 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » nfl overtime
| Poll: nfl overtime | |
|---|---|
| yes | 1 |
| no | 3 |
skierdude44
nfl overtime
September 21, 2003 at 01:36AM View BBCode
do u think that the nflovertime rule should b changed so that each team gets atleast one posession? i do.
FuriousGiorge
September 21, 2003 at 01:44AM View BBCode
Yeah, the overtime rule in the NFL sucks. Guys sweat and toil for 60 minutes and then their fate rests on a coin. Quite frankly, I think the idea behind the college overtime rule is great, although it could stand some tweaking. I'm not sure why a kickoff couldn't be worked into that sort of system, where each team gets a full possesion including kickoff, and the first team to not score when the other one does loses.
Anonymous
September 21, 2003 at 03:58AM View BBCode
should be changed but not for the posession, it shoudl just add 1 more quarter, and whoever is ahead wins. correct me if im wrong, but now it is whoever scores first wins. i say do it like MLB and just keep adding quarters until someone wins. first overtime is determined by coin flip, and after that it changes each quarter.
ME
September 21, 2003 at 06:14AM View BBCode
the coin-flip deciding games is bad, especially since you only need a Field Goal to win. I don't like the college system cause you get the ball on the 35 and kickoffs/punting is thrown out. best thing would be play for 10 more minutes with coin flip determining who gest the ball first. i think an extra 15 minute quarter would be too long.
skierdude44
September 21, 2003 at 02:45PM View BBCode
yea the coinflip does suck. especially in playoff games. i mean the team that gets the ball first has no intention of getting an touch down so all they r gonna do is throw short passes and run the ball and it is harder to intercept short passes. and they only need to get to like the 30 so the field is shortened so much. i think at least both teams should get a possesion and like if i get the ball first and score then u need to score and if u do score then we keep goin for 15 minutes and if the game is still tied than it is declared a tie. this would also encourage touchdowns instead of field goals.
happy
September 21, 2003 at 11:53PM View BBCode
ok, i got it, it will be kind of hard to explain. there are 3 minutes quarters, and they do a pair of quarters, and give each team the ball to start once, then it is played until time runs out. so for example, if the redskins get the ball first, then they get the ball, and they go and score a touchdown in 1 minute, then the jets get the ball back with 2 minutes left, and try to score a touch down, THEN, the jets start with the ball, and they score a field goal in 2 mins, and the redskins cant score a field goal in the next to minutes, then the jets win. you keep playing extra pairs of quarters till someone wins. i hope everyone understood that. ask for clarification if you dont. stupid rule made redskins lose today
Cubsfan13
September 22, 2003 at 12:08AM View BBCode
Yea saw the game and it sucked for the skins, even though I don't like either team. I like your set up.
ME
September 22, 2003 at 12:16AM View BBCode
the redskins lost cause of the coin flip. if they had won it they might still have lost but they would have had a chance to win with the offense. if MLB adopted the NFL system it would be the same as doing a coin flip for who gets to hit first in extra-innings, and if you score a run in the top 10th then you win and no bottom 10th inning is played.
skierdude44
September 22, 2003 at 01:08AM View BBCode
i didnt watch the end of the giants skins game. i think that it wuz like 21-3 giants when i turned it off. im shocked that it went to over time but mayb i shouldnt b considering the niners game last year. i think that we can all agree that the rule needs to be changed.
Duff77
Just a thought :)
September 22, 2003 at 05:15AM View BBCode
Not that I'm a football fan, but I was thinking about this: No field goals in overtime. Make the winning team put the ball in the end zone. That would make it much less likely that an overtime game was decided on a coin flip.Just a thought :)
skierdude44
September 22, 2003 at 09:53PM View BBCode
thats a pretty good idea but it still doesnt guarantee the other team a chance to score although it improves their odds of getting the ball.
tysonlowery
As it is now half the league finishes 9-7 and obscure tiebreakers are used to decide who gets in - throwing some ties in there would help solve this problem. If you play 60 minutes and are still tied, chances are you played pretty even that day.
September 22, 2003 at 09:59PM View BBCode
They should get rid of overtime and just have games end in ties.As it is now half the league finishes 9-7 and obscure tiebreakers are used to decide who gets in - throwing some ties in there would help solve this problem. If you play 60 minutes and are still tied, chances are you played pretty even that day.
Duff77
I think if you force the team to score a touchdown to win in OT, you'll have far fewer teams scoring on their first possession. Maybe you could also use some factor other than a coin flip to decide who gets the ball--something based on performance during the game. I have no clue what that would be, though.
September 23, 2003 at 04:40AM View BBCode
If the 2002 All-Star game proved anything, it's that American sports fans hate ties. People want a winner and a loser. Besides, overtime is exciting. It's like extra innings in baseball. The increase in pressure ramps up the level of play. Overtime is a good thing.I think if you force the team to score a touchdown to win in OT, you'll have far fewer teams scoring on their first possession. Maybe you could also use some factor other than a coin flip to decide who gets the ball--something based on performance during the game. I have no clue what that would be, though.
farfetched
In order to decide who will kick and receive in overtime, have a couple guys race and scramble for it.
September 23, 2003 at 04:48AM View BBCode
That's the one good thing the XFL had going for them.In order to decide who will kick and receive in overtime, have a couple guys race and scramble for it.
Duff77
September 23, 2003 at 04:52AM View BBCode
Here you go: The team with the lowest number of drug possession charges gets to recieve in OT :)
tysonlowery
September 23, 2003 at 05:02AM View BBCode
I thought the All Star game proved people hated Bud Selig?
Duff77
But yes, it did prove how much people hate Bud Selig. If he'd ordered the teams to finish the game, people would've screamed about it just as loudly.
BTW--home field advantage in the World Series should go to the team with the best record, period.
September 23, 2003 at 05:14AM View BBCode
Mainly, the All-Star game proved how repulsive American culture has become. I couldn't believe anyone gave a damn about who won a game that didn't count. As far as I was concerned, Selig had it right. There was no reason to continue playing the game when it didn't make any difference. I can't believe people want their favorite players to risk injury just so a meaningless exhibition game doesn't end in a tie. The whole thing was stupid, and the press blew it completely out of proportion.But yes, it did prove how much people hate Bud Selig. If he'd ordered the teams to finish the game, people would've screamed about it just as loudly.
BTW--home field advantage in the World Series should go to the team with the best record, period.
happy
September 23, 2003 at 07:02PM View BBCode
no, the all star game is a cool game, and i think the starters should be left in the whole game unless there is a true reason to put someone in (defensive replacement, pinch hitter for good defensive players....) I hate ties, i already said it. it is like wasting a day, when you dont even have someone win. Ties suck. If you think that ties are good, then lets do ties in baseball, that would really suck. Selig had it wrong, and everyone hated him, which made it worse. A good commisioner woul have said something like "i guess you should have saved someone, who are you gonna put in?" thats what i would have said. Maybe they should have 2 "extra innings only pitchers" or something. they should put all the starters in for 2 innings, and they relievers in for 1 inning or something, and not use all their players.
Duff77
No. The pupose of the All-Star game is to showcase the game's best players. Who wins and loses is secondary. Everyone remembers Randy Johnson throwing one over John Kruck's head. Nobody remembers--or CARES--who won that game. It doesn't matter.
I know what you want, Happy: You want all the players to come and play their guts out for a meaningless game. Well look, whether you force the managers to leave the starters in or not, the players aren't going to give their all for a totally meaningless game. Are you planning on leaving in the starting pitchers, too? To have them waste an entire start on a meaningless game? Try it. No pitcher would show up.
You know, we've been playing the All Star game for a long time, and up until 2002, nobody gave a damn who won the game. Guess what? I still don't.
September 23, 2003 at 08:07PM View BBCode
I can't believe you just accused me of "loving ties." Sure, the All-Star game is a cool game, but it DOESN'T COUNT. It's an exhibition. Sure, someone had always won it or lost it before, but prior to this year, nobody gave a damn who won. Why in the world should teams be forced to waste their players--possibly costing them games that DO COUNT, to play a 15-inning All-Star game? It's ludicrious. And by the way, it's not fair. If Joe Torre gets into some 22-inning All-Star marathon, who do you think he's going to run out there to pitch? I promise you it won't be one of his own players.No. The pupose of the All-Star game is to showcase the game's best players. Who wins and loses is secondary. Everyone remembers Randy Johnson throwing one over John Kruck's head. Nobody remembers--or CARES--who won that game. It doesn't matter.
I know what you want, Happy: You want all the players to come and play their guts out for a meaningless game. Well look, whether you force the managers to leave the starters in or not, the players aren't going to give their all for a totally meaningless game. Are you planning on leaving in the starting pitchers, too? To have them waste an entire start on a meaningless game? Try it. No pitcher would show up.
You know, we've been playing the All Star game for a long time, and up until 2002, nobody gave a damn who won the game. Guess what? I still don't.
skierdude44
September 23, 2003 at 08:49PM View BBCode
im not gonna lie i like to see a winner and i felt that the allstar game last year wuz kinda a rip but duff is rite. allstar managers arent gonna leave their players in the whole time and teams wont let their stars play in the game if they play happy's way. u kno how pedro is always held out of the allstar game and how zito wuz this year all that will happy if they play happy's way is that we will see that tampa bay and detroit allstars playing the sandiego and milwaukee allstars. i think that they should expand the rosters and designate players for extra inning use only. i also think that this every team must b represented is crap. all that happens is that someone deserving of an allstar appearnce gets ripped off cuz lance carter has to b on the roster but wont play. duff is also rite about the team with the best record getting home field advantage.
happy
September 23, 2003 at 08:59PM View BBCode
not you Duff, Tyson, he said that FOOTBALL games should be in ties. The all star game was dumb when it tied. i think the best players SHOULD stay in, and the players will try, maybe not totally, but they will try. I think it is dumb that stupid TB players or Detroit players have to be put in. the backups should basically be honorable mentions. I dont expect the Pitchers to go out and pitch 7 innings, but i do expect them to pitch 2, and 1 for relievers (except relievers who are 1 out kind of guys like Orosco) the team with the best record shouldnt get to have the advantage in the WS. to explain this position i will use the NBA as an example. lets take the East and West, and then take the Nets, and switch them with the Maverics. the Mavs will ALWAYS have the best record, and then lose in the finals. Maybe doing whichever side has a better record in the NL vs AL games, or something, but not best record. The all star game is AWESOME, but only for about the first 4 innings, then it gets dumb. Keep the starters in. we voted for them, so let us keep them in the game.
ME
back to football overtimes, how about a rule that first team to score 6 points in overtime wins, so you would have to kick 2 field goals or score a touchdown. of course the team winning the coin toss would still have an advantage but not nearly as big of one.
September 23, 2003 at 09:47PM View BBCode
starting hitters should stay in for the whole all star games unless it makes sense to take them out, pitchers should pitch not as much so they dont get too tired, and only the home team should be required to have a player in the game (at least as a backup). Shitty players don't deserve to get in cause they are the best player at a certain position on a worthless team. best record in MLB is hard cause the NL and AL don't play each other much like the East and West do in the NBA. In the NBA the schedule is somthing like 2 games against all teams in other conferance (like Wizards would play all West conferance teams twice, one home, one away), and 4 games against your own division (Wizards play all other atlantic teams 4 times), and 3 games against everyone in your conferance in other division, something like that I don't think that is totally right but it is close, so the teams in each division play each other enough that the best team will have the best record. in baseball the teams only play a few games against teams in the other league, so it doesnt work as well, especially if one league is a lot stronger. the all star game deciding homefield was better than the system of rotating AL and NL every year cause at least its based on something.back to football overtimes, how about a rule that first team to score 6 points in overtime wins, so you would have to kick 2 field goals or score a touchdown. of course the team winning the coin toss would still have an advantage but not nearly as big of one.
skierdude44
September 23, 2003 at 10:34PM View BBCode
happy that is retarded. no franchises r gonna let their star players play the whole game as it is now teams still hold some of their star players out. if u want the dimitri youngs and jerry hairstons of the world playing the field and the mike maroths and oliver perezs of the world pitching during the all star game than b my guest. but i think that would suck and i think that most ppl will agree with me.
ME
September 23, 2003 at 11:25PM View BBCode
it doesnt really affect hitters to be playing the whole game, only pitchers, and he said that it was ok for pitchers to pitch only a few innings.Pages: 1 2