NFL Conference Championships

[Dr. Sak]

Looks like Brad Childress learned his clock management skills from Andy Reid.

[DaddyTorgo]

Congrats to the Saints. I not convinced at all the better team won but its pointless to argue it now.

Between the fumbles which was the fault of the Vikings and the refs who had no balls it was a game that the Saints should have won. 3 of the worst officiating decisions I have ever seen since I started watching the NFL went against the Vikings in OT. They might as well just get rid of Instant Replay. Its a waste of time.

Never in a million years did I think Id cheer for the Colts in the Super Bowl against the Saints but after watching how dirty the Saints played today I have no choice. Between cheap shots on Favre and taking out his knees(which wasnt even a penalty???) I lost a lot of respect for how the Saints play.

Cant help but appreciate what Favre has done. He took so many hits today some of which were cheap shots and battled until the very end. He'd be the last guy Id put this loss on.

why do fans of the losing team always have to say "not convinced the better team won?" Is it some kind of face-saving thing? I mean for god's sake...you're not even on the Vikings or a member of the team staff...aside from local rooting interest you have no stake in how the Vikings do, so how about saying "gee...i guess the saints are better than the vikings...or at least were better on this day."

[DaddyTorgo]

Care to explain?

Vikings arent in that game with Jackson as the QB. I thought Favre played damn good other than his last throw. A game is never decided on one single play FYI. Id say the 3 red zone fumbles had more to do with losing than the int.

The 3 plays in OT I am referring to are
1. The pass interfence call which was disgusting
2. Pierre Thomas has the 4th down run which apparently the ref didnt see him get the ball knocked lose. I can cut them some slack on that one because it was a bad angle and it wasnt real obvious either way but then we get to #3
3. The catch touched the ground and no way can they say he had possession before that so Im just confused as to why they have instant replay if they wont reverse calls in the biggest games of the year.

the db extended his arms and pushed the guy without turning his head...that will get called everytime.

they clearly gave thomas forward momentum to the point where he was hit. not as sure on this one as the others.

he CLEARLY had "nfl definition of possession" before the ball touched the ground.

[Chubby]

why do fans of the losing team always have to say "not convinced the better team won?" Is it some kind of face-saving thing? I mean for god's sake...you're not even on the Vikings or a member of the team staff...aside from local rooting interest you have no stake in how the Vikings do, so how about saying "gee...i guess the saints are better than the vikings...or at least were better on this day."

So you have to actually be on the team to say anything? ooooooooook

[jbergey22]

why do fans of the losing team always have to say "not convinced the better team won?" Is it some kind of face-saving thing? I mean for god's sake...you're not even on the Vikings or a member of the team staff...aside from local rooting interest you have no stake in how the Vikings do, so how about saying "gee...i guess the saints are better than the vikings...or at least were better on this day."

Total Yards 475-257. Time of Possession 36.49 to 27.56.

I think its a perfectly fair question to ask besides I already admitted the Vikings didnt deserve to win. What more would you like?

Hows this?

The Saints clearly outplayed the Vikings and deserve the trip to Miami.

Apparently since I am a fan of the Vikings I cant look at the game realistically even though Id say the exact same thing if I had no bias in the game.

I probably over exaggerrated last night on how dirty I thought the Saints played because from the way Favre sounded after the game he didnt feel there was any "dirty" intent but I dont think I was being overly bias in saying the better team may not have won.

Its irrelevent at this point anyway. I thought 70 percent of the season there were 3 great teams in the NFL and 2 of them are in the Super Bowl so its hard to complain too much.

[Dr. Sak]

Total Yards 475-257. Time of Possession 36.49 to 27.56.
.

That's all well and good if you want to totally overlook the fact that the Vikings turned the ball over 5 times to the Saints 1.

[jbergey22]

That's all well and good if you want to totally overlook the fact that the Vikings turned the ball over 5 times to the Saints 1.

Im NOT overlooking it. That is why they lost and is a part of the game.

Did I EVER say the Saints didnt deserve to win?

[DaddyTorgo]

Im NOT overlooking it. That is why they lost and is a part of the game.

Did I EVER say the Saints didnt deserve to win?

saying "i'm not sure the better team won" is just a backhanded way of saying "the winning team didn't deserve to win."

[DaddyTorgo]

So you have to actually be on the team to say anything? ooooooooook

not what i was saying at all

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Well, I'm not sure the better team won either.

[DaddyTorgo]

Total Yards 475-257. Time of Possession 36.49 to 27.56.



using that logic (time of possession), how many of the games the Colts played in this year did they "deserve to win?"

[Chubby]

why do fans of the losing team always have to say "not convinced the better team won?" Is it some kind of face-saving thing? I mean for god's sake...you're not even on the Vikings or a member of the team staff...aside from local rooting interest you have no stake in how the Vikings do, so how about saying "gee...i guess the saints are better than the vikings...or at least were better on this day."

Then why even say "you're not even on the Vikings"? No shit, nobody on this forum is a member of either team, that doesn't disqualify them from saying they think the Vikings were the better team.

[whomario]

as a neutral and at-best casual fan let me say this : The sudden-death OT rule is the most stupid end-game routine there is in all of sports.

Soccer did that for a while in KO rounds of competitions, thank goodness they got rid of it eventually.

Seriously, where´s the harm in just playing 15 minutes ? even just having one more possession imo is stupid, although slightly better than how it is now.
Or at least make it that only a TD can end it before the 15 minutes are up.

And i hate that like propably the only 2 people in my town that care about football came into the library discussing wether or not the Saints can beat the Colts. So much for me not finding out the score for the replay tonight, thanks a lot. Fuck ...

[DaddyTorgo]

Then why even say "you're not even on the Vikings"? No shit, nobody on this forum is a member of either team, that doesn't disqualify them from saying they think the Vikings were the better team.

it wasn't directed against anybody here in particular - it was a general rant against unrealistic, or blindly-loyal fans.

the kind of yankee fans who will go "oh yeah Jeter deserved his golden glove...he's the best defensive shortstop in the league!"

that kind of thing.

everybody turns sports-fandom into some zero-sum game...it's just silly. "Well I support this team, so i can't say anything good about, or praise their opponents or else my fandom isn't as "authentic."

[jbergey22]

using that logic (time of possession), how many of the games the Colts played in this year did they "deserve to win?"

Theres no "logic" to it. Its been time tested over 30+ years that winning time of possession usually leads to wins. This isnt something I just created.

And I feel I need to repeat myself for the 3rd time. I NEVER said the Saints didnt deserve to win. Since I said the Vikings didnt deserve to win it kind of narrows it down I would think.

The topic was if the better team really won not who deserved to win as far as I know.

[DaddyTorgo]

Theres no "logic" to it. Its been time tested over 30+ years that winning time of possession usually leads to wins. This isnt something I just created.

bolded the important part. that it doesn't always lead to wins doesn't necessarily mean that the team that won isn't the better team.

[Abe Sargent]

saying "i'm not sure the better team won" is just a backhanded way of saying "the winning team didn't deserve to win."

+1. I mean, I don;t care as much, but it totally a backhanded way of saying it.

[Logan]

it wasn't directed against anybody here in particular - it was a general rant against unrealistic, or blindly-loyal fans.

the kind of yankee fans who will go "oh yeah Jeter deserved his golden glove...he's the best defensive shortstop in the league!"

that kind of thing.

everybody turns sports-fandom into some zero-sum game...it's just silly. "Well I support this team, so i can't say anything good about, or praise their opponents or else my fandom isn't as "authentic."

I think DT is drunk.

[Warhammer]

I disagree, sudden death OT is fine. If you have a problem with it, win the game during the 60 minutes of regulation.

The only other method I agree with is a full extra quarter.

The problem I think we have today is too many coaches play to go into OT when they should play to win.

[jbergey22]

+1. I mean, I don;t care as much, but it totally a backhanded way of saying it.

Well who knows. I guess it wasnt intended on my part to be backhanded. I know the Vikings didnt deserve to win but whatever its fine.

I think the Saints had a lot of things go right and the Vikings had a lot of things go wrong which is sports that is the only reason I wonder if the Vikings might have been better.

With that said when you turn the ball over 5 times it is on you so they have no one to blame but themselves.

Coming into the game if you told me the Vikings would turn it over 5 times I would have expected them to lose by 30. Either the Vikings defense is much better than I thought or the Saints offense isnt near as potent as I thought because the Vikings held their offense in check.

[flere-imsaho]

For his sake, I hope Adrian Peterson spends the entire offseason working on ball safety. Otherwise, he has real potential to be forever be typecast as "talented runner who can't be trusted". And I say this as a fan of his, but his performance in the clutch last night was brutal.

[jbergey22]

The problem I think we have today is too many coaches play to go into OT when they should play to win.

QFT

Off topic but similiar
The Vikings got down to the 33 and acted like the game was over. They get 10 more yards and their chances of winning about double. They were happy to settle for a 50 yard FG which ultimately led to their demise.

[jbergey22]

For his sake, I hope Adrian Peterson spends the entire offseason working on ball safety. Otherwise, he has real potential to be forever be typecast as "talented runner who can't be trusted". And I say this as a fan of his, but his performance in the clutch last night was brutal.

It is troublesome.

For a guy that cares as much as he does and is as strong as he is I cant believe he hasnt fixed this yet.

[gstelmack]

The Vikings got down to the 33 and acted like the game was over. They get 10 more yards and their chances of winning about double. They were happy to settle for a 50 yard FG which ultimately led to their demise.

They had Favre throwing the ball, didn't they?

[Kodos]

We're just playing around, at least I am, that Kodos guy is a douche.

What he said.

[DaddyTorgo]

nah...i can't be drunk. monday morning and tons of work to do.

not tryin to piss anybody off either - specially not you jbergy.

[jbergey22]

They had Favre throwing the ball, didn't they?

Well you can look at that two ways.

Favre had actually been great at not turning the ball over this year.

If they are passing when the defense is expecting run the odds of him throwing an int go way down. Instead they end up in sure pass situation in which he messed up.

They throw a couple of them 2 yard passes to Berrian or Rice and they get their 10 yards with how far off the Saints corners were playing at that time.

[jbergey22]

nah...i can't be drunk. monday morning and tons of work to do.

not tryin to piss anybody off either - specially not you jbergy.

No problems. It would be much easier to just let it go but as Vikings fan all we can do it wonder "what ifs" because they always choke in the biggest games of the year.

[miked]

Horrible play calling in the final minute for MIN. A 45-50 yarder is not a chip shot.

[Dr. Sak]

No problems. It would be much easier to just let it go but as Vikings fan all we can do it wonder "what ifs" because they always choke in the biggest games of the year.

Eagles fans can feel your pain.

[MikeVic]

I'm not gonna go through the entire thread, so maybe this was beaten to death already... but if only there was a way to bet on things like "Favre's gonna throw an INT right now." I was watching with two others, and two of us said "Favre has to throw an INT here, right?" While the other said "No way, they have to run it, call a TO, then try the FG."

I was waiting all year for a Favre INT like that, funny.

[molson]

That was an entertaining 2nd game.

I think maybe jbergey22 is just saying that the Vikings played better than the Saints, played their game, and did exactly what they had to do. They blew it because of the turnovers, Favre's "vintage Favre" final play, and that final minute of regulation abortion of a game strategy. They had to do a lot to blow this game, and somehow, they pulled it off.

[gstelmack]

I was waiting all year for a Favre INT like that, funny.

It was pretty much a given that the last play Minnesota ran this season would be an INT from Favre...

BTW, this is also my counter-argument to all those whining about sudden-death overtime: Minnesota had the ball with time to win it in regulation. Tough cookies if they lost in OT.

[Lathum]

I'm not gonna go through the entire thread, so maybe this was beaten to death already... but if only there was a way to bet on things like "Favre's gonna throw an INT right now." I was watching with two others, and two of us said "Favre has to throw an INT here, right?" While the other said "No way, they have to run it, call a TO, then try the FG."

I was waiting all year for a Favre INT like that, funny.

There is. BoDog has live betting on each play.

[MikeVic]

There is. BoDog has live betting on each play.

Damn!

[JPhillips]

It was pretty much a given that the last play Minnesota ran this season would be an INT from Favre...

BTW, this is also my counter-argument to all those whining about sudden-death overtime: Minnesota had the ball with time to win it in regulation. Tough cookies if they lost in OT.

So did NO.

[Abe Sargent]

my issue with the OT thing is this.

Sudden Death OT is the closest things you can do to the regular game without extending it a full quarter.

No other solution is real football. At the end of any close game, there is a point where it is basically sudden death anyway, just like this game, so Sudden Death OT makes sense. Giving extra possessions is not football. Now, if you want to add an extra quarter, that's fine, in theory, but other solutions like making sure everybody gets a chance to have the ball on offense feel too much like junior high, make everybody play, crap to me. You can stop them in regulation, or in OT, two chances.

The problem with an extra quarter, especially in the playoffs, is one of injury and extra wear on the body. What do you do if still tied? Another quarter after that, right? The number of injuries that players sustain goes up as the game goes on.

Football is not like a lot of other sports that have OT rules ot add extra time, like baseball, basketball or soccer. It is a lot harder on the body. Just four quarters is enough to injure players and require a full week of rest. Add another quarter and you are adding 25% to that for two teams, and if it goes longer, you could be in real trouble. So, I think the extra quarter idea is good in theory, unlike other alternative,s but I'm not sure that, in practice, it would be an improvement.

[molson]

I don't think the OT rules are unfair, but they can be a little emotionally unsatisfying, even for the neutral fan. But I hate the college rule even more.

I'd either keep sudden death but automatically award 1st possession to the home team, or play first to 6 points. A game-ending first-drive TD would be much more satisfying then a long kickoff return, a couple of penalties, and a field goal. I don't think the full period option is realistic, unless you do something funny with the clock (make the period less than 15 minutes, or have the clock run in more situations between plays)

[larrymcg421]

That was an entertaining 2nd game.

I think maybe jbergey22 is just saying that the Vikings played better than the Saints, played their game, and did exactly what they had to do. They blew it because of the turnovers, Favre's "vintage Favre" final play, and that final minute of regulation abortion of a game strategy. They had to do a lot to blow this game, and somehow, they pulled it off.

Yeah, but alot of that has to do with who the better team is. I mean, it's not like this stuff just happened for the first time. Peterson was known for fumbling the ball. Everybody expected Favre to turn it over at a key moment. And Brad Childress is a terrible strategic coach. Their weaknesses caught up to them in this game, and that makes them a worse team, not a better team.

[Abe Sargent]

I think maybe jbergey22 is just saying that the Vikings played better than the Saints, played their game, and did exactly what they had to do. They blew it because of the turnovers, Favre's "vintage Favre" final play, and that final minute of regulation abortion of a game strategy. They had to do a lot to blow this game, and somehow, they pulled it off.


I hear ya, and that's fair for fans of a team, but with all due respect, this was not the Saints best game this season either, you know? Neither team was in tip top shape. the Saints had tons of penalties in regulation, for example, and sustained Viking drives because of it. Their defense was better in the regular season, as another.

So anybody can coulda woulda shoulda all day long. The simple fact is that one team played much worse in terms of self destruction plays than the other team did. Each team had self destruction plays like pass interference, drive sustaining penalties, turnovers, and so forth.


EDIT - Sorry, meant to quote another post

[RedKingGold]

Eagles and Vikings fans should get an apartment when this is all over. Sort this all out.

[Racer]

I personally feel OT in the NFL should be the first team to score 5 points (so a team could win with a safety and a field goal). Field goals are to easy to get. Touchdowns are a lot harder to get. If you give one up in OT like the Colts (the team I root for) did last year to San Diego, then you deserve to lose.

[Kodos]

I watched this game on tape delay last night. Exciting matchup, although the reviews in OT did their best to lower to the interest. Luckily it wasn't too annoying, since I was watching it from my DVR and was able to blast through some of the delays. Glad I programmed in extra time, or else the game might have gotten cut off.

I called Peterson's first fumble. Told my father-in-law that he was going to fumble soon, and then BAM, he did! Awesome! I don't exactly hate Peterson, but I do think he is overrated and a little full of himself. I was annoyed that the Saints didn't manage to recover more of the fumbles.

I was rooting for two Saints in particular--CB Tracy Porter and the kick returner (Courtney Roby) are both former Hoosiers. Porter caused one of the fumbles (forget which guy it was, Shainco maybe?), but then got nailed on that pass interference call that set up a Vikings TD from the 1. Glad to see him intercept what could be Favre's last pass. Roby had one real nice return in the game that set up a score, although it looked like he got hurt late in the game. Hope he is okay for the Super Bowl.

Just happy for the Saints. New Orleans has been through so much, and their team has been terrible for so long -- it's nice to see them enjoy some success.

I can understand the Vikings feeling shortchanged a bit. They outplayed the Saints, but were sloppy with the ball. That PI call in OT was crap, but I thought the over the top first down and the controversial catch were both good calls. At the very least, there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the catch.

[Passacaglia]

I watched this game on tape delay

I called Peterson's first fumble.

Congrats! :)

[Easy Mac]

Why not just have OT be an untimed extension of the end of the game that only kicks in when its a tie game. So Favre throws a pick, the Saints get the ball and the game goes into overtime during their possession. The play clock still exists, but there's no point to have a game clock. Each team gets a timeout whenever the ball changes possession. The first team to score in the untimed OT section wins the game. The only team that gets rewarded is theoretically whoever has the ball at the end of the game. Think of how more interesting the end of normal tie games would be (no more kneel downs to get to OT).

[stevew]

Absolutely love that Favre threw another horrid looking interception to (basically) end his season.

[Passacaglia]

Why not just have OT be an untimed extension of the end of the game that only kicks in when its a tie game. So Favre throws a pick, the Saints get the ball and the game goes into overtime during their possession. The play clock still exists, but there's no point to have a game clock. Each team gets a timeout whenever the ball changes possession. The first team to score in the untimed OT section wins the game. The only team that gets rewarded is theoretically whoever has the ball at the end of the game. Think of how more interesting the end of normal tie games would be (no more kneel downs to get to OT).

I really like that idea.

[rowech]

The whole time last night I found myself rooting against Favre. Favre used to be one of my favorite players. I'm sure there are others in the same boat. The only analogy I could come up with is when a "good" wrestler "goes bad." I used Roddy Piper as my analogy to my brother.

[Thomkal]

well given how I felt this time last year as a long suffering Cardinal fan, I'm very happy to see the Saints make it to the Super Bowl. Unfortunately I see their fate in that game being the same as my beloved Cards. I don't see the Colts having six turnovers and they have a lot more experience than the Saints. Hope I'm wrong, but that's how I see it right now. But congrats to both Colts and Saints fans!

[Cringer]

The guys so opposed to sudden death OT is it because you are under the impression that the first team to get the ball wins? If so you are wrong for this year. They showed the stats last night in the game, of 13 OTs only 5 teams won on the opening drive of OT this year. Oops, make that 6 of 14 now.

[rowech]

The guys so opposed to sudden death OT is it because you are under the impression that the first team to get the ball wins? If so you are wrong for this year. They showed the stats last night in the game, of 13 OTs only 5 teams won on the opening drive of OT this year. Oops, make that 6 of 14 now.

Team that gets the ball first historically wins 53% of the time on the first drive. 60% of the time overall.

[Kodos]

I think they should do it like soccer and settle it with a field goal kicking contest.

[Samdari]

Team that gets the ball first historically wins 53% of the time on the first drive. 60% of the time overall.

Where did you get that stat?

[MikeVic]

I think they should do it like soccer and settle it with a field goal kicking contest.

Except they have an OT first, so you're wrong there alien.

[Passacaglia]

Or they could replay on Wednesday, and if that's a tie, whoever scored more away points wins.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Or they could replay on Wednesday, and if that's a tie, whoever scored more away points wins.
You, sir, are fabulous.

[rowech]

Where did you get that stat?

Amazon.com: Mathletics: How Gamblers, Managers, and Sports Enthusiasts Use Mathematics in Baseball, Basketball, and Football (9780691139135): Wayne L. Winston: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Mathletics-Gamblers-Enthusiasts-Mathematics-Basketball/dp/069113913X)

[albionmoonlight]

I like OT the way it is.

But, if you were to change it, then you could make it first team to score 4 or more wins. That elimiates the Good-Kick-Return-Two-First-Downs-Long-Field-Goal ending that seems to make people the most upset.

[Logan]

Why not just have OT be an untimed extension of the end of the game that only kicks in when its a tie game. So Favre throws a pick, the Saints get the ball and the game goes into overtime during their possession. The play clock still exists, but there's no point to have a game clock. Each team gets a timeout whenever the ball changes possession. The first team to score in the untimed OT section wins the game. The only team that gets rewarded is theoretically whoever has the ball at the end of the game. Think of how more interesting the end of normal tie games would be (no more kneel downs to get to OT).

But this gives even less incentive to try to score at the end of the game. Instead of running your offense and either not converting and having to get rid of the ball, or risking not winning the toss for OT, it's better for a team to grind the clock away while getting a first down or two and waiting for OT to start since they'll keep possession.

Last night at least when the Saints got the ball back they took a shot at getting into FG position and a potential hail mary when that failed. Your situation has them take a knee right away.

[DaddyTorgo]

Exactly. Make it "score 4 points or more to win" and you eliminate (i would be) a very significant amount of the inequality

[Samdari]

Amazon.com: Mathletics: How Gamblers, Managers, and Sports Enthusiasts Use Mathematics in Baseball, Basketball, and Football (9780691139135): Wayne L. Winston: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Mathletics-Gamblers-Enthusiasts-Mathematics-Basketball/dp/069113913X)

I think you are misreading it, or they don't know stats.

Prior to 1994, 52% of teams winning the coin flip won in OT, 26% on the first drive.

Since 1994, 60% of teams winning the coin flip win in OT, ~32% on the first drive.

In no statistically significant period of time have 53% of teams winning the toss scored on the first drive, let alone "historically"

In every case, the team losing the toss was actually permitted to play defense and attempt to stop the other team.

If 60% is too much bias (and it probably is) the solution is really simple - in overtime, the opening kickoff should be from the 35, not the 30. And refs should be shot for calling a personal foul on a game tying score at the end of regulation.

[Passacaglia]

But this gives even less incentive to try to score at the end of the game. Instead of running your offense and either not converting and having to get rid of the ball, or risking not winning the toss for OT, it's better for a team to grind the clock away while getting a first down or two and waiting for OT to start since they'll keep possession.

Last night at least when the Saints got the ball back they took a shot at getting into FG position and a potential hail mary when that failed. Your situation has them take a knee right away.

They wouldn't take a knee -- they'd run their normal offense, as if it was the end of the 1st or 3rd quarter.

[Logan]

I definitely understand the "score more than 3 in order to win" mindset but I'm also not sure why a team should have to do more than "Get ball, drive downfield, kick FG, stop other team..." in order to be thought of as deserving the win.

Coming from someone who doesn't think the rule should be changed.

[Passacaglia]

Reading it again, maybe I misread Easy Mac's post. I thought he was saying the team with the ball would get it with the same field position, down and distance, as they had it at the end of the game. So there's still an incentive to move the ball, just not using a two-minute drill.

[DaddyTorgo]

I definitely understand the "score more than 3 in order to win" mindset but I'm also not sure why a team should have to do more than "Get ball, drive downfield, kick FG, stop other team..." in order to be thought of as deserving the win.

Coming from someone who doesn't think the rule should be changed.

because ~ 1/3 of the time (according to samdari's stats) they don't even need to do that last step.

[gstelmack]

Why not just have OT be an untimed extension of the end of the game that only kicks in when its a tie game. So Favre throws a pick, the Saints get the ball and the game goes into overtime during their possession. The play clock still exists, but there's no point to have a game clock. Each team gets a timeout whenever the ball changes possession. The first team to score in the untimed OT section wins the game. The only team that gets rewarded is theoretically whoever has the ball at the end of the game. Think of how more interesting the end of normal tie games would be (no more kneel downs to get to OT).

Does this kick in on the change of possession? That game goes very differently if the Vikings did not have to worry about the game clock on their drive.

[rowech]

I think you are misreading it, or they don't know stats.

Prior to 1994, 52% of teams winning the coin flip won in OT, 26% on the first drive.

Since 1994, 60% of teams winning the coin flip win in OT, ~32% on the first drive.

In no statistically significant period of time have 53% of teams winning the toss scored on the first drive, let alone "historically"

In every case, the team losing the toss was actually permitted to play defense and attempt to stop the other team.

If 60% is too much bias (and it probably is) the solution is really simple - in overtime, the opening kickoff should be from the 35, not the 30. And refs should be shot for calling a personal foul on a game tying score at the end of regulation.

I just went and looked it up and you are correct, I read it incorrectly. My apologies. The 60% number is what is quoted...to be honest, I'm not sure where in the heck the 53% even came from as it is not in that article. I might have mixed it with something else.

That said, the fact it's a 60-40 advantage if you get the ball first is questionable at best. I actually like some of the suggestions the author listed that people have developed. My favorite being the cake cutting...

Visiting team chooses a yardline. (no side of field, just a number) Home team chooses whether they will take the ball at that yardline or give the opposing team the ball at that yardline. Examples...team A chooses 15 yard line, you probably give them the ball to start on their own 15. If they get greedy and go for say the 35, you probably take the ball.

The other one he outlined was a bidding system where the lowest yardline bid (sealed bid type situation to the officials) gets the ball.

[Mustang]

Why not just have OT be an untimed extension of the end of the game that only kicks in when its a tie game. So Favre throws a pick, the Saints get the ball and the game goes into overtime during their possession.

I thought about that too, but you are fundamentally changing the end of the game and how teams would do play calling. You would have to treat the end of halfs the same way though and coming back out of halftime you spot the ball whereever it was at the end of the 2nd quarter.

Granted, I don't like the coin flip either. If the coin flip winner wins 'only' 53% of the time, it is still an advantage. I'd almost rather base it on yardage gained, at least that is something based on what has been happening on the field rather than some random coin flip.

[JPhillips]

What about starting OT with the ball at the ten? It would make the decision to take the ball much more difficult.

[gstelmack]

If 60% is too much bias (and it probably is) the solution is really simple - in overtime, the opening kickoff should be from the 35, not the 30.

Yup. They moved the kickoff back (among other things) to increase offense, and surprisingly first-drive OT scoring went up. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

[Kodos]

I make a not-so-risky prediction and say that it'll be a shootout with Favre throwing an interception to seal the deal for the Saints.

Except they have an OT first, so you're wrong there alien.

The fact that it EVER gets to a kicking contest is pathetic. Settle it on the field. Battle of wills. Who wants it more! Yada yada yada.

[Passacaglia]

I thought about that too, but you are fundamentally changing the end of the game and how teams would do play calling. You would have to treat the end of halfs the same way though and coming back out of halftime you spot the ball whereever it was at the end of the 2nd quarter.

Granted, I don't like the coin flip either. If the coin flip winner wins 'only' 53% of the time, it is still an advantage. I'd almost rather base it on yardage gained, at least that is something based on what has been happening on the field rather than some random coin flip.

You're not changing the play-calling that much. Teams already try to run out the clock when they have the ball in tie games -- they'd just be doing it a bit more often. Also, I don't think there's any rule that says you would have to treat the end of the halves the same -- you'd still have to alternate who receives the ball each half, in order to be fair.

[gstelmack]

Another interesting idea I've heard is just getting rid of field goals entirely. Make everyone go for the TD to score, period. All the time, not just OT.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Visiting team chooses a yardline. (no side of field, just a number) Home team chooses whether they will take the ball at that yardline or give the opposing team the ball at that yardline. Examples...team A chooses 15 yard line, you probably give them the ball to start on their own 15. If they get greedy and go for say the 35, you probably take the ball.
This would backfire when every team would just start saying the same number. Eventually, everyone would figure out the highest number that allows them to have the ball first, and they'll just go with that.

Or, maybe even worse: Ideally, no visiting team should ever say a number over 19. Otherwise, the home team would just take the ball and they're in no worse shape than a touchback. So 20-49 are gone. Now it's just a matter of figuring out which number is far enough away from 20 that the home team would willingly give up the football. I think something between 10 and 15 is about right. But at that point, how many visiting teams really want to start that far back? Maybe if they have a really great offense, sure, but it's still a long way to go. If they don't get a first down, they giving the other team fantastic field position. It's lose-lose for the visiting team. Either take the ball in worse shape than a touchback or give the ball to the other team and make it about the same as a touchback. Clearly, I'm no expert, but if I could guarantee that the first possession of OT started inside the 15 yard line, I'd probably let the other team have it.

I get that this isn't the only idea to change the NFL overtime rules, but I think it's one of the least effective and unnecessarily complex ones. If we're going to get into bidding and things like that, how about this one (right off the top of my head):

Each team just decides what yard line they want to start on. Lower number gets the ball. Team A is willing to start at the 16, Team B is willing to start at the 14. B gets the ball at the 14. If it's a tie, home team gets the ball (to just keep everyone from picking 20).

Personally, I think that idea is kind of silly, too, but it's simpler.

[Kodos]

I think we need some sort of computer-generated system to decide who gets the ball first. Bring the BCS to pro football!

[jbergey22]

The only thing that bothers me about OT is that Hutchinson didnt call tails last night. Apparently he doesnt know "tails never fails."

I really have no opinion on it. If you start making it gimmicky then it loses the football feel like the college game.

If it becomes a big problem teams should start basing their teams around defense instead of offense so they are able to make that key OT stop.

[Logan]

What about starting OT with the ball at the ten? It would make the decision to take the ball much more difficult.

Kick returns and kick coverage aren't an important part of football?

Another interesting idea I've heard is just getting rid of field goals entirely. Make everyone go for the TD to score, period. All the time, not just OT.

While I hope you're exaggerating about regular time, what I think is a bit lost in this is that nothing is automatic when it comes to some of these kickers recently. We saw the stat: this postseason itself, kickers have been awful, with no range being a gimme. I'm sure there were a bunch of Saints fans who were dreading the game coming down to a Hartley kick, and Vikings fans who were hoping it could hinge on his kick. Forgive the blanket statement, but I'm sure that if he did miss the kick, all those Vikings fans who a second before were pissed that NO won the toss and could line up for a potential winning FG would feel pretty happy about only having to go 30 yards to get Longwell in a position to win it for them. There's a benefit to having the more reliable kicker, which they were expecting to reap if Favre didn't pull a Favre.

[Mustang]

You're not changing the play-calling that much. Teams already try to run out the clock when they have the ball in tie games -- they'd just be doing it a bit more often. Also, I don't think there's any rule that says you would have to treat the end of the halves the same -- you'd still have to alternate who receives the ball each half, in order to be fair.

I think I didn't read the original suggestion then. I thought the suggestion was to continue the game at the spot they stopped on. (Like between the 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th quarters)

[Pumpy Tudors]

I guess we need to get Easy Mac back in here to clarify. To me, when he said that the untimed OT would be an extension of the end of the game, it sounds to me like the game just continues if the clock runs out and the score is tied. No coin toss, no kickoff, no change of possession. Just keep going. So it changes the playcalling wildly.

If you have the ball in a tie game, you don't worry about the clock running out. No two-minute offense. You don't have to worry about getting out of bounds or watching your timeouts. As long as you keep possession of the football, you have a chance to score the game-winning points. That would be hell on defenses, as they no longer have the clock as an ally. In every close game, it would just be a race to see who gets the ball last, in case the score is tied.

I really don't understand how the Arena Football League died, because the more I read (here and elsewhere), the more people are trying to shoehorn elements of the indoor game into the NFL. What was it that kept people away from the AFL? Was it the short field or the rebound nets?

No, those weren't serious questions.

[Logan]

Right Pump, because looking back on it, you wouldn't just be changing the last possession of the game. You'd be changing the second to last possession of the game too, for the most part because you'd be doing everything in your power to make the second to last possession of the game = the last possession of the game. Does that make sense?

[Passacaglia]

I think I didn't read the original suggestion then. I thought the suggestion was to continue the game at the spot they stopped on. (Like between the 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th quarters)

Right, that's what I thought it was, also.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Right Pump, because looking back on it, you wouldn't just be changing the last possession of the game. You'd be changing the second to last possession of the game too, for the most part because you'd be doing everything in your power to make the second to last possession of the game = the last possession of the game. Does that make sense?
Yes. I knew that because I've seen it all before... in arena football, which for some reason, nobody was watching!!! :rant:

[Passacaglia]

I guess we need to get Easy Mac back in here to clarify. To me, when he said that the untimed OT would be an extension of the end of the game, it sounds to me like the game just continues if the clock runs out and the score is tied. No coin toss, no kickoff, no change of possession. Just keep going. So it changes the playcalling wildly.

If you have the ball in a tie game, you don't worry about the clock running out. No two-minute offense. You don't have to worry about getting out of bounds or watching your timeouts. As long as you keep possession of the football, you have a chance to score the game-winning points. That would be hell on defenses, as they no longer have the clock as an ally. In every close game, it would just be a race to see who gets the ball last, in case the score is tied.

I really don't understand how the Arena Football League died, because the more I read (here and elsewhere), the more people are trying to shoehorn elements of the indoor game into the NFL. What was it that kept people away from the AFL? Was it the short field or the rebound nets?

No, those weren't serious questions.

How is it "hell on defenses" to no longer have the clock as an ally? Don't teams with the ball in tie games already try to run the clock down, leaving as little time as possible for the other team?

[Pumpy Tudors]

How is it "hell on defenses" to no longer have the clock as an ally? Don't teams with the ball in tie games already try to run the clock down, leaving as little time as possible for the other team?
Tie game and you're on your own 15. Let's say there are 45 seconds left on the clock. What will most offenses do? Take a knee and go to overtime. Not necessary if you extend the game to allow them to keep a possession. I see your point, but I was talking about a different type of situation.

[Easy Mac]

I guess we need to get Easy Mac back in here to clarify. To me, when he said that the untimed OT would be an extension of the end of the game, it sounds to me like the game just continues if the clock runs out and the score is tied. No coin toss, no kickoff, no change of possession. Just keep going. So it changes the playcalling wildly.

If you have the ball in a tie game, you don't worry about the clock running out. No two-minute offense. You don't have to worry about getting out of bounds or watching your timeouts. As long as you keep possession of the football, you have a chance to score the game-winning points. That would be hell on defenses, as they no longer have the clock as an ally. In every close game, it would just be a race to see who gets the ball last, in case the score is tied.

I really don't understand how the Arena Football League died, because the more I read (here and elsewhere), the more people are trying to shoehorn elements of the indoor game into the NFL. What was it that kept people away from the AFL? Was it the short field or the rebound nets?

No, those weren't serious questions.

That is essentially correct, regarding my proposal. However, didn't we see the Vikings employ the grind it out philosophy at the end of the game last night?the only reason favre was picked was because the penalty took them out of a planned run, so they needed to extra yards to get into field goal range. I don't know if the playcalling changes dramatically if they have a few extra plays in overtime. I disagree it would eliminate the two minute offense. It might for a tie game, but every other ge situation, a team is still going to need to run it. I don't have the stats, but I would assume the number of tie games at the two minute warning is a rather small percent of games each season.

[Pumpy Tudors]

That is essentially correct, regarding my proposal. However, didn't we see the Vikings employ the grind it out philosophy at the end of the game last night?the only reason favre was picked was because the penalty took them out of a planned run, so they needed to extra yards to get into field goal range. I don't know if the playcalling changes dramatically if they have a few extra plays in overtime. I disagree it would eliminate the two minute offense. It might for a tie game, but every other ge situation, a team is still going to need to run it. I don't have the stats, but I would assume the number of tie games at the two minute warning is a rather small percent of games each season.
I agree that the Vikings would not have gained any great benefit last night from your proposal. I'm just thinking of it in general. It affects offenses with no timeouts in a tie game. No matter where they are on the field, they can just keep running their regular offense. If the clock says 10 seconds to go and they're at midfield, they don't need to try the quick out pattern to get into field goal range before the clock runs out. Even though they've burned all their timeouts, they get to continue their possession indefinitely. This is why I call it hell for defenses. So much of the game is governed by the clock, but the last possession changes in a tie game.

I guess part of the issue for me is that I don't like changing rules based on conditions like the score of the game. I could actually get on board with this a little quicker if this applied no matter what the score was. If the offense is winning when the clock runs out, they can just decline to continue. If the offense is losing, they can continue the drive until they lose possession. I'm not really saying I like that idea, but it "fits" better for me.

Then again, I eat paste.

[Passacaglia]

I guess part of the issue for me is that I don't like changing rules based on conditions like the score of the game.

But isn't that an essential trait of overtime? If the score is tied, you go into overtime, and if the score is not tied, you don't.

[Daimyo]

I thought the Saints-Vikings game wasn't that good of a game. Minnesota dominated both sides of the ball, but then played so sloppily (turnovers) as to give the Saints the game. Saints didn't really have to do all that much to get the win. (which is not to say they weren't capable, just they never really had to show it in this game)

I'm really looking forward to the Super Bowl now though and not just because I'm a Colts fan. Saints-Colts has really been the dream matchup all season I think.

[Pumpy Tudors]

But isn't that an essential trait of overtime? If the score is tied, you go into overtime, and if the score is not tied, you don't.
Yes, I see what you mean. So, yeah, I guess if overtime is indeed this game extension that we're talking about, it makes sense to only implement it if the score is tied. OK, I concede on that one.

[Tigercat]

A little tidbit on the early ratings numbers to coincide with the earlier points with the Saints fan-team connection:

New Orleans delivered a 63.2/82 last night, the highest local rating for a postseason NFL game ever, beating the home market rating of every team that has ever played in a Super Bowl. Viewing in New Orleans peaked at a 67.4/86 at 10:15 PM as Garrett Hartley drilled a 40-yard field goal to send the Saints to their first-ever Super Bowl.

And keep in mind that this is New Orleans, a city with plenty of nightlife even on a Sunday.

[Crapshoot]

Good for the city; I've heard stories that this is what is like in SF back in the heydey of the 49ers, but that was with far more limited media choices. Heck, I defer to JIMGA and KCChief, but am I reading that correctly that 82% of households in NO were watching this? That's fucking amazing in this age.

[Doug5984]

I defer to JIMGA and KCChief, but am I reading that correctly that 82% of households in NO were watching this? That's fucking amazing in this age.

Also take into account the 70k people at the game, and the thousands more who chose to watch it at a bar down around the quarter

[RainMaker]

The problem with allowing both teams the ball is still that the team that wins the coin toss will mathematically have a better chance of winning the game as if both teams score, they'll be next in line for a possesion. You'd hae to allow each team the same amount of possesions which essentially becomes college football.

While I don't think the current system is fair, I like it better than the college system which to me is too gimmicky. Too much like penalty kicks in soccer or hockey. It takes out huge elements of the game.

I would prefer the 10 minute overtime that starts fresh as a new half essentially. I don't think you can just extend regulation because as Pumpy stated, it takes out a huge element of late game strategy and drama. I think 10 minutes is a sufficient to find a winner most of the time and in the playoffs, I'd probably just turn it to sudden death after 10 minutes.

The other idea would be two 5-minute OT sessions where each team gets a kickoff. Problem is that it probably would take a long time to play out.

[larrymcg421]

I prefer molson's idea of keeping the current sudden death format, but letting the home team have the ball first. It's good for home teams to have an advantage in the regular season. That helps sell tickets. As for postseason, the home team has earned the right to have the ball first via a better performance during the regular season. So let's scrap the randomness of the coin toss and give the ball to the team that earned it.

[Jughead Spock]

I don't have a problem with the OT system, but if there were going to be a change, make it easy - have to win by 4.

[Samdari]

You'd hae to allow each team the same amount of possesions which essentially becomes college football.

And that system hardly eliminates the advantage of winning the coin flip.