Something's not right

**Shas** · 01-26-2019, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

There's always details underneath any 'average' but that's why it's the average.

Yeah, that's at the heart my point. Over the course of a season things will even out, on average.

But when it comes down to deciding just one game--and it's the Conference championship game--you have to toss out the averages. I think a more even-handed way for the better team to prove itself.

In this case you have a team like the Chiefs who have built their team around offensive production, and have taken the approach that they may not have a strong defense but they'll outscore you in the end. I think we can agree a coin toss system is biased against a team like this. Losing the coin toss dramatically changes the 50/50 average.

I understand the hard-ass argument, tough shit, if their defense can't stop the other team, they don't deserve to win. To that I would say that if we expected the Chiefs to anticipate that, and build a stronger defense, it's going to come at the expense of the offense--that's just the way a salary capped league with limited draft choices and roster spots works--and if the Chiefs had done that they aren't in the playoffs to begin with. I don't think it's reasonable to expect teams to build season-long rosters around the demands of overtime rules.

The shorter way of saying it is that I'd rather see a championship game come down to a better representation of who the two teams really are. Putting the championship on the shoulders of the Chiefs defense isn't what I want to see as a fan. I would think the league wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to put Patrick Mahommes out on the field in that situation--it would have made for great theater.

For that reason, I really do love the suggestion that if the coin toss winner scores a touchdown on their initial drive, the game isn't over, but the second team not only has to score a TD, they have to go for a two point conversion. That assures we'll see both teams offenses and defenses on the field and also assures the game will be over after two possessions (assuming a TD on the initial drive).

**mmi16** · 01-26-2019, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Shas

For that reason, I really do love the suggestion that if the coin toss winner scores a touchdown on their initial drive, the game isn't over, but the second team not only has to score a TD, they have to go for a two point conversion. That assures we'll see both teams offenses and defenses on the field and also assures the game will be over after two possessions (assuming a TD on the initial drive).

What if the team that scores a TD first goes for 2? Make? Miss?

**Shas** · 01-27-2019, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by mmi16

What if the team that scores a TD first goes for 2? Make? Miss?

Ha. That's a good question.

Thinking about it, it would be a bit of a strange decision. If the first team's coach goes for two and doesn't convert it, that means the second team could score a TD and also not make it--meaning the first coach just botched the win.

OTOH, if the first team does convert, it does nothing for them in a situation where the other team scores the follow-up TD and then doesn't convert. They could have just kicked the surer extra point.

But if both teams score and convert it's back to a tie.

So, in essence, the first coach only makes this decision because he fears the second team will score twice. I don't see any coach thinking that way. I have to believe 100% go up seven in OT and put pressure on the opponent to drive the field, score a TD AND covert the two.

But to answer your question, if it happens, I'd treat it the same as if both teams converted field goals on their first possessions.

**Ravenswintitle** · 01-27-2019, 09:43 AM

I think the OT rules are fine. They still have those 4 quarters before it to win the game too...

**GreatWhiteNorthRaven** · 01-27-2019, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

I think the OT rules are fine. They still have those 4 quarters before it to win the game too...

Change the rule to the second team gets a chance even if they score 7 and I would have no complaints.

With two offensive teams taht can score it's just silly that a coin toss would determine the winner.

**blueridgemtnman** · 01-27-2019, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteNorthRaven

Change the rule to the second team gets a chance even if they score 7 and I would have no complaints.

With two offensive teams taht can score it's just silly that a coin toss would determine the winner.

That's where I'm at, too. No matter who the teams are.

**bacchys** · 01-27-2019, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

I think the OT rules are fine. They still have those 4 quarters before it to win the game too...

The current rules exist because Peyton Manning watched Phillip Rivers drive his offense down the field to kick a field goal in OT, and the Talking Heads whined about how unfair it was Manning didn't get a chance in OT.

I'd prefer they go back to the old rules instead of extending OT even more.

**Ravenswintitle** · 01-27-2019, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteNorthRaven

Change the rule to the second team gets a chance even if they score 7 and I would have no complaints.

With two offensive teams taht can score it's just silly that a coin toss would determine the winner.

The Saints are about as high powered offense as it gets. They won the coin toss and couldn't get an inch.

**Shas** · 01-27-2019, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

The Saints are about as high powered offense as it gets. They won the coin toss and couldn't get an inch.

That's not what we're debating. We're not debating the fairness of the rules when high powered offenses win the toss and get the ball first. We're debating the fairness of the rule for teams with weaker defenses who lose the toss and their high powered offense never sees the field.

In your example the play was decided on the field. We're not left wondering, "what would happened if Brees had also gotten a chance to drive the ball?"

I'm fine with the Saints example (aside from the officials fucking them over.)

**Ravenswintitle** · 01-27-2019, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Shas

That's not what we're debating. We're not debating the fairness of the rules when high powered offenses win the toss and get the ball first. We're debating the fairness of the rule for teams with weaker defenses who lose the toss and their high powered offense never sees the field.

In your example the play was decided on the field. We're not left wondering, "what would happened if Brees had also gotten a chance to drive the ball?"

I'm fine with the Saints example (aside from the officials fucking them over.)

Last comment on the matter that I have is this - if it wasn't the Patriots winning, I think everyone would be fine with the rules.

**Shas** · 01-27-2019, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

Last comment on the matter that I have is this - if it wasn't the Patriots winning, I think everyone would be fine with the rules.

I'll make it my last, too. If the Saints lost the toss and allowed the Rams to score on the first possession, and Brees never saw the field, I'd feel the same.

I'll harken all the way back the beginning of the discussion when I said I prefer the college rules...always have.

If you want to talk about my Patriots bias, then let's discuss the flag that came out when Brady's arm got chopped and they called it a blow to the head.

If I had my way that play is challengeable and maybe we're never talking about OT.

**bacchys** · 01-27-2019, 04:41 PM

The NFL should dispense with challenges and just have every play reviewed on the fly by officials in a booth with control over what camera feeds they need. They should have until the snap of the ball to indicate the play needs more consideration. The object should be to get the call right, whether it's a "judgement" call or not.

The arm chop/blow to the head was called by an official who literally couldn't see the offense. He assumed it occurred. He couldn't see it because he was looking through Brady watching the play. We see it happen in all team sports: basketball, soccer, lacrosse, and, of course, football. Even though they don't actually see something occur, they assume it had to have happened based on what they did see. Meeting on the field to discuss what officials (who all have different responsibilities during a play) all think happened takes longer than having one guy in a booth with the camera feeds, as anyone who has watched instant replay between snaps to see a play should know.

As for the fairness of overtime: make a play on defense. As the Rams-Saints game shows, it's possible to win the toss and lose the game. Even the current rules are a ridiculous extension of the game if a touchdown isn't scored.