NFL (2024 Season)

[JayhawkCO]

The point isn't how many possessions in a given game there are.  The point is if there is an odd number, being 84 possessions vs. 85, you could say that's unfair. 

Does it make it unfair that if you are the visiting team in baseball and you go into the 9th tied and you break the tie in the top of the 9th, but you still have to face the home team in the bottom of the 9th as opposed to the same scenario playing you, you as the visiting team score nothing in the top of the 9th, but all the home team has to do is score one run and the game automatically ends without you getting a chance to even the score or best it?  No, you had your chance and you blew it.  You know those are the breaks when you go into the game. 

I swear, so many times I hear about football when a person's team loses "they just ran out of time!"  No they didn't.  They had the same amount of time as every other game they have ever played, just this game they chose to mess around at the beginning of the game.

It reminds me of people who says the plays at the end of the game are important.  Incorrect.  They are all as important as all of them.  That run for a loss with 13:22 left in the 1st quarter is just as important as that run for a loss with 0:21 left in the 4th.  You can't just throw away all the times during the game you screwed up and just say that doesn't count, then miraculously get into overtime and get bent that you didn't get a shot to tie or best the other guy.  You had all game to tie or best them.

It's generation of people playing rock/paper/scissors who play one time, loses then says "best two out of three".  You can't go into something knowing it has a chance to not go your way, then when it doesn't change the rules. 

That's the point.  You can always have a disparity in possessions, making things "not fair".  Sports aren't fair.  You try the best you can, but if you go up against someone better, you just lose no matter how hard you try.

Exactly.  Now, I'm okay with switching the overtime format if it's more exciting, but it's not inherently "unfair".

[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

The point isn't how many possessions in a given game there are.  The point is if there is an odd number, being 84 possessions vs. 85, you could say that's unfair. 

Does it make it unfair that if you are the visiting team in baseball and you go into the 9th tied and you break the tie in the top of the 9th, but you still have to face the home team in the bottom of the 9th as opposed to the same scenario playing you, you as the visiting team score nothing in the top of the 9th, but all the home team has to do is score one run and the game automatically ends without you getting a chance to even the score or best it?  No, you had your chance and you blew it.  You know those are the breaks when you go into the game. 

I swear, so many times I hear about football when a person's team loses "they just ran out of time!"  No they didn't.  They had the same amount of time as every other game they have ever played, just this game they chose to mess around at the beginning of the game.

It reminds me of people who says the plays at the end of the game are important.  Incorrect.  They are all as important as all of them.  That run for a loss with 13:22 left in the 1st quarter is just as important as that run for a loss with 0:21 left in the 4th.  You can't just throw away all the times during the game you screwed up and just say that doesn't count, then miraculously get into overtime and get bent that you didn't get a shot to tie or best the other guy.  You had all game to tie or best them.

It's generation of people playing rock/paper/scissors who play one time, loses then says "best two out of three".  You can't go into something knowing it has a chance to not go your way, then when it doesn't change the rules. 

That's the point.  You can always have a disparity in possessions, making things "not fair".  Sports aren't fair.  You try the best you can, but if you go up against someone better, you just lose no matter how hard you try.

I agree, I just think it might be worth pointing out two things: 1) teams can control the number of possessions they get (they can't control a coin flip), and 2), 11 or 85 or 1,000,001 possessions is nearly impossible so I don't see why that example should be used. If you want to say 23, then fine.

[webny99]

...
It's generation of people playing rock/paper/scissors who play one time, loses then says "best two out of three".  You can't go into something knowing it has a chance to not go your way, then when it doesn't change the rules. 

That's the point.  You can always have a disparity in possessions, making things "not fair".  Sports aren't fair.  You try the best you can, but if you go up against someone better, you just lose no matter how hard you try.

Exactly.  Now, I'm okay with switching the overtime format if it's more exciting, but it's not inherently "unfair".

Nobody's saying that any number of possessions in regulation is unfair. However, one coin flip, one possession, game over... I think that is inherently unfair. This isn't a new thing. People, including me, have recognized this for a long time.

Now, that's also not to be confused with saying that either team should have won in regulation. Of course they should have. But both teams could have, and neither did. That's why overtime has to exist.

[jeffandnicole]

It reminds me of people who says the plays at the end of the game are important.  Incorrect.  They are all as important as all of them.  That run for a loss with 13:22 left in the 1st quarter is just as important as that run for a loss with 0:21 left in the 4th.  You can't just throw away all the times during the game you screwed up and just say that doesn't count, then miraculously get into overtime and get bent that you didn't get a shot to tie or best the other guy.  You had all game to tie or best them.

This is absolutely 100% true.  Too many people focus on the last quarter, or the final few minutes of the last quarter.  There are people that won't even tune in to a game until there's a few minutes remaining.   

About the only time earlier actions in the game (be it plays, penalties, etc) are brought up is when a team uses a timeout (or loses a challenge) early in a half, and they'll remark that that's one less timeout they'll have available later.  But otherwise, plays and penalties early in a game, or even in the 3rd quarter, are often overlooked.

...teams can control the number of possessions they get (they can't control a coin flip)...

They can to a point. But a team (or both teams) that run short plays can take 8 or more minutes off the clock in a single possession.  A team that goes 3 and out with incomplete passes takes very little time off the clock.  A quarter can quickly flow with just a few possessions, or as we saw at the end of the Bills/Chiefs game, several possessions can happen in a very little bit of time.

Nobody's saying that any number of possessions in regulation is unfair. However, one coin flip, one possession, game over... I think that is inherently unfair. This isn't a new thing. People, including me, have recognized this for a long time.

Many people have recognized this.  The solution though is much harder to figure out, that is *still fair*.  Several solutions have been brought up on this forum, every one of which has pros and cons to them.  And you yourself, with your very own numbers, show that even if the 1st team doesn't score a TD, they are still highly likely to win.  What we need to see would be stats from college football where both teams must touch the ball, to see who wins more often.  If it's still roughly 70% or above for the team that has possession first in OT, then, again, this is all a cozy fuzzy feel-good option that isn't any better than what we have now.

[webny99]

With regards to Bills-Chiefs specifically... this is probably unpopular, but I think the Bills should have gone for two after their final touchdown. If you get it, you're up 4 and they need a TD. If you don't get it, you're only up 2, but still in great position and at least you know overtime is out of the picture. It would have saved this whole overtime debate and been WAY easier to stomach than what actually happened... and it would have been a better ending for neutral fans, too.

And to come full circle, it's kind of funny that the saying is "whoever gets the ball last is going to win" only applies in regulation, and then suddenly in overtime, it becomes "whoever gets the ball first is going to win". In this case, Chiefs went 2-0, Bills went 0-2. You simply cannot have overtime rules that allow that to happen to end a game, especially in a playoff game.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

With regards to Bills-Chiefs specifically... this is probably unpopular, but I think the Bills should have gone for two after their final touchdown. If you get it, you're up 4 and they need a TD. If you don't get it, you're only up 2, but still in great position and at least you know overtime is out of the picture. It would have saved this whole overtime debate and been WAY easier to stomach than what actually happened... and it would have been a better ending for neutral fans, too.

But if you go for 2 and miss it, a FG beats you entirely.

[jeffandnicole]

With regards to Bills-Chiefs specifically... this is probably unpopular, but I think the Bills should have gone for two after their final touchdown. If you get it, you're up 4 and they need a TD. If you don't get it, you're only up 2, but still in great position and at least you know overtime is out of the picture. It would have saved this whole overtime debate and been WAY easier to stomach than what actually happened... and it would have been a better ending for neutral fans, too.

And to come full circle, it's kind of funny that the saying is "whoever gets the ball last is going to win" only applies in regulation, and then suddenly in overtime, it becomes "whoever gets the ball first is going to win". In this case, Chiefs went 2-0, Bills went 0-2. You simply cannot have overtime rules that allow that to happen to end a game, especially in a playoff game.

The Ravens tried that this season and were unsuccessful.  Twice, if I recall.

If they went for 1, and then dealt with OT, they may have won.  And winning just one of those 2 games may have allowed them to make the playoffs.

...You simply cannot have overtime rules that allow that to happen to end a game, especially in a playoff game.

OK, we get the point.

[gr8daynegb]

I just want to hear about equal chances to win at hockey now.

Obviously people like webny99 have made up their mind for wanting both teams having a possession in OT(I'm fine with college and high school doing this, pros you get  paid to score or prevent it) and those like myself that think rules are file as they are. 

Will give you some advise though webny99 being you are 22(assuming you are telling the truth), people have been trying to make all sports equal/fair in rules long before you and me so be ready for the next so call unequal or unfair thing to arise.

[webny99]

Nobody's saying that any number of possessions in regulation is unfair. However, one coin flip, one possession, game over... I think that is inherently unfair. This isn't a new thing. People, including me, have recognized this for a long time.

Many people have recognized this.  The solution though is much harder to figure out, that is *still fair*.  Several solutions have been brought up on this forum, every one of which has pros and cons to them.  And you yourself, with your very own numbers, show that even if the 1st team doesn't score a TD, they are still highly likely to win.  What we need to see would be stats from college football where both teams must touch the ball, to see who wins more often.  If it's still roughly 70% or above for the team that has possession first in OT, then, again, this is all a cozy fuzzy feel-good option that isn't any better than what we have now.

College football is closer to 50/50... but I think their system, starting at the opponent's 25 yard line, is too bush league for the NFL.

Personally, I would support either a full 10 minute overtime that's played to its conclusion and then sudden death if it's still tied, or just sudden death (or the rules we have now) beginning after each team gets a possession.

The Ravens tried that this season and were unsuccessful.  Twice, if I recall.
If they went for 1, and then dealt with OT, they may have won.  And winning just one of those 2 games may have allowed them to make the playoffs.

But if you go for 2 and miss it, a FG beats you entirely.

Yeah, I know... for those saying you should win in regulation, I think going for two is a decision that would increase your odds of winning in regulation and avoid the whole overtime saga entirely. If the Chiefs then get a FG, they win, and so be it. Easy to say in hindsight, but I think pretty much any Bills fan - and probably many neutral fans, too - would have preferred it to end that way rather than the drawn-out pain of them scoring 9 straight without Josh Allen touching the ball. And the way the offense was playing, it was going to be the offense that won the game, so they probably get the 2 and then it doesn't matter.

Slightly different situation with the Ravens since the entire game(s) came down to the 2-pt play, but same basic idea. There was also footage of I believe the Packers game where you could see Harbaugh asking his players if they wanted to go for two and they said yes, so that was obviously a factor.

[ethanhopkin14]

I must go back and say I am not a fan of overtime in the first place.  Not saying I don't want to see it because there has to be a winner, just not a fan of the process to get there.

Let me explain.

There seems to be some muddy water in the thinking of how you reach overtime/extra innings.  Most people think "it was an equal played game and they were tied at the end" and some people say "That was an amazing comeback by Team X to tie Team Y".  This is the glorious version, or also known as revisionist history.  I instead say "What where you doing all game?" or "How can you blow that lead??"  It's the same way I feel about the current NFL parity.  Some think the games are ultra-competitive and make them very entertaining.  I say the games are close because they are played horribly on both sides.

So when you get to overtime, basically you get what you get.  If the rules are unfair, tough.  Shouldn't have been there in the first place.  You should have won the game in regulation instead if blowing the lead or if you came back, you really should have lost if the other team didn't let you back in.  Basically all rules and bets are off in overtime.  Hell, let the officials leave the field in overtime and you just get what you get.  Again, don't want an unfair shake in overtime, don't allow yourself to be in a position for the game to go to overtime.  Win the game 30-0.  If you can't do that, you weren't good enough to begin with. 

[1995hoo]

...

Obviously people like webny99 have made up their mind for wanting both teams having a possession in OT(I'm fine with college and high school doing this, pros you get  paid to score or prevent it) and those like myself that think rules are file as they are. 

Will give you some advise though webny99 being you are 22(assuming you are telling the truth), people have been trying to make all sports equal/fair in rules long before you and me so be ready for the next so call unequal or unfair thing to arise.

In case it wasn't clear, I don't object to webny99 having the opinion he does or to his expressing that opinion–I only objected to the way he presented it as though it were an inarguable fact.

[DenverBrian]

If you support a 10-minute overtime that plays normally, and then sudden death after that..then why not just support a 60-minute regular game that plays normally, and then sudden death after that?

I agree with the rock/paper/scissors analogy. The loser will ALWAYS want another chance. By the logic of some on this board, you'd have NFL players out on the field for 8 or 12 hours. Baseball players can do that; football players cannot.

In seeing all the alternatives, I'm tending towards one of two options:

1) Change the rules so that if a team wins the opening coin toss and defers to the second half, it immediately sets their choice for any potential OT to give the other team the choice in OT. That introduces an interesting strategy element into the game, giving control to the coaches, and everyone would know from the opening kickoff who would get the ball first if the game falls into a tie.

2) Tie-break at the end of regulation for any number of stats. Total yards by each team; time of possession; percentage of each team's total points that were scored by touchdown; fewest penalty yards. Put three or four of these in whatever order is fair, have a coin toss if by some miracle all three or four stats are tied along with the end-of-regulation score.

[gr8daynegb]

...

Obviously people like webny99 have made up their mind for wanting both teams having a possession in OT(I'm fine with college and high school doing this, pros you get  paid to score or prevent it) and those like myself that think rules are file as they are. 

Will give you some advise though webny99 being you are 22(assuming you are telling the truth), people have been trying to make all sports equal/fair in rules long before you and me so be ready for the next so call unequal or unfair thing to arise.

In case it wasn't clear, I don't object to webny99 having the opinion he does or to his expressing that opinion–I only objected to the way he presented it as though it were an inarguable fact.

Ditto.  If sports has shown anything is there are always things that people think would make the whole thing more fair and equal.  But for arguing just saying the same thing again or saying louder or just electing yourself as the king/queen or what is fair and/or equal usually ends out badly(hence the trolling of webny99 that followed).

[webny99]

In case it wasn't clear, I don't object to webny99 having the opinion he does or to his expressing that opinion–I only objected to the way he presented it as though it were an inarguable fact.

Ditto.  If sports has shown anything is there are always things that people think would make the whole thing more fair and equal.  But for arguing just saying the same thing again or saying louder or just electing yourself as the king/queen or what is fair and/or equal usually ends out badly(hence the trolling of webny99 that followed).

Look, I never said what the best solution is, nor do I claim to have an answer for what's best. Only that the current system does not give each team an equal chance to win in overtime - and yes, I do believe that is a fact, not an opinion.

It's not equal - fact
It needs to be changed - opinion

[webny99]

I must go back and say I am not a fan of overtime in the first place.  Not saying I don't want to see it because there has to be a winner, just not a fan of the process to get there.

Let me explain.

There seems to be some muddy water in the thinking of how you reach overtime/extra innings.  Most people think "it was an equal played game and they were tied at the end" and some people say "That was an amazing comeback by Team X to tie Team Y".  This is the glorious version, or also known as revisionist history.  I instead say "What where you doing all game?" or "How can you blow that lead??"  It's the same way I feel about the current NFL parity.  Some think the games are ultra-competitive and make them very entertaining.  I say the games are close because they are played horribly on both sides.

I totally get what you're saying here.

I would say this: Everything in green is true of Bills-Chiefs. Everything in red is true of the 49ers-Cowboys game from the prior week.

In other words, the "glorious" version is a perfectly accurate description of a great game. It's not revisionist history at all to say that what happened at the end of the Bills-Chiefs game was incredible. Meanwhile, your version is accurate if incompetence is on display... which was definitely the case at times in the 49ers-Cowboys game. Now, those are two extreme examples. Most games are somewhere in between.

Perhaps best summarized by this tweet, which made perfect sense when it was posted (during 49ers-Cowboys) but would have made no sense at all if posted during Bills-Chiefs:

https://twitter.com/PabloTorre/status/1482880237713121280

[thspfc]

I just want to hear about equal chances to win at hockey now.

Obviously people like webny99 have made up their mind for wanting both teams having a possession in OT(I'm fine with college and high school doing this, pros you get  paid to score or prevent it) and those like myself that think rules are file as they are. 

Will give you some advise though webny99 being you are 22(assuming you are telling the truth), people have been trying to make all sports equal/fair in rules long before you and me so be ready for the next so call unequal or unfair thing to arise.

Again, I'm mostly impartial on this topic, but the "overtime is fine" crowd is making some outlandish points.

Why does it matter if they're getting paid to score or prevent scoring? It's still sports. It's the same game.

[thspfc]

I must go back and say I am not a fan of overtime in the first place.  Not saying I don't want to see it because there has to be a winner, just not a fan of the process to get there.

Let me explain.

There seems to be some muddy water in the thinking of how you reach overtime/extra innings.  Most people think "it was an equal played game and they were tied at the end" and some people say "That was an amazing comeback by Team X to tie Team Y".  This is the glorious version, or also known as revisionist history.  I instead say "What where you doing all game?" or "How can you blow that lead??"  It's the same way I feel about the current NFL parity.  Some think the games are ultra-competitive and make them very entertaining.  I say the games are close because they are played horribly on both sides.

So when you get to overtime, basically you get what you get.  If the rules are unfair, tough.  Shouldn't have been there in the first place.  You should have won the game in regulation instead if blowing the lead or if you came back, you really should have lost if the other team didn't let you back in.  Basically all rules and bets are off in overtime.  Hell, let the officials leave the field in overtime and you just get what you get.  Again, don't want an unfair shake in overtime, don't allow yourself to be in a position for the game to go to overtime.  Win the game 30-0.  If you can't do that, you weren't good enough to begin with.

This is such nonsense lol. By your logic, pretty much the only "good enough" football team ever was the 1985 Bears.

[NWI_Irish96]

I must go back and say I am not a fan of overtime in the first place.  Not saying I don't want to see it because there has to be a winner, just not a fan of the process to get there.

Let me explain.

There seems to be some muddy water in the thinking of how you reach overtime/extra innings.  Most people think "it was an equal played game and they were tied at the end" and some people say "That was an amazing comeback by Team X to tie Team Y".  This is the glorious version, or also known as revisionist history.  I instead say "What where you doing all game?" or "How can you blow that lead??"  It's the same way I feel about the current NFL parity.  Some think the games are ultra-competitive and make them very entertaining.  I say the games are close because they are played horribly on both sides.

So when you get to overtime, basically you get what you get.  If the rules are unfair, tough.  Shouldn't have been there in the first place.  You should have won the game in regulation instead if blowing the lead or if you came back, you really should have lost if the other team didn't let you back in.  Basically all rules and bets are off in overtime.  Hell, let the officials leave the field in overtime and you just get what you get.  Again, don't want an unfair shake in overtime, don't allow yourself to be in a position for the game to go to overtime.  Win the game 30-0.  If you can't do that, you weren't good enough to begin with.

This is such nonsense lol. By your logic, pretty much the only "good enough" football team ever was the 1985 Bears.

I thought that was standard knowledge.

[hotdogPi]

2) Tie-break at the end of regulation for any number of stats. Total yards by each team; time of possession; percentage of each team's total points that were scored by touchdown; fewest penalty yards. Put three or four of these in whatever order is fair, have a coin toss if by some miracle all three or four stats are tied along with the end-of-regulation score.

This is basically what I said before, just with a different criterion (most recently ahead). The only time it won't work is if the score is 0-0. It also works for basketball.

[webny99]

If you support a 10-minute overtime that plays normally, and then sudden death after that..then why not just support a 60-minute regular game that plays normally, and then sudden death after that?

Because of the coin toss. My original thought was that, if still tied after a 10-minute overtime, more time would simply be added to the clock and the game would continue from wherever the teams were at. That's not perfect either, but it could provide some interesting clock management scenarios, where any team in scoring position would try to bleed the clock out before scoring.

In seeing all the alternatives, I'm tending towards one of two options:

1) Change the rules so that if a team wins the opening coin toss and defers to the second half, it immediately sets their choice for any potential OT to give the other team the choice in OT. That introduces an interesting strategy element into the game, giving control to the coaches, and everyone would know from the opening kickoff who would get the ball first if the game falls into a tie.

I actually like that idea. Or, if regulation ends on a scoring play, the team that's on defense automatically gets the ball first in OT. This would at least avoid the scenario where a team can score twice in a row to end the game. It would also prevent the defense from having to defend two drives in a row.

[webny99]

In other news... Giants officially announce Bills OC Brian Daboll as their new head coach.

[jeffandnicole]

I actually like that idea. Or, if regulation ends on a scoring play, the team that's on defense automatically gets the ball first in OT. This would at least avoid the scenario where a team can score twice in a row to end the game. It would also prevent the defense from having to defend two drives in a row.

How is this different from a team kicking a successful onsides kick?

[NWI_Irish96]

I actually like that idea. Or, if regulation ends on a scoring play, the team that's on defense automatically gets the ball first in OT. This would at least avoid the scenario where a team can score twice in a row to end the game. It would also prevent the defense from having to defend two drives in a row.

How is this different from a team kicking a successful onsides kick?

You actually sparked an idea that the team losing the coin toss in overtime might consider an onside kick, especially if the opponent has Mahomes/Brady/Rodgers/Allen

[TheHighwayMan3561]

2) Tie-break at the end of regulation for any number of stats. Total yards by each team; time of possession; percentage of each team's total points that were scored by touchdown; fewest penalty yards. Put three or four of these in whatever order is fair, have a coin toss if by some miracle all three or four stats are tied along with the end-of-regulation score.

This is basically what I said before, just with a different criterion (most recently ahead). The only time it won't work is if the score is 0-0. It also works for basketball.

I'm not really a fan of stats deciding games, because stats don't always tell the game's story accurately. Maybe Team A was vastly superior in all the stats, but turned the ball over 4 times. The stats say they deserve to win. The game story says they did not.

[ethanhopkin14]

I must go back and say I am not a fan of overtime in the first place.  Not saying I don't want to see it because there has to be a winner, just not a fan of the process to get there.

Let me explain.

There seems to be some muddy water in the thinking of how you reach overtime/extra innings.  Most people think "it was an equal played game and they were tied at the end" and some people say "That was an amazing comeback by Team X to tie Team Y".  This is the glorious version, or also known as revisionist history.  I instead say "What where you doing all game?" or "How can you blow that lead??"  It's the same way I feel about the current NFL parity.  Some think the games are ultra-competitive and make them very entertaining.  I say the games are close because they are played horribly on both sides.

I totally get what you're saying here.

I would say this: Everything in green is true of Bills-Chiefs. Everything in red is true of the 49ers-Cowboys game from the prior week.

In other words, the "glorious" version is a perfectly accurate description of a great game. It's not revisionist history at all to say that what happened at the end of the Bills-Chiefs game was incredible. Meanwhile, your version is accurate if incompetence is on display... which was definitely the case at times in the 49ers-Cowboys game. Now, those are two extreme examples. Most games are somewhere in between.

Perhaps best summarized by this tweet, which made perfect sense when it was posted (during 49ers-Cowboys) but would have made no sense at all if posted during Bills-Chiefs:

https://twitter.com/PabloTorre/status/1482880237713121280

I will agree with everything you said, except, the Bills/Chiefs game was punctuated by the worst defense played in the league in the last 40 years.  You could argue it was great offense, but I think it was bad defense.  In my opinion, that fails to make it an "instant classic".  Even as a Cowboys fan I agree with your assessment of the 49ers/Cowboys game.  That whole game was hard to watch and if the Cowboys did somehow pull out a win I would have been disgusted because it was an awful game.