Sack that QB

Downside to this Playoff overtime format?

Recommended Posts

I know a lot of people don't want to change the current playoff format. Most of the people who want to keep it don't argue that they actually like the current rules, but more use a hard-lined stance to defend it, almost as if they are promoting some kind of agenda. Regardless of how you feel, as a fan of football I want the most entertaining games possible, so tell me what the downside would be with this playoff OT format, because I can't really find one.

Overtime plays like a normal 4th quarter of a football game except it's 10 minutes instead of 15. The winner at the end of OT wins the game. If it's tied again at the end of overtime, you keep playing until someone wins. And that's it.

Since it's the playoffs only format, there's much less concern about a long 4 OT playoff game distracting you from all the other action, since there's only 2 games on per day. In a worst-case scenario an early game would go to 4 OTs and you'd have to choose between watching the 2nd playoff game or watching OT... but even today with technology, many people can watch two games at once anyway.

The only other potential downside I guess is all that extra time would tire players out for the following playoff game, but that seems to be really pushing it.

Epic games get extended, you have the potential drama of teams mulling going for 2 instead of the extra point at the end of an OT period to prevent another OT period from occurring. It just means more football, more drama, everyone wins.

I don't see how any football fan could dislike this format. So I'm throwing it out there to see if anyone can find a downside with this particular format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd keep it as is, with maybe one change. The only thing that ends the game after a single possession, is an 8 point scoring drive. 6/7 or 3, and the other team gets the ball. If they don't equal the score back up (or score more than the first possession), then the game is over. 

Other than that, I'd leave the rest as is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I'd keep it as is, with maybe one change. The only thing that ends the game after a single possession, is an 8 point scoring drive. 6/7 or 3, and the other team gets the ball. If they don't equal the score back up (or score more than the first possession), then the game is over. 

Other than that, I'd leave the rest as is.

Do you want to keep it because you enjoy the current rules from an entertainment perspective? Because you think it’s fairest? Or both?

also, what do you think of my idea in a vacuum? Do you think it’s fair and would be entertaining?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave it as it is. Football is a team game. If the defense (or special teams) can't stop the opponent from getting a TD, then the team deserves to lose.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, CaliEagle said:

Leave it as it is. Football is a team game. If the defense (or special teams) can't stop the opponent from getting a TD, then the team deserves to lose.  

Going by that logic, if it’s a team sport, shouldn’t the offense get to bail out the defense like the previous 4 quarters?

 

but forget about the fairness arguments for a minute. Would you not have been more entertained yesterday if the Chiefs got the ball back and continued playing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sack that QB said:

Going by that logic, if it’s a team sport, shouldn’t the offense get to bail out the defense like the previous 4 quarters?

I'm saying that each part of the team needs to hold up its end of the bargain.  If a teams' defense isn't good enough, then that team doesn't belong in the SB. KC's defense was worse than ours and they were healthier than us.  So, it's on their GM to either can Sutton or address that defense and make it better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CaliEagle said:

I'm saying that each part of the team needs to hold up its end of the bargain.  If a teams' defense isn't good enough, then that team doesn't belong in the SB. KC's defense was worse than ours and they were healthier than us.  So, it's on their GM to either can Sutton or address that defense and make it better.

I’m asking you to forget about the "deserving” part of it, that is entirely subjective. If the Chiefs got the ball back and scored and that insane game kept going, would you have not enjoyed watching it continue on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sack that QB said:

I’m asking you to forget about the "deserving” part of it, that is entirely subjective. If the Chiefs got the ball back and scored and that insane game kept going, would you have not enjoyed watching it continue on?

I think both teams know the rules going in and so it's up to the coordinators and players to stop the other team. Injury-wise it's not good either. The more plays, the more chance players get injured.  There has to be a reasonable stopping point for a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CaliEagle said:

I think both teams know the rules going in and so it's up to the coordinators and players to stop the other team. Injury-wise it's not good either. The more plays, the more chance players get injured.  There has to be a reasonable stopping point for a game.

Some teams build more toward one side of the ball and the Chiefs who decided to build their team offensively suffer when their best side of the ball doesn’t get to see the field. Literally, the best player on your team in Mahomes doesn’t get his turn to even the score.

and yeah, the longer the game the more chances for injury, but in the grand scheme of things it’s a couple extra shortened quarters so you play 64+ in a season and maybe you play one or two more overall. It’s really not that big of a deal IMO.

but at least admit from an entertainment perspective it would be more fun to watch that game continue last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's tough. I like the idea of it, but really, no matter what you do, the team that wins the coin toss will always have an advantage. In the 10 minute format, the team that wins possession of the toss will have a better shot at obtaining 2 possessions. 

With the Pats/KC, the pats scored with about 5 minutes remaining. In the scenario of 10 minute quarters, it's likely that even if the Chiefs go down and score a matching TD, the pats still get a shot to get a field goal to win (assuming no sudden death.) Whether that's 40 seconds to 2 minutes or what have you, it's something the Chiefs would of never happened.

On the flipside with the current format, if the Chiefs made one stop they get the ball with a chance to win the game with only a field goal. Yes they have to stop the Patriots first, but after that they get a huge increase in their odds to win.

Contrast that to the Rams/Saints.. where in OT the Rams made the biggest game of the play defensively which ultimately decided it. If that game continued on after that, it's possible the Saints keep possession for the remainder of the game in a 10 minute quarter scenario (would of been 7 minutes) or at least keep it long enough to not allow the Rams a meaningful possession. Point being, the team that won the coin toss gets the advantage.

I'm not sure if there is or isn't a right answer, but I do know that the current system, as awkward as it maybe, probably gives teams the most even and fair chance of winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Northern Green Wings said:

It's tough. I like the idea of it, but really, no matter what you do, the team that wins the coin toss will always have an advantage. In the 10 minute format, the team that wins possession of the toss will have a better shot at obtaining 2 possessions. 

With the Pats/KC, the pats scored with about 5 minutes remaining. In the scenario of 10 minute quarters, it's likely that even if the Chiefs go down and score a matching TD, the pats still get a shot to get a field goal to win (assuming no sudden death.) Whether that's 40 seconds to 2 minutes or what have you, it's something the Chiefs would of never happened.

On the flipside with the current format, if the Chiefs made one stop they get the ball with a chance to win the game with only a field goal. Yes they have to stop the Patriots first, but after that they get a huge increase in their odds to win.

Contrast that to the Rams/Saints.. where in OT the Rams made the biggest game of the play defensively which ultimately decided it. If that game continued on after that, it's possible the Saints keep possession for the remainder of the game in a 10 minute quarter scenario (would of been 7 minutes) or at least keep it long enough to not allow the Rams a meaningful possession. Point being, the team that won the coin toss gets the advantage.

I'm not sure if there is or isn't a right answer, but I do know that the current system, as awkward as it maybe, probably gives teams the most even and fair chance of winning.

Good points, but also I think as the league favors offense more and more with rule changes and whatnot, it just becomes harder and harder for the team that loses the coin toss to win. And it will only get worse as they continue to add more rules and the refs toss flags around like candy. I believe in the last 8 playoff games, the team that won the coin toss won 7 of those times, and the only time they didn't was the Rams yesterday.

So it's easy to say "stop them" when you have a league where no one plays defense anymore and the league doesn't want you to play defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sack that QB said:

I know a lot of people don't want to change the current playoff format. Most of the people who want to keep it don't argue that they actually like the current rules, but more use a hard-lined stance to defend it, almost as if they are promoting some kind of agenda. Regardless of how you feel, as a fan of football I want the most entertaining games possible, so tell me what the downside would be with this playoff OT format, because I can't really find one.

Overtime plays like a normal 4th quarter of a football game except it's 10 minutes instead of 15. The winner at the end of OT wins the game. If it's tied again at the end of overtime, you keep playing until someone wins. And that's it.

Since it's the playoffs only format, there's much less concern about a long 4 OT playoff game distracting you from all the other action, since there's only 2 games on per day. In a worst-case scenario an early game would go to 4 OTs and you'd have to choose between watching the 2nd playoff game or watching OT... but even today with technology, many people can watch two games at once anyway.

The only other potential downside I guess is all that extra time would tire players out for the following playoff game, but that seems to be really pushing it.

Epic games get extended, you have the potential drama of teams mulling going for 2 instead of the extra point at the end of an OT period to prevent another OT period from occurring. It just means more football, more drama, everyone wins.

I don't see how any football fan could dislike this format. So I'm throwing it out there to see if anyone can find a downside with this particular format.

NFL will never do it but they should just copy what college football does for OT.  Instead of getting the ball at the 25 to start a possession, start it at the 40 or 50 yard line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

Good points, but also I think as the league favors offense more and more with rule changes and whatnot, it just becomes harder and harder for the team that loses the coin toss to win. And it will only get worse as they continue to add more rules and the refs toss flags around like candy. I believe in the last 8 playoff games, the team that won the coin toss won 7 of those times, and the only time they didn't was the Rams yesterday.

So it's easy to say "stop them" when you have a league where no one plays defense anymore and the league doesn't want you to play defense.

Oh I agree. I'm all for what's most fair, I dislike that the team winning the coin flip has a higher chance of winning. Forget that I wanted that game to go on longer with the way it was going.  The Patriots chances of winning increased off a coin flip that's supposed to be 50/50. And in todays NFL and rules, you're even more correct in that everything seemingly goes against defense, so why bother even trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I'd keep it as is, with maybe one change. The only thing that ends the game after a single possession, is an 8 point scoring drive. 6/7 or 3, and the other team gets the ball. If they don't equal the score back up (or score more than the first possession), then the game is over. 

Other than that, I'd leave the rest as is.

I believe I'm thinking the same as you. Your explanation seems a bit confusing though.

Each team is guaranteed a possession....Just as it is now, If the first team with possession kicks fg, the other team can win with TD. However, if the first team scores a TD, then the other team has to counter with a TD AND convert a mandatory 2 pt conversion to win. Similar to college but without the back and forth crap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, heavywchamp said:

I believe I'm thinking the same as you. Your explanation seems a bit confusing though.

Each team is guaranteed a possession....Just as it is now, If the first team with possession kicks fg, the other team can win with TD. However, if the first team scores a TD, then the other team has to counter with a TD AND convert a mandatory 2 pt conversion to win. Similar to college but without the back and forth crap. 

That's not quite the same as what I'm thinking. If the first team scores a TD and only goes for a 1 point PAT, then the other team gets the ball. But, if the first team scores a TD and a 2 point conversion, the game is over on the spot and the other team doesn't get the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

That's not quite the same as what I'm thinking. If the first team scores a TD and only goes for a 1 point PAT, then the other team gets the ball. But, if the first team scores a TD and a 2 point conversion, the game is over on the spot and the other team doesn't get the ball.

Oh well I like my scenario better. I don't like the idea of a team not getting the opportunity to counter with a TD of their own. It's unfair they get to counter a fg but not a TD. The only difference is they must convert a mandatory 2 pt conversion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, heavywchamp said:

Oh well I like my scenario better. I don't like the idea of a team not getting the opportunity to counter with a TD of their own. It's unfair they get to counter a fg but not a TD. The only difference is they must convert a mandatory 2 pt conversion. 

The 2 point requirement to win outright though, could be too tempting for some coaches, and then they don't make it and the other team gets the ball and a TD with 1 point PAT will win it.

So it adds an extra element of strategy, decision making and potential excitement (which is a minor consideration). Do we go for the win with a 2 pointer, or go for 1 and hope the D can stop them from getting into the endzone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

The 2 point requirement to win outright though, could be too tempting for some coaches, and then they don't make it and the other team gets the ball and a TD with 1 point PAT will win it.

So it adds an extra element of strategy, decision making and potential excitement (which is a minor consideration). Do we go for the win with a 2 pointer, or go for 1 and hope the D can stop them from getting into the endzone?

I can understand that view. I was just adding that layer of excitement (pressure) but at the same time giving both teams an equal opportunity to win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, heavywchamp said:

I can understand that view. I was just adding that layer of excitement (pressure) but at the same time giving both teams an equal opportunity to win. 

I like the sudden death aspect. Plus, each team does have an equal opportunity to win, just score more than the other team within the first 60 minutes lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda liked it the way it used to be....if you give up a score first, you lose.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Plache said:

I kinda liked it the way it used to be....if you give up a score first, you lose.  

I liked it, too. But, now that I think about it, the kickers now are able to hit FGs from around 60 yards with relative ease. So, that rule would've been outdated. It's better now with needing a TD to win or you get a chance after a FG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, heavywchamp said:

I can understand that view. I was just adding that layer of excitement (pressure) but at the same time giving both teams an equal opportunity to win. 

The issue I see here is you're talking about giving both teams an equal opportunity to win, but you're also suggesting the 2nd team must attempt a mandatory 2PC, a lower percentage play than a PAT. It seems to be on a similar level to Wally's idea that if Team A scores in X number of plays, then Team B must also score in X number of plays or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the OT as it is now.

If the Chiefs wanted to get Mahomes the ball back they should've stopped just 1 of the Patriots three 3rd and 10 conversions. They didn't. It was a great game and it deserved the ending it got.

On the other hand, The Rams forced their offense on the field by forcing HoFer Drew Brees to throw up a punt. They made the plays that needed to be made and are advancing because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Quiet Boy said:

I like the OT as it is now.

If the Chiefs wanted to get Mahomes the ball back they should've stopped just 1 of the Patriots three 3rd and 10 conversions. They didn't. It was a great game and it deserved the ending it got.

On the other hand, The Rams forced their offense on the field by forcing HoFer Drew Brees to throw up a punt. They made the plays that needed to be made and are advancing because of it.

Pretty much sums it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now