The dark side of parity in the NFL

The BBQ Pit
21

Myrr21, I’d just like to point out that the toss winning team wins 51% historically, but there is a percentage of ties in there as well. The breakdown is something like 51%/42%/7%, IIRC. There is some advantage to winning the toss, but it isn’t terribly severe.

My ‘fix’ would be to move the kickoff back to the 35 for OT, if this trend continues. That way the toss winner has a longer field to drive, leveling the situation a bit. Sure, kicking from the 30 is good for normal play, but Sudden Death is a different animal.

I don’t like the college system at all, it’s not real football because in REAL football, field position is a major issue.

22

I have long suspected the only people who really care about NFL parity are sportswriters. Now, instead of simply making the obvious prediction and then patting themselves on the back for being such geniuses, they are exposed as not knowing a whole hell of a lot more about what is going to happen than anyone else. And over time, this can directly affect their livelihood.

I think parity is GREAT. If the talent is spread around more, than there will be far more competitive games, and teams that actually engage in TEAMWORK will have the advantage. All of a sudden, things like team chemistry, unselfishness, special teams, etc. matter a lot more. And I love it.

23

Ties during the regular season don’t bother me too much. I remember that Penn State v. Notre Dame game Duke mentioned and I’ll second his opinion that it didn’t need a contrived overtime system to be exciting. Neither did the Jan. 1 1984 Orange Bowl, when Miami upset heavily favored Nebraska 31-30, where Nebraska went for 2 in the last minute and failed. But the NCAA has committed to its screwy overtime system, and in light of the Ohio State v. Miami game, is unlikely to change back.

As for the NFL OT system, the only change I’d make is that I wouldn’t allow a team to win by a field goal on its first possession. Othrwise I’d keep the sudden death format. For example, if a team runs back the overtime kickoff for a touchdown the game would be over, but if the returner runs it back to the opponent’s 25, the offense would still have to score a TD to end the game. I hate having games decided on chippy field goals.

24

How exactly does allowing tied games make working out the playoffs any more complicated than it is right now? The procedure is still the same: for each conference, take the four division winners, and add two wildcards to make up six teams. The mathematics of it are pretty straightforward.

Just out of interest, i looked at what would have happened this season if regular season games were allowed to end in a tie. Now, i know that if ties were allowed there might have been fewer ties, as teams went all out to win in regulation. Also, different positions on the ladder might have helped teams to play differently as the season drew to a close, in an attempt to make the playoffs. But this is an academic exercise, so bear with me.

I looked up all the OT games and, instead of giving a win to the OT victor and a loss to the loser, i allocated each team a tie. A tie is worth half a game, so two ties equate to a victory. Here’s how it broke down:

x=wildcard y=division winner z=first-round bye

AFC East

Mia 9-6-1 y
NYJ 9-7
NE 7-7-2
Buf 6-8-8

AFC North

Pit 9-5-2 y
Cle 8-6-2
Bal 7-9
Cin 2-14

AFC South

Ten 10-4-2 yz
Ind 10-6 x
Jax 6-10
Hou 4-12

AFC West

Oak 11-3-2 yz
Den 8-5-3 x
KC 8-6-2
SD 5-7-4
NFC East

Phi 12-3-1 yz
NYG 9-5-2 x
Was 7-9
Dal 5-10-1

NFC North

GB 11-4-1 y
Min 6-8-2
Chi 3-10-3
Det 2-11-3

NFC South

TB 12-3-1 yz
Atl 9-5-2 x
NO 8-7-1
Car 7-9

NFC West

SF 9-5-2 y
StL 7-9
Sea 5-9-2
Ari 3-11-2

As you can see, the NFC remains virtually identical. The division winners are the same, as are the wild cards and the two teams with a week off. The key difference is that Atlanta would have travelled to SF in the first week of the playoffs, with the Giants going to Green Bay, This is because the Falcons and the Giants finished even, but the Falcons won the only game between the teams during the regular season.

The AFC is a different story. Suddenly the Jets are gone altogether, and Miami wins the East. The other divisional winners are the same, as are the two top teams that get a week off. And while the Colts still get a wild card, the Browns and the Jets lose out in favour of the Broncos, who have fewer wins than the Jets but have three tied games. This puts Denver half a game up on New York and on the Browns. In the first week, Denver travels to Miami, and Indianpolis goes to Pittsburgh.

Now, i’ll say again that the end-of-season results probably WOULDN’T look like this if ties were actually allowed, because team strategies would change accordingly. But, contra whatami’s argument, it’s no more difficult or messy figuring out the playoff standings under this system than under the current one.

Also, while i have two ties equalling a win, i would also put a mechanism in place whereby if two teams ended up equal, then the number of wins would decide the equation. For example, in my tables above, we get:

Cle 8-6-2
NYJ 9-7

With two ties equal to a win, these figures are equal. But i would give the nod to the Jets for having one more win in such a scenario.

Well, working all that out was an hour or so of my life that i’ll never get back. :slight_smile:

25

Am I the only one who thinks that overtime should be just a cointoss?

Team Captain: “Heads!”
Referee: “Tails. You lose.”

26

Excellent! Now that would make for great television - a close-up of the coin falling, broadcast on the stadium screen and on our home TVs so we all know who wins as soon as the coin lands.

Instant gratification - what could be more American than that?

27

Of course, the Lions would still defer.

28

They wouldn’t need to, because they wouldn’t be good enough to tie the game in the first place.

29

Regardless of the statistics, which I admit I find surprising, sudden death overtime in football is roundly unsatisfying. Suppose two teams are playing that each have very strong offenses and weak defenses. Team A wins the flip, marches down the field, and kicks a field goal. What have we proved? That Team A’s offense can score against Team B’s defense. But we already knew that. The question is whether Team B’s offense can score just as well, if not better, against Team A’s defense, and we’ll never get a chance to find out.

I think some modification of the college scheme would be perfect. Give each team a fixed number of equal opportunities on both offense and defense, whichever team performs better wins.

30

See, I like the current system, because:

  1. It’s good for teams that actually bother to hire a good kicker. Sure a bad kicker will kill you in the first four, but a crappy kicker will really kill you in OT.

  2. I think it actually encourages teams to be well-rounded. I know that–as the coach of a gunslinging team like the Rams of a few seasons ago or this year’s Chiefs/Bills–I’d drool over the chance to be guaranteed to get my offence on the field.

  3. It adds excitement. Really, when else do you get to see a 58 yard FG attempt? Each and every OT snap is potentially the last play of the game, or just another 2 yard pound up the middle.

  4. It rewards good coaching more. Good coaches adapt to the sudden strategy changes. Mediocre coaches continue to play as if they’re certainly going to get a shot at having the ball (see: MM and Co), which they would if the rules were changed.

  5. The college system is fucking moronic for pro football. I don’t have a problem with it for college football; it’s a diiferent game. Giving each team at least one shot at it is better, but I don’t really see what the point is as long as the breakdown for the coin flip is about 50/50. If two teams play to a draw after 4 quarters, no overtime system guarantees that the best team wins. So you might as well go with something that’s exciting, but doesn’t change the basic rules of football.

31

Err…didn’t we have 4 quarters to find out? We already know the answer: they’re even. Sometimes, it just comes down to luck. If your team ain’t got no defence, them’s the breaks.

32

Exactly. So why not allow the result of the game to reflect the fact? Credit each team with a tie, and forget OT altogether.

33

I think in NFL overtime they should just it a rule that in OT, you either have to win by 6 or maybe just make it so a field goal only ends the game on your second possession of OT.

34

As far as I know, no one here is arguing that there should be OT in regular season games. In playoff games, however, a winner is presumably needed.

35

originally posted by Mhendo

Ummmm…they are. I’m not picking on you, Mhendo, just the general idea that NFL games aren’t allowed to end in a tie. They are. Witness this year’s game by - who was it? Pittsburg and Atlanta? Something like that. I’m close, but if I’m wrong, someone will correct me - it ended in a tie. Granted, they had to play the OT, but when the 15 minutes of OT expired and neither team had scored, the game ended in a tie. So it can happen; it’s not like it’s verboten or anything. Just difficult.

Snicks

36

You are indeed correct; it was Pittsburgh and Atlanta. I should have mentioned that in my previous post.

The main reason i didn’t is that my argument on this thread (from my first post) is that regular season games should be allowed to end in a tie without OT. That way, we get rid of all the bitching about what a “fair” OT system might look like, we don’t have to worry about games running over their allotted time on the precious television networks, and teams have greater incentive to try for a win in regulation.

Also, while games are allowed to end in a tie under the current rules, the fact is that this year’s Atlanta/Pittsburgh game was the first tie in five years, and only the 16th in league history.

If we have to have OT in regular season games, my vote would be for a system with an allotted amount of time that would be played out no matter who scored first. Fuck the TV networks and people who want to tune into the other game - make your choice about which one you want to watch, and stick with it. Maybe an extra quarter, i.e. 15 minutes, during which the lead could continue to fluctuate. Even ten minutes would probably be enough, and would almost guarantee that each team gets to handle the ball at least once. I mean, how many ten-minute drives did you see this season?

37

As a nitpick, mhendo’s cite saying that there have only been 16 ties in NFL history is factually incorrect. The link listed to cbs.sportline.com does in fact say that there have been only 16 ties in league history, however, the league, being the NFL, has had a lot more than 16 ties in its long history which dates back to the 1920s. For example, a search at www.pro-football-reference.com shows that the NFL by my quick count had 49 tie games during the decade of 1960s alone. (Those interested should look up the data from the other decades themselves.)

38

Nah, no need for a playoff winner…if the teams tie, BOTH advance and form a super duper powerful coalition team. Tie games in the playoffs could thus become a strategy in the playoffs for weaker teams to beat out better foes and win the Super Bowl. Plus, it teaches kids about the power of cooperation. :wink:

39

True, although in my own defence i did get that statistic from an NFL.com web page.

Also, i believe the statistic is particularly relevant to this thread, because that same article (discussing the tied Atlanta/Pittsburgh game from this season) goes on to say:

So, the fraction of OT games that have neded in a tie since overtime was introduced is about 1 in 21, which is roughly consistent with this year’s record, when we got one tie out of 24 OT games.

As PatrickM points out, there were more ties before OT was introduced, but i really don’t think there were so many as to make the game boring. For example, in the ten seasons before OT was introduced, i counted a total of 78 tied games, or just under 8 games per season. Since OT was introduced, we’ve had about 330 OT games, or just over 11 per season.

Now, to compare these numbers more precisely, you’d have to factor in tied/OT games as a percentage of total games. But i think that if you got rid of OT, then the number of games tied at the end of regulation would drop, and i think we should be able to live with 8 or 10 tied games a year, especially if it means we don’t have to put up with the current fighting over what constitutes a fair overtime.

40

Let me get this straight; you want us sports fans to have to do higher math?!!

Commie.

Sua