Sports: NFL

[Greyelephant]

Originally Posted by DaddyScaper

Greetings from a Ravens fan.

Cutler looked atrocious last year. He did not *look* like the problem was his receivers...

The Ravens re-signed Mason and of course traded picks for Boldin a couple of days ago, who has said and done all the right things since then. He seems like a real class act, which is more important than anything in my book.

Cutlers recievers sucked last year. I watched several of their games and truthfully, if not for Cutler, the Bears would've lost more game than they did last year. Get him some help and he'll be good in this leauge.


As for Boldin. Let's just see what he can do without a Fitzgerald next to him.

[sonlenmaster]

This year im looking at 2 teams that may get better. Bears,Ravens. They both might have a good season.

[Killometer]

The league just changed its OT rules (at least for the postseason, they're voting on adding this change to the regular season in May).

They added a rule saying that if the team that recieves the initial kick-off in OT settles on a field goal on their initial drive then the other team gets a possession.

I'm interested to see how many teams decide to go for the TD to seal the game compared to how many settle on the FG and rely on their D to finish the game. This rule looks like it will make OT a lot more interesting.

Edit: link to the story on espn.com (it has a video on the same page, so turn down the volume if you're at work )

[Aldin]

Hunh. At least I can now see an argument for kicking the ball away. It means you have the first opportunity to straight up win on a field goal (if you stop the other team). And you'll have the ability to play four down football going the other way if the other guy kicks a field goal. I like it.

~Aldin, who should probably read the news on a news site

[dok]

I'm annoyed by this because the best possible OT solution is exceptionally simple.

Just. Keep. Playing. The. Game.

If the game is tied at the end of regulation, just continue the game as if it was a "1st to 2nd" or "3rd to 4th" transition. Sudden death.

This is

1. Completely fair - takes the randomness out of it
2. Doesn't require any weird rules
3. Decides the game using "real football", as opposed to creating artificial situations
4. Contrary to what you're probably thinking, it does not reduce the drama at the end of a tight game, on average. Tied games lose the time pressure aspect, but games where the team with the ball is down 7 or 3 become more dramatic.

[Rich10]

I wish that they would just have added a 15 minute overtime period. This way, the end of game drama is maintained. Also, each team should get a reasonable shot at offense.

[Killometer]

Honstly I've never had much of a problem with sudden death except for the fact that pretty much all a team has to do is get in field goal range to win the game. I like the strategic element that this change adds to the game. Who do you trust more-your offense (go for the touchdown), or your defense (stick with the easy 3)?

[Greyelephant]

Originally Posted by Rich10

I wish that they would just have added a 15 minute overtime period. This way, the end of game drama is maintained. Also, each team should get a reasonable shot at offense.

I wonder if TV contracts with other programs has anything to do with it.

I like your idea. Makes perfect sense to me to just play another quarter of football.

This new idea sounds like it's going to make it interesting to watch. Like previously stated, may make some teams kick it away vs receive initially.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Rich10

I wish that they would just have added a 15 minute overtime period. This way, the end of game drama is maintained. Also, each team should get a reasonable shot at offense.

It's a non-starter. The players don't want the injury risk and competitive disadvantage associated with an extra quarter of play, and it wreaks havoc with the TV schedule. It's never going to happen. Even the relatively small extension of the game that this new rule entails is being limited to the playoffs for the same reason.

Besides, the extra period still creates a fundamental imbalance, where it's an advantage to receive the ball. In a regulation game, each team kicks off to start one of the two halves, thus making the expected number of posessions per team equal in the game. Once you introduce an odd number of kickoffs, the expected number of posessions is going to be higher for the team that receives first.

The only way to prevent this is to have an even number of kickoffs. So your options (if you actually want a truly fair overtime system) are:

1. Two kickoffs. You could, for instance, have two 7-minute periods. This is a non-starter for the same reason as a fifth quarter, though.
2. Zero kickoffs. This can be accomplished by my preferred approach (i.e. just continue playing and go to sudden death), or by declaring a tie.

College football's abominable system also has zero kickoffs and an even number of posessions for each team, but it is unfair (or, more precisely, arbitrary) for other reasons.

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by dok

It's a non-starter. The players don't want the injury risk and competitive disadvantage associated with an extra quarter of play, and it wreaks havoc with the TV schedule. It's never going to happen. Even the relatively small extension of the game that this new rule entails is being limited to the playoffs for the same reason.

Besides, the extra period still creates a fundamental imbalance, where it's an advantage to receive the ball. In a regulation game, each team kicks off to start one of the two halves, thus making the expected number of posessions per team equal in the game. Once you introduce an odd number of kickoffs, the expected number of posessions is going to be higher for the team that receives first.


The only way to prevent this is to have an even number of kickoffs. So your options (if you actually want a truly fair overtime system) are:

1. Two kickoffs. You could, for instance, have two 7-minute periods. This is a non-starter for the same reason as a fifth quarter, though.
2. Zero kickoffs. This can be accomplished by my preferred approach (i.e. just continue playing and go to sudden death), or by declaring a tie.

College football's abominable system also has zero kickoffs and an even number of posessions for each team, but it is unfair (or, more precisely, arbitrary) for other reasons.

I understand the injury risk. Of course, that exists in your proposal and the current way of resolving OT.

I'm not sure how there is a competitive disadvantage to another quarter of play. It could even introduce a possible strategy of kicking off if you think that your defense can hold the other team. It is very unlikely that a single possession would last 15 minutes so both teams should get the ball. If anything this would be more fair than current or your proposal.

It also keeps the game exciting. If teams were just allowed to continue playing, it takes away the need for 2 minute drills and would remove a significant amount of the strategy of the end game.

It would play havoc with the tv schedule, but not significantly more than current. Considering how few ties there are, this should be manageable.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Rich10

I understand the injury risk. Of course, that exists in your proposal and the current way of resolving OT.


I'm not sure how there is a competitive disadvantage to another quarter of play.

Originally Posted by Rich10

It would play havoc with the tv schedule, but not significantly more than current. Considering how few ties there are, this should be manageable.

The injury risk and player wear & tear is significant. A typical overtime game extends the game by less than five minutes - tripling that is not trivial.

Anyway, I'm just telling you why it hasn't and won't happen. I didn't come up with these objections, they are standing objections that the NFLPA and the networks have been clear on. Again, the new system (which extends the game very little) is only being added to the playoffs. Even this very small extension of the game is so objectionable that they are trying to make it come into play as little as possible.

The system I'm proposing actually shortens the game, on average. Many teams will go for 2 when scoring a tying TD when down 7 in the closing seconds, simply to avoid giving the other team the ball in OT. Also, teams might go for it on 4th down when down 3, for the same reason. Even the situation where the game does go to OT will be shorter, on average, because teams will have better average field position to start OT.

Originally Posted by Rich10

It could even introduce a possible strategy of kicking off if you think that your defense can hold the other team.

Very rarely. The only way this makes sense is a scenario like that Miami-Pittsburgh game three years ago when the field was in such poor shape that teams couldn't move the ball at all. Otherwise, having the ball (given the current offense/defense balance and the kickoff location) is a clear advantage. If there's an extreme wind effect where one side is drastically better, you take side, not the kick.

Originally Posted by Rich10

It is very unlikely that a single possession would last 15 minutes so both teams should get the ball. If anything this would be more fair than current or your proposal.

No, this is definitely not the case, and betrays a basic misunderstanding of what I meant about an even number of posessions.

Is your proposal more fair than the current (regular season) system? Yes, without question.

Is your proposal more fair than the current playoff proposal? Perhaps. I'd have to actually run through the math to figure that out. It's not a trivial question.

But your proposal produces, on average, an uneven number of posessions - this is a mathematical fact that does not depend on one team holding the ball indefinitely. Let me try to explain it this way: one of the two teams will have the ball last. Let's say that 15 minutes is long enough that it's basically a 50/50 shot (which is close enough to true).

This means that there's a 50% chance that the team that had the ball first will also have the ball last. So 50% of the time, that team will get the ball one more time than the other team. Therefore, the team receiving the ball to start OT will produce, on average, one half of a posession more than the team that kicks off to start.

By contrast, my proposal makes the average number of posessions completely even. It is literally as fair as it is possible to be.

Originally Posted by Rich10

It also keeps the game exciting. If teams were just allowed to continue playing, it takes away the need for 2 minute drills and would remove a significant amount of the strategy of the end game.

As I said in my first post, this is not really the case. Examine the possible situations for the team with the ball last:

Down 8+: no change in strategy.
Down 7: more likely to go for two. Same time pressure, more strategy.
Down 4, 5, or 6: no change in strategy.
Down 3: more likely to go for it on 4th down, to get the TD. More time pressure, more strategy.
Down 2 or 1: no change in strategy.
Tied: no time pressure.

So, in one and only one situation, we reward clock killing in stead of the 2 minute drill. In two equally common situations, we introduce more strategy and reduce the frequency of OT.

Every possible OT solution produces some strategy inherent to that solution. Whether you like that strategy or not is really a matter of personal taste. So I prefer to not consider these effects, and in stead focus on relatively objective standards: does it make the average game go longer? Is it fair? Is it decisive (i.e. does it avoid ties at least as well as the current system)? Is it simple to understand and explain? Does it avoid emphasizing some aspects of the game to the exclusion of others?

By those standards, I haven't seen anything that's nearly as good as just continuing the game.

[Harlax]

There are two problems here. First kickers are a lot more accurate and at longer distance than when overtime was instituted. Second, when the kickoff spot was on the 35 teams that won the flip won slightly less than half the OT games. It would have been a whole lot simpler to have put the kickoff spot back to the 35 for the start of overtime. Or even the 40. If you are starting from you own 20 instead of your own 30 or 35, taking the ball looks a lot different. You have to pick up at least one first down or you will lose the field position battle.