PDA

View Full Version : OT Proposal Shot Down

Ksyrup
03-26-2003, 01:50 PM
Good move.


The NFL's new overtime proposal failed to pass Wednesday at the NFL owners meetings.

To be approved, the proposal needed affirmative votes from 24 of the 32 teams. The final vote was 17-14 in favor of making the change. The Raiders abstained from the vote.

Also, the proposal to increase the number of playoff teams from 12 to 14 was tabled for further discussion at a later date.

Proponents of the overtime change, such as Tampa GM Rich McKay, chair of the competition committee, point to an increasing number of games in which the team that wins the toss in overtime wins the game on its first possession. That was the case 58 percent of the time last season, when there were a record 25 OTs.

However, it's been hard to convince coaches and other traditionalists to change the rules.

"I like defense," said Wellington Mara, co-owner of the New York Giants. "If you can't stop a team when it gets the ball, then you don't deserve to win."

On Tuesday, the NFL announced that it will appoint officials by crews instead of individual positions starting this season. Under the old system, the NFL picked all-star crews for playoff games based on how each official graded during the season.
Aylmar
03-26-2003, 01:54 PM
I tend to agree with Mara (even with the Steelers overtime loss weighing on my mind). :)
Craptacular
03-26-2003, 02:00 PM
I know what was proposed, but if you talk about "the change" and "the proposal", it would be nice to at least put a sentence describing the damn thing.

edit: I know that was an ESPN / AP article, so I'm not ripping on you Ksyrup.

dola edit: I didn't use the word "ripping" just because it was you either. :p Ouch!
QuikSand
03-26-2003, 02:03 PM
My pet peeve with permanent rules issues is how teams line up based on whatever happened to their own team last. I know that in the NFL, that seems to govern their feelings about instant replay, and every time certain teams feel like a bad call screwed them, they change their vote.

Just seems to me that you ought to be able to look beyond what happend alst Sunday or last season, and focus on doing what's in the best interests of the game. I'm not even asking for bona fide statesmanship... just rationality. Just because you lost out on some rule issue last year doesn't mean that you have a special stake in the same rule going forward.
JonInMiddleGA
03-26-2003, 02:51 PM
Heck, I thought the thread had something to do with off-topic posts.
Swaggs
03-26-2003, 03:52 PM
I'm glad your proposal was turned downed. Your wife probably would've gotten pissed when she found out you were engaged to a different woman. :)
cincyreds
03-26-2003, 03:52 PM
Why do the Raiders always abstain from voting?

I can remember them doing this last year when rule changes were being voted on.

Al Davis to scared to make a decision? Him and his Elvis wearing costume self.

OUT!
Logan
03-26-2003, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by QuikSand
My pet peeve with permanent rules issues is how teams line up based on whatever happened to their own team last. I know that in the NFL, that seems to govern their feelings about instant replay, and every time certain teams feel like a bad call screwed them, they change their vote.

Just seems to me that you ought to be able to look beyond what happend alst Sunday or last season, and focus on doing what's in the best interests of the game. I'm not even asking for bona fide statesmanship... just rationality. Just because you lost out on some rule issue last year doesn't mean that you have a special stake in the same rule going forward.

...which is exactly why the rule should stay as it was. 58% of last season's games may have ended with one possession, but that's not even close to the historical numbers.
tucker342
03-26-2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by QuikSand
My pet peeve with permanent rules issues is how teams line up based on whatever happened to their own team last. I know that in the NFL, that seems to govern their feelings about instant replay, and every time certain teams feel like a bad call screwed them, they change their vote.

Just seems to me that you ought to be able to look beyond what happend alst Sunday or last season, and focus on doing what's in the best interests of the game. I'm not even asking for bona fide statesmanship... just rationality. Just because you lost out on some rule issue last year doesn't mean that you have a special stake in the same rule going forward.

tru dat!