NFL Overtime

[Ellis Dee]

Okay, let's resolve the debate once and for all:

What is the fairest / best way to structure an NFL overtime?

I say it is the current sudden death format. The statistics back me up, with the winner of the coin toss winning 53% of the time. The slight advantage is almost certainly from offense-only teams (like this year's Broncos) occasionally going to overtime and losing the coin toss.

Defense-only teams like the 2000 Ravens wouldn't care about a coin toss. Balanced teams like last year's Giants wouldn't care either. (Losing the OT coin toss to the Packers didn't hurt.)

Offense-only teams can't even be assured a shot at the ball in overtime. And this is as it should be. Why anyone would want to help offense-only teams is a complete mystery to me. Send that shit over to the Arena League.

Anyway, offer your solution and explain why it's better than the NFL's.

[Marley23]

Just wanted to put in another vote for sudden death before anyone suggests something "more (actually less) fair."

[Oakminster]

I like the way they do overtime in college football. Coin flip decides the choice of offense or defense first. Each team guarranteed at least one possession. Offense gets the ball on the 25 yard line (I think), First and 10. They can get a first down, score a TD, or kick a FG. Other team then gets the ball under the same conditions. Starting on the third OT, teams must attempt a 2 point conversion after a TD.

I think it's a fair deal because both offense and defense is important--not only do you have to score, but you have to stop the other team from scoring. Best of all, there are no ties.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

I like the way they do overtime in college football. Coin flip decides the choice of offense or defense first. Each team guarranteed at least one possession. Offense gets the ball on the 25 yard line (I think), First and 10. They can get a first down, score a TD, or kick a FG. Other team then gets the ball under the same conditions. Starting on the third OT, teams must attempt a 2 point conversion after a TD.

I think it's a fair deal because both offense and defense is important--not only do you have to score, but you have to stop the other team from scoring. Best of all, there are no ties.

I'm also partial to this as well. It also provides better TV.

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Other team then gets the ball under the same conditions.

I think it's a fair deal because both offense and defense is important

The first problem is that this method eliminates special teams, which are a real part of the game that should not be ignored. But that's minor compared to the main problem.

The other team does not get the ball under the same conditions, and it is not a fair deal.

The second team -- the one that starts on defense -- gets a decided advantage. Because the first team doesn't know what they need, they will be more likely to kick a field goal instead of going for it on fourth down. By contrast, the second team will know exactly what they need. If they need a TD, they will always go for it on fourth down, meaning their possession has four downs to other team's three. That's a decided advantage.

[Ellis Dee]

I am currently looking for a cite showing the percentage of time the team that starts on defense wins in the NCAA overtime format. I do not believe it will be as even as the NFL overtime stats.

In other words, any claim that the NCAA overtime format is more fair will require a cite showing the percentages.

[Marley23]

I don't think forcing the team that has scored to play defense is particularly fair, either. If a team scores at the end of the first half, the other team doesn't get the ball and a new possession just to be fair- the half is just over.

[Death of Rats]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

The second team -- the one that starts on defense -- gets a decided advantage. Because the first team doesn't know what they need, they will be more likely to kick a field goal instead of going for it on fourth down. By contrast, the second team will know exactly what they need. If they need a TD, they will always go for it on fourth down, meaning their possession has four downs to other team's three. That's a decided advantage.

So if you go first you always go for the TD. If you fail you are really no worse off, if you succeed then you force your opponent to have to go for a TD and 2-point conversion. Advantage to the first offense.

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by Death of Rats

So if you go first you always go for the TD. If you fail you are really no worse off, if you succeed then you force your opponent to have to go for a TD and 2-point conversion. Advantage to the first offense.

This is a flawed analysis.

The first team, aware of the second-possession advantage, decides to go for it on fourth down instead of kicking a FG, but end up turning it over on downs. The second team now lines up and kicks the field goal for the win without having to run a single play on offense. How is that more fair?

[AndyPolley]

I like it just the way it is.

Altough I think it'd be cool to replace the coin toss with an XFL-stye scramble for the ball.

[Jurph]

I propose a fifth period (not really a quarter) that is eight minutes long, with possession determined by a coin toss, one timeout per team, and additional eight-minute segments until there is a victor at the end of a period. I understand the objection to a longer period of play -- injuries and fatigue make the next week's games harder on both teams -- but I don't have a problem with it. My approach forces teams to play football to win. You don't want to go into OT? Push harder on fourth downs during the fourth quarter. Put the game away. Win decisively.

This also brings clock management (a key component of the game) back into focus. If necessary, I'm willing to adjust the length of the period to be statistically fair.

For example, if the team winning the coin-toss at the beginning of a game is 50% likely to be ahead 9:00 into the first quarter, but more or less likely to be ahead at 8:00, then make the additional period 9:00 long.

[borschevsky]

My preference would be to just play another quarter. Generally my preference in all sports is that extra time should just be a continuation; you shouldn't decide who the better team in a sport is by playing something that isn't that sport. I don't really mind ties, so I'd be fine if regular season NFL games would not have OT and just count as ties, and postseason games run a full 5th quarter.

I wouldn't think that the current NFL system is to the advantage of offense-only teams. It's just that OT games with such teams are more likely to end on the first possession, so the coin toss is overvalued compared to other OT games.

The college format strikes me as fairly ridiculous, and one of those things that seems fair initially but is actually more unfair than the alternatives. A similar format is used in the CFL, and it's even worse there. It also led to one of the all-time strangest football situations I've seen:

There was an OT game (Saskatchewan vs BC) on a day with a very strong wind. Sask had the ball first and failed to score. BC took possession on the 35, with the wind at their back. Since in the CFL you get a point for a punt through the end zone, they called a punt on first down, trying to win with the single. It actually failed, and they went on to lose.

[Bearflag70]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

This is a flawed analysis.

The first team, aware of the second-possession advantage, decides to go for it on fourth down instead of kicking a FG, but end up turning it over on downs. The second team now lines up and kicks the field goal for the win without having to run a single play on offense. How is that more fair?

What if you just eliminate the FG as a scoring option?

[Ellis Dee]

In trying to google up the stats for NCAA overtime games based on coin flips -- which are remarkably absent compared to the plethora of those stats available for the NFL -- I ran across an interesting idea that apparently did actually get pitched to the NFL.

There is no initial kickoff, but other than that it is a normal sudden death overtime. The winner of the coin flip gets to pick the relative yard line where the first possession starts. The loser of the coin flip then gets to pick which team gets first possession.

It's far too geeky to actually implement, but there is some appeal to the idea.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Bearflag70

What if you just eliminate the FG as a scoring option?

That's the same problem borschevsky just raised: by then you're playing something that's very different from the rest of the game.

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by Bearflag70

What if you just eliminate the FG as a scoring option?

So we've now eliminated all special teams from overtime. This means that the overtime winner will be decided based on aspects that aren't reflective of how non-overtime games are decided, because special teams plays a large role in those.

If you eliminate all special teams from the game, then that would make more sense as an overtime format. But it doesn't seem right to eliminate a huge part of the game.

It would be similar to saying "no running plays in overtime." It just doesn't make sense.

[lieu]

To start OT put the ball on the 50 and have the two owners line up on opposite 40s. Blow a whistle, they race for it and it's a dodgeball competition. Whichever one hits the other first wins, unless they catch it in which case they win.

This way owners like Al Davis will never win an OT, yet they have no one to blame but themselves.

[Ellis Dee]

It would be good if we could keep the joke answers to a minimum in an effort to keep the signal:noise ratio high.

I found the NCAA overtime data, but it looks like I'll have to crunch the numbers in Excel.

[Fear the Turtle]

I like sudden death, but have a minor quibble. I think it was much fairer in the old days, when scoring was lower. Over the years the NFL has moved to a more offense oriented, higher scoring game; ie moving the kickoffs back, making passing easier, etc. At the same time the kicking games have vastly improved, making longer FGs possible and punters better able to pin teams deep. Doesn't seem too hard in today's game to return a KO to about the 30-35 (anyone have stats on average field position following a KO?), maybe get 1 1st down, then have your punter pin the other team inside their 20. 3 1st downs and your in FG range.

Maybe for OT return the KO spot to the 35 or 40, pretty much insuring the receiving team will start around their 20.

[Bearflag70]

How about this...

Start with a kickoff. The receiving team gets a normal 2 minute drill to score any way it can. If the drive ends without a score, that drive is over. The offense then does a normal kickoff to the other team so the other team gets a 2 minute drill. Continue until you get a winner. The winner is the first team to score 6 points in OT.

[Ellis Dee]

Of the 372 division 1 NCAA overtime games since 1995, the winner of the coin toss won 207 times, which means that under the NCAA system, the winner of the coin flip wins 55.65% of the time.


Greatest quote found while googling stats:
"I fucking love the NFL's overtime format. It's rigid and unforgiving, like my cock."

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by Fear the Turtle

Maybe for OT return the KO spot to the 35 or 40, pretty much insuring the receiving team will start around their 20.

Works for me.

[Hawkeyeop]

I don't think the problem is lack of fairness. It is nominally unfair to the defending team, but there are many other factors that give nominal advantages to one team or the other, so I'm not concerned about that.

My issue is that overtime football is not like regulation football, because it missed one key eliminate. Red Zone Offense. You are taking the 20 or 30 yards in which the most interesting things on the field happen, and replacing it with runs to center the ball and kneel downs. Watching teams try to set up for a field goal is much less interesting than watching them go for a TD.

My solution is simple. Keep the rules the same except for one small adjustment. First to 4 wins. If overtimes ends without anyone reaching 4 then whoever has the most would win and a tie would be a tie.

[Duke]

I know I'm going to be the only one who argues this, but I don't there should be overtime, period.

I don't see what's so awful about a tie game, and, yes, I know I am un-American for even suggesting that. In my mind an NFL game is 60 minutes long, and if your team hasn't done enough to win in those 60 minutes, then your team doesn't deserve to win.

College football was fine for close to 100 years without overtime until the Big Money People behind the NCAA decided they didn't make enough money on tie games. And I agree with Ellis Dee that it's a horrible system, favoring the team that goes on offense second. Yes, it's "only" by 55.5%...but keep in mind that those teams were evenly matched for 60 minutes. A 5.5% boost to the team going second is statistically significant.

But I'd go further than Ellis. He is for some reason claiming that the NFL system, in which the coin-toss winner wins 53% of the time, is fair, while the college system, in which the team on offense second wins 55% of the time, is obviously unfair. Apparently that 2% difference is enough to make college OT manifestly unfair. I don't see it, and I think it's more logically consistent to argue that both systems have flaws. Here's a great way to determine which team is better: don't play overtime, period.

[Jman]

I really like the 4 points to win idea.

[Bearflag70]

Originally Posted by Duke

I know I'm going to be the only one who argues this, but I don't there should be overtime, period.

I don't see what's so awful about a tie game, and, yes, I know I am un-American for even suggesting that. In my mind an NFL game is 60 minutes long, and if your team hasn't done enough to win in those 60 minutes, then your team doesn't deserve to win.

College football was fine for close to 100 years without overtime until the Big Money People behind the NCAA decided they didn't make enough money on tie games. And I agree with Ellis Dee that it's a horrible system, favoring the team that goes on offense second. Yes, it's "only" by 55.5%...but keep in mind that those teams were evenly matched for 60 minutes. A 5.5% boost to the team going second is statistically significant.

But I'd go further than Ellis. He is for some reason claiming that the NFL system, in which the coin-toss winner wins 53% of the time, is fair, while the college system, in which the team on offense second wins 55% of the time, is obviously unfair. Apparently that 2% difference is enough to make college OT manifestly unfair. I don't see it, and I think it's more logically consistent to argue that both systems have flaws. Here's a great way to determine which team is better: don't play overtime, period.

How about playoff games?

[Duke]

Originally Posted by Bearflag70

How about playoff games?

Originally, that's all overtime was for in the NFL. That's how it should have remained.

[Enginerd]

Originally Posted by Duke

I know I'm going to be the only one who argues this, but I don't there should be overtime, period.

I actually like this idea. Add an extra quarter for playoff games, but let regular season games end in a tie. Failing that, Hawkeyeop's first to 4 is an intriguing idea as well.

The absolute last thing I'd want is for the NFL to adopt the NCAA's system. I'm pretty indifferent to the current sudden death format, but I hate the college game's OT.

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by Duke

But I'd go further than Ellis. He is for some reason claiming that the NFL system, in which the coin-toss winner wins 53% of the time, is fair, while the college system, in which the team on offense second wins 55% of the time, is obviously unfair. Apparently that 2% difference is enough to make college OT manifestly unfair. I don't see it, and I think it's more logically consistent to argue that both systems have flaws. Here's a great way to determine which team is better: don't play overtime, period.

No, you misunderstand my intent. Most people who want to change the overtime format cite unfairness as the reason, because the "coin toss decides the game." The most common next step is to recommend that both teams get the ball at least once. I was attacking this argument head on by emphasizing that the two-drive-minimum approach is less fair than sudden death. The 2% isn't a ton, but those complaining about the 3% have to back off their position in the face of 5%.

I don't overly mind ties, so no overtime during the regular season would be fine with me. If they wanted to eliminate sudden death in the playoffs as well, I'd be fine with playing full quarters at a time, all with fourth quarter rules in effect. The game ends when a quarter ends with one team ahead of the other.

[dalej42]

I like the current system at the best of a bad lot to pick from.

It really comes down to television which is absolute king in the NFL.

If your early game runs late, then viewers will miss the first part of a (usually) attractive late game. The broadcast rules are pretty complicated, but generally the network can't cut away from the game in progress. So, you could be watching two 4-10 teams play in your early game who go into OT while the game with playoff implications kicks off.

The late game going into a long OT would tick off NBC since they don't want viewers still on Fox or CBS when their coverage begins.

A 5th quarter would run on too long.

Tie games would tick off Las Vegas too much.

[Ellis Dee]

Ties don't matter to Vegas; the spread is rarely PickEm, and tons of games push the spread anyway.

[quixotic78]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

No, you misunderstand my intent. Most people who want to change the overtime format cite unfairness as the reason, because the "coin toss decides the game." The most common next step is to recommend that both teams get the ball at least once. I was attacking this argument head on by emphasizing that the two-drive-minimum approach is less fair than sudden death. The 2% isn't a ton, but those complaining about the 3% have to back off their position in the face of 5%.

I appreciate you crunching the numbers -- and I'm not sure I would have guessed that the college OT would put more weight on the coin toss -- but I think you're missing the point about why some people (like me) think the sudden death coin toss is unfair. Look at it this way -- you said getting rid of FGs in OT would suck, because then you'd be eliminating special teams from the extra quarter (presumably you'd also get rid of punts...?). In sudden death, the offense that loses the coin toss also runs the risk of being eliminated from the extra quarter, solely because of random chance. At least in college, both offenses and both defenses get a chance to step up and show what they can do when the game is on the line.

I suppose I'd suggest the college OT scenario, except when the initially defensive team gets their chance to go on offense, they have to "mirror" what the first team did. If the first team got a TD, you can go for it on fourth down. If the first team got a 3, then you can't go for it on fourth down. You get three downs, and then you have to try a FG. I suppose that you still have the second team shooting for the end zone more on their first three tries than they usually would, so they can get the win, but (a) it's a more difficult play than doing what you should be doing, i.e., marching methodically down the shortened field, and (b) if you have three straight incompletions, you'll be kicking either a 38 or 43 yard FG [I can't remember if you start from the 20 or the 25], neither of which is a gimme in the college football game. Arbitrary and artificial? Sure. But we already make teams go for two after a TD in 3OT+, so I don't really see how this is any more restrictive. Plus, then you get offense, defense, and special teams, and the coin toss is almost meaningless.

And now that I read it, it sounds like a messy system. Maybe the "first to score 4" isn't a bad scenario (double safeties!)

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by quixotic78

In sudden death, the offense that loses the coin toss also runs the risk of being eliminated from the extra quarter, solely because of random chance.

This is wrong on so many levels. Nobody is ever awarded a win based on the coin toss. You still get to kick the ball off with a chance to pin them deep, and then you get to put your 11 defenders on the field to try and stop them. "Solely because of random chance" implies that defense isn't a real part of a football team, and that all that matters is offense. This may or may not be what you mean, but that concept offends me on a visceral level.

If the first team got a TD, you can go for it on fourth down.

This is exactly what makes it unfair. The first team didn't go for it on fourth down; they scored a TD playing it straight. Now the second team gets an extra down because they know what they need.

That's exactly what the big advantage in all "fair ups" schemes is: Knowledge. Because you already know exactly what the other team did or did not score, you can tailor your strategy to maximize your chances. Whomever goes first has no knowledge of what the other team will score, which puts them at a decided disadvantage. (45% to 55%)

No amount of toying with the artifical situational constraints will change the fundamental advantage, which is knowledge.

[quixotic78]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

This is wrong on so many levels. Nobody is ever awarded a win based on the coin toss.

Who said that the coin toss awarded a win? I sure as hell didn't. In fact, what I did say is -- I'll underline the part that shows that your response is putting words into my mouth (er, fingers)

Originally Posted by quixotic78

In sudden death, the offense that loses the coin toss also runs the risk of being eliminated from the extra quarter, solely because of random chance.

I was merely trying to make a connection between a point you made -- that eliminating the FG from OT is taking away special teams, which sucks -- with a second point, that a coin toss might have the same effect, except with respect to a coin-flip losing offense instead of the FG unit.

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

"Solely because of random chance" implies that defense isn't a real part of a football team, and that all that matters is offense.

You've snipped the context out of my words. See above. Of course a defense is a part of a football team. But so is an offense, and the fact that they might not even get to play in OT sucks. It sucks to the players, it sucks to the fans of that team, and it's unfair to let a thin sliver of silver control that consequence.

That's exactly what the big advantage in all "fair ups" schemes is: Knowledge. Because you already know exactly what the other team did or did not score, you can tailor your strategy to maximize your chances.

Maximize your chances to keep pace. There's no advantage to be gained by being required to "mirror" the team that goes first. If the first team didn't go for it on fourth down, neither does the second, so there's no advantage there. It's just even -- rigidly so.

Whomever goes first has no knowledge of what the other team will score, which puts them at a decided disadvantage. (45% to 55%)

And in my artificial system, while the second team has the knowledge that a TD would give them the win, they can't do anything with that knowledge, so there's no advantage.

No amount of toying with the artifical situational constraints will change the fundamental advantage, which is knowledge.

Again, if you're powerless to do anything with that knowledge, then there's no advantage. Now, I don't like the own system I proposed because it's too messy, but it would definitely eliminate the advantage to playing defense first in college OT.

[gonzomax]

The coin toss often decides the winner. so
1. whats wrong with a tie game
2. Field goals start kicking from the 50 and back up 2 yards at a time. When 1 make the other misses ,game over

[mshar253]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

The coin toss often decides the winner. so
1. whats wrong with a tie game
2. Field goals start kicking from the 50 and back up 2 yards at a time. When 1 make the other misses ,game over

Did you miss the part where it was shown that the COIN TOSS OFTEN DOES NOT DECIDE THE WINNER?

Keep it the way it is. You can't go to a college system because a) you'd have more outrageous scores like 54-53, thereby affecting the over-unders, and b) so much of the NFL's success is based on their TV schedule. It isn't a huge deal for a regular season game to go four hours past the expected end-time. It is more of an issue if a 1:00 Dallas/Redskins game lasts an hour extra, when my Eagles play at 4. There are plenty of Dallas fans here in Philly who just watched three hours of their team and want to see the end of the game; yet, it is Philadelphia, so the majority of the people want to see the Eagles. This is much less of an issue in the current format, where overtimes don't usually last too long.

[Pleonast]

I prefer to keep ties. If neither team can win in regulation, then so be it. For play off games or other situations when you need to advance one team over another, use a tie-breaker other than points scored in overtime. Total yards advanced, or points scored in the fourth quarter, or fewest penalty yards, or whatever.

[Really Not All That Bright]

First to 4 is a terrific idea.

Otherwise, it's okay to have a draw.

[Another Stranger Me]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

First to 4 is a terrific idea.

I also like the idea of first to 4 (or 5 or 6) from a coaching strategy point of view. It would make for some interesting situations and decisions.

But since that's an unlikely change, I would submit another option I read once. It's been established (in this thread, and in general) that determining first possession gives an advantage, however slight, in both the NFL or NCAA formats. The first team to possess the ball wins 53% in the NFL, the second team wins 55% in the NCAA format. Since someone gets an advantage either way, the real problem, in my opinion, is the arbitrary way in which the advantage is granted via the coin toss.

I would say keep sudden death (53% is better than 55%), but get rid of the coin toss and introduce the "Double Kickoff". Both teams kick to their opponent. Which ever team is able to return the ball further gets to start with the ball at that location. It allows special teams to remain an important part of the game, as opposed to simply starting at some predesignated yard marker. Additionally, order of kickoff is unimportant since each team will be trying to return the kickoff as far as possible since it not only determines possession, but starting field position as well.

[Bearflag70]

Originally Posted by Another Stranger Me

I would say keep sudden death (53% is better than 55%), but get rid of the coin toss and introduce the "Double Kickoff". Both teams kick to their opponent. Which ever team is able to return the ball further gets to start with the ball at that location. It allows special teams to remain an important part of the game, as opposed to simply starting at some predesignated yard marker. Additionally, order of kickoff is unimportant since each team will be trying to return the kickoff as far as possible since it not only determines possession, but starting field position as well.

KICK 1: Team A kicks onside to Team B. Team A recovers.

KICK 2: Team B is now forced to kick onside and not only recover but get a better recovery yardage-wise that TEAM A got on KICK 1.

That would be fun.

[DSYoungEsq]

Which is to play an extra period. You don't have to make it a full 15. Make it half that. Whoever has the most points at the end of the extra time wins. You could probably add additional extra quarters as needed.

Soccer flirted with sudden victory. They threw it back.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by mshar253

Did you miss the part where it was shown that the COIN TOSS OFTEN DOES NOT DECIDE THE WINNER?

Keep it the way it is. You can't go to a college system because a) you'd have more outrageous scores like 54-53, thereby affecting the over-unders, and b) so much of the NFL's success is based on their TV schedule. It isn't a huge deal for a regular season game to go four hours past the expected end-time. It is more of an issue if a 1:00 Dallas/Redskins game lasts an hour extra, when my Eagles play at 4. There are plenty of Dallas fans here in Philly who just watched three hours of their team and want to see the end of the game; yet, it is Philadelphia, so the majority of the people want to see the Eagles. This is much less of an issue in the current format, where overtimes don't usually last too long.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nfl...nresolved.html
Because it is not true. This says it is 60 percent.

[DSYoungEsq]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/nfl...nresolved.html
Because it is not true. This says it is 60 percent.

Over "recent seasons." I wonder what seasons they are cherry-picking for that statistic, given that the over all statistic is quoted in the OP at 53%.

[The Walking Dude]

Okay, here is my take on it. I like football. I like to watch football, the more exciting the better. All other factors aside, who wins and the percentages of who gets the coin toss and such doesn't matter, the college overtime format is just plain more fun. Football is for the fans, I'm not sure about everyone else but I find the college format to be the most fun and exciting.

[Jman]

The 53% is over the lifetime of the rule. The fact is, the passing game has become so much more potent in recent seasons, giving offenses an advantage, which has significantly raised the percentage of wins to the coin toss winner in the last decade, as shown by the Washington Post article.

[ZenBeam]

Scrap the coin toss, and proceed as if the visiting team won the toss. The home team has an advantage already, so this just helps to balance that out. The away team played a little better just to manage to overcome the the home field advantage and get a tie. If you're the home team, well you should have used your advantage to get one more point, shouldn't you have?

I bet that with this rule, the home team still will have an overall advantage.

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by quixotic78

I was merely trying to make a connection between a point you made -- that eliminating the FG from OT is taking away special teams, which sucks -- with a second point, that a coin toss might have the same effect, except with respect to a coin-flip losing offense instead of the FG unit.

You aren't understanding that the two things you're trying to connect aren't connectable.

In the first case, field goals are removed because they are legislated out by the league offices in New York. The team has no control over it whatsoever.

In the second case, the offense is removed from the game because the defense was unable to get a stop. The team has complete control over their destiny.

That's why they are comparable at all.

As for your other idea of legislating the same thing, it is unworkable. What if the first team returned a kickoff for a TD? Does that mean the second possession is or is not allowed to go for it on fourth down? Or, because the first team didn't need offense, does that mean the second possession is only allowed a kickoff return attempt?

What if the first team never even got to third down, much less tried for it on fourth? Does the second possession lose the game if they ever get to third down?

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by Jman

The fact is, the passing game has become so much more potent in recent seasons, giving offenses an advantage, which has significantly raised the percentage of wins to the coin toss winner in the last decade, as shown by the Washington Post article.

I think it has more to do with moving the kickoff spot back 5 yards combined with kickers becoming more reliable on longer FGs.

[quixotic78]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

In the second case, the offense is removed from the game because the defense was unable to get a stop. The team has complete control over their destiny.

No, it's not the TEAM that has complete control over their destiny. The offense that isn't on the field has fuckall control over their OT destiny, unless the defense does their job. It's ridiculous that you can have an OT without a team's offense even making it onto the field. It's unfair to the offensive unit and it's unfair to the fans.

That's why they are comparable at all.

I'll assume that you left a "not" out of this sentence.

As for your other idea of legislating the same thing, it is unworkable. What if the first team returned a kickoff for a TD?

There aren't any kickoffs in the college football style OT, so this is obviously moot. I don't know why you'd bring it up.

What if the first team never even got to third down, much less tried for it on fourth? Does the second possession lose the game if they ever get to third down?

You said that it is the extra knowledge that is the benefit to the team that plays second in college OT. How is the "extra knowledge" at all a factor in your scenario here?

[Ellis Dee]

There aren't any kickoffs in the college football style OT, so this is obviously moot. I don't know why you'd bring it up.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about a generic "fair ups" system, not the NCAA version specifically.

Originally Posted by quixotic78

No, it's not the TEAM that has complete control over their destiny. The offense that isn't on the field has fuckall control over their OT destiny, unless the defense does their job.

By that logic, the TEAM doesn't have control because the special teams don't get a chance. It's ridiculous that you can have an OT without a team's special teams even making it onto the field. It's unfair to the special teams unit and it's unfair to the fans.

Seriously, the 11 men on the field for any one given play is the sum total of that team on that play. When your defense is on the field, your team is on the field and has every opportunity to make a play. You seem to feel that team = offense, which is an attitude I find distasteful and disheartening.

You said that it is the extra knowledge that is the benefit to the team that plays second in college OT. How is the "extra knowledge" at all a factor in your scenario here?

I wasn't talking about any advantage there. I was explaining how your proposal to enforce "if they went for it on fourth, you go for it on fourth, if they didn't, you can't" is unworkable.