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. 
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I think it has more to do with moving the kickoff spot back 5 yards combined with kickers becoming more reliable on longer FGs.
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.
I’ll assume that you left a “not” out of this sentence.
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.
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?
Sorry, I thought we were talking about a generic “fair ups” system, not the NCAA version specifically.
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.
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.
Try again? There’s a kickoff in your OT system. That’s special teams.
No matter how many times you try to say that this is my opinion, you’re just flat out wrong. Please just stop putting words into my mouth. Just don’t do it. Quote me, that’s fine. But saying “You seem to think X,” when (a) I never said X and (b) I’ve already specifically said that I don’t believe X, is just really goddamned annoying.
Could you take another crack at your explanation, this time without the phantom kickoff that doesn’t exist in my originally posted scenario? And while you’re at it, could you address my statement that your “extra knowledge” isn’t an advantage if the rules prevent you from acting on it?
This is pretty much my preferred (totally unrealistic) system. I’d like to see the team captains (or coaches) come out to midfield and play Name That Tune:
“We’ll take the ball at our own 25.”
“We’ll take it at the 23.”
“We’ll take it at the 20.”
“We’ll take it at the 15.”
“Ok, you take it.”
It would add a few elements of strategy, and would be both interesting and fair.
Failing that, they should *definitely *revert to the old kickoff rules for overtime. Back in the day, when they kicked off from the 35 using more kicker-friendly tees, overtime was almost exactly 50-50. Since the change, however, the team that wins the coin toss has won the game about 60% of the time, which is just too big of a difference.
Yeah, no kidding. I’m arguing against your position, not mine.
I call bullshit. Explain how losing a coin-flip removes the possibility of putting your offense on the field the way the NCAA format removes the possibility of putting your kicking team on the field.
You’re the one who drew the parallel. Now defend it.
Do you count kickers as special teams?
Edited to add: okay, this was already asked of you. I’ll read the rest of the thread now.
Well, to be fair, you didn’t specify a system when you said
In fact, from the context, it seems to me that you were talking about the NFL system. But whatever.
There’s only one scenario where you won’t see special teams in a college style OT: if the first team to go on offense turns the ball over, and then the second team scores a touchdown. Any other way, you’ll see a field goal or an extra point. If, in this one limited case, you want to start a support group for those who didn’t get to see special teams, that’s fine. I’ll either be over here, boozing it up with my fellow celebrants for a wild OT victory, or over there, Spurrieresquely stomping on my visor in frustration.
I think it’s fair to say that your argument boils down to the team didn’t have a shot unless this one particular aspect of the team that I like (offense) gets a chance. That is an entirely subjective viewpoint, which is not what overtime structure should be based on.
I was trying to point out how this is flawed by pointing out another aspect of the team that doesn’t get a chance in the NCAA system. Look at a team like the Bills, or the Bears, or the Chiefs back when Dante Hall was still the Human Joystick, or even the Jets. Kick returns are a huge part of their game. This is a perfectly legitimate aspect of the game for a team to focus on, but if it gets legislated out of overtime, you’ve now artificially weighted the game against it.
If you think sudden death overtime artificially devalues offense, (you might lose the coin flip and never get to put your offense on the field,) you can’t solve this perceived problem by artificially devaluing another legitimate aspect of the game. Well, you can, but that’s hypocracy. (sp?)
Just for the record, I do not think sudden death overtime artifically devalues offense.
Not exactly. Clearly a team that loses the coin flip and then loses without an offensive possession had a shot. But the half the team had nothing to do with that loss, and that sucks, in my opinion and (I’d guess) the opinion of most people who don’t like the coin flip sudden death OT.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Of course it’s a subjective viewpoint! If you have an objective viewpoint that can be used to determine how OT should work, I’d love to hear it. In fact, I’d be amazed to hear any objective statement about how the game should be played. Even away from football, show me a combination of “should” and “objective.”
So, over the past five-ish years (judging from the Dante Hall reference), you’ve found three and a half teams who “rely” on kick returns. And you want to design an OT system that doesn’t exclude kickoffs, in deference to these 3.5 teams. In turn, anybody could probably name 15-20 teams a year who “rely” on their offense to the same (or greater) extent that the Bears rely on Devin Hester. But, for some reason, a system that shows a similar degree of inclusivity to these 15-20 teams is verboten.
Er, come again?
I have indeed, in favor of weighting the OT period in favor of what constitutes the vast majority of football plays – one teams offense against the other’s defense, and then vice versa. I suppose one could propose a hybrid system, where Team A kicks downfield to Team B, who then tries to score, followed by Team B kicking to Team A, but (a) you have that “knowledge gap” you at first hollered about and then got quiet about when I pointed out that it could be eliminated through rule-tinkering, (b) it’d make for really long games, if you pushed for a win, or (c) would lead to a fair amount of ties (which I, er, subjectively don’t think should be a part of football, but YMMV, obviously [or perhaps not so obviously])
Given that, I much prefer the college OT system, even the college OT system as is (although I’d like to do something about the advantage you calculated from that “extra” down.)
I don’t think it does either, at least not 100%. But there’s a decent chance that it artificially devalues one team’s offense, based solely on a coin flip, and that’s more unacceptable to me than not getting to see Devin Hester getting kicked away from in an OT period.
This is a complete crock of shit. You have not offered a single “rule-tinkering” that would do anything to reduce the knowledge gap, much less “eminate” it. Try again.
If you mean I didn’t respond when you went on an irrational handwaving jaunt about it in a completelty unrelated point, try reading more carefully. I explained to you that it wasn’t related.
But by all means, if it was related, show me how, exactly.
This is a textbook example of not understanding the game of football. “Solely” on the coin flip? You can’t possible be serious. The defense decides whether the offense gets a shot, not the coin flip.
This could use some clarification.
You proposed a ridiculous way to bridge the knowledge gap. I explained why your solution is unworkable in the context of the game of football. You then claimed that your solution would, in fact, bridge the knowledge gap and that I got strangely silent on the subject. In reality, your solution isn’t a solution because it doesn’t work. Not because it doesn’t bridge the knowledge gap, but because it is fundamentally unenforceable, making it actually impossible to implement.
Are you even reading the thread? Many people have come up with objective ways the NFL should handle overtime. A sampling:[list=#][li]Don’t play overtime; just end the game in a tie.[/li][li]Keep playing full quarters until one ends with a winner.[/li][li]The “name that tune” auction strategy proposed by VarlosZ[/li][*]The Solomon-style bidding technique I described[/list]All of these proposals involve not changing the way the game is played because of a subjective preference for or against a particular aspect of the game of football. They are all objective.