More on NFL Overtime; notes and links

by Kirkendall on Jan 8, 2009 11:16 AM EST in Analysis Comment 9 comments

You know, when you read an opinion that's firmly planted with a certain belief regarding a particular topic, sometimes it becomes nauseous. That's what Clark Judge did, when supporting the current NFL overtime system. Not only did he bluff you into thinking that the current system, which suggests accepting a little game by Harvey Dent, is good, but he simply blows away alternatives that could be suggested; even using college football's overtime to increase the validity of his point.

Judge writes that, "There have been 432 regular-season games that have gone to overtimes since the rule was adopted in 1974, with the team that received the kickoff winning 30 percent of the time after one series. That means 70 percent of the time each club had at least one possession."

Three out of every ten overtimes creates this monster. Change it to the college system, muses (and quickly deflects) Judge.

For one, the scores can be ridiculous, and the games can turn into marathons, with never-ending overtimes exhausting defenses that eventually run out of gas. Second, in going to the NCAA plan you eliminate special-teams performers like Johnnie Lee Higgins and Kassim Osgood and punters like Mike Scifres, Shane Lechler and Brian Moorman.

But isn't the point to win the game? Equal opportunity. Competition. That dreadful word that the NFL carries around when it best suits them: parity. Who cares how long it takes? Why are we so restricted on what's good for everyone else but the game that's being played. A playoff game no less.

Once Team A has possession (whether they score or not), Team B gets a shot. If the score is tied afterwards, then it's sudden death. It's not a hard concept to employ. And there's no argument that Judge could make that convinces us it wouldn't work; it would appease everyone. In fact, if such an argument would be made, then we fear the power of the coin is too great to persuade otherwise.

Moving on.

If you like surveys, then the Enquirer is conducting a State of the Bengals.

Dale Livingston was the Bengals sixth draft pick, ever. The former punter and place kicker died at a Green Bay hospital this week.

Dan Rooney responded to WDR's seventh task (mailing letters to all owners and Roger Goodell). They didn't like his response.

ESPN's Outside the Lines learned of a 2007 shooting involving Pacman Jones. The Cowboys released Jones. Jones is planning to sue ESPN.

There's a new head coach in the AFC North. Eric Mangini will be announced as the Browns newest head coach. The Browns already hired former Raiders defensive coordinator, Rob Ryan, according to Chris.

0 recs | Comment 9 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Overtime et al.

I completely agree that NFL overtimes should guarantee both teams the ball at least once (allowing the team that scores first to kick off), after which the game would be decided by sudden death. Ensuring the other team will get an opportunity to tie or match will remove the utterly detestable habit of teams getting in FG range in OT and then kicking on 2nd or 3rd down. This will force those teams to try and score TDs, thus making the game more exciting. One other change I would recommend is forcing teams to go for 2 in OT if they score first. Why? I just think 2-pt conversions are exciting.

On Pacman Jones, I am still waiting for the national media’s outrage over the Dallas Cowboys hiring thugs spawning the subsequent pillorying of Jerry Jones. Mike Brown was raked over the coals for having players that could not hold a CANDLE to Pacman’s thuggishness. But I guess America’s Team can do anything it wants. On that note, Chargers WR Vincent Jackson was just arrested over for suspicion of DUI while under probation from a previous DUI arrest. He will not be suspended by either the league or the Chargers – the same Chargers that led the league in arrests in 2007. Remember when Chris Henry was suspended four games for assault charges, serving the suspension after said charges were dropped? I guess playing in the NFL is a “privilege” for Bengals players but I “right” for players on winning teams. Any comment Commissioner Goodell? Peter King? ESPN? James Harrison beating his girlfriend and then getting out of it (with a slurp piece in the NYT this past week) by taking anger management classes? Santonio Holmes getting caught with the wacky tobacky and nothing being done? As a Bengals fan, I think Henry deserved what he got – all I ask for is some consistency from the league when other teams screw up. Is that too much to ask?

"Ryan, Things in here don't react too well to bullets." - Marko Ramius

by TarZander on Jan 8, 2009 8:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

If NFL coaches were on the ball, there would be no problem with the present overtime system. The key is, knowing what the OT consists of, knowing that it can be a complete crapshoot, that you may never see the ball, avoid it at all costs. Go for the touchdown instead of the tying field in regulation or go for the winning 2 rather than settling for a tie by one point conversion. Put simply, you strategize within the framework of the rules as they are at the time and not for how they ought to be.

Even with an estimate of 14 weeks of 34 regular season games- because I couldn’t remember what year the league expanded or when the schedule went from 14 to 16 games, we’re talking less than seven percent of NFL games even reaching overtime. And, per Judge’s stats, only two percent of the total where one team never saw the ball. An accurate count would make those figures even lower which, to me, makes it a non-issue. I’d much rather fiddle with the number of pre-season versus regular season games.

by IgnatiusJReilly on Jan 8, 2009 9:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

OT Rules

Good Points J…

For those of you that think the NFL should adopt the college format, let me be the first to tell you that you are morons. The college format is laim.

In college you start with the ball on the 25 — so you are already in scoring range. That’s stupid. You don’t even have to earn your points, you’re automatically awarded them. Even if you say the NFL should just guarantee both teams get one possession, that’s illogical again in my mind. The NFL doesn’t want to extend games unnecessarily — NEITHER do individual teams! An NFL game is brutal. Teams and players are physically exhausted after 4 quarters of play. And for those of those that think “equal possessions” or a full quarter of play be added for the playoffs are even more crazy. How fair is it to a team in the playoffs to have to play a full extra quarter of play one week then have to play another playoff game the next week — and potentially off of only 6 days of rest?

The bottom line is that the current format is completely fair – and even if you want to argue that it’s flawed, you can only argue that it’s flawed a small percentage of the time.

In the Colts/Chargers game last week the format was not to blame for the Colts losing, the Colts are! For fans that want to gripe about the overtime rules, why don’t you gripe about the Colts letting the Chargers convert multiple 3rd and longs on that drive that would have allowed Peyton Manning to get the ball back? (or the refs for calling a bogus defensive holding call on 3rd and long)

Anyways…If a team doesn’t win the toss it’s not as if the other team is granted their right to automatically score. The team that loses the toss still gets to kick the ball off then go cover the kick and go play defense. The other team still needs to go 100 yds to score a TD…or roughly 70 yards to kick a field goal. That’s not an automatic or easy to accomplish feat in the NFL.

Quit crying about the format. The format is fine and has worked great for years. The college format (or anything near it) would be a total disaster in the NFL.

by JohnCockToastin on Jan 9, 2009 9:40 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

"you can only argue that it’s flawed a small percentage of the time."

So because the percentage is small (30% referenced by Judge), then it’s all right? What if 30% of all penalties were called wrong? Would that be all right because the percentage is small?

Blogger at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.

by Kirkendall on Jan 9, 2009 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"The NFL doesn’t want to extend games unnecessarily — NEITHER do individual teams! An NFL game is brutal"

Very much agree. However, at the cost of losing because your defense is already too tired to defend against the offense driving down the field? Wouldn’t that support a fair, two possession format? Team A gets the kickoff. No matter what happens, score or punt, Team B gets the chance at one offensive play. After that, it’s the existing format.

Blogger at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.

by Kirkendall on Jan 9, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Devils Advocate?

You like me but you hate me!

Yes both those points are true….but addressing the first:

You took my words and spun them around and used them out of context. (Obviously you’re learning how to be more journalistic — kudos to you)

I said that “if you wanted to argue me…you could only argue that the system is flawed a small percentage of the time.” NOT, “system is flawed…but only flawed a small percentage of the time.” There’s a big difference. You can argue ANYTHING if you wanted. My point is that I don’t buy the arguement that the format is flawed at all – no matter what the percentage.

My main point is to PLAY DEFENSE if/when you lose the toss!

You want to know why NFL coaches aren’t griping about the current format?? …because they know and understand that there is no flaw!

Yes, the defense is tired (the second point you illustrated). You know who’s also tired as hell? The offensive line, the RB’s, the WR’s — the entire offense. So you have a tired offense and a tired defense.

Football is about execution on both sides of the ball. So no, I don’t agree with you that both team should have a possession because ONLY THE DEFENSE is tired. EVERYONE’S tired. Neither team is at an advantage/disatvantage because of fatigue.

Winning the toss doesn’t come close to winning you the game. You need to field a kickoff and create a decent return. Then you need to pick up at least 3-4 first downs (roughly) just to get in decent field goal range.

Again…none of that is automatic by any stretch of the imagination.

by JohnCockToastin on Jan 9, 2009 2:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Good points John

I’m with you guys — at least I was converted along the way when, a long time ago I believed that the college system was perfect (my opinion has changed since).

My only amendment of the current system is Team A and Team B, each get one snap, then it’s sudden death.

I don’t understand the problem with that system. We’re not asking the game to end in a tie, or taking that long for one to happen. Maybe the probabilities increase if such a system is included, ties are frequent. But the NFL is the only sport in which 30% of the time the team that plays defense first, doesn’t get any shot at responding to the initial score in OT.

And yea, I’ll play Devil’s Advocate to get your guys to:

1) talk more
2) call me an idiot

:-D

Blogger at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.

by Kirkendall on Jan 9, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let me rephrase that.

I believe the college system is for the NFL, in that I agree with you guys. I still think the other team should be given an opportunity, but that’s just my opinion.

Commence with #2. :)

Blogger at CincyJungle.com -- SB Nation Cincinnati Bengals blog.

by Kirkendall on Jan 9, 2009 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs