Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Bone to the bad.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



NFL overtime improvement

NFL overtime improvement
  (+11, -2)(+11, -2)
(+11, -2)
  [vote for,

When a NFL game goes into overtime, nearly 60% of the games are won by the team that wins the coin toss. Unfair! Instead of flipping a coin, why not simply set the clock to 15:00 and resume the game exactly where it left off when the 4th quarter ended (just like at the end of the 1st and 3rd quarters)? This is more fair than flipping a coin because it gives no advantage to either team, unlike a coin toss.
shaker, Oct 14 2007

NFL overtime statistics to 2003 http://www.maa.org/...htrek_11_08_04.html
52% vs. 44%, with the remainder ending in a draw. Moving back kickoffs made things worse. [jutta, Oct 14 2007]

Washington Post's Mark Maske http://blog.washing...sue_unresolved.html
"There's little to no support for adopting the college rule of alternating possessions until there's a winner, or for simply having the game continue in overtime where it left off in regulation." [jutta, Oct 14 2007]


       Or they could just call the game a draw.
DrBob, Oct 15 2007

       ... or have a soccer-style penalty shoot out from 30 yards out. 5 penalties to start with, then "sudden-death". Let's see how well the Defensive Line can kick!
Jinbish, Oct 15 2007

       Jinbish, college (Amer.) football already uses a similar method. Each team gets an equal number of chances to score from 20 yards out with four downs. After that, whichever team has more points wins. If it's still tied, they trade possessions. Great system.
disbomber, Oct 15 2007

       Cool. I take it that the kicking duties fall to the specialist kicker then.   

       Imagine moving that concept into (Proper, er... Association) football. 1 guy taking penalties would be an interesting dynamic.
Jinbish, Oct 15 2007

       I really do not understand why this isn't already the case in the NFL and NCAA. It's simple, it extends the amount of television time for advertisers to pay for, and is an even-handed way of deciding the game. After watching the triple overtime Kentucky-LSU game this weekend, I'm sure that the current NCAA solution is rubbish.
Noexit, Oct 16 2007

       I like the NCAA rule. Or at least I did until Kentucky knocked us out of the #1 spot. Damn Kentucky to hell.
nomocrow, Oct 16 2007

       I like the idea of alternating field goal tries starting at 20 yd line. One try per side until one kicker makes it and the other doesn't... 5 yard increments.   

       Kind of the same as what overtime is anyways. Best Kicker wins. Put the pressure of the game on the puny little guy. Great betting fun...
Shapharian, Oct 17 2007

       Even the lowly CFL (Canadian Football League) uses the alternating possession format, with three downs instead of four, of course.   

       <danger - rant ahead> Attention NFL fans - if you have never seen a CFL game, tune one in next time you can. Our field is HUGE compared to yours (110 yards long, 65 yards wide), there are 12 players per side, it's three downs instead of four, and our offensive players are allowed almost unlimited motion before the snap. Many football experts claim it's a better game, especially for the fans. <end of rant>
Canuck, Oct 18 2007

       //<danger - rant ahead>//   

       I've enjoyed watching CFL for a long time. I'm not enough of a fan of football to discuss whether or not it's a better game, but it is great fun. I also enjoy watching 6 man high school ball.
Noexit, Oct 18 2007

       The way I figure is if you lose the game over a 5th quarter coin toss, you should have played better in quarters 1-4.
Jscotty, Oct 18 2007

       Voting against, because I hate football.
the_jxc, Oct 19 2007

       Should be 7 minutes instead of 15, but I get your drift. Good plan.
shapu, Oct 20 2007

       Damn Americans. What... is... so... BAAAD... about... TIE GAMES? Arrrrgh. This is a pet peave of mine.   

       No matter how it's implemented, overtime compromises the integrity of the game. Regulation time only - no overtime, ever. If the two teams play regulation game time to a tie, then they are evenly matched. Game goes into the books as a draw. What's so bad about that? Why must we always have a winner and loser?   

       I'm even against overtime for playoff games. If a playoff game ends in a tie, then both teams advance to the next round.   

       Check this out:
- Two ties equals a win and a loss
- one loss in the playoffs means you are eliminated

- Two ties in the playoffs, and you are eliminated.

       If the championship game ends in a tie, then the teams share the trophy. I don't understand what's so bad about that.   

       So simple. Get rid of overtime altogether, in every sport.
globaltourniquet, Nov 27 2007

       if both teams advanced to the next round in playoffs, then wouldn't you end up having a three-way game?   

       Overtime should be similar to just doing another quarter, maybe in 10-minute intervals.   

       P.S. yes I am one of those <explitive deleted> Americans
keithbrunkala, Nov 28 2007

       How about we put all the players on one end and have an official kick-off. Kind of like a jump ball in basketball. Whoever gets it first has to go to the goal on the officials end to score in sudden death play. I saw LSU in both tripple OTs and I don't care for the current way, which has had as many as 7 OTs, between Arkansas and LSU twice I believe.
UfosOverChina, Nov 28 2007

       [keith] - //if both teams advanced to the next round in playoffs, then wouldn't you end up having a three-way game//   

       No. You simply have a bye team. I have resolved all of that in another one of my ideas here (it has a very long title about the playoffs).
globaltourniquet, Nov 28 2007

       What would be the effect of spotting the kicking team 1/2 point (so that if the receiving team didn't score before the opponents did, and within the overtime interval, they'd lose)? Would the advantage be to the kicking team or the receiving team?   

       What about eliminating the "sudden death" rule, but spotting the first team that scores in overtime 2/3 point (with or without the earlier-mentioned 1/2-point spot)? Thus, if one team scores first with a field goal, the other team could still win, but would most likely need either two field goals or a touchdown to do so (two safeties, or a field goal and a safety would also work, but would seem less likely).
supercat, Feb 09 2009


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle