But that’s not the point. The point is whether the league should look at the unfairness of the rules, which is statistically obvious. From the standpoint of fan interest, the league as a whole has an interest in ensuring a level playing field.
The current overtime system does not create a level playing field; it gives an unearned, statistically significant advantage to the receiving team in overtime. You can fill this site with as much macho “just play defense, losers” talk as you want, but you’ll notice it’s not actually the teams that are complaining. It’s the fans that are complaining, because the current rules are a source of inequity and inequity makes the games less interesting to watch.
In order for one football team to win in overtime, their defense must stop the opposing team from scoring AND their offense must score. The other team needs to do only one of those two tasks.
I’ve also read statistics that say a football game is statistically done after the first quarter… and yet we continue to play out 4 quarters of game. I’m not trying to sound all macho- I’m just saying that a team is made up of the whole of its parts. Each part must work at it’s given moment in order for the team to succeed. Much like during a regulation- the D must function- so must it function in overtime. It’s not like these last minute- team driving for a game winning score- defensive stands are completely unheard of or even impossible. The same stats you throw out show that only 28/77 teams win off the bat. So roughly 2/3 of teams get a shot with the ball.
On top of that- who says the results statistically significant anyhow? Has anybody done the tests on that, or are we just throwing the verbage out there because it sounds impressive? I’m not saying I disbelieve you, I’m just saying- the phrase has definition- let’s not just throw it out and forget that.
Plus, as you say, the TEAMS themselves don’t complain. This is a total sport pundit created controversy. When it comes to it- I think the players understand that they had their chance at winning in regulation. Each team has things they could have done to have not gotten to OT. In fact, they were unable to perform them.
You say that like it is a simple task for their offense to just march down the field. Plus keep in mind that the defense- CAN actually score points and end the game on their own volition. So your point isn’t a totally true statement. If Rivers had gone out and thrown a pick 6, would it still have been unfair, since our Defense never saw the field?! That doesn’t even make any sense.
I guess I just dont’ understand why it’s macho talk to say- we all know the rules. If you lose the toss- go out and do your job! If you lose, you lose… but don’t cry about the rules. Cry about the 3rd and 1 your team didn’t get to put hte game away. Cry about the FG you missed in regulation. Cry about the bogus PI call the ref called that allowed the game tying TD.
I like the idea. I think it’s especially apt in the playoffs. Why shouldn’t the 12-4 division winner hosting a 9-7 wildcard get the ball first? Or the, uh, 8-8 division winner hosting the 12-4 wildcard team.
I also like SenorBeef’s 10 minute extra quarter. I think this is a short enough time that the players won’t be brutally fatigued and at risk for additional injury. Some stats on the average length of an OT game might be good. I mean, if the average OT lasts, say, 6.5 minutes, then we’re not talking about a lot of extra playing time.
The sticky wicket is that by having a 10 minute overtime period you open up the window for double and triple overtime games. Perhaps the average sudden death overtime game ends in 6.5 minutes, but if you go with a standard 5th period you’ll see a lot of FGs to tie as the first OT period expires.
The anti-current-system folks would do well to drop the word “unfair” from their argument. The system is fair because the (presumably fair) coin flip is fair. For example, if the league decided to do the coin flip and simply award the game to the coin flip winner, that would still be fair since both teams had an equal chance of winning the coin flip. The problem with such a system is that it is remarkably unfun.
Similarly, one can (and plenty here have) argue that the current overtime system is unfun. “Unfair” isn’t the right word to use since both teams had an equal chance of getting the ball first.
Personally, I like the first to <some number between 4 and 6> idea that has been floating around.
I’m assuming you are talking about the last sentence… which I can see. I was trying to say to blame your teams poor play for not winning, not the OT rules. And offhand- thought… or referee errors- and think I just screwed the pooch as it were.
Mostly- I am really ticked off because when my boys lost in week 2 on the Hochuli call- all I heard from pundits was-- “sure it was one of the worst referee mistakes of all time- but they still need to go out there and play defense. They had two more plays to stop them, and couldn’t do it.” That we did actually stop them- they made a mistake and we capitalized- didn’t seem to matter. How many times do we have to actually stop them? 2? 3?
Then when we win in OT- all I hear is… “The OT rules are unfair because Peyton didn’t get a chance to hold the ball. All hail Manning. Excuse me, Peyton- I believe there is dirt on your balls, do you mind if I get that for you?” OK… I embellished that last little bit.
Overall I do think the OT rules are fair. But mostly I’m pissed off at all these sports columnists who have created this giant stir out of thin air. Looking back- I think thsi is why I was accused of being a macho asshole. Mostly I am angry.
This is all not the point. I agree with you that the defense must function well for a team to be a winning team and so on and so forth world without end amen and hallelujah. But look. Supposing, at the beginning of the game, I arbitrarily award an extra three points to the winner of the opening coin toss. This is, as sachertorte astutely points out, utterly fair, in the sense that both teams have an equal chance to win those three points. However, it introduces an element of randomness to the outcome; the team that gets those three points gets an advantage in terms of winning the game (see below). That the team that wins the toss doesn’t win on its first try is not the point, and I don’t give a crap whether both teams “get a shot with the ball” or whatnot. The point is that the team that wins the toss, again, has a statistically significantly greater chance of winning the game because they win the toss. I think that the outcome of a coin flip is, again as sach points out, an unfun thing to figure significantly in the outcome of a game. Thus I will agitate against it.
Yeah, I know the phrase has a definition, which is why I used it. A lot of people (I’m not saying that you do or are doing this) are throwing out a lot of statistics without getting what they mean. Mike Francesa, the King Douche of Sports Radio here in New York, keeps throwing out statistics here without grasping what they actually mean. The link I cited in my previous post finds that the coin flip has had a significant effect on outcome with 99.99% certainty (based on data from 1994-2003). A second analysis shows a 60% probability of the team that wins the toss winning the game (based on 2002 data).
Again, not the point. Based on this argument, we might as well do as sach suggests and literally flip a coin to determine the winner if regulation ends in a tie. Random? Yes. But each team would have an equal chance of winning, right? Less chance of needless injury that way. Sure, the team’s themselves would forfeit the ability to affect the outcome, but hey, “each team has things they could have done to have not gotten [to that point],” right? “In fact, they were unable to perform them.” So why would you object to a coin toss determining outcome?
Well, the present overtime system is just a less extreme version of that. Instead of allowing the coin flip to determine all of the outcome, we just allow it to have a statistically significant affect on the outcome. And I think that sucks.
(Oh, and I don’t care what the teams think. As a fan, I care what I think. There are no higher principles or human welfare issues to consider here, so I can be completely self-involved. I want the kind of game that’s most fun to watch [for me], and for me, that game is one where the players on the field have as much impact on the outcome as possible).
One last time: nobody’s “crying” about anything, and this isn’t about any one individual game. I find a sport where random chance has a significant effect on the outcome to be less fun than a sport where the impact of chance is minimized as much as possible. We all know the rules, sure. But some of us think the rules are bad rules, and would like to see them changed into good rules, that actually reward the players who do their jobs better than the other players.
I think it’s fair to call it unfair, ha! The point is that Offense and Defense are not equitable, by design. This isn’t Soccer, the Offense has a decided advantage and the rules are specifically designed to encourage scoring. The coin flip is fair, but that doesn’t mean that all that follows is fair.
I’m actually going to bed… and won’t be able to respond to this until much later in the evening (I work nights, and typically only post at work) I just wanted to say–
Some of us think the rules are just fine…
and think that an offense scoring on a defense that did not stop them does exactly that.
It’s not possible for “everything after the coin flip” to be fair. That’s why the coin flip is there. No matter what system you design, someone will have an advantage. The coin flip is the equalizer. It’s just that no one is willing to say “shut up and win the coin flip next time” instead of “shut up and play defense.”
You can argue that the level of advantage that hinges on the coin flip is “too large,” but you can’t say that overtime is “unfair.”
I’m actually not on the side of arguing that the system is fine. I’m merely pointing out that the overtime system is “fair but flawed.”
Flipping a coin to determine the winner outright would be also be fair, but flawed.
The current system is fair, but still flawed.
It isn’t even an issue of randomness or excitement level. It is an issue of rewarding the right things. If overtime was decided by shotput a throw it would be fair in Sach definition of the word, entirely non-random, and probably pretty exciting.
What we want is the team that played better football to win the football game. Ideally overtime should reward the same things as the regular session. This isn’t entirely practical given time and injury restraints, but we can do better then the current system.
My biggest gripe with the current way of doing things isn’t the lack of both offenses getting a chance. My problem is that it makes 30% of the field meaningless, since once you get into field goal range there is no incentive to get closer. I like the first to 4 points is the winner idea, though for the regular season I don’t have a problem of ties.
The coin flip is not an equalizer. It’s a randomizer. They are not the same thing.
You want to reread that a couple times?
The current system is unfair. It’s randomly unfair, but unfair nonetheless. Being pedantic about the usage of the word fair and the actions of the coin flip is not really the point.
You’re right it doesn’t make sense, because while you’re right that the defense can score, it’s not their job - the defending team is not putting their best scoring players on the field, they’re putting their best score-preventing players on the field. The way to win the game is to score, and it’s not fair that one team might never have the same opportunity to make its best attempt as the other.
Well it’s my point. Maybe you don’t care to be so precise, and that’s fine too. I do.
If someone wants to cry “overtime is unfair” that’s their right. I’m just saying that the argument is stronger if one is more precise about word choice. (see storyteller)
(Oh, and a coin flip generates a random distribution of two outcomes with equal probability. Sometimes random does mean equal.)