Playoff OT

[jedi ninja]

Why would it be any more “fair” if both teams score a td then next fg wins? That just added a bunch of extra to get to the same conclusion that the team w ball 1st will win more often in playoffs. 1 thing I don’t want and why I don’t hate this anymore is cause they got rid of all things being equal and a fg deciding it, that was incredibly unfair cause it doesn’t take much to get into fg range. fuck putting it on the kickers who mostly don’t miss (the good ones anyways!).

Now I think I’d most like the spot on field with teams picking and current rules. If that makes ya feel better I’m great with that one!

Because the teams both know this going in, so are playing with the same knowledge (and opportunity) and can go for 2 if they’d like.

Not sure why anything would make me feel better, I’m simply laying out some possibilities and showing the logic behind it I guess. I haven’t advocated for anything, I’m not even sure which option I like best at this point.

 

[jedi ninja]

Why would it be any more “fair” if both teams score a td then next fg wins? That just added a bunch of extra to get to the same conclusion that the team w ball 1st will win more often in playoffs. 1 thing I don’t want and why I don’t hate this anymore is cause they got rid of all things being equal and a fg deciding it, that was incredibly unfair cause it doesn’t take much to get into fg range. fuck putting it on the kickers who mostly don’t miss (the good ones anyways!).

Now I think I’d most like the spot on field with teams picking and current rules. If that makes ya feel better I’m great with that one!

And if you think it’s not necessarily fair even if both teams gets the ball and score TDs because the team who got it first gets first shot at the winning FG, then it seems you’ve made up your mind they need to focus on something other than a coin toss deciding who gets the ball first.

Maybe it’s as simple as the home team gets the ball first. At least this way the opponents know that, and can decide to do things differently towards the end of the game knowing they don’t get the ball first in OT.

 

[2daBank]

Because the teams both know this going in, so are playing with the same knowledge (and opportunity) and can go for 2 if they’d like.

Not sure why anything would make me feel better, I’m simply laying out some possibilities and showing the logic behind it I guess. I haven’t advocated for anything, I’m not even sure which option I like best at this point.

I didn't mean to make it sound like making you yourself feel better bout it, just ppl in general, I probably misspoke. I enjoy the discussion, I think you making a ton of good points, before hearing king talk earlier and you now I was pretty sure i was good with way it was. You have me leaning more to the middle. I still hate the both teams score than fg decides it!! We gotta throw that one out. Lol

 

[2daBank]

And if you think it’s not necessarily fair even if both teams gets the ball and score TDs because the team who got it first gets first shot at the winning FG, then it seems you’ve made up your mind they need to focus on something other than a coin toss deciding who gets the ball first.

Maybe it’s as simple as the home team gets the ball first. At least this way the opponents know that, and can decide to do things differently towards the end of the game knowing they don’t get the ball first in OT.

I think that just adds a ton to the game and then puts us back to where it was before where team get ball, kick a fg and win. That was awful. I liked when they changed it to a touchdown. As I said above you have made enough good points to where I see the potential unfairness. Problem is I can’t get off the fact I do think the longer they go the more impactful it will be to the following week. Right or wrong I don’t mind saying I rather the game that already went 60 min tied came down to some luck opposed to the following weeks game not being as good because a team loses a couple key guys in a longer ot. Keep in mind I’m admitting that thinking might not be the best but it def how I feel bout it.

 

[jedi ninja]

I think that just adds a ton to the game and then puts us back to where it was before where team get ball, kick a fg and win. That was awful. I liked when they changed it to a touchdown. As I said above you have made enough good points to where I see the potential unfairness. Problem is I can’t get off the fact I do think the longer they go the more impactful it will be to the following week. Right or wrong I don’t mind saying I rather the game that already went 60 min tied came down to some luck opposed to the following weeks game not being as good because a team loses a couple key guys in a longer ot. Keep in mind I’m admitting that thinking might not be the best but it def how I feel bout it.

The rules would still be the same. The only difference would be replacing the coin toss with something else.

 

[2daBank]

The rules would still be the same. The only difference would be replacing the coin toss with something else.

I’m good with that

 

[2daBank]

We can submit our report to competition committee now, then the owners will just shoot it down again anyways. Lol

 

[jedi ninja]

I’m good with that

Yes, that’s what it’s sounded like as we’ve discussed this. So you should be in the camp of simply replacing the coin toss. Now figure out which proposal for that you like best and you’ve taken a stance.

Now we just need the owners to walk through the same process. It’s one decision (both teams get ball), or two decisions (keep same rules for ending game but replace the coin toss…then figure out what to replace it with).

Like I said initially, it seems as if it’s being made out to be more complicated than it really is.

 

[KJ]

They should do like real football and do a shootout, 5 players each team kicking 30 yard field goals against a rush then sudden death if it's still tied

 

[2daBank]

I’m def down with watching position guys try to kick fgs! Forget what game it was, someone against the bills at end of year lost kicker before game and had players “trying out”, that wasn’t a bad watch!

 

[2daBank]

Yes, that’s what it’s sounded like as we’ve discussed this. So you should be in the camp of simply replacing the coin toss. Now figure out which proposal for that you like best and you’ve taken a stance.

Now we just need the owners to walk through the same process. It’s one decision (both teams get ball), or two decisions (keep same rules for ending game but replace the coin toss…then figure out what to replace it with).

Like I said initially, it seems as if it’s being made out to be more complicated than it really is.

I’m not real particular. Whichever way would make the most ppl agree would be fine by me. I actually like @KJ idea for entertainment value.