I hate the "coin flip decides the winner" argument. That is such a farce. The coin flip only decides who gets the ball first. If your team KNOWS HOW TO PLAY DEFENSE, who gets the ball first doesn't mean shit because YOU ARE PROFESSIONALS AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO STOP AN OFFENSE. the answer to this nonexistant problem is to play better, not change the rules.
And may I add that I absolutely HATE the college format because it completely takes defense out of the equation.
by the way, I bring this up because, after the Steelers losing to the Titans in OT in the playoffs without a possesion, it is sure to be a hot topic for debate once again this offseason.
Easy solution. If, on the first possession of overtime, the team scores, the other side gets a kickoff and possession. If not, continue with the same rules. Should a team win the coin toss and defer, they relinquish a kickoff if the receiving team scores on the ensuing possession.
I'm with the idea of giving each team at least one possession. The only problem with this is if you get the ball second you know whether you need a TD or a field goal.
The team with the first possession has the dilemma of not knowing whether to go for it on third and long or 4th downs in field goal range whereas the other lot know exatly what they have to do to tie/win
"I tear my quadricep all the time. Heck I tore it this morning and I'm fine!" Kurt Angle
I like the ot system fine just the way it is. There are other wild cards that appear in overtime other than the coin toss. You got the wind which always seems to come into play. I can't remember the last time there wasn't a gusty wind going one way or the other in an overtime game. Then there's the kicker. There are only a handfull of people in the NFL that I would count on to kick a field goal longer than 40 yards in ot. Vinietari, Gramatica, Mare, and a few others. And these guys are liable to miss at any time too! That said: if your defense can't get you the ball back in overtime you don't deserve to win anyway.
(edited by Santa Sangre on 15.1.03 1756) "Veterans Stadium is a shithole of a place. My mother can't even come because it's such a shithole. But the demolition crew is on its way. We're going to close it down" -Warren Sapp
I'm of the argument that both teams shold get at least one shot. But whether it is kept the same (coin flip, sudden death), or slightly tweaked, I'd add this one change -- make them score a touchdown. In this "offense rules all" age of football, it's nothing for some team to get a 20-30 yard kickoff return, then get within field goal range within a few plays (usually using their hurry-up offense, which no one seems to be able to stop anymore). Ratchet up the challenge...make them get in the endzone.
Power flows to the one who knows how -- desire alone is not enough.
I don't see why the team that is on defense first should get the benefit of having the offense bail them out for screwing up. It is a team game and you need to play both offense and defense to win.
From the infamous Wrestleline SS interview:
DTD: If you were to make changes in WCW, if you were in charge and not Ric Flair, what would they be?
SS: I'd get rid of all the old guys, and push the talent that has waited to get the push. The things they are doing, it's back in the 1980s. It's just bad, man. Flair doesn't even deserve to be on the show. You've got to get rid of all the old guys. Like what Vince did, they started pushing guys. Nobody knew who The Rock was 2 years ago. He made The Rock. Now The Rock just did Saturday Night Live. You've got to start with the young talent, talent people can relate to. Who are we trying to relate to if we've got a 50 year old man out there? Are we trying to relate, so a 50 year people and above will go out and buy a f*cking little toy? That ain't gonna happen. It's a f*cking joke.
Yeah, but what about the team that scored first? Is their defense any good? They haven't proven anything yet with their defense, just their offense. Couldn't one look at it from the other way, the offense bailing out the defense by preventing them from playing a single down. Since it's a team sport, shouldn't their defense have to prove they deserve to win the game at least once.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here. This is not that big of a deal to me. I do prefer the college system. I can't really explain why, I just do. At least you can never complain that you didn't get a chance. I disagree with defense and special teams being taken away from the equation. There are 25 yards to defend, and there are field goals to be executed. Sure, you lose punts and kickoffs (but in the pros, that's just one play in OT), but that doesn't bother me that much.
May I use hockey as an example? Mario wins the faceoff that starts overtime...Penguins control the puck...score...other team doesn't touch the puck at all. Nothing wrong here.
The difference being that the Penguins won the puck through their own skill. They weren't awarded it on the result of a coin toss.
Bad analogy. The goalie in the Penguins game has an opportunity to make the save, and the defense has opportunities to strip Mario of the puck before then, just as the coin-toss-losing team can make a defensive stand or force a turnover. Neither the face-off nor the coin toss are worth points all by themselves; the winning team still needs to drive down the field and either put it in the end zone, or get within field-goal range and successfully make the kick. That requires skill. Ask Joe Nedney if even short kicks are "gimmes."
(edited by vsp on 16.1.03 0816) "Ah, the old exploding-beartrap-in-the-ass trick." -- Goemon Ishikawa
I agree with Sec19Row53. It becomes "sudden death". Nobody is getting ripped off. They just played as evenly matched teams. If ya can't get it done in 4 quarters ...don't complain if you missed your chance later.
Scoring points totes the scoreboard...
I'm a Bengal fan...I crave this arguement with my team.