http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/19444...10-minutes
It will be 10 minutes, no sudden death.
I think we'll see substantially more ties. With as few games as they play in the NFL, that's a shame. If anything, the NBA and MLB need to reduce or eliminate their regular season OT's, as meaningless as they are. They hypothetically could play forever.
They should just eliminate regular season overtime altogether. Just play the four quarters and move on. The NFL did just fine for 50-plus years without regular season overtime.
And this isn't going to happen because the NFL is too arrogant to borrow this from soccer, but: The way to incentivize teams to play for a win instead of a draw is to award 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw.
(05-23-2017 07:00 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]If anything, the NBA and MLB need to reduce or eliminate their regular season OT's, as meaningless as they are. They hypothetically could play forever.
There are a number of things about baseball that hamper its growth with fans, esp kids. Extra innings is nowhere near the top of that list.
OT in general, I like it.... there are winners and losers in this world.
I dislike shootouts in the NHL or Soccer as it turns a hard fought game into a skills contest.
I did like the NFL's adoption of the scoring for the OT period not to be who got the FG first.... as running out the clock and ball control style of play seemed kind of a "who wins the coin toss" kind of affair in most cases.
(05-23-2017 07:30 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]They should just eliminate regular season overtime altogether. Just play the four quarters and move on. The NFL did just fine for 50-plus years without regular season overtime.
And this isn't going to happen because the NFL is too arrogant to borrow this from soccer, but: The way to incentivize teams to play for a win instead of a draw is to award 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw.
Ehh... they have this in the NHL though... and...
2 pts for a outright win, 0 points for a outright loss, 2pts to winner and 1pt to loser if it goes beyond regulation.
I have agreed with one (or both?) of out commentators for the Hurricanes that that point allowance is kind of bad in a way.... they argue that since a game is 3 periods a win should be 3pts. If it goes to OT I believe they like the winning team getting one more point... but don't remember if they liked 3-2 or 2-1 with that 3pts allowed for a regulation win.
(05-23-2017 08:50 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2017 07:30 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]They should just eliminate regular season overtime altogether. Just play the four quarters and move on. The NFL did just fine for 50-plus years without regular season overtime.
And this isn't going to happen because the NFL is too arrogant to borrow this from soccer, but: The way to incentivize teams to play for a win instead of a draw is to award 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw.
Ehh... they have this in the NHL though... and...
2 pts for a outright win, 0 points for a outright loss, 2pts to winner and 1pt to loser if it goes beyond regulation.
I have agreed with one (or both?) of out commentators for the Hurricanes that that point allowance is kind of bad in a way.... they argue that since a game is 3 periods a win should be 3pts. If it goes to OT I believe they like the winning team getting one more point... but don't remember if they liked 3-2 or 2-1 with that 3pts allowed for a regulation win.
Giving a point for an OT loss the way they do it in the NHL is dumb. It incentivizes playing for the tie in the 3rd period.
If NHL is going to continue to play OT it should be 3 for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for an OT loss. But again, why play regular season OT.
(05-23-2017 08:47 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote: [ -> ]I dislike shootouts in the NHL or Soccer as it turns a hard fought game into a skills contest.
In soccer, penalty kicks are a last resort, used only in playoffs or tournaments and only after 30 minutes of overtime.
And in soccer, the OT itself has been criticized, because the players are dead tired if they've played the whole 120 minutes by the end of OT, and rarely does a team still have a substitution left to use in OT. One solution for that IMO is to allow each team 2 substitutions in OT. But I doubt that will ever happen.
(05-23-2017 10:21 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]Giving a point for an OT loss the way they do it in the NHL is dumb. It incentivizes playing for the tie in the 3rd period.
If NHL is going to continue to play OT it should be 3 for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for an OT loss. But again, why play regular season OT.
I disagree with that first part.... I mean who wouldn't want one more point in the standings? You are playing to get 1 vs. 0 ...and in the OT period you are playing to get 2 vs. 1.
(05-23-2017 10:27 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2017 08:47 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote: [ -> ]I dislike shootouts in the NHL or Soccer as it turns a hard fought game into a skills contest.
In soccer, penalty kicks are a last resort, used only in playoffs or tournaments and only after 30 minutes of overtime.
And in soccer, the OT itself has been criticized, because the players are dead tired if they've played the whole 120 minutes by the end of OT, and rarely does a team still have a substitution left to use in OT. One solution for that IMO is to allow each team 2 substitutions in OT. But I doubt that will ever happen.
Soccer is a joke in general. There should be fewer players on the field or no offsides to allow more scoring. And I don't get the restriction on substitutions, they should be unlimited. Maybe they fear players sneaking on or off or it's based on some archaic cheating practice that's no longer relevant.
(05-24-2017 06:37 AM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2017 10:27 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2017 08:47 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote: [ -> ]I dislike shootouts in the NHL or Soccer as it turns a hard fought game into a skills contest.
In soccer, penalty kicks are a last resort, used only in playoffs or tournaments and only after 30 minutes of overtime.
And in soccer, the OT itself has been criticized, because the players are dead tired if they've played the whole 120 minutes by the end of OT, and rarely does a team still have a substitution left to use in OT. One solution for that IMO is to allow each team 2 substitutions in OT. But I doubt that will ever happen.
Soccer is a joke in general. There should be fewer players on the field or no offsides to allow more scoring. And I don't get the restriction on substitutions, they should be unlimited. Maybe they fear players sneaking on or off or it's based on some archaic cheating practice that's no longer relevant.
In other words, you want a completely different sport.
And your sport exists. It's arena soccer. I've played it and I've coached kids playing it. Free substitutions, no offsides. It's not soccer; it's hockey on turf with a soccer ball. It has about as much resemblance to the real sport as throwing trash into a wastebasket has to basketball.
(05-23-2017 07:30 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]They should just eliminate regular season overtime altogether. Just play the four quarters and move on. The NFL did just fine for 50-plus years without regular season overtime.
And this isn't going to happen because the NFL is too arrogant to borrow this from soccer, but: The way to incentivize teams to play for a win instead of a draw is to award 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw.
Or just tell teams that a tie is the equivilant of a loss when calculating winning percentage. So for example, a 4-3-1 record is considered the same as 4-4.
That way, they have nothing to lose by playing for a win, except maybe giving a win to your opponent if you make a high-risk mistake.
(05-24-2017 11:02 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (05-24-2017 06:37 AM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2017 10:27 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2017 08:47 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote: [ -> ]I dislike shootouts in the NHL or Soccer as it turns a hard fought game into a skills contest.
In soccer, penalty kicks are a last resort, used only in playoffs or tournaments and only after 30 minutes of overtime.
And in soccer, the OT itself has been criticized, because the players are dead tired if they've played the whole 120 minutes by the end of OT, and rarely does a team still have a substitution left to use in OT. One solution for that IMO is to allow each team 2 substitutions in OT. But I doubt that will ever happen.
Soccer is a joke in general. There should be fewer players on the field or no offsides to allow more scoring. And I don't get the restriction on substitutions, they should be unlimited. Maybe they fear players sneaking on or off or it's based on some archaic cheating practice that's no longer relevant.
In other words, you want a completely different sport.
And your sport exists. It's arena soccer. I've played it and I've coached kids playing it. Free substitutions, no offsides. It's not soccer; it's hockey on turf with a soccer ball. It has about as much resemblance to the real sport as throwing trash into a wastebasket has to basketball.
There has to be something to ramp up scoring. There's nothing more pointless than a scoreless or even 1-1 tie. Offsides eliminates the basketball equivalent of the fast break.
(05-24-2017 12:27 PM)goofus Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2017 07:30 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]They should just eliminate regular season overtime altogether. Just play the four quarters and move on. The NFL did just fine for 50-plus years without regular season overtime.
And this isn't going to happen because the NFL is too arrogant to borrow this from soccer, but: The way to incentivize teams to play for a win instead of a draw is to award 3 points for a win and 1 point for a draw.
Or just tell teams that a tie is the equivilant of a loss when calculating winning percentage. So for example, a 4-3-1 record is considered the same as 4-4.
That way, they have nothing to lose by playing for a win, except maybe giving a win to your opponent if you make a high-risk mistake.
The NFL is making all kinds of weird rule changes. Instead of moving back the regulation extra point, they could have had one but worth more points. Why change what's worked for decades?
(05-24-2017 02:30 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ] (05-24-2017 11:02 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (05-24-2017 06:37 AM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2017 10:27 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2017 08:47 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote: [ -> ]I dislike shootouts in the NHL or Soccer as it turns a hard fought game into a skills contest.
In soccer, penalty kicks are a last resort, used only in playoffs or tournaments and only after 30 minutes of overtime.
And in soccer, the OT itself has been criticized, because the players are dead tired if they've played the whole 120 minutes by the end of OT, and rarely does a team still have a substitution left to use in OT. One solution for that IMO is to allow each team 2 substitutions in OT. But I doubt that will ever happen.
Soccer is a joke in general. There should be fewer players on the field or no offsides to allow more scoring. And I don't get the restriction on substitutions, they should be unlimited. Maybe they fear players sneaking on or off or it's based on some archaic cheating practice that's no longer relevant.
In other words, you want a completely different sport.
And your sport exists. It's arena soccer. I've played it and I've coached kids playing it. Free substitutions, no offsides. It's not soccer; it's hockey on turf with a soccer ball. It has about as much resemblance to the real sport as throwing trash into a wastebasket has to basketball.
There has to be something to ramp up scoring. There's nothing more pointless than a scoreless or even 1-1 tie. Offsides eliminates the basketball equivalent of the fast break.
No, the offsides rule eliminates the basketball equivalent of sandbagging, i.e., a player standing near the basket waiting for someone at the other end to throw a length-of-the-court pass. If there was no offsides rule in soccer that's exactly what would happen, the game would degenerate into a bunch of long passes attempting to reach a teammate standing 5 yards from the goal.
Breaks exist in soccer. The only limitation is that a player receiving a pass has to be onside
at the time the pass is made, if they are, then they can receive the pass even beyond the last defender.
And, you are grossly overestimating the number of scoreless or 1-1 games. Look at this season's results for Real Madrid, probably the best team in Europe. 63 games in total, only four 1-1 games, only one 1-0 game, and no 0-0 games.
http://www.espnfc.us/club/real-madrid/86/fixtures
If you want a higher-scoring sport, there are many to choose from. They don't all have to be the same.
You can still prevent people from doing that while relaxing offsides. The moment anyone has any momentum going toward the goal, they get called for offsides or because it's so hard to kick the ball and be accurate, they lose possession. Maybe the rule can be that a player must be within 15-20 yards of the last defender. It's stupid to see a player get 2-3 yards ahead of the last defender but have his team called for offsides when he gets the pass. Besides, goalies are good enough to defend against that, especially in a game where you can't simply just throw it in the goal.
And from stats I've seen, 1-1 is the most common score for soccer. The reason I'm hard on soccer is because of international fans giving Americans a hard time about not loving soccer. Soccer is cool if you like, I'm usually glued to the TV for the World Cup but it could be a lot more exciting.
put me down as not liking soccer. I don't understand why any sport would set itself up to have so many low-scoring ties. If you play 60 or 90 minutes of regulation, the score should reflect a clear winner a good majority of the time, if not, then there clearly is something wrong with the rules.
You walk to the bathroom and you miss a third of the game's scoring, if not more.