Posted on 05/23/2017 11:34:41 AM PDT by Phlap
That's ridonculous.
A Vince Wilfork type Nose tackle knocks the center on his arse and the Clay Matthews type LB has a free shot at a slow moving Tom Brady type QB? Yeah...no possibility of a franchise QB going down for good with that setup.
No problem here with a 10 min. OT so long as if it ends in a tie both teams meet at mid-field and go at it.
The team with the last man standing wins.
It was never above about 55%. The “problem” is they had a series of overtime playoff games where famous well regarded QBs never got on the field in OT so they decided they needed a “fairer” system that guaranteed each high priced QB would get on the field at least once. Always a stupid deal, either team can score on any play in football, sure the defensive team is less likely to score, but it’s not like baseball. And heck the Bears won 2 OT games in a row on turnovers run back for TDs.
Sudden deal or not at all. The college system stinks. It’s basically penalty kicks, which stink.
I don't think the lack of ties is what makes the NFL's tiebreaker system so bizarre. What's driving that is an expanded league with imbalanced schedules, many divisions, and multiple wild card teams in the playoffs. You're starting to see a similar issue creep into MLB in some seasons now, too.
If you’re going to scale FG points it should be more points from further in. Don’t reward teams for having a stronger kicker, reward teams for gaining more yards.
Ditto for the 3-point shot in basketball. It ruined the game.
-PJ
The problem with the NHL OT system is it actually encourages teams to relax the last few minutes of regulation to “preserve” a point, the last 5 minutes of tied regulation are boring. And having value of the games vary on how long they take stinks. If they must vary the points by length it should go the reverse:
3 points for a regulation win
2 points for an OT win
1 point for a shootout win
0 points for losers no matter when they lose
That would encourage teams to play all out and score all the time, not just a burst of energy in OT for the second point.
Americans and Canadians really get a rash from ties. Most of the rest of the world is OK with them.
The tiebreaker system in the NFL is crazy because with a 16 game season there’s just not enough variants in results. Without ties there’s only 17 possible season results with 32 teams your guaranteed ties in the standings so then you need ways to break them, and with a league where everybody doesn’t play everybody you need to start digging into odd stats (and eventually a coin toss). If you add ties in (I’m really for no regular season OT) and a “normal” point system (2 for a win 1 for a tie, 0 for losing) you get 33 possible standings results and the actual numerical possibility (though not exactly likely) of no ties. You also get an additional tiebreaker of wins over ties.
But you’d have to reduce the dunk points, dunks are boring.
I don’t see the problem with tied games at the end of official play.
Computers can still figure out standings. Right?
Any ties in standings at the end of the season can be can be worked out through the play off process.
No style anymore like back with Dr. J or Jordan.
To me a win is a win. What difference does it make if it takes an extra minute?
For me, giving the losing team in OT one point isn't a reward for failure so much as an acknowledgement that the OT period was played under a 3-on-3 scenario that simply isn't the same as normal hockey rules.
No shootouts -- period.
In soccer a tie is one point whereas a win is three points. So a tie actually feels like a loss, since a team drops two points.
In the NFL, the problem has been exacerbated in recent years by the plague of parity. I think I’ve seen more playoff teams with 9-7 records (and worse) in the last 15 years than in my entire lifetime before that.
Problem with that is you still get both teams turtling the last 5 minutes of regulation to protect that point. I don’t mind rewarding a team that gets to OT, but I do mind wasting those 5 minutes with puck handling drills disguised as hockey.
I just don’t like the way it screws up the point totals at the end of the season. All games should be worth the same number of points no matter how they are won or lost.
There’s nothing wrong with ties during a regular season. The point is to evaluate the best teams over the course of a season. There’s a big difference between a team with 50 wins, with all of those wins coming in regulation, than a team with 50 wins with 10 of those wins coming in OT.
It got exacerbated by that stupid “everybody gets a turn” rule. I think all of the games that have ended in ties since then both teams got a FG, under the old rules they all would have ended on the first possession.
Parity isn’t really the source of the 9-7 playoff teams, it’s clustering. The league keeps getting at least one division that all sucks, and somebody has to win that division. While I do think winning the division should be the path to the playoffs I wouldn’t mind seeing a 10-6 proviso on that, if you can’t win your division at 10-6 or better you didn’t really win, we’re going to go get a wild card team from one of the divisions that doesn’t suck. There really isn’t as much parity in the NFL as the league wants people to think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.