The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(01-24-2022 04:32 PM)Cal1362 Wrote:  Not a huge fan of any scenario that ends without the other team having a chance to answer exception is a defensive score.

My preference is to modify the college rule by starting at midfield. Back up 10 yards after each set of "tied" possessions until all possessions start at the offenses 20 yard line. In lieu of that, play additional periods of 10 minutes until the tie is broken. Regular rules apply except 1 time out per period and replay is all from the booth in both scenarios.

I actually think that would be a phenomenal solution to the CFB problem. That 2pt BS they did this year was stupid.

(01-24-2022 03:31 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 03:29 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 01:46 PM)natibeast2.0 Wrote:  My argument against a change is their D couldn't stop them with 13 seconds left and a whole field. Kelce was wide open basically on a streak moving to the middle. Of course their D was gassed for OT.

My argument against this was the KC defense couldn't stop the Bills twice in the final two minutes. But in OT, they didn't even have to try.

Meh. Bills made some incredible plays on 3rd and 4th down while KC drove right down their throat the last two drives. One of which was embarrassing to watch if you were a fan of the Bills. The better team last night won without a question to me. Bills are right there, but not there just yet (don't let two plays of 30ish+ yards. That is a joke).

I probably value defense much more so than most do and don't think it's unfair to say they get the ball and score a TD you lose. If not, you have a chance to win or keep the game going. Either way doesn't really matter to me as teams are suppose to build on the current rules laid out.

You're not going to have a "perfect" solution. The NFL OT rules are what they are since the league was formed. Both sides know it.

I'm OK with this because life isn't fair.

I will also say this... I, for one, really don't like the current NCAA OT format. It is what it is.

"I'm OK with this because life isn't fair"

...

But, pray, are NFL OT rules not a metaphor for life itself? He ponders

(01-24-2022 05:24 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  "I'm OK with this because life isn't fair"

...

But, pray, are NFL OT rules not a metaphor for life itself? He ponders

Both teams knew the rules going into the game and the rules were impartially applied. That KC won by those rules and Buffalo didn't get an opportunity to "tie it back up"? That's life, man.

(01-24-2022 06:37 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-24-2022 05:24 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  "I'm OK with this because life isn't fair"

...

But, pray, are NFL OT rules not a metaphor for life itself? He ponders

Both teams knew the rules going into the game and the rules were impartially applied. That KC won by those rules and Buffalo didn't get an opportunity to "tie it back up"? That's life, man.

The issue is whether the rules themselves are fair. That both teams knew the rules and that they were applied correctly is nonresponsive.

Since the NFL made the change in 2012 that would give the other team a chance if the receiving team in OT kicked a FG, the team that won the coin toss is 10-1 in the playoffs. It's just silly to give such a huge advantage based on a coin toss.

Hopefully they don't ever adopt the college OT rules. Can you imagine how that would kill the fantasy football world. You lose to someone who had 3 players play in OT games and 2 of them played in 4 OTs and those guys wound up going from 1 TD before OT between them to 5 thanks to OT and you lost because you had nobody playing in OT games.

The Bills aren't complaining about the rules. They knew them and lived with it. But still doesn't mean it isn't a stupid rule. That 10-1 playoff record for the coin flip winner is awfully telling.

(01-24-2022 08:53 PM)BigDawg Wrote:  Hopefully they don't ever adopt the college OT rules. Can you imagine how that would kill the fantasy football world. You lose to someone who had 3 players play in OT games and 2 of them played in 4 OTs and those guys wound up going from 1 TD before OT between them to 5 thanks to OT and you lost because you had nobody playing in OT games.

I think fantasy football would survive if that's your major point of emphasis. I mean gambling has survived pretty well and it often forces bettors to root for the team they bet on to not score so as to lose in regulation rather than going to overtime.

(01-24-2022 08:53 PM)BigDawg Wrote:  Hopefully they don't ever adopt the college OT rules. Can you imagine how that would kill the fantasy football world. You lose to someone who had 3 players play in OT games and 2 of them played in 4 OTs and those guys wound up going from 1 TD before OT between them to 5 thanks to OT and you lost because you had nobody playing in OT games.

The Bills aren't complaining about the rules. They knew them and lived with it. But still doesn't mean it isn't a stupid rule. That 10-1 playoff record for the coin flip winner is awfully telling.

Just count them as 2 point conversions. Boom problem solved.

I read an interesting idea where the team that wins the coin toss selects the yard line the ball starts on, then the other team chooses whether they take the ball first or not. For instance, in a game ruled by offenses like Chiefs-Bills, the team winning the toss could have picked their own 5 yard line as the starting spot. Then the other team would decide if they are more confident in their team going 95 yards, or in their defenses' ability to prevent the other team from doing so.

(01-24-2022 08:53 PM)BigDawg Wrote:  Hopefully they don't ever adopt the college OT rules. Can you imagine how that would kill the fantasy football world. You lose to someone who had 3 players play in OT games and 2 of them played in 4 OTs and those guys wound up going from 1 TD before OT between them to 5 thanks to OT and you lost because you had nobody playing in OT games.

The Bills aren't complaining about the rules. They knew them and lived with it. But still doesn't mean it isn't a stupid rule. That 10-1 playoff record for the coin flip winner is awfully telling.

That's why you start the offenses at the 50s and move them back 10 yards each time. Not a lot of 50+ or 60+ yard TD drives in pro football or the scores would be significantly higher... You could even add a scoring category for defensive stops in OT and count it as a turnover like a 2 point INT or fumble recovery for those of us who like to see the defense rewarded too

Either way, I dread the day the NFL starts making or not making rules to keep fantasy owners happy

(01-25-2022 09:22 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  I read an interesting idea where the team that wins the coin toss selects the yard line the ball starts on, then the other team chooses whether they take the ball first or not. For instance, in a game ruled by offenses like Chiefs-Bills, the team winning the toss could have picked their own 5 yard line as the starting spot. Then the other team would decide if they are more confident in their team going 95 yards, or in their defenses' ability to prevent the other team from doing so.

I do love these types of ideas, but they will too often make the coach's decision the most important part of who wins in OT. The rules should keep the focus on the players and give each team an equal (or near as possible) shot at winning in OT. Seems to me that a 5th quarter is the best option. After that, if it's still tied, maybe you go to a college type, start at the 20 and require 2 point conversions. I'd be cool with a baseball extra innings thing in which a tie game just goes into another quarter, but football isn't really conducive to that.

(01-25-2022 10:46 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(01-25-2022 09:22 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  I read an interesting idea where the team that wins the coin toss selects the yard line the ball starts on, then the other team chooses whether they take the ball first or not. For instance, in a game ruled by offenses like Chiefs-Bills, the team winning the toss could have picked their own 5 yard line as the starting spot. Then the other team would decide if they are more confident in their team going 95 yards, or in their defenses' ability to prevent the other team from doing so.

I do love these types of ideas, but they will too often make the coach's decision the most important part of who wins in OT. The rules should keep the focus on the players and give each team an equal (or near as possible) shot at winning in OT. Seems to me that a 5th quarter is the best option. After that, if it's still tied, maybe you go to a college type, start at the 20 and require 2 point conversions. I'd be cool with a baseball extra innings thing in which a tie game just goes into another quarter, but football isn't really conducive to that.

I'd be good with the extra quarter (no sudden death or first score ending) followed by some sort of rounds of taking turns on offensetype set-up (i.e. college type). I'm flexible on how the taking turns would go. I kind of like the 25 yard line starting spot. If you want to adjust the scoring for whatever reason (fantasy/gambling) go ahead and make each round a sort of extra point scenario (maybe 1 point for a "field goal" ala an extra point kick and 2 for a "touchdown" ala a 2 point conversion) Maybe if it's still tied after 3 rounds of that you start at the 2 or 2.5 and continue with rounds til you get a winner. I just don't think the "sudden death" scenario works in football even with the adjustment made for field goals.

Food for thought from Peter King's column:

Quote: My readers had a lot to say about overtime and how it should be changed. What was interesting about the approximately 90 or so suggestions I got is how many thoughtful ones came from outside the United States. Thanks for all the ideas.

India checks in. From Saurabh Kulkarni of Pune, India: “It’s only fair that both teams get one chance. However, if that isn’t possible, then why not give the first opportunity to the team with lesser penalties accrued? Instead of a random coin toss, wouldn’t penalties be a fairer decision point?”

This from Wales. From Luke Scanlan of Cardiff, Wales: “Is it time for the NFL to adopt a points system in the standings? If a win in regulation is worth five points, you could then have a win in overtime worth three points, and one point each for a tie. It may encourage teams to take bigger shots at the end of regulation instead of playing for OT or to be less conservative in OT with extra points on the line.”

And from Canada. From Anthony Abrahams, of Vancouver: “Overtime in the NFL playoffs should be structured to add excitement to the game. The NFL has already modified playoff overtime by increasing the period from 10 to 15 minutes, so for another five minutes here is a format that could deliver a more exciting and equitable result: Play two 10-minute periods. The first is by regular rules, and whoever is leading at the end of 10 minutes wins the game. If at the end of 10 minutes the game is tied, begin a sudden-death period.”

Finally, from Chile. From Mark Helmantoler, of Santiago, Chile: “I would leave the regular season OT format unchanged. The season is already long and it behooves the NFL for games to end quicker to avoid injuries, fatigue, etc. My suggestion is this: If Team A wins the coin toss, goes down and scores a TD, Team B has one possession to try to match. But if Team A scores a touchdown and PAT, Team B has to attempt a two-point conversion. Team B can’t kick a PAT (unless Team A missed their PAT, in which case Team B could kick the extra point to win). That way it would ensure the game ends after that second possession.”

If I had to pick one, I’d pick the idea from Chile. It would add some strategy, too, for the team that wins the kickoff. Smarter to kick off or to receive, knowing exactly how many points you’d need if you got the ball second.

(01-31-2022 03:42 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Food for thought from Peter King's column:

Quote: My readers had a lot to say about overtime and how it should be changed. What was interesting about the approximately 90 or so suggestions I got is how many thoughtful ones came from outside the United States. Thanks for all the ideas.

India checks in. From Saurabh Kulkarni of Pune, India: “It’s only fair that both teams get one chance. However, if that isn’t possible, then why not give the first opportunity to the team with lesser penalties accrued? Instead of a random coin toss, wouldn’t penalties be a fairer decision point?”

This from Wales. From Luke Scanlan of Cardiff, Wales: “Is it time for the NFL to adopt a points system in the standings? If a win in regulation is worth five points, you could then have a win in overtime worth three points, and one point each for a tie. It may encourage teams to take bigger shots at the end of regulation instead of playing for OT or to be less conservative in OT with extra points on the line.”

And from Canada. From Anthony Abrahams, of Vancouver: “Overtime in the NFL playoffs should be structured to add excitement to the game. The NFL has already modified playoff overtime by increasing the period from 10 to 15 minutes, so for another five minutes here is a format that could deliver a more exciting and equitable result: Play two 10-minute periods. The first is by regular rules, and whoever is leading at the end of 10 minutes wins the game. If at the end of 10 minutes the game is tied, begin a sudden-death period.”

Finally, from Chile. From Mark Helmantoler, of Santiago, Chile: “I would leave the regular season OT format unchanged. The season is already long and it behooves the NFL for games to end quicker to avoid injuries, fatigue, etc. My suggestion is this: If Team A wins the coin toss, goes down and scores a TD, Team B has one possession to try to match. But if Team A scores a touchdown and PAT, Team B has to attempt a two-point conversion. Team B can’t kick a PAT (unless Team A missed their PAT, in which case Team B could kick the extra point to win). That way it would ensure the game ends after that second possession.”

If I had to pick one, I’d pick the idea from Chile. It would add some strategy, too, for the team that wins the kickoff. Smarter to kick off or to receive, knowing exactly how many points you’d need if you got the ball second.

3 bad ideas and Helmantoler with one I think has already been suggested.

One question I have is what is the rate for points per drive in the NFL over all 2021-2022 season?

Just forget overtime altogether. If a game reaches the end of the fourth quarter with the score tied, turn off the clock and continue until one team is ahead.

(01-31-2022 06:34 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  Just forget overtime altogether. If a game reaches the end of the fourth quarter with the score tied, turn off the clock and continue until one team is ahead.

So, team A has the ball with 1 minute to go at their 35. But wait there is not 1 minute left there is however much time they need. Time outs become meaningless. Going out of bounds to stop the clock, not required.

Did you think your idea through?

Absolutely. Who says all that going out of bounds is a good thing? If the score is tied, you run out the clock and then go for the winning score. If you are down by a FG in the final two minutes, instead of settling for the tying FG, you may want to gamble on the touchdown instead. If you are down by seven and score a touchdown with a minute to go, do you settle for the extra point for the tie and let the other team run out the clock and then try to score, or do you go for the two point conversion to prevent that?

I still prefer the college overtime to the NFL. Just move that ball out to the 40 yard line for each team's opportunity and I suspect it would greatly reduce the number of overtime periods we've seen in some games this past season.

(02-01-2022 09:31 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  I still prefer the college overtime to the NFL. Just move that ball out to the 40 yard line for each team's opportunity and I suspect it would greatly reduce the number of overtime periods we've seen in some games this past season.

Move 5 or 10 yards with each iteration.