overtime rules

[sidthekid42]

The NFL needs to change their overtime rules. A victory in overtime usually (73.1% last year) comes down to who wins the coin toss, thus making it merely a game of chance. Not a drastic change is needed, but simply if the NFL changed the rule to the first team who scores six points is awarded the victory, it would make overtime games much more of thrillers. For example, a team who wins the coin toss could opt to either go for the touchdown for the victory, or kick a field goal and be halfway to victory. It would eliminate the boring offense when a team is at their opponents 30 or closer, and simply running the football to set up a field goal, which is boring. A team would need to score a touchdown on the first possesion to be victorious, also more exciting then a field goal, and it would put pressure on coach's playcalling and aggressiveness.

[NorCalRef12]

Originally Posted by sidthekid42

The NFL needs to change their overtime rules. A victory in overtime usually (73.1% last year) comes down to who wins the coin toss, thus making it merely a game of chance.

Before you decide that this is causation rather than correlation, can you answer this question. What percentage of teams that win the coin toss at the beginning of the game eventually win the game itself?

[mikesears]

And what percentage win without giving the other team a series?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by NorCalRef12

Before you decide that this is causation rather than correlation, can you answer this question. What percentage of teams that win the coin toss at the beginning of the game eventually win the game itself?

Are you suggesting the coin toss is rigged? It's not correlated with anything it doesn't cause if it's a random event.
________
Colorado Dispensaries

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by sidthekid42

The NFL needs to change their overtime rules. A victory in overtime usually (73.1% last year) comes down to who wins the coin toss, thus making it merely a game of chance. Not a drastic change is needed, but simply if the NFL changed the rule to the first team who scores six points is awarded the victory, it would make overtime games much more of thrillers. For example, a team who wins the coin toss could opt to either go for the touchdown for the victory, or kick a field goal and be halfway to victory. It would eliminate the boring offense when a team is at their opponents 30 or closer, and simply running the football to set up a field goal, which is boring. A team would need to score a touchdown on the first possesion to be victorious, also more exciting then a field goal, and it would put pressure on coach's playcalling and aggressiveness.

Not sure if this applies to just last year or over a period of time but I seem to recall the stat was just over 50% of teams that win the coin toss and win on the first drive without the other team getting possession. It may be that 73% ultimately win the game but they don't do it on the first drive.

I've heard one of the reasons the NFL doesn't want to go to a college style overtime is they want to limit the amount of extra plays since the teams already play 16 games (colleges typically only play 12 + a bowl) and they only have 48 active players in each game while colleges have many more. Not sure if that's a vaild reason but it's one I've heard argued.

I think your proposal is one of the more interesting ones I've heard. I don't mind the current overtime rules because the team on defense can still get the ball back if they make a stop and they'll probably get better field position than the team who received the opening kickoff.

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by NorCalRef12

Before you decide that this is causation rather than correlation, can you answer this question. What percentage of teams that win the coin toss at the beginning of the game eventually win the game itself?

A more accurate analogy would be: How many teams winning the opening coin toss score first?

I don't think that correlating the coin toss with victory over a 60 minute game is valid.

[Texas Aggie]

What percentage of teams that win the coin toss at the beginning of the game eventually win the game itself?

This isn't relevant. The OT rules allow for a team to take the ball down the field, score in any manner, and not be subject to playing defense. That would not happen in a regular game due to halftime, at the very least. A 60 minute clock ensures it won't happen either.

And what percentage win without giving the other team a series?

Certainly relevant and a much better question. According to a site, from 2000-07, 30% of the games were decided with one team not touching the ball in OT. This was roughly half of the percentage the site listed for OT games where the toss winner won the game (compared to the above listed percentage, which may still be accurate, but over a different time frame).

Assuming the 73% figure is accurate and the site I referenced -- 60+% in this decade -- is accurate, it shows that the coin toss advantage is diminished or diminishing over time. There could, of course, be an aberration, and it means both nothing and that the 60% figure for an extended time is reasonable. But does that mean the next 8 years could bring an 85% rate? Unlikely, but possible. Of course, with stats, anything is possible.

I agree somewhat with the OP. I think play in OT needs to "collapse down" or become progressively harder. If 2 teams are even after 60 minutes, the way they are playing isn't working to decide a winner. I would break up the OT period into 3 5 minute periods: eliminate the kicking try and field goal in the first -- similar to what the poster says. 4th down from the 30 going in? You have to go for it. In the second OT period, I'd eliminate punting. 4th down and 15 from the 30 going out? Better make it. I'm not sure what I'd change for the final period. Any suggestions?

I, however, don't want to see the NCAA rule change, except maybe to eliminate kick trys and field goals.

[Texas Aggie]

It's not correlated with anything it doesn't cause if it's a random event.

This isn't true. Lots of random events have both correlations and causations with other events. Car accidents, in general, are a random event. Yet, there's a strong correlation between accidents and alcohol consumption by one or both drivers beforehand. A drunk driver in a huge parking lot with no cars or obstacles isn't going to wreck (assuming he stays on the lot) but on the road with barriers, lights, and other drivers, well, you know the result. A car accident, obviously, doesn't cause drunk driving and DD, while strongly correlated with accidents (and vice versa), doesn't cause them. (This is an academic discussion; don't drink and drive to prove me wrong; just debate the point. PLEASE.)

[Reffing Rev.]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Certainly relevant and a much better question. According to a site, from 2000-07, 30% of the games were decided with one team not touching the ball in OT.

Both teams "touch" the ball! It sounds crazy but if I only had a 30% chance of winning by kicking off, and forced to do so, if my on-side kick percentage were good, I might be tempted to sneak one in there.

I'm not a big fan of the NFL overtime at all. I am a big fan of the NCAA overtime, however if NFL doesn't want to use it, fine.

The problem with the college system, it could go on forever, the problem with the current NFL system one team may win via coin toss, or you might still have to kiss your sister. A few years ago my college buddies and I came up with the most creative ways to break a tie in a football game. Here is a little of our list...
1. FG kickoff (aka soccer penatly kicks) 5 shots (20, 25, 30, 35, 40) Still tied, + 2 yards and keep going.
2. 1st down at A's 20, 4 downs to advance as far as possible, then let B have a go, team that advances farther wins. Score a touchdown, count it as 100 yards and go back to the 20 if you have any downs left.
3. 1st down at A's 20, 5:00 on the clock to score as many points as possible. switch.
4. Goal line standoff (similar to the penalty kicks) 1 play from the 1,2,3,4 & 5. Still tied back it up one more yard and keep going.
5. Team sprint - line up 11 players of each team on 1 goal line. First team to have all 11 players across the opposite goal line wins. For added excitement, no holds barred.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

This isn't true. Lots of random events have both correlations and causations with other events. Car accidents, in general, are a random event. Yet, there's a strong correlation between accidents and alcohol consumption by one or both drivers beforehand. A drunk driver in a huge parking lot with no cars or obstacles isn't going to wreck (assuming he stays on the lot) but on the road with barriers, lights, and other drivers, well, you know the result. A car accident, obviously, doesn't cause drunk driving and DD, while strongly correlated with accidents (and vice versa), doesn't cause them. (This is an academic discussion; don't drink and drive to prove me wrong; just debate the point. PLEASE.)

Car accidents are not a random event. They are caused by the things that lead up to them. Those things are causative. There's a strong correlation between drinking and accidents because drinking is a causal factor in accidents. Things will be correlated only if one causes the other or both share a common cause. Causes don't necessarily have to be exclusive.
________
Hyde Park Residence

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by youngump

Car accidents are not a random event. They are caused by the things that lead up to them. Those things are causative. There's a strong correlation between drinking and accidents because drinking is a causal factor in accidents. Things will be correlated only if one causes the other or both share a common cause. Causes don't necessarily have to be exclusive.

The coin toss is a random event. It is still correlated to the outcome of overtime. "Random" is not the opposite of "correlated".

This also doesn't imply that the coin toss is rigged. It only says that the winner of the coin toss (which is a fair game) is more likely to win the game.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by sseltser

The coin toss is a random event. It is still correlated to the outcome of overtime. "Random" is not the opposite of "correlated".

This also doesn't imply that the coin toss is rigged. It only says that the winner of the coin toss (which is a fair game) is more likely to win the game.

That's right. And even though the coin toss is fair, it is a fair game of chance. Ordinarily we expect football to be a game of skill and the outcome to depend as much or more on skill as chance. Otherwise, we could just end the game with the toss and not play at all.

[bigjohn]

I would much rather see them play a 7.5 minute (half a regulation quarter) overtime period or 5 minutes, whatever. That way the game is not sudden death. If the game is tied at the end of overtime, declare a tie and go on. I don't understand why a draw is so bad!

[patalia]

Originally Posted by sidthekid42

The NFL needs to change their overtime rules. A victory in overtime usually (73.1% last year) comes down to who wins the coin toss, thus making it merely a game of chance. Not a drastic change is needed, but simply if the NFL changed the rule to the first team who scores six points is awarded the victory, it would make overtime games much more of thrillers. For example, a team who wins the coin toss could opt to either go for the touchdown for the victory, or kick a field goal and be halfway to victory. It would eliminate the boring offense when a team is at their opponents 30 or closer, and simply running the football to set up a field goal, which is boring. A team would need to score a touchdown on the first possesion to be victorious, also more exciting then a field goal, and it would put pressure on coach's playcalling and aggressiveness.

While I would like to see a change to the current method, I am not overly opposed to the current method. The reason is that you can always argue that both teams had 60 minutes to win the game in regulation. In other words, by not winning the game outright in regulation, the teams are subjecting themselves to whatever OT method is in place. Furthermore, they are fully aware of what that method will be if it occurs. As far as the run plays to get a little closer for a field goal and get good lateral position for the attempt, it should be understood that strategic moves in all sports can be boring. Intentional walks and icing the puck are pretty dull too. At least people are hitting each other in football

[youngump]

Originally Posted by sseltser

The coin toss is a random event. It is still correlated to the outcome of overtime. "Random" is not the opposite of "correlated".

This also doesn't imply that the coin toss is rigged. It only says that the winner of the coin toss (which is a fair game) is more likely to win the game.

Agreed, my point was to respond to an earlier poster who claimed that showing a significantly increased win percentage didn't show whether there was causation or correlation. If the coin toss is random and correlated, then it must be that the result of the coin toss actually causes the correlation.
________
List of best vaporizers