PDA

View Full Version : NFL overtime



Dieter
01-26-2010, 03:21 PM
I have looked in the forums, and either I am blind or American football fans (Minnesota in this case) are completely comfortable with the coin toss in the NFL. personally I hate the rule and prefer the NCAA/CFL version.

I nearly peuked when the Saints won the toss cause you just knew Brees would get them at least within field goal range with that offense.

Here is a clip from a Canadian show (Toronto based...I HATE Toronto more than I hate Dalls, but regardless)

Opinions from Vikes fans on losing a game in a large part because of a coin?

Dieter
01-26-2010, 03:24 PM
Forgot to put the link in

http://videos.torontosun.com/video/sports/sports/5745372001/grill-room-nfl-overtime-a-joke/63271401001

Zeus
01-26-2010, 03:28 PM
Dieter wrote:

Opinions from Vikes fans on losing a game in a large part because of a coin?

There's no need to change the OT procedure in the NFL, IMHO. There are 2 sides in football (3 if you count special teams) - offense and defense. You lose the coin toss? Stop the other team.

=Z=

Midge Resurrected
01-26-2010, 03:34 PM
I personally have little problem with the NFL procedure.

I cannot STAND the NCAA procedure as you flat out start in FG range, which is a joke.

I would not mind the NFL saying for the playoffs and playoffs only you flat play an entire 10 minute quarter with 3 timeouts each. If still tied, you play another one ... etc.

Of course you could end up out there forever, but is there really anything better than the NHL Playoffs overtime?

BigOlHorns
01-26-2010, 03:36 PM
I hate the NFL's overtime. At least give the other offense a chance to touch the ball. After each team gets 1 possession, then you can go to sudden death.

Brazilian Rider
01-26-2010, 03:39 PM
I'll answer like this: How many teams do you see that win the coin toss and pick to go on defense?

Zeus
01-26-2010, 03:43 PM
Brazilian Rider wrote:

I'll answer like this: How many teams do you see that win the coin toss and pick to go on defense?

So what?

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_3118_NO_31%2C_Minny_28%3A_the_NFL%27s_tragic_hero.html


The Saints won the overtime toss and proceeded to drive down for the game-winning field goal on the only possession by either team in the extra session.

Naturally, talk of the futility of the NFL overtime system has been a hot topic Monday morning. Let us first state that, yes, overtime football sucks. There’s no good way to do it. The NFL coin-flip system sucks. The college football trade-possessions-at-the-25 system seems to be better, but can often drag on forever.

With that said, critics of the NFL overtime system seem to believe that losing the coin flip is a death sentence and winning it is an express pass to victory.

The Cold, Hard Football Facts say otherwise. NFL teams that won the toss were 7-6 (.538) in 2009.


=Z=

Brazilian Rider
01-26-2010, 03:46 PM
Zeus wrote:

Brazilian Rider wrote:

I'll answer like this: How many teams do you see that win the coin toss and pick to go on defense?

So what?

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_3118_NO_31%2C_Minny_28%3A_the_NFL%27s_tragic_hero.html


The Saints won the overtime toss and proceeded to drive down for the game-winning field goal on the only possession by either team in the extra session.

Naturally, talk of the futility of the NFL overtime system has been a hot topic Monday morning. Let us first state that, yes, overtime football sucks. There’s no good way to do it. The NFL coin-flip system sucks. The college football trade-possessions-at-the-25 system seems to be better, but can often drag on forever.

With that said, critics of the NFL overtime system seem to believe that losing the coin flip is a death sentence and winning it is an express pass to victory.

The Cold, Hard Football Facts say otherwise. NFL teams that won the toss were 7-6 (.538) in 2009.


=Z=

I hate it when topics are crushed by logic.

ConnecticutViking
01-26-2010, 03:48 PM
I looked up the stats from 74-03. And believe it our not, there is not a big difference between the teams that win the coin toss or lose the coin toss. Here are the stats. Only an 8% difference between winning the coin toss and losing. Almost 50/50. In reality 52/44 with 5% tie.

Total no. of overtime games (1974–2003) 365
Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %)

BigOlHorns
01-26-2010, 03:52 PM
Zeus wrote:
There's no need to change the OT procedure in the NFL, IMHO. There are 2 sides in football (3 if you count special teams) - offense and defense. You lose the coin toss? Stop the other team.

=Z=
By this logic, baseball should adopt a policy where if you score in the top of the 10th, the game is over. After all, pitching is part of baseball. If you can't stop them, you lose. Of course baseball would never do that, because it's ridiculous.

Brazilian Rider
01-26-2010, 03:58 PM
BigOlHorns wrote:


Zeus wrote:
There's no need to change the OT procedure in the NFL, IMHO. There are 2 sides in football (3 if you count special teams) - offense and defense. You lose the coin toss? Stop the other team.

=Z=
By this logic, baseball should adopt a policy where if you score in the top of the 10th, the game is over. After all, pitching is part of baseball. If you can't stop them, you lose. Of course baseball would never do that, because it's ridiculous.

QFT. You say it's a two sided game. Let both teams have a chance at both sides of the ball, then we see who is the better team.

Zeus
01-26-2010, 04:02 PM
Brazilian Rider wrote:

BigOlHorns wrote:


Zeus wrote:
There's no need to change the OT procedure in the NFL, IMHO. There are 2 sides in football (3 if you count special teams) - offense and defense. You lose the coin toss? Stop the other team.

By this logic, baseball should adopt a policy where if you score in the top of the 10th, the game is over. After all, pitching is part of baseball. If you can't stop them, you lose. Of course baseball would never do that, because it's ridiculous.

QFT. You say it's a two sided game. Let both teams have a chance at both sides of the ball, then we see who is the better team.

Doubtful you'd be saying this had the Vikings won the toss and ended up kicking the FG with Brees and Co. never seeing the field. QFT my ass.

=Z=

Zeus
01-26-2010, 04:04 PM
BigOlHorns wrote:


Zeus wrote:
There's no need to change the OT procedure in the NFL, IMHO. There are 2 sides in football (3 if you count special teams) - offense and defense. You lose the coin toss? Stop the other team.

By this logic, baseball should adopt a policy where if you score in the top of the 10th, the game is over. After all, pitching is part of baseball. If you can't stop them, you lose. Of course baseball would never do that, because it's ridiculous.

Two different sports that are not at all comparable.

But if you want to draw parallels, then football should just stop the game if the home team is winning with 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter and they have the ball, right?

Speaking of ridiculous.

=Z=

BigOlHorns
01-26-2010, 04:10 PM
Two different sports that are not at all comparable.

But if you want to draw parallels, then football should just stop the game if the home team is winning with 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter and they have the ball, right?

Speaking of ridiculous.

=Z=
Of course it's comparable. You're saying one side of the ball should be able to dictate the outcome of a game after playing four periods with two sides of the ball. Compare it to basketball. Win the tip, hit a jumper, ball game. Other team doesn't touch the ball. Too bad. Should've played better D.

I've been an anti-NFL overtime guy for years. As I said, give both teams an offensive possession, then go to sudden death if it's still tied. That would be a much better solution, and you'd negate all the criticism with a small, but valuable, change.

Zeus
01-26-2010, 04:17 PM
BigOlHorns wrote:


Two different sports that are not at all comparable.

But if you want to draw parallels, then football should just stop the game if the home team is winning with 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter and they have the ball, right?

Speaking of ridiculous.


Of course it's comparable. You're saying one side of the ball should be able to dictate the outcome of a game after playing four periods with two sides of the ball. Compare it to basketball. Win the tip, hit a jumper, ball game. Other team doesn't touch the ball. Too bad. Should've played better D.

I've been an anti-NFL overtime guy for years. As I said, give both teams an offensive possession, then go to sudden death if it's still tied. That would be a much better solution, and you'd negate all the criticism with a small, but valuable, change.

But what about the wind? Should both teams get the ball with the wind at their backs? How is it fair that one team gets an advantage on the elements?

And - shouldn't all games be played at neutral sites? Hardly fair that one offense has to play with loud crowd noise ringing in their ears and the other offense gets to play with silence.

Blech. Sorry, but there's nothing wrong with OT in the NFL. It's a man's game. Be a man - stop the other team.

=Z=

BigOlHorns
01-26-2010, 04:20 PM
But what about the wind? Should both teams get the ball with the wind at their backs? How is it fair that one team gets an advantage on the elements?

And - shouldn't all games be played at neutral sites? Hardly fair that one offense has to play with loud crowd noise ringing in their ears and the other offense gets to play with silence.

Blech. Sorry, but there's nothing wrong with OT in the NFL. It's a man's game. Be a man - stop the other team.

=Z=
You've changed the topic from actual rules to variables. It's obvious where this is going.

Prophet
01-26-2010, 04:25 PM
I've always hated OT in the NFL. Both teams have a series of battles in the course of the game and the game is tied at the end of the war. Then they flip a fucking coin to see who gets the ball? Work your ass off and leave everything on the field and then it's like....ah, well, it's tied, let's flip a fucking coin and see who wins. I think it's pathetic. At least have an extra quarter and let them duke it out. The coin flip is ridiculous.

p.s. as long as i'm bitching, wtf is the point of having instant replays when they don't work much of the time? How the hell can I see 6 different angles in super slow mo, take a piss, make a sandwich, get a beer, and then have the highly trained refs who get paid to analyze the tape concentrate on nothing but that and still get the call wrong? It should never be wrong on an instant replay. I'm for instituting the death penalty on bad calls reviewed on instant replay. I mean this is the 21st century, i can take a picture of a the inside of a vacuole and you can't get a call right on a football field with high definition super slow mo multiple angles when that is what you're trained to do? wtf?

happy camper
01-26-2010, 04:36 PM
I'm fine with the current format. There is a 60 minute game that precedes overtime. The thing about the current overtime, teams do not want to play it. This gives a sense of urgency in regulation.

The Vikings could have, and should have, prevented overtime in their loss to New Orleans.

C Mac D
01-26-2010, 04:38 PM
Zeus wrote:

Blech. Sorry, but there's nothing wrong with OT in the NFL. It's a man's game. Be a man - stop the other team.

=Z=

What if you do stop them, but they call it a first down anyway?

Brazilian Rider
01-26-2010, 04:40 PM
Zeus wrote:

BigOlHorns wrote:


Two different sports that are not at all comparable.

But if you want to draw parallels, then football should just stop the game if the home team is winning with 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter and they have the ball, right?

Speaking of ridiculous.


Of course it's comparable. You're saying one side of the ball should be able to dictate the outcome of a game after playing four periods with two sides of the ball. Compare it to basketball. Win the tip, hit a jumper, ball game. Other team doesn't touch the ball. Too bad. Should've played better D.

I've been an anti-NFL overtime guy for years. As I said, give both teams an offensive possession, then go to sudden death if it's still tied. That would be a much better solution, and you'd negate all the criticism with a small, but valuable, change.

But what about the wind? Should both teams get the ball with the wind at their backs? How is it fair that one team gets an advantage on the elements?

And - shouldn't all games be played at neutral sites? Hardly fair that one offense has to play with loud crowd noise ringing in their ears and the other offense gets to play with silence.

Blech. Sorry, but there's nothing wrong with OT in the NFL. It's a man's game. Be a man - stop the other team.

=Z=

People can train to play in wind and in hostile enviroments. They can't be taught how to pick the right side of a coin every time.

I agree with Big Ol' Horns on this issue...

And yes, I also vote for the death penalty when getting a call wrong. The NFL better fire those refs.

Brazilian Rider
01-26-2010, 04:44 PM
C Mac D wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Blech. Sorry, but there's nothing wrong with OT in the NFL. It's a man's game. Be a man - stop the other team.

=Z=

What if you do stop them, but they call it a first down anyway?

+1

:woohoo: :silly: :huh: :dry: :S :(

i_bleed_purple
01-26-2010, 05:26 PM
Midge Resurrected wrote:

I personally have little problem with the NFL procedure.

I cannot STAND the NCAA procedure as you flat out start in FG range, which is a joke.

I would not mind the NFL saying for the playoffs and playoffs only you flat play an entire 10 minute quarter with 3 timeouts each. If still tied, you play another one ... etc.

Of course you could end up out there forever, but is there really anything better than the NHL Playoffs overtime?

NHL is sudden death. its easy enough to score, and its easy enough to stop teams from scoring. Contrast that to football, a very offensive sport. Numerous all-time offensive records have been beaten in the past couple years, all because rules make it so its easier to move the ball and score. Offense usually has the advantage in overtime. Having said that, I'm nota huge fan of the college rules either.

Starting from about the 30 or 25 is fine, since thats fg range for most teams. A team with a strong legged kicker won't have an advantage. perhaps on touchdowns, you HAVE to try for two, would end it much quicker. Also, you'd have to not include stats from ot periods similar to how shootout goals don't count for player stats in the NHL. Otherwise we'd have qb's with 5000 passing yards and 50+ td's in a season regularly

Dieter
01-26-2010, 06:00 PM
happy camper wrote:

I'm fine with the current format. There is a 60 minute game that precedes overtime. The thing about the current overtime, teams do not want to play it. This gives a sense of urgency in regulation.

The Vikings could have, and should have, prevented overtime in their loss to New Orleans.

True, but a flip of a coin was involved to a degree. That sucks IMHO

KrackerJack
01-26-2010, 06:06 PM
Winning the coin toss and getting the ball first is no gimme win, by any means. They needed to play defense.

I don't understand why people are making excuses for the loss. A team shouldn't need the game to be decided by the refs or a coin toss. Not only should have the Vikings beat the Saints, but they should have dominated them, but as they always are in football, the turnovers were an absolute killer. The refs didn't decide this game, this game wasn't unfair because of the coin toss, with those turnovers, the only people who cost the Vikings the game was themselves. These excuses are rediculous, and as a couple other people said; if we would have won, a lot of people would have totally different opinions.

scottishvike
01-26-2010, 06:19 PM
Years ago in soccer before penalty kicks were introduced some games actually were decided by the toss of a coin. How crap would you feel losing that call?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/celtic/6100458.stm

Tad7
01-26-2010, 06:53 PM
I have no major problem with the NFL OT style...first of all you have 60 minutes to win the game and not put yourself in that situation, then you still have the chance to depend on special teams and defense if you lose the toss.

I hate college rules because they turn a 100 yard field into a 30 yard field or whatever it is.

If they did make a change in the NFL I'd like to see it be the first team to score 6 points.

Freya
01-26-2010, 07:03 PM
Prophet wrote:

I've always hated OT in the NFL. Both teams have a series of battles in the course of the game and the game is tied at the end of the war. Then they flip a fucking coin to see who gets the ball? Work your ass off and leave everything on the field and then it's like....ah, well, it's tied, let's flip a fucking coin and see who wins. I think it's pathetic. At least have an extra quarter and let them duke it out. The coin flip is ridiculous.

p.s. as long as i'm bitching, wtf is the point of having instant replays when they don't work much of the time? How the hell can I see 6 different angles in super slow mo, take a piss, make a sandwich, get a beer, and then have the highly trained refs who get paid to analyze the tape concentrate on nothing but that and still get the call wrong? It should never be wrong on an instant replay. I'm for instituting the death penalty on bad calls reviewed on instant replay. I mean this is the 21st century, i can take a picture of a the inside of a vacuole and you can't get a call right on a football field with high definition super slow mo multiple angles when that is what you're trained to do? wtf?

I agree!!!

Mighty fine post, Acu.....er, I mean Prophet.

Randy Moss
01-26-2010, 07:22 PM
NFL overtime is stupid. It should be sudden death once each team has a chance to score in overtime. Or even saying the game can only end on the first drive if it results in a touchdown would be better.

Teams do not even try to score touchdowns in overtime and it's stupid. Anything that encourages people to attempt to score a touchdown in overtime will greatly improve the game.

V-Unit
01-26-2010, 10:12 PM
NFL overtime is without a doubt the best way to do overtime in football.

This last game was a classic example. Hell, the Saints needed three questionable calls, a 4th down conversion, and a PI penalty just to get into FG range.

-V-

gregair13
01-27-2010, 02:37 AM
There is nothing wrong with the NFL overtime. Over the years, it has balanced out and really the coin toss means nothing. But, if you want the ball, just pick tails because it it tails every time.

In saying that...

Tad7 wrote:

If they did make a change in the NFL I'd like to see it be the first team to score 6 points.

This is actually the first suggestion that I really like. Call the commissioner.

Reignman
01-27-2010, 04:17 AM
Normally I'd say leave OT the way it is because defense is part of the game, but since the NFL has changed the rules in recent years to benefit offenses, I'd be ok with allowing each team at least 1 offensive possession. If the game is still tied after each team touches the ball once, then next team to score wins.

I like the idea of making teams score a TD too, or playing a full quarter.

I'll kill someone if we end up with the craptastic system the NCAA uses. That's not football, that's a gimmick, like the NHL and that shootout BS. Hey we're tied, now instead of playing longer, lets play a completely different way to determine who is better.

Maybe we need a better way to determine who starts with the ball? Instead of a coin toss, let the team with more yards, more time of posession, more first downs, or a better record, have the ball first.

Dekay
01-27-2010, 06:17 AM
First off, Prophets post was absolute hilarious.

Secondly, Gregair and others. Why is it that "tails never fails" and why arent every team who are first to choose picking tails.

Is there any statistics on how many times tails or heads have come up in a cointoss.

Thirdly. Remember that television company and NFL cant have the games drag along in eternity. This game is more and more made up to sell commercial time and to be honest the OT rules, are as made to fit television companys more than it fit a evenly ruled offense vs defense game... i mean NFL has gone more and more to offense by the rulechanges lately.

whackthepack
01-27-2010, 08:06 AM
I hate NCAA overtime format and hope they never go to it in the NFL.

I also hate the sudden death rule in the NFL!

It should be a 15 minute overtime and the team with the most points win.

In the playoffs if it's tied at the end of the 1st overtime another 10 minute overtime and then 5 minute overtimes until somebody wins.

If you don't want to play longer then score or stop the other time but at least it's far to both teams.

BleedinPandG
01-27-2010, 10:12 AM
I hate the coin flip... too arbitrary... go back and look at the stats... of the OT games, in 1/3 of the games, a team didn't even have a chance at winning the game. Why? Because you don't win the game in OT on defense. Sure, I understand there are the freak plays (ala the Cards vs Packers) where a defender actually scores points in OT to win, but the overarching majority is you score points on Offense and to win, in OT, you need to score points. In those 1/3 games, 1 team never had a chance to score points.

I like the college way though I don't agree with not including special teams. It should be a full drive... kick off... return... go from there, not some pre-positioning. There's no reason special teams, as a strength, weakness, or freak play, should be excluded from influencing the outcome of OT. But both teams should have an equal opportunity at chances to WIN the game (i.e. play offense). I love the strategies it puts into position... do we attempt a long FG, or go for it on 4th down, heck, do we take the short FG and run the risk of losing to a TD? I just find it entertaining.

Frankly, I've never seen an argument for moving towards that style. I've never seen someone argue how that style is "unfair" to 1 team or the other. All I've ever seen argued is the current system is "good enough" but why settle for "good enough" when a better system exists? Why is it better? Just look at the opinions... have you a TON of people arguing against the current system and few to none arguing against the other system (their argument tends to be in support of the current system, not against the new one)... that would tend to imply the other system is superior. Not perfect rational, but it works.

I just think there are better ways to determine the outcome of games. In the NFL, any particular win or loss is too costly to a team to play OT the way they do... in a 16 game season, in a 1 and done playoff system... that OT doesn't lend itself to allowing the best team to win... maybe that's why some like it, because it allows flukes... Cinderalla's... who knows.

marstc09
01-27-2010, 10:39 AM
Zeus wrote:

Dieter wrote:

Opinions from Vikes fans on losing a game in a large part because of a coin?

There's no need to change the OT procedure in the NFL, IMHO. There are 2 sides in football (3 if you count special teams) - offense and defense. You lose the coin toss? Stop the other team.

=Z=

Give them 15 minutes. What is so wrong with that? It is too easy to drive down the field and kick a 51 yarder without some stupid ass penalty......oh wait. Seriously though it is not right to get no chance to answer back.

Zeus
01-27-2010, 11:16 AM
BleedinPandG wrote:

I hate the coin flip... too arbitrary... go back and look at the stats... of the OT games, in 1/3 of the games, a team didn't even have a chance at winning the game. Why? Because you don't win the game in OT on defense. Sure, I understand there are the freak plays (ala the Cards vs Packers) where a defender actually scores points in OT to win, but the overarching majority is you score points on Offense and to win, in OT, you need to score points. In those 1/3 games, 1 team never had a chance to score points.


I did post the stats. In 13 OT games in 2009, 7 times the team winning the toss won the game, 6 times the team losing the toss won the game.

I'd like to see your actual stats, rather than just you tossing out "1/3" w/out any real data.

=Z=

Zeus
01-27-2010, 11:18 AM
marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Dieter wrote:

Opinions from Vikes fans on losing a game in a large part because of a coin?

There's no need to change the OT procedure in the NFL, IMHO. There are 2 sides in football (3 if you count special teams) - offense and defense. You lose the coin toss? Stop the other team.

Give them 15 minutes. What is so wrong with that? It is too easy to drive down the field and kick a 51 yarder without some stupid ass penalty......oh wait. Seriously though it is not right to get no chance to answer back.

You'd be saying something totally different had the Vikings been the team to win the toss and kick the FG.

The idea of a full 15-minute period rather than a sudden-death is more appealing to me than any system where each team gets one shot at being on offense or no FGs or anything that changes the fundamental game of professional football.

=Z=

BleedinPandG
01-27-2010, 11:19 AM
ConnecticutViking wrote:

I looked up the stats from 74-03. And believe it our not, there is not a big difference between the teams that win the coin toss or lose the coin toss. Here are the stats. Only an 8% difference between winning the coin toss and losing. Almost 50/50. In reality 52/44 with 5% tie.

Total no. of overtime games (1974–2003) 365
Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %)

These stats are what I used...

Sorry, 102 games out of 365... 28%, my 1/3 was slightly overstated..

As for this year, I believe you said there were 13 OT games? If I remember the stat right from the game on Sunday, 5 of them were decided in the first drive... over 1/3. You didn't bother to quote the number in your stats.

VikingLance
01-27-2010, 12:01 PM
If the Vikings won the coin toss and won on their opening drive, I still think we would be having this conversation. It happens every year.
(I seem to remember the Colts winning one in OT last year, and this topic came up... of course I'm wrong most of the time...)

As someone has already stated, the NFL is leaning towards a more offensive game. I like the idea of letting both teams have an offensive possession, and then it becomes sudden death.

Unfortunately, every year it comes up, the NFL looks at it, and they determine that this system is fine. Pro sports have always had the human element of mistakes, whether it is the players or the officials. To take them away, while in this case, would have provided the Vikings a win, would take the controversy element out of the games we love. I would've preferred the controversial calls go in our favor in this game, but they didn't. It makes us look forward to next year... time stands still.....

V4L
01-27-2010, 12:18 PM
I am also not a fan of the OT structure

And no I didn't feel this way just after the NO game

I've felt they have needed a change for awhile

jmcdon00
01-27-2010, 12:44 PM
First I make no excuses for the Vikings. They knew the rules going in.

Personally I think they should change the overtime rules. Just add an extra period. It would be more consistant with the rest of the game. The current rules make no distinction between a FG and a TD.

Zeus
01-27-2010, 01:49 PM
jmcdon00 wrote:

First I make no excuses for the Vikings. They knew the rules going in.

Personally I think they should change the overtime rules. Just add an extra period. It would be more consistant with the rest of the game. The current rules make no distinction between a FG and a TD.

Or a safety.

=Z=

Midge Resurrected
01-27-2010, 01:56 PM
Zeus wrote:

BleedinPandG wrote:

I hate the coin flip... too arbitrary... go back and look at the stats... of the OT games, in 1/3 of the games, a team didn't even have a chance at winning the game. Why? Because you don't win the game in OT on defense. Sure, I understand there are the freak plays (ala the Cards vs Packers) where a defender actually scores points in OT to win, but the overarching majority is you score points on Offense and to win, in OT, you need to score points. In those 1/3 games, 1 team never had a chance to score points.


I did post the stats. In 13 OT games in 2009, 7 times the team winning the toss won the game, 6 times the team losing the toss won the game.

I'd like to see your actual stats, rather than just you tossing out "1/3" w/out any real data.

=Z=
Actually ... for this season his stats are low.

Counting our game ... there have been 14 OT games this season and the team that won the toss went right down and scored 6 times.

That is pretty significant that 6 out of 14 times the coin toss essentially won a game.

I have already posted that I don't have a real problem with this system. I understand that you have to play defense and all of that. But there is a clear statistical advantage to the team that gets the ball first if they are scoring 6 out of 14 times without the other team even getting a shot at the ball.

Midge Resurrected
01-27-2010, 01:58 PM
Zeus wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Dieter wrote:

Opinions from Vikes fans on losing a game in a large part because of a coin?

There's no need to change the OT procedure in the NFL, IMHO. There are 2 sides in football (3 if you count special teams) - offense and defense. You lose the coin toss? Stop the other team.

Give them 15 minutes. What is so wrong with that? It is too easy to drive down the field and kick a 51 yarder without some stupid ass penalty......oh wait. Seriously though it is not right to get no chance to answer back.

You'd be saying something totally different had the Vikings been the team to win the toss and kick the FG.

The idea of a full 15-minute period rather than a sudden-death is more appealing to me than any system where each team gets one shot at being on offense or no FGs or anything that changes the fundamental game of professional football.

=Z=
This is where I stand on it for the playoffs. I personally feel it should be another quarter.

If you can hold them to a FG and you can get a TD, more power to you.

jmcdon00
01-27-2010, 02:03 PM
The cover 2 is not a very good overtime defense IMHO. The whole idea is to bend but don't break, but in overtime if you bend you lose.

V-Unit
01-27-2010, 06:08 PM
marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Dieter wrote:

Opinions from Vikes fans on losing a game in a large part because of a coin?

There's no need to change the OT procedure in the NFL, IMHO. There are 2 sides in football (3 if you count special teams) - offense and defense. You lose the coin toss? Stop the other team.

=Z=

Give them 15 minutes. What is so wrong with that? It is too easy to drive down the field and kick a 51 yarder without some stupid ass penalty......oh wait. Seriously though it is not right to get no chance to answer back.

Once a game goes into overtime, the NFL's primary goal is to get the game over with. That is why they shouldn't need 15 minutes. These men have played a full game and the NFL's product is a 60-minute game. An extra quarter at this point in the year is like death to players who have given their all, mentally and physically, for 18 games already. The NFL does not want their games turning into marathons, so they get if over with. I'm perfectly OK with that.

Favre looked like he was done even at the end of regulation. Even if we win in a 15-minute overtime, Favre, or Griffin, or Winfield, is going to be at a severe disadvantage going into the Super Bowl.

-V-

ConnecticutViking
01-27-2010, 08:03 PM
V-Unit wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Dieter wrote:

Opinions from Vikes fans on losing a game in a large part because of a coin?

There's no need to change the OT procedure in the NFL, IMHO. There are 2 sides in football (3 if you count special teams) - offense and defense. You lose the coin toss? Stop the other team.

=Z=

Give them 15 minutes. What is so wrong with that? It is too easy to drive down the field and kick a 51 yarder without some stupid ass penalty......oh wait. Seriously though it is not right to get no chance to answer back.

Once a game goes into overtime, the NFL's primary goal is to get the game over with. That is why they shouldn't need 15 minutes. These men have played a full game and the NFL's product is a 60-minute game. An extra quarter at this point in the year is like death to players who have given their all, mentally and physically, for 18 games already. The NFL does not want their games turning into marathons, so they get if over with. I'm perfectly OK with that.

Favre looked like he was done even at the end of regulation. Even if we win in a 15-minute overtime, Favre, or Griffin, or Winfield, is going to be at a severe disadvantage going into the Super Bowl.

-V-

+1
You also have to remember that a full OT period screws up TV schedules. I know most fans would rather see it play out in a full quarter, but the way games are scheduled, early games would interupt late games, late games would interupt network tv. This isn't cable or local tv that rules baseball or basketball. We are talking about Network television, which in terms of the NFL means dollars and we know the almighty dollar rules.

gregair13
01-27-2010, 08:15 PM
Dekay wrote:

First off, Prophets post was absolute hilarious.

Secondly, Gregair and others. Why is it that "tails never fails" and why arent every team who are first to choose picking tails.

Is there any statistics on how many times tails or heads have come up in a cointoss.

Thirdly. Remember that television company and NFL cant have the games drag along in eternity. This game is more and more made up to sell commercial time and to be honest the OT rules, are as made to fit television companys more than it fit a evenly ruled offense vs defense game... i mean NFL has gone more and more to offense by the rulechanges lately.

Because tails never fails. Its a fact of life just like death and taxes.

Rockmolder
01-27-2010, 08:22 PM
gregair13 wrote:

Dekay wrote:

First off, Prophets post was absolute hilarious.

Secondly, Gregair and others. Why is it that "tails never fails" and why arent every team who are first to choose picking tails.

Is there any statistics on how many times tails or heads have come up in a cointoss.

Thirdly. Remember that television company and NFL cant have the games drag along in eternity. This game is more and more made up to sell commercial time and to be honest the OT rules, are as made to fit television companys more than it fit a evenly ruled offense vs defense game... i mean NFL has gone more and more to offense by the rulechanges lately.

Because tails never fails. Its a fact of life just like death and taxes.

+1.

That's just something you know. Tails never fails.

50/50 my ass. Tails is superior.

i_bleed_purple
01-27-2010, 08:33 PM
you can't overuse it though. In clutch situations, choose tails. At the beginning of the game, mix it up.

Zeus
01-28-2010, 09:02 AM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

you can't overuse it though. In clutch situations, choose tails. At the beginning of the game, mix it up.

My wife looked at me with skeptical eyes last night when I was in a little mini-rant about not pickings tails. "Tails never fails, honey!" I said.

Then I realized that that's probably just because there's no "cool" phrase for heads.

So let's come up with one.

I'm drawing a blank so far. Beds? Fleds? Keds?

=Z=

VikingLance
01-28-2010, 09:06 AM
Zeus wrote:

i_bleed_purple wrote:

you can't overuse it though. In clutch situations, choose tails. At the beginning of the game, mix it up.

My wife looked at me with skeptical eyes last night when I was in a little mini-rant about not pickings tails. "Tails never fails, honey!" I said.

Then I realized that that's probably just because there's no "cool" phrase for heads.

So let's come up with one.

I'm drawing a blank so far. Beds? Fleds? Keds?

=Z=

"It'll be time for bed if you pick heads." :(

Prophet
01-28-2010, 10:39 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUhl59hA-Ao

jmcdon00
01-30-2010, 01:00 PM
V-Unit wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Dieter wrote:

Opinions from Vikes fans on losing a game in a large part because of a coin?

There's no need to change the OT procedure in the NFL, IMHO. There are 2 sides in football (3 if you count special teams) - offense and defense. You lose the coin toss? Stop the other team.

=Z=

Give them 15 minutes. What is so wrong with that? It is too easy to drive down the field and kick a 51 yarder without some stupid ass penalty......oh wait. Seriously though it is not right to get no chance to answer back.

Once a game goes into overtime, the NFL's primary goal is to get the game over with. That is why they shouldn't need 15 minutes. These men have played a full game and the NFL's product is a 60-minute game. An extra quarter at this point in the year is like death to players who have given their all, mentally and physically, for 18 games already. The NFL does not want their games turning into marathons, so they get if over with. I'm perfectly OK with that.

Favre looked like he was done even at the end of regulation. Even if we win in a 15-minute overtime, Favre, or Griffin, or Winfield, is going to be at a severe disadvantage going into the Super Bowl.

-V-
6 minute OT period then.

Midge Resurrected
01-30-2010, 03:10 PM
jmcdon00 wrote:

V-Unit wrote:

marstc09 wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Dieter wrote:

Opinions from Vikes fans on losing a game in a large part because of a coin?

There's no need to change the OT procedure in the NFL, IMHO. There are 2 sides in football (3 if you count special teams) - offense and defense. You lose the coin toss? Stop the other team.

=Z=

Give them 15 minutes. What is so wrong with that? It is too easy to drive down the field and kick a 51 yarder without some stupid ass penalty......oh wait. Seriously though it is not right to get no chance to answer back.

Once a game goes into overtime, the NFL's primary goal is to get the game over with. That is why they shouldn't need 15 minutes. These men have played a full game and the NFL's product is a 60-minute game. An extra quarter at this point in the year is like death to players who have given their all, mentally and physically, for 18 games already. The NFL does not want their games turning into marathons, so they get if over with. I'm perfectly OK with that.

Favre looked like he was done even at the end of regulation. Even if we win in a 15-minute overtime, Favre, or Griffin, or Winfield, is going to be at a severe disadvantage going into the Super Bowl.

-V-
6 minute OT period then.

I am all for a 10 minute OT period with both teams having a full compliment of 3 timeouts. That allows both teams more than their fair share of a chance.

After this, if still tied ... then go to a FG-battle similar to the NHL shootout, except players can only kick once and it goes from 30 to 35 to 40 to 45 to 50 yards ... fan-frickin-tastic IMO. At least both teams get a shot there.

I mean how awesome would it have been to see Favre nail it from 40-yards out and watch Brees miss!

Dekay
01-30-2010, 03:53 PM
I have searched but found no statistics on the percentage of the coinflip. How is that even possible when there are stats for every possible little thing otheriwse in this game.

Midge Resurrected
01-30-2010, 04:02 PM
Dekay wrote:

I have searched but found no statistics on the percentage of the coinflip. How is that even possible when there are stats for every possible little thing otheriwse in this game.

Because statistically a coin flip is 50/50 ... every single time.

Dekay
01-30-2010, 05:02 PM
Midge Resurrected wrote:

Dekay wrote:

I have searched but found no statistics on the percentage of the coinflip. How is that even possible when there are stats for every possible little thing otheriwse in this game.

Because statistically a coin flip is 50/50 ... every single time.

yes, you might think so. But take into consideration that one certain ref flips in the same way. He lays up tails upwards every time, and flip with the same motion and the same force. Would you still think its a 50/50 chance? No? I didnt think so!

And taken into consideration it truly is a 50/50 chance... If tails comes up 10 times in a row, would you call for heads or tails the next time you flip??

Statistically you ALWAYS have a 50/50 chance on every coinflip. So statistcially you would be good calling either tails or heads on the 11th coinflip. BUT statistically it also evens out in the longrun for example you can flip a coin a million times and the deviation from that would not be much, it would be pretty close to 50/50 i betcha. So calling heads would also be statistically more correct correct on my example, even more so correct than tails, its just depends on how you bend your statistics to suit your ends.

So statistics on this matter is important. And its too easy to discard the coinflip as a 50/50 chance. How is it that everyone says "Tails never fails". I cant remember the last time I saw a viking game and the coinflip was heads for example. (this might be a shortcoming of my memory though)

I would for example be interested in how certain referees flip their coin and read up on it before the games just in case an OT should happen.

Do you follow me? Statistics aint easy peacy!!

i_bleed_purple
01-30-2010, 05:13 PM
Midge Resurrected wrote:

Dekay wrote:

I have searched but found no statistics on the percentage of the coinflip. How is that even possible when there are stats for every possible little thing otheriwse in this game.

Because statistically a coin flip is 50/50 ... every single time.

I once flipped on grass and it landed on its edge, so not 50/50, more like 49/49/2

Dekay
01-30-2010, 06:48 PM
i_bleed_purple wrote:

Midge Resurrected wrote:

Dekay wrote:

I have searched but found no statistics on the percentage of the coinflip. How is that even possible when there are stats for every possible little thing otheriwse in this game.

Because statistically a coin flip is 50/50 ... every single time.

I once flipped on grass and it landed on its edge, so not 50/50, more like 49/49/2

true true, but since that is not a valid outcome in a coinflip in NFL they would prolly just wait until it falls down or flip it again.

SKOL
01-30-2010, 09:30 PM
Tad7 wrote:

If they did make a change in the NFL I'd like to see it be the first team to score 6 points.

Now that makes sense. It would make teams move the length of the field, and actually go for touchdowns, instead of leaving it in the hands of kickers.

Would you feel comfortable with just a field goal if a good offense is going to follow you?

Midge Resurrected
01-30-2010, 09:35 PM
SKOL wrote:

Tad7 wrote:

If they did make a change in the NFL I'd like to see it be the first team to score 6 points.

Now that makes sense. It would make teams move the length of the field, and actually go for touchdowns, instead of leaving it in the hands of kickers.

Would you feel comfortable with just a field goal if a good offense is going to follow you?

I must say I actually like that idea a lot.

Still tag 15 minutes on though and if still tied it is a tie or if one team scores 3 and the other 0, they win.

I like it definitely.

SKOL
01-30-2010, 09:39 PM
Prophet wrote:

p.s. as long as i'm bitching, wtf is the point of having instant replays when they don't work much of the time? How the hell can I see 6 different angles in super slow mo, take a piss, make a sandwich, get a beer, and then have the highly trained refs who get paid to analyze the tape concentrate on nothing but that and still get the call wrong? It should never be wrong on an instant replay. I'm for instituting the death penalty on bad calls reviewed on instant replay. I mean this is the 21st century, i can take a picture of a the inside of a vacuole and you can't get a call right on a football field with high definition super slow mo multiple angles when that is what you're trained to do? wtf?

I've decided that they can't get it right because their whole approach to a review is flawed. They're looking for evidence to see if a call should be reversed rather than just making the call themselves. If they had an unbiased approach they'd get more right. jmo