowls with not having one.  The closet were the 49ers at Stanford Stadium and the Rams at the Rose Bowl.  Its crazy to think that there have been so many opportunities and yet it never happened:

Take the Orange Bowl hosting quite a few of the first wave of Super Bowls falling in line with the Dolphins hey-day.  Of course they couldn't be on a Super Bowl trajectory in a year the game was played at the Orange Bowl.

New Orleans hosted quite a few of the first wave of Super Bowls, but it has helped that the Saints until about 2008 have been absolute trash (they sucked according to Jim Mora)

Rice Stadium hosted on in the 70s, but the Oilers 60's dynasty was over by then, plus they played in the Astrodome by then.

San Diego made the Super Bowl in 1994, missing their home field by just a few years.

Looking back, I guess it did help that there was a smattering of older Super Bowls played in non-NFL Stadiums.  The Rose Bowl hosted 5 Super Bowls never once being an NFL venue.  The aforementioned Stanford Stadium and Rice Stadium.  It also helps that about half (or more, I didn't do the math) the Super Bowls were played by at least one team that plays in a cold climate so they would never host a Super Bowl anyway (not counting that weird one played at Metlife Stadium).  It is just weird the amount of times a host team had a good few years or decade and in the middle of it, their stadium was up to host, and for whatever reason, they couldn't get it done that year. 

[webny99]

Yes, it would still be unfair. It's unfair no matter how many interceptions are thrown, stops are made, or field goals are kicked. It's unfair because the rule itself is unfair, regardless of the actual outcome of the game.

....

That is still only your opinion that the rule is unfair. ... Recognizing, of course, that the sport is fundamentally different from gridiron football in terms of how possession and scoring chances work, I still think the fact that some people object to sudden-death overtime generally as a matter of principle and other people have no problem with it just underscores that whether a rule is "unfair" is a matter of opinion.

There's a difference between whether or not someone objects to it, and whether or not it's actually fair in practice. Anyone can think whatever they want about the rule. It doesn't change the fact that each team did not have an equal opportunity to win in overtime.

[JayhawkCO]

Yes, it would still be unfair. It's unfair no matter how many interceptions are thrown, stops are made, or field goals are kicked. It's unfair because the rule itself is unfair, regardless of the actual outcome of the game.

....

That is still only your opinion that the rule is unfair. ... Recognizing, of course, that the sport is fundamentally different from gridiron football in terms of how possession and scoring chances work, I still think the fact that some people object to sudden-death overtime generally as a matter of principle and other people have no problem with it just underscores that whether a rule is "unfair" is a matter of opinion.

There's a difference between whether or not someone objects to it, and whether or not it's actually fair in practice. Anyone can think whatever they want about the rule. It doesn't change the fact that each team did not have an equal opportunity to win in overtime.

Sure they did.  A coin is 50:50. 

[gr8daynegb]

Yes, it would still be unfair. It's unfair no matter how many interceptions are thrown, stops are made, or field goals are kicked. It's unfair because the rule itself is unfair, regardless of the actual outcome of the game.

....

That is still only your opinion that the rule is unfair. ... Recognizing, of course, that the sport is fundamentally different from gridiron football in terms of how possession and scoring chances work, I still think the fact that some people object to sudden-death overtime generally as a matter of principle and other people have no problem with it just underscores that whether a rule is "unfair" is a matter of opinion.

There's a difference between whether or not someone objects to it, and whether or not it's actually fair in practice. Anyone can think whatever they want about the rule. It doesn't change the fact that each team did not have an equal opportunity to win in overtime.

Sure they did.  A coin is 50:50. 

To add if the defending team intercepted a pass or returned a fumble for a TD, or returned a kickoff for a TD that's also game over(Rodgers lost on a fumble vs Cardinals years back and Packers lost game that way).

So despite webny99's naivety here......a game could be won be either team in OT so equal chances for either team to win. He should just be glad being 22 years old(if he told truth to this page) that he didn't have to deal with some of the losses our teams dealt with in the the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's

[ethanhopkin14]

Yes, it would still be unfair. It's unfair no matter how many interceptions are thrown, stops are made, or field goals are kicked. It's unfair because the rule itself is unfair, regardless of the actual outcome of the game.

....

That is still only your opinion that the rule is unfair. ... Recognizing, of course, that the sport is fundamentally different from gridiron football in terms of how possession and scoring chances work, I still think the fact that some people object to sudden-death overtime generally as a matter of principle and other people have no problem with it just underscores that whether a rule is "unfair" is a matter of opinion.

There's a difference between whether or not someone objects to it, and whether or not it's actually fair in practice. Anyone can think whatever they want about the rule. It doesn't change the fact that each team did not have an equal opportunity to win in overtime.

Sure they did.  A coin is 50:50. 

To add if the defending team intercepted a pass or returned a fumble for a TD, or returned a kickoff for a TD that's also game over(Rodgers lost on a fumble vs Cardinals years back and Packers lost game that way).

So despite webny99's naivety here......a game could be won be either team in OT so equal chances for either team to win. He should just be glad being 22 years old(if he told truth to this page) that he didn't have to deal with some of the losses our teams dealt with in the the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's

Word on that. 

1982 NFC Championship Game.  Also known as The Catch Game.  The Catch happens, but little known fact is there was still 58 seconds on the clock and the 49ers kicked off to the Cowboys.  So my team starts to drive.  Danny White hits Drew Pearson on a beautiful slant and gets taken down on a horse collar tackle.  Granted it would be three decades before that tackle was outlawed, but still aggravating that he was that close from breaking that play and The Catch would have been a small footnote in NFL history, because if he slips that tackle he was gone.  Next play Danny White muffs the snap and the 49ers jumped on the ball.  That game was not only heartbreaking, but changed the face of the NFL from the Cowboys dominance to the 49ers dominance.  All over one play that if it had been played in 2010, there would have been a 15 yard penalty added to it (the game was decided by a point so the Cowboys only needed a field goal).

1994 NFC Championship Game.  Again, my Cowboys against the 49ers.  the play in that game was Deion Sanders interfering with Michael Irvin while there was a no-call.  I didn't care then and don't care now.  The Cowboys did that themselves starting the game with Troy Aikman throwing a pick-six and Michael Irvin fumbling the ball which led to another touchdown.  They simply dug a hole they couldn't get out of.  That's the way it was then.  You didn't cry for a tackle to be outlawed and you didn't cry about a no-call.  You simply looked at the facts.  Both games the Cowboys didn't do enough to win the game. 

[jeffandnicole]

7 out of 11 isn't that far from even, especially with a small sample size.

10 of 11 if you count the coin toss winner winning on their second possession.

But isn't your argument that both teams should possess the ball in OT? 

Using those ratios, the team that wins the coin toss has a 64% chance of winning on their opening drive.  The team that wins the coin toss, after both teams have possessed the ball, has a 75% chance of winning on their second drive. Overall, the coin toss winner won 91% of the time regardless.

So what's the point to making sure both teams touch the ball in OT, unless we all just want a cozy huggy feeling that both teams had a chance to win.

[gr8daynegb]

Yes, it would still be unfair. It's unfair no matter how many interceptions are thrown, stops are made, or field goals are kicked. It's unfair because the rule itself is unfair, regardless of the actual outcome of the game.

....

That is still only your opinion that the rule is unfair. ... Recognizing, of course, that the sport is fundamentally different from gridiron football in terms of how possession and scoring chances work, I still think the fact that some people object to sudden-death overtime generally as a matter of principle and other people have no problem with it just underscores that whether a rule is "unfair" is a matter of opinion.

There's a difference between whether or not someone objects to it, and whether or not it's actually fair in practice. Anyone can think whatever they want about the rule. It doesn't change the fact that each team did not have an equal opportunity to win in overtime.

Sure they did.  A coin is 50:50. 

To add if the defending team intercepted a pass or returned a fumble for a TD, or returned a kickoff for a TD that's also game over(Rodgers lost on a fumble vs Cardinals years back and Packers lost game that way).

So despite webny99's naivety here......a game could be won be either team in OT so equal chances for either team to win. He should just be glad being 22 years old(if he told truth to this page) that he didn't have to deal with some of the losses our teams dealt with in the the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's

Word on that. 

1982 NFC Championship Game.  Also known as The Catch Game.  The Catch happens, but little known fact is there was still 58 seconds on the clock and the 49ers kicked off to the Cowboys.  So my team starts to drive.  Danny White hits Drew Pearson on a beautiful slant and gets taken down on a horse collar tackle.  Granted it would be three decades before that tackle was outlawed, but still aggravating that he was that close from breaking that play and The Catch would have been a small footnote in NFL history, because if he slips that tackle he was gone.  Next play Danny White muffs the snap and the 49ers jumped on the ball.  That game was not only heartbreaking, but changed the face of the NFL from the Cowboys dominance to the 49ers dominance.  All over one play that if it had been played in 2010, there would have been a 15 yard penalty added to it (the game was decided by a point so the Cowboys only needed a field goal).

1994 NFC Championship Game.  Again, my Cowboys against the 49ers.  the play in that game was Deion Sanders interfering with Michael Irvin while there was a no-call.  I didn't care then and don't care now.  The Cowboys did that themselves starting the game with Troy Aikman throwing a pick-six and Michael Irvin fumbling the ball which led to another touchdown.  They simply dug a hole they couldn't get out of.  That's the way it was then.  You didn't cry for a tackle to be outlawed and you didn't cry about a no-call.  You simply looked at the facts.  Both games the Cowboys didn't do enough to win the game.

Packers fans will remember the Jan. 3, 1999 playoff game vs the 49ers game.  Jerry Rice fumbled the ball and the Packers picked ball right away, was no replay in that day.  If LeRoy Butler still had not whiffed on the tackle and they didn't let Owens get open(guy couldn't catch anything that day, but hung on to that catch getting belted) the Packers would still have won.

Issue being every time you think you make it fair and equal, there will always be something else to replace it that somehow will become just as important to the fair and equal crowd.



 

[DenverBrian]

7 out of 11 isn't that far from even, especially with a small sample size.

10 of 11 if you count the coin toss winner winning on their second possession.

But isn't your argument that both teams should possess the ball in OT? 

Using those ratios, the team that wins the coin toss has a 64% chance of winning on their opening drive.  The team that wins the coin toss, after both teams have possessed the ball, has a 75% chance of winning on their second drive. Overall, the coin toss winner won 91% of the time regardless.

So what's the point to making sure both teams touch the ball in OT, unless we all just want a cozy huggy feeling that both teams had a chance to win.

So much this. The Millennials and GenZ's are infecting the NFL with their 5th grade soccer club "everyone gets a participation trophy" mentality.

Both teams had a equal chance to win in the first 60 minutes of regulation. Both teams forfeit any sense of "equal opportunity" if they can't muster more points than the other team in the actual game.

[webny99]

So despite webny99's naivety here......a game could be won be either team in OT so equal chances for either team to win. He should just be glad being 22 years old(if he told truth to this page) that he didn't have to deal with some of the losses our teams dealt with in the the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's

The only naivety I see here is false equivalency between a chance and an equal chance.

[webny99]

7 out of 11 isn't that far from even, especially with a small sample size.

10 of 11 if you count the coin toss winner winning on their second possession.

But isn't your argument that both teams should possess the ball in OT? 

Using those ratios, the team that wins the coin toss has a 64% chance of winning on their opening drive.  The team that wins the coin toss, after both teams have possessed the ball, has a 75% chance of winning on their second drive. Overall, the coin toss winner won 91% of the time regardless.

So what's the point to making sure both teams touch the ball in OT, unless we all just want a cozy huggy feeling that both teams had a chance to win.

The point is that 64% is still not 50% (I know it's a small sample size, but it seems about right). You're never going to get exactly 50%, but you can certainly get a lot closer than 64%.

So much this. The Millennials and GenZ's are infecting the NFL with their 5th grade soccer club "everyone gets a participation trophy" mentality.

No, speaking for myself at least, I'm just interested in making overtime better. I find it really disappointing to get such a predictable ending to a classic game. You simply can't have one team score to force OT, immediately score again in OT, and that's ball game. It's a terrible injustice to the crazy back-and-forth game that occurred to have it end with two straight possessions by one team. That's why personally I pretty much automatically remove any game that went to OT from "all time classic" list, except maybe 28-3 because, well, you know. But the most profitable sports league in the world can do better with its overtime rules... playoffs in particular.

Both teams had a equal chance to win in the first 60 minutes of regulation. Both teams forfeit any sense of "equal opportunity" if they can't muster more points than the other team in the actual game.

Overtime is "the actual game". Both teams had equal chance in regulation, they should have roughly equal chance in overtime too.

[1995hoo]

Ben Roethlisberger just confirmed he's retiring.

[JayhawkCO]

The point is that 64% is still not 50% (I know it's a small sample size, but it seems about right). You're never going to get exactly 50%, but you can certainly get a lot closer than 64%.

I mean, if there are 11 possessions in a game and one team gets 6 and one team gets 5, that means one team gets 10% more of the possessions in regulation (55% to 45%).  Is that fair?  It's obviously easier to score on offense.

[webny99]

The point is that 64% is still not 50% (I know it's a small sample size, but it seems about right). You're never going to get exactly 50%, but you can certainly get a lot closer than 64%.

I mean, if there are 11 possessions in a game and one team gets 6 and one team gets 5, that means one team gets 10% more of the possessions in regulation (55% to 45%).  Is that fair?  It's obviously easier to score on offense.

Yes, because it's going to be approximately equal (11 total drives is towards the low end of the spectrum) and it's not decided in advance. You're almost certainly going to have stops, punts, turnovers, etc. over the course of an entire game. It's not nearly as likely on a single drive.

[thspfc]

The point is that 64% is still not 50% (I know it's a small sample size, but it seems about right). You're never going to get exactly 50%, but you can certainly get a lot closer than 64%.

I mean, if there are 11 possessions in a game and one team gets 6 and one team gets 5, that means one team gets 10% more of the possessions in regulation (55% to 45%).  Is that fair?  It's obviously easier to score on offense.

I’d be impressed if you found a game in the last 15 years that had fewer than like 13 possessions.

[JayhawkCO]

The point is that 64% is still not 50% (I know it's a small sample size, but it seems about right). You're never going to get exactly 50%, but you can certainly get a lot closer than 64%.

I mean, if there are 11 possessions in a game and one team gets 6 and one team gets 5, that means one team gets 10% more of the possessions in regulation (55% to 45%).  Is that fair?  It's obviously easier to score on offense.

I’d be impressed if you found a game in the last 15 years that had fewer than like 13 possessions.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201311180car.htm#all_vis_drives

[thspfc]

The point is that 64% is still not 50% (I know it's a small sample size, but it seems about right). You're never going to get exactly 50%, but you can certainly get a lot closer than 64%.

I mean, if there are 11 possessions in a game and one team gets 6 and one team gets 5, that means one team gets 10% more of the possessions in regulation (55% to 45%).  Is that fair?  It's obviously easier to score on offense.

I’d be impressed if you found a game in the last 15 years that had fewer than like 13 possessions.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201311180car.htm#all_vis_drives

I'm impressed, but the fact that you linked to a game from 8 years ago that had 12 possessions - still more than your outrageous number of 11 - is more of an indictment on your point about the 11 possessions than it is on webny99's point about overtime being "unfair".

For the record, I'm neutral on this, just pointing out how this is kinda odd.

Edit: I counted wrong. There were actually 14 possessions in that game. And, that game is apparently famous for having very few possessions. The average number of possessions in a game is 24.

Lol