NFL is behind the times with OT rules

[qazxswedcvfrtgbnhyuj]

I feel like half the folks here are bringing arguments, and actual statistics, and the other half are just saying "that's football", "stop complaining", and "should have won it in regulation time", thereby completely disregarding the actual arguments being made for why many of us feel that adding the luck of a coin flip to a measurement of skill is ridiculous.

Can anybody that is in favor of the current rules actually bring a counter argument to the fact that you are handing one team a statistical advantage via said coin flip (and I'd assume that the 20% mentioned is a lot higher if both teams are built around their offense as was the case last night)? Do we really doubt the game would have ended the same had the Bills gotten their shot at offense first by the luck of a flip?

I had no skin in the game last night, just trying to see an argument that actually speaks for the current system. Because "shouldn't have let it get to that point" really isn't one.


((Also, since one previous poster mentioned soccer and that glorious OT game... UEFA/FIFA tried sudden death as well, at the Euros 1996. The finals were decided by the most ridiculous of dumb luck goals (and I say that as a German, who's team won becauseof said goal), and the result was hated so, so much by all fans that the idea was immediately scratched and replaced by the previous system. I wish that would happen here as well.))

How is it not? Football is a team game. Your defense needs to perform, just as your offense does. Just because in this particular game, the offenses were dominating doesnt make it "unfair". The advantage for the team that loses the coin toss, is that if your defense gets a stop, all you need is a field goal to win. It's not like BUF couldnt have made a stop, they stopped KC to a field goal starting on the 16 yard line with 2 mins left. This loss goes on BUF's coaching staff as soon as they decided that 13 seconds wasnt enough time for KC. the people upset are acting as if the NFL gave KC the ball on the 15 yard line. The teams need to play, and the defense needs to be apart of OT. This loss was completely self inflicted.

Because you can make that argument for both teams. Neither were good enough to "not let it get to OT", so why give one of them the advantage?

[FantasyFreak]

I feel like half the folks here are bringing arguments, and actual statistics, and the other half are just saying "that's football", "stop complaining", and "should have won it in regulation time", thereby completely disregarding the actual arguments being made for why many of us feel that adding the luck of a coin flip to a measurement of skill is ridiculous.

Can anybody that is in favor of the current rules actually bring a counter argument to the fact that you are handing one team a statistical advantage via said coin flip (and I'd assume that the 20% mentioned is a lot higher if both teams are built around their offense as was the case last night)? Do we really doubt the game would have ended the same had the Bills gotten their shot at offense first by the luck of a flip?

I had no skin in the game last night, just trying to see an argument that actually speaks for the current system. Because "shouldn't have let it get to that point" really isn't one.


((Also, since one previous poster mentioned soccer and that glorious OT game... UEFA/FIFA tried sudden death as well, at the Euros 1996. The finals were decided by the most ridiculous of dumb luck goals (and I say that as a German, who's team won becauseof said goal), and the result was hated so, so much by all fans that the idea was immediately scratched and replaced by the previous system. I wish that would happen here as well.))

This loss goes on BUF's coaching staff as soon as they decided that 13 seconds wasnt enough time for KC. the people upset are acting as if the NFL gave KC the ball on the 15 yard line. The teams need to play, and the defense needs to be apart of OT. This loss was completely self inflicted.

This has nothing to do with the OT rules. Again, it's not just 1 game. It's how the rules are set up in general, it lacks parity. The Bills game was just the latest example of this. 13 seconds left....all that, shouldn't even be a part of the conversation about OT rules. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

I agree the coaching staff blew it. I think they should be fired, personally. It's just the conversation about that and the rules of OT are 2 different ones.

[ThunderTung]

I feel like half the folks here are bringing arguments, and actual statistics, and the other half are just saying "that's football", "stop complaining", and "should have won it in regulation time", thereby completely disregarding the actual arguments being made for why many of us feel that adding the luck of a coin flip to a measurement of skill is ridiculous.

Can anybody that is in favor of the current rules actually bring a counter argument to the fact that you are handing one team a statistical advantage via said coin flip (and I'd assume that the 20% mentioned is a lot higher if both teams are built around their offense as was the case last night)? Do we really doubt the game would have ended the same had the Bills gotten their shot at offense first by the luck of a flip?

I had no skin in the game last night, just trying to see an argument that actually speaks for the current system. Because "shouldn't have let it get to that point" really isn't one.


((Also, since one previous poster mentioned soccer and that glorious OT game... UEFA/FIFA tried sudden death as well, at the Euros 1996. The finals were decided by the most ridiculous of dumb luck goals (and I say that as a German, who's team won becauseof said goal), and the result was hated so, so much by all fans that the idea was immediately scratched and replaced by the previous system. I wish that would happen here as well.))

How is it not? Football is a team game. Your defense needs to perform, just as your offense does. Just because in this particular game, the offenses were dominating doesnt make it "unfair". The advantage for the team that loses the coin toss, is that if your defense gets a stop, all you need is a field goal to win. It's not like BUF couldnt have made a stop, they stopped KC to a field goal starting on the 16 yard line with 2 mins left. This loss goes on BUF's coaching staff as soon as they decided that 13 seconds wasnt enough time for KC. the people upset are acting as if the NFL gave KC the ball on the 15 yard line. The teams need to play, and the defense needs to be apart of OT. This loss was completely self inflicted.

Because you can make that argument for both teams. Neither were good enough to "not let it get to OT", so why give one of them the advantage?

BUF kicked the ball off, with a lead, with 13 seconds remaining. There is no excuse for blowing that lead. and regardless of why they went to OT, the coin doesnt determine the winner, both teams still have to play. KC still needed to go down and score a TD, and BUF still needed to stop them, BUF didnt, and KC did. Thats game, thats football. Blaming KC winning on a coin toss and not BUF choking at the end of regulation and OT feels like a way to let BUF off the hook, and takes away from what KC really did

[FantasyFreak]

How is it not? Football is a team game. Your defense needs to perform, just as your offense does. Just because in this particular game, the offenses were dominating doesnt make it "unfair". The advantage for the team that loses the coin toss, is that if your defense gets a stop, all you need is a field goal to win. It's not like BUF couldnt have made a stop, they stopped KC to a field goal starting on the 16 yard line with 2 mins left. This loss goes on BUF's coaching staff as soon as they decided that 13 seconds wasnt enough time for KC. the people upset are acting as if the NFL gave KC the ball on the 15 yard line. The teams need to play, and the defense needs to be apart of OT. This loss was completely self inflicted.

Because you can make that argument for both teams. Neither were good enough to "not let it get to OT", so why give one of them the advantage?

BUF kicked the ball off, with a lead, with 13 seconds remaining. There is no excuse for blowing that lead. and regardless of why they went to OT, the coin doesnt determine the winner, both teams still have to play. KC still needed to go down and score a TD, and BUF still needed to stop them, BUF didnt, and KC did. Thats game, thats football. Blaming KC winning on a coin toss and not BUF choking at the end of regulation and OT feels like a way to let BUF off the hook, and takes away from what KC really did

The Bills coaching staff blew the game. That doesn't change the fact the NFL rules for OT lack parity, compared to literally every other sport.

[dynastyninja]

Each team should get a chance to touch the ball, it's that simple

[FantasyFreak]

Each team should get a chance to touch the ball, it's that simple

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqAyz1coj44

[ThunderTung]

Because you can make that argument for both teams. Neither were good enough to "not let it get to OT", so why give one of them the advantage?

BUF kicked the ball off, with a lead, with 13 seconds remaining. There is no excuse for blowing that lead. and regardless of why they went to OT, the coin doesnt determine the winner, both teams still have to play. KC still needed to go down and score a TD, and BUF still needed to stop them, BUF didnt, and KC did. Thats game, thats football. Blaming KC winning on a coin toss and not BUF choking at the end of regulation and OT feels like a way to let BUF off the hook, and takes away from what KC really did

The Bills coaching staff blew the game. That doesn't change the fact the NFL rules for OT lack parity, compared to literally every other sport.

except there is no statistical evidence that backs this up. I know it was discussed earlier, the team that possesses the ball first wins at 63% rate, over an 11 games sample size, which like discussed, is way to small and well within the margin of error. The only real statistic we can use is the one Pac eddy brought up, that over the last 10 years the win rate is 53% (including reg season) feels like parity to me

[qazxswedcvfrtgbnhyuj]

BUF kicked the ball off, with a lead, with 13 seconds remaining. There is no excuse for blowing that lead. and regardless of why they went to OT, the coin doesnt determine the winner, both teams still have to play. KC still needed to go down and score a TD, and BUF still needed to stop them, BUF didnt, and KC did. Thats game, thats football. Blaming KC winning on a coin toss and not BUF choking at the end of regulation and OT feels like a way to let BUF off the hook, and takes away from what KC really did

The Bills coaching staff blew the game. That doesn't change the fact the NFL rules for OT lack parity, compared to literally every other sport.

except there is no statistical evidence that backs this up. I know it was discussed earlier, the team that possesses the ball first wins at 63% rate, over an 11 games sample size, which like discussed, is way to small and well within the margin of error. The only real statistic we can use is the one Pac eddy brought up, that over the last 10 years the win rate is 53% (including reg season) feels like parity to me

On the first drive. Overall the team to get the ball first in OT is 10-1. Small sample size, agreed. But also pretty one sided numbers so far.

And again, the fact that Buff should not have let the Chiefs back in the game (while true) has nothing to do with the point we are trying to make about the OT system being a faulty one.

[nathanq42]

Disagree.

If you can't stop a team from driving the length of the field for a TD, the loss is earned. Is there data on that the coin flip winner has a significant advantage? Is there corresponding data for college?

I think college OT is nuts. A game that goes into overtime at 3-3 can end up 34-37.

Bills played a great game. So did the Chiefs.

This.

I didn't read this entire thread so apologies if this has been discussed:

But doesn't the NFL want these overtime games to be quick so that the players aren't (further) subject to injury? I believe they've done studies on how likely injuries are to occur following an overtime game. The winner of this game has to play in the conference championship next week. Can you imagine the physical toll an additional 15(?) 20(?) 30(?) minutes of NFL football would have?...and therefore, the disadvantage it would present to that team for winning the week before? I think that disadvantage FAR outweighs the disadvantage of losing the coin toss and having a change to stop the other team from driving the length of the field.

I get that it's frustrating but I also don't think it's an easy fix, all things considered

If the team that wins overtime is banged up they should have just won the game earlier, simple as that

They dont deserve to be healthy if they cant win in regulation.

/s

[ThunderTung]

The Bills coaching staff blew the game. That doesn't change the fact the NFL rules for OT lack parity, compared to literally every other sport.

except there is no statistical evidence that backs this up. I know it was discussed earlier, the team that possesses the ball first wins at 63% rate, over an 11 games sample size, which like discussed, is way to small and well within the margin of error. The only real statistic we can use is the one Pac eddy brought up, that over the last 10 years the win rate is 53% (including reg season) feels like parity to me

On the first drive. Overall the team to get the ball first in OT is 10-1. Small sample size, agreed. But also pretty one sided numbers so far.

And again, the fact that Buff should not have let the Chiefs back in the game (while true) has nothing to do with the point we are trying to make about the OT system being a faulty one.

10-1 seems irrelevant considering that the other team got a chance on offense 3 of those times. I just dont think the OT system is faulty, and i think the stats over the last 10 years including the regular season reflect a pretty even balance. It feels louder in the playoffs, because the losing side is upset and looking for something to blame it on considering their season is over

[FantasyFreak]

You don't really need a large sample size to understand the concept that the team that gets the ball first has an advantage. It's common sense. Again, point me to another major sport that has this lack of parity. There's literally no logical argument that the OT rules in the NFL are an even playing field.

[abloom]

You don't really need a large sample size to understand the concept that the team that gets the ball first has an advantage. It's common sense. Again, point me to another major sport that has this lack of parity. There's literally no logical argument that the OT rules in the NFL are an even playing field.

The only other common sport where the teams field offensive and defensive teams separately is baseball which has a widely different length component and no contact.

[killer_of_giants]

The only real statistic we can use is the one Pac eddy brought up, that over the last 10 years the win rate is 53% (including reg season) feels like parity to me

does it really, though?
have you considered ties?

win%: 52.8
tie%: 6.1
loss%: 41.1

it doesn't look all that balanced. the sample size is still small, though, and of course, overtime games aren't a 50/50 event, one team is generally better than the other, so you can win the toss after getting into overtime thanks to an excellent defense, and still blow it. it's hard to determine whether the result is due to the toss or the actual teams.

so now it comes down to common sense: getting the ball first gives you an advantage, i can't see how anyone can say it doesn't.

but if you have doubts, how about this stat: when winning an overtime coin toss, how many teams have decided to kick the ball, rather than receive it?

[FantasyFreak]

You don't really need a large sample size to understand the concept that the team that gets the ball first has an advantage. It's common sense. Again, point me to another major sport that has this lack of parity. There's literally no logical argument that the OT rules in the NFL are an even playing field.

The only other common sport where the teams field offensive and defensive teams separately is baseball which has a widely different length component and no contact.

....and there sport has parity in their overtime (extra innings). What about cricket? I believe that is similar in that regard. Also has parity, vs the NFL.

[abloom]

You don't really need a large sample size to understand the concept that the team that gets the ball first has an advantage. It's common sense. Again, point me to another major sport that has this lack of parity. There's literally no logical argument that the OT rules in the NFL are an even playing field.

The only other common sport where the teams field offensive and defensive teams separately is baseball which has a widely different length component and no contact.

....and there sport has parity in their overtime (extra innings). What about cricket? I believe that is similar in that regard. Also has parity, vs the NFL.

Since I know nothing about cricket I tried to make it just about the 3-4 other US sports. I don't think football has any interest in playing quarter after quarter until one team wins.

As I suggested earlier, to get rid of ties and OT just provide the home team with a 0.5 - 0 lead to start. (Or just say ties to to the home team).