new overtime proposal?

shaggy13 · #1 07-02-2009, 09:14 PM

Just saw this on yahoo, and i really like it. What do you guys think?

[/QUOTE]

Quote:

The brilliant NFL overtime silent auction system

By MJD

No one seems to be satisfied with the NFL’s current “Win the coin toss, get the football” overtime system. I’ve been against changing it, though, mainly because I haven’t heard any ideas that I’ve liked better. Until today, anyway.
The Fifth Down brought to my attention a beautiful system that involves strategy, rewards the boldest head coach, does not lengthen the game, keeps the basic structure of a football game intact, and, perhaps most importantly, leaves no one with any room to whine.
Here’s how it would go. The sudden death system stays in place, and the first team to score still wins the game. If that happens on the first possession, so be it. That's still the same.
However, we throw out the coin toss, and in its place, to determine which team gets the football first, we have a silent auction.
Each coach writes down the yard-line at which they’d be willing to accept the ball, and they put their bid in a sealed envelope. Both coaches hand the envelopes to an official at midfield, and the coach who’s written down the least advantageous yard-line gets the ball, at the yard-line he's written down.
So, for example, say the Steelers and Cardinals are going to overtime. Naturally, both teams want the ball first. Mike Tomlin would like the ball, but he wouldn’t mind putting the responsibility on his great defense, either, so he writes down “22 yard-line.” But Ken Whisenhunt is willing to take more of a risk, trusts his offense more, and he’s written down “11 yard-line.”
So we start overtime with the Cardinals having possession of the ball, first and 10 at their own 11. The Cards have the ball, but they’ve got quite a bit of work to do to get into field goal range. The Steelers defense has them in a tough spot, and if they do their job, the Steelers get the ball in good field position.
If Ken Whisenhunt doesn’t like that, he shouldn’t have been willing to take the ball at the 11. If Mike Tomlin doesn’t like not getting the ball first, he should have been willing to start from deeper than his own 22.
I think it’s brilliant. Perhaps some will bristle at the thought of a silent auction, a term more traditionally associated with vintage cars or estate sales, but I really think it’s perfect here. The randomness of the coin toss is eliminated, and instead, the reward goes to the coach who makes the best football decision.
The plan was dreamt up in 2003 by a fellow named Chris Quanbeck , but today’s the first I’ve heard of it. They wrote to the league about it, and NFL head of officiating Mike Pereira expressed some interest , but nothing ever came of it.
Maybe a bit more publicity will help, so this is me, doing my part. Really give it some thought, NFL. This is the best system, and I think it’s something fans would eventually grow to love.

BiggyBoda · #2 07-02-2009, 09:31 PM

i like this idea, it would add something more to the nfl, which it doesnt really need.

robdog · #3 07-02-2009, 09:36 PM

Sorry don't like this at all. Overtime is for teams who can't get it done during regulation. If a team gets lucky, it doesn't mean they are going to get in field goal range...

This is just a bad idea. I like the game the way it is and I am sure this was inspired by someone who got beat in overtime by a team who won the coin toss. (IE chargers over colts last year... SO AWESOME!!!) This just give football a game show feel at that point. I like the drama of the coin toss; good or bad.

vick805 · #4 07-02-2009, 09:40 PM

I dunno I kinda like the way that college football does it. Makes the games more entertaining and doesn't leave room for bitching and whinning unless there's a questionable call. But there will always be those since we all are human and make errors.

Plus the whole silent bidding thing can get tricky cuz there can be allegations of bids being changed by refs and all that mafia type of stuff. I dunno man It's late and I have no idea what I'm saying

jumanji · #5 07-02-2009, 10:33 PM

I actually really like that idea. I hate the randomness of a coin toss. Some might say if a team loses because of the coin toss, they don't have anything to complain about because they didn't get it done in regulation. Well neither did the other team. That doesn't mean one team should get a major advantage over the other in OT.

The thing I don't like about college OT (other than I think they need to move it back about 10 yards) is that special teams don't play enough of a role. The only special teams unit that gets any work is the FG teams. This system would bring punt and punt return into the OT. It would still leave kickoff and kickoff return out of it, but still, special teams plays more of a role than it would in the college OT rules.

But I still think the best solution is just to leave it the way they have it, but if a team scores on the first possession in OT, the other team gets a chance to match it. After that it can be sudden death. But both teams need a chance with the ball in OT. It's a simple solution, it wouldn't require much change, and I think it would be hard to complain about losing an OT game that way.

Just my opinion....

jriddle3 · #6 07-02-2009, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by vick805

I dunno I kinda like the way that college football does it. Makes the games more entertaining and doesn't leave room for bitching and whinning unless there's a questionable call. But there will always be those since we all are human and make errors.

Plus the whole silent bidding thing can get tricky cuz there can be allegations of bids being changed by refs and all that mafia type of stuff. I dunno man It's late and I have no idea what I'm saying

Agreed. Look at all the exciting OT games in college. And, with Fantasy Football, you just love it when your team goes to OT. Heck, a player could score 50+points if they have those 5 and 7 OT games.

The Rattler · #7 07-02-2009, 11:08 PM

I hate the idea.. If it's not broke then don't try to fix it...

jumanji · #8 07-02-2009, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by The Rattler

I hate the idea.. If it's not broke then don't try to fix it...

Well it would depend on who you ask, but a lot of people would say it is broke. I certainly would. I just don't see a reason to give one team an advantage based on a coin toss. Just doesn't make any sense to me....

The Rattler · #9 07-02-2009, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by jumanji

Well it would depend on who you ask, but a lot of people would say it is broke. I certainly would. I just don't see a reason to give one team an advantage based on a coin toss. Just doesn't make any sense to me....

Call me a purist but there have been things known to change my mind especially in Baseball...

In football and I'm probably a minority but I still don't care for the two point conversion.. Was against instant replay at first but now I don't mind it even though they still screw that up at times...

LivinginNegadelphia · #10 07-03-2009, 03:18 PM

Pass. This is the NFL, not a goddamn church bonanza with a silent auction. This is way too much of a gimmick. You either keep the same system in place or you move to the way college football holds overtime. There are no other options.

jumanji · #11 07-03-2009, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by LivinginNegadelphia

Pass. This is the NFL, not a goddamn church bonanza with a silent auction. This is way too much of a gimmick. You either keep the same system in place or you move to the way college football holds overtime. There are no other options.

I could certainly see why someone would call this gimmicky.

But I'm just curious, what do you have against a system that keeps it the way it is, but lets the other team get a chance to match what a team did on their first possession?

Bpow0407 · #12 07-03-2009, 04:57 PM

Simple solution: continue from the end of regulation. If the last play of regulation resulted in a 2nd-and-5 from the HOME 40 and the HOME team has the ball.... then continue with that same setup. The end of the 4th quarter now becomes important, not just "all or.. well.. overtime" set of plays. If your D can't hold up late in the 4th/early in OT, then your team loses; simple as that.

LivinginNegadelphia · #13 07-03-2009, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by jumanji

I could certainly see why someone would call this gimmicky.

But I'm just curious, what do you have against a system that keeps it the way it is, but lets the other team get a chance to match what a team did on their first possession?

Whatever is done needs to be done on the football field. No stupid price is right for posession of the football. I'm fine with what you said and what bpow wrote below.

I just think we ought to keep the system that is in place. There should be some benefit to winning the coin toss. Otherwise, why have it at all?

egghead · #14 07-03-2009, 05:44 PM

It would be simple enough to get rid of the coin toss--The team with for example the most offensive yardage or first downs--gets the ball--That rewards the teams that have played well during the game

jumanji · #15 07-03-2009, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by LivinginNegadelphia

Whatever is done needs to be done on the football field. No stupid price is right for posession of the football. I'm fine with what you said and what bpow wrote below.

I just think we ought to keep the system that is in place. There should be some benefit to winning the coin toss. Otherwise, why have it at all?

I completely see where you're coming from on the bidding thing. I kinda like it because it just adds some coaching strategy, but I can see why someone wouldn't like it. I guess I just see it as first possession needs to be determined somehow, why not making determined by coaching strategy as opposed to a coin toss?

But, like I said, I can see why someone would consider it gimmicky, I'm certainly not arguing that. I'm not saying it's the best solution, but I do like it over a coin toss.

Personally, I just don't like seeing a team lose in OT without even getting a chance at having the ball. If they would just adopt some system, any stem, where both teams have a chance at getting the ball that isn't determined by just a coin toss, I would be happy.

jumanji · #16 07-03-2009, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by egghead

It would be simple enough to get rid of the coin toss--The team with for example the most offensive yardage or first downs--gets the ball--That rewards the teams that have played well during the game

I don't like that at all, personally. If you make it a stat game like that, it's going to favor, in that example, an offensive team. I don't think it's fair to give them an advantage over a team that gets their yards/points through special teams or forcing turnovers.

Just my opinion....

MFootball · #17 07-03-2009, 07:00 PM

I like jumanji's idea of keeping it the way it is, but allowing each team a possession. I think the current setup is flawed for two reasons.

First, the coin toss is a huge disadvantage for the losing team (given) ESPECIALLY if that team is an offensive team. Maybe your defense is worst in the NFL and your offense is best. Now you've gotta rely on your defense and only your defense to give you a chance to win. When in reality, you may have been trading TD's all day in a 42-42 contest. It's more about the luck of having the football last. After both teams trade possessions, then it's onto sudden death. You could make the argument that's unfair since one team will get two instead of one, etc. At least both teams are given an opportunity to take the field on both sides of the ball and dictate the results of the game on the field. This way you could even elect to go for two in a "do or die" or whatever if you're trying to match the other team's 7.

Secondly, I hate the fact that it's sudden death and you can win with a FG. It allows the coin toss winner to play overly conservative and be in a situation where at touchdown is completely equal to a field goal. If nothing else, an opening possession FG should mean that the opposing team gets an offensive possession to either match or win it with a TD.

I like college football's, but it's too close. They just need to move it back.

jumanji · #18 07-03-2009, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by MFootball

I like jumanji's idea of keeping it the way it is, but allowing each team a possession. I think the current setup is flawed for two reasons.

First, the coin toss is a huge disadvantage for the losing team (given) ESPECIALLY if that team is an offensive team. Maybe your defense is worst in the NFL and your offense is best. Now you've gotta rely on your defense and only your defense to give you a chance to win. When in reality, you may have been trading TD's all day in a 42-42 contest. It's more about the luck of having the football last. After both teams trade possessions, then it's onto sudden death. You could make the argument that's unfair since one team will get two instead of one, etc. At least both teams are given an opportunity to take the field on both sides of the ball and dictate the results of the game on the field. This way you could even elect to go for two in a "do or die" or whatever if you're trying to match the other team's 7.

Secondly, I hate the fact that it's sudden death and you can win with a FG. It allows the coin toss winner to play overly conservative and be in a situation where at touchdown is completely equal to a field goal. If nothing else, an opening possession FG should mean that the opposing team gets an offensive possession to either match or win it with a TD.

I like college football's, but it's too close. They just need to move it back.

Completely agree with everything you said.

As for the college being too close, they definitely need to move it back. The way it is now, if you have a descent FG kicker, as long as you don't lose yards you're already in FG range. I don't like that at all. A team should have to do at least something to earn a FG, even if it is only gain 10 yards.

gco211 · #19 07-03-2009, 10:43 PM

Personally, I hate this idea. Way too gimmicky. My ideal situation would be Jumaji's with each team getting at least one possession. I don't like egghead's for the same reason I don't really want to institute college football's system: it takes special teams out of the equation. But, my second choice would be to use college football's system, but perhaps start from the 40 or 50 to take them out of automatic field goal range.

Welcometonowhere · #20 07-04-2009, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by gco211

Personally, I hate this idea. Way too gimmicky. My ideal situation would be Jumaji's with each team getting at least one possession. I don't like egghead's for the same reason I don't really want to institute college football's system: it takes special teams out of the equation. But, my second choice would be to use college football's system, but perhaps start from the 40 or 50 to take them out of automatic field goal range.

I agree about the college format. Either play another quarter completely or start on the 50 yard line and alternate. I prefer another quarter to be played, but that probably would be too long for fans, but I've seen games go into triple overtimes (hockey, basketball) or extra innings for baseball (both college and pro) and the fans seem to enjoy it.