Thread: NFL considers overtime changes for playoffs

Zeus wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Zeus wrote:

C Mac D wrote:

Wait, wait, wait... the NFL owners agreed with my standpoint and not Zeus or Nodak's? Shocking.

The owners also like Roger Goodell. Remember that while you're taking your arm off your cock long enough to pat yourself on the back about this.

Can you show me a quote where it says, "All Owners Love Roger Goodell"... because I know you'd ask for the same evidence. I'll wait.

Like, not love. I know a swinging single socialite like yourself doesn't understand the difference. You heart-breaker.

And here's your quote, from an article on NFL.com following the owners' unanimous approval of a contract extension for Goodell:

“Commissioner Goodell and his staff have done an outstanding job, and this is a statement of confidence in Roger’s leadership,” said Falcons owner Arthur Blank, chairman of the NFL’s Compensation Committee. “NFL ownership recognizes his already significant list of accomplishments and is fully behind his strategic vision for the future of our league.”

=Z=

Well, I recognize all the great stuff you do at PPO tailgates, but that doesn't mean I like you... (jk)

But either way, the owners like Goodell because he pretty much rips off the players then puts the money back into the ownership's hands.

Dumb move......

Heard on Mike and MIke this morning that there have been something like 22 or so over times in the playoffs. 19 times both teams go the ball in OT.

Anyone have a page/stat/url that can verify that info?

In short, they fixed something that isn't broken.

Marrdro wrote:

Dumb move......

Heard on Mike and MIke this morning that there have been something like 22 or so over times in the playoffs. 19 times both teams go the ball in OT.

Anyone have a page/stat/url that can verify that info?

In short, they fixed something that isn't broken.

Just curious, doesn't sway me one way or the other, but how many of those games were won by the team that won the coin toss?

It really doesn't matter if in 19/22 games, both teams had a chance to possess the ball... again, just curious.

C Mac D wrote:

Marrdro wrote:

Dumb move......

Heard on Mike and MIke this morning that there have been something like 22 or so over times in the playoffs. 19 times both teams go the ball in OT.

Anyone have a page/stat/url that can verify that info?

In short, they fixed something that isn't broken.

Just curious, doesn't sway me one way or the other, but how many of those games were won by the team that won the coin toss?

It really doesn't matter if in 19/22 games, both teams had a chance to possess the ball... again, just curious.

I got limited time on the net this week as I'm back in the closet except for lunches/breaks.

In short, I was kindof hoping someone had a link that would give us that info so I didn't have to waste posting time with searching for it.

midgensa wrote:

scottishvike wrote:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/23/overtime-proposal-passes/

McKay stressed that the new overtime rule, which says the team receiving the kickoff can't end the game on the first possession unless it scores a touchdown, will apply only to the playoffs.

"Part of the reason we have different rules is we have different consequences," McKay said. "The consequences in the postseason are, go home if you don't win. In the regular season, we have 15 other games."

What happens in week 17 if two teams are playing a "winner takes all match" the consequences then would be go home if you don't win.

But you had 15 other games ... just like he said.

That is not what McKay said. Have and Had are two totally different words.

And Scottishvike brings up a good point and I am sure the Owners will be talking about this in a later date. This new rule will be voted into the regular season at the next owners meeting like alot of folks are talking about.

PackSux! wrote:

midgensa wrote:

scottishvike wrote:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/23/overtime-proposal-passes/

McKay stressed that the new overtime rule, which says the team receiving the kickoff can't end the game on the first possession unless it scores a touchdown, will apply only to the playoffs.

"Part of the reason we have different rules is we have different consequences," McKay said. "The consequences in the postseason are, go home if you don't win. In the regular season, we have 15 other games."

What happens in week 17 if two teams are playing a "winner takes all match" the consequences then would be go home if you don't win.

But you had 15 other games ... just like he said.

That is not what McKay said. Have and Had are two totally different words.

And Scottishvike brings up a good point and I am sure the Owners will be talking about this in a later date. This new rule will be voted into the regular season at the next owners meeting like alot of folks are talking about.

My guess is the new overtime rule will be put into effect for the regular season too. I was originally for a "Postseason Only" rule change, but after thinking about it, I think it should be the same for both.

C Mac D wrote:

PackSux! wrote:

midgensa wrote:

scottishvike wrote:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/23/overtime-proposal-passes/

McKay stressed that the new overtime rule, which says the team receiving the kickoff can't end the game on the first possession unless it scores a touchdown, will apply only to the playoffs.

"Part of the reason we have different rules is we have different consequences," McKay said. "The consequences in the postseason are, go home if you don't win. In the regular season, we have 15 other games."

What happens in week 17 if two teams are playing a "winner takes all match" the consequences then would be go home if you don't win.

But you had 15 other games ... just like he said.

That is not what McKay said. Have and Had are two totally different words.

And Scottishvike brings up a good point and I am sure the Owners will be talking about this in a later date. This new rule will be voted into the regular season at the next owners meeting like alot of folks are talking about.

My guess is the new overtime rule will be put into effect for the regular season too. I was originally for a "Postseason Only" rule change, but after thinking about it, I think it should be the same for both.

Yes I agree.

Its the only way to make it fair. What happens in the regular season directly reflects on what happens in the post season, as far as which teams are going to be in the playoffs.

So I guess week 1 is no different then week 17. A week 1 loss can ultimately determine if you make it into the playoffs.

C Mac D wrote:

PackSux! wrote:

midgensa wrote:

scottishvike wrote:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/23/overtime-proposal-passes/

McKay stressed that the new overtime rule, which says the team receiving the kickoff can't end the game on the first possession unless it scores a touchdown, will apply only to the playoffs.

"Part of the reason we have different rules is we have different consequences," McKay said. "The consequences in the postseason are, go home if you don't win. In the regular season, we have 15 other games."

What happens in week 17 if two teams are playing a "winner takes all match" the consequences then would be go home if you don't win.

But you had 15 other games ... just like he said.

That is not what McKay said. Have and Had are two totally different words.

And Scottishvike brings up a good point and I am sure the Owners will be talking about this in a later date. This new rule will be voted into the regular season at the next owners meeting like alot of folks are talking about.

My guess is the new overtime rule will be put into effect for the regular season too. I was originally for a "Postseason Only" rule change, but after thinking about it, I think it should be the same for both.

While I'm no fan of the change, having a different rule for the regular season vs. the post-season is beyond ludicrous. This isn't MLB or the NBA or the NHL with their looooong regular seasons. In a 16-game schedule, every single win is important to determining playoff spots and playoff positioning.

Think about the Vikings' 2009 season. Any of the 4 losses turned into a victory would have brought the NFC Championship to the Metrodome. This new rule wouldn't have changed any of that (esp. the loss to Chicago as the Vikings did get the ball after the Bears missed a FG on the first possession) but the possibility of the impact is enough for me to believe it needs to be in place for all games that count.

=Z=

I'm a big fan of the change. And while I believe it should be for the regular season as well, I can't be mad that they have it for the playoffs. Like someone said.. Chances are they'll change it for the regular season as well in the next year or two.

It's not the most ideal change IMO, but a change is better than none.