sol diablos
2007-04-09, 21:53
I found this part of an article on NFL Overtime interesting. After reading it I agree with what he is saying. The second part of the article talked about other OT solutions that I didn't really care for.
Overtime, a modest proposal
By Mike Carlson
Special to NFL.com
How to fix the NFL's overtime problem? Mike Carlson has watched NFL Europa's "two possessions" version. But in the latest Europass, he suggests the NFL eliminate overtime entirely.
(April 8, 2007) -- Everyone agrees that NFL overtime is a problem, but no one agrees on how to solve it, as demonstrated at the recent owners' meetings. But everyone overlooks the most obvious solution of all: If it ain't working, don't use it! That's right, drop overtime, except in the playoffs. Regular season games existed happily with the occasional draw for decades. So if it's unfair, it doesn't work, and we don't need it, why keep it?
Alabama's Bear Bryant was not a fan of coaches playing for the tie.
Blame Bear Bryant. Back in 1966, when Notre Dame and Michigan tied 10-10, and the poll voters refused to leap-frog unbeaten Alabama into the number one spot, Bear growled that "a tie was like kissing your sister." Over the next forty years, something that was once an engrained part of football gradually became characterized as a pansy's idea of a finish. Which is why today's situation, where winning a 50-50 coin flip gives a team an almost 2:1 advantage is perceived as being better than giving a relative a peck on the cheek.
The real story is there's a big ugly blind date sitting on the sofa, eyes closed and lips pursed, and nobody wants to mention her. Because the real reason overtime persists despite its inequality is not because fans insist on a "winner," but because coaches look for every avenue available to avoid losing.
Remember Super Bowl XXXVI? The Patriots get the ball back with just under 1:30 to play and no time outs. Remember John Madden advising them to play for overtime, especially once they'd reached their own 41 with just over half a minute to play? Madden's coaching instincts were, as always, sure: The underdog should avoid the loss. Better to take the 50-50 shot in OT than risk throwing the ball away and giving the Rams their chance at a win. Luckily for New England, Bill Belichick hadn't read that book.
The gospel in sports journalism states that a coach who goes for the win in regulation and loses is an idiot, while a coach who loses in overtime is unlucky, even if he's passed on the opportunity to win the game in regulation. And what people forget is that what irritated Bear Bryant so much was not that the game ended in a tie, but that the coaches, especially Notre Dame's Ara Parseghian, were perceived (unfairly) as not going all out for the win.
Eliminate overtime, and it will quickly become obvious which coaches are really committed to the win. When the touchdown in the final minute brings you within a point, overtime dictates that you tie the score and accept the 50-50 coin toss. But eliminate OT, and coaches have to choose whether they go for two points and the win, or one and the tie. And every fan in the stadium and at home will see what they really think about playing to win.
Get the ball with the score tied in your own territory with 1:30 to go, and no overtime to play for, and we'll see which coaches really want to win. But reality is more subtle than that, because a tie is still a better result than a loss. A much weaker team, playing on the road, might well settle for the draw, rather than risking handing the game away. It would be a fair result for 58:30 of playing a "better" team even in their own stadium.
Teams already play 16 games. Why add on extra quarters (which sudden-death was specifically intended to cut-down on) to further wear them down? Given that parity means so many teams finishing within a game or two of 8-8, ties would help resolve the crowded playoff situation with less resort to tie-breaking formulae that can result in computers eliminating teams from the postseason because the "strength" of their opponents' schedules is judged weaker by the same computers that made up the schedules in the first place! With a tie on the field, an 8-7-1 team qualifies ahead of one that finishes 8-8, and isn't that more like what football ought to be?
The case for retaining OT might be stronger if any of the proposed solutions actually would "fix" it.
For those of you who want to read the complete story:
http://nfl.com/news/story/10116125
Overtime, a modest proposal
By Mike Carlson
Special to NFL.com
How to fix the NFL's overtime problem? Mike Carlson has watched NFL Europa's "two possessions" version. But in the latest Europass, he suggests the NFL eliminate overtime entirely.
(April 8, 2007) -- Everyone agrees that NFL overtime is a problem, but no one agrees on how to solve it, as demonstrated at the recent owners' meetings. But everyone overlooks the most obvious solution of all: If it ain't working, don't use it! That's right, drop overtime, except in the playoffs. Regular season games existed happily with the occasional draw for decades. So if it's unfair, it doesn't work, and we don't need it, why keep it?
Alabama's Bear Bryant was not a fan of coaches playing for the tie.
Blame Bear Bryant. Back in 1966, when Notre Dame and Michigan tied 10-10, and the poll voters refused to leap-frog unbeaten Alabama into the number one spot, Bear growled that "a tie was like kissing your sister." Over the next forty years, something that was once an engrained part of football gradually became characterized as a pansy's idea of a finish. Which is why today's situation, where winning a 50-50 coin flip gives a team an almost 2:1 advantage is perceived as being better than giving a relative a peck on the cheek.
The real story is there's a big ugly blind date sitting on the sofa, eyes closed and lips pursed, and nobody wants to mention her. Because the real reason overtime persists despite its inequality is not because fans insist on a "winner," but because coaches look for every avenue available to avoid losing.
Remember Super Bowl XXXVI? The Patriots get the ball back with just under 1:30 to play and no time outs. Remember John Madden advising them to play for overtime, especially once they'd reached their own 41 with just over half a minute to play? Madden's coaching instincts were, as always, sure: The underdog should avoid the loss. Better to take the 50-50 shot in OT than risk throwing the ball away and giving the Rams their chance at a win. Luckily for New England, Bill Belichick hadn't read that book.
The gospel in sports journalism states that a coach who goes for the win in regulation and loses is an idiot, while a coach who loses in overtime is unlucky, even if he's passed on the opportunity to win the game in regulation. And what people forget is that what irritated Bear Bryant so much was not that the game ended in a tie, but that the coaches, especially Notre Dame's Ara Parseghian, were perceived (unfairly) as not going all out for the win.
Eliminate overtime, and it will quickly become obvious which coaches are really committed to the win. When the touchdown in the final minute brings you within a point, overtime dictates that you tie the score and accept the 50-50 coin toss. But eliminate OT, and coaches have to choose whether they go for two points and the win, or one and the tie. And every fan in the stadium and at home will see what they really think about playing to win.
Get the ball with the score tied in your own territory with 1:30 to go, and no overtime to play for, and we'll see which coaches really want to win. But reality is more subtle than that, because a tie is still a better result than a loss. A much weaker team, playing on the road, might well settle for the draw, rather than risking handing the game away. It would be a fair result for 58:30 of playing a "better" team even in their own stadium.
Teams already play 16 games. Why add on extra quarters (which sudden-death was specifically intended to cut-down on) to further wear them down? Given that parity means so many teams finishing within a game or two of 8-8, ties would help resolve the crowded playoff situation with less resort to tie-breaking formulae that can result in computers eliminating teams from the postseason because the "strength" of their opponents' schedules is judged weaker by the same computers that made up the schedules in the first place! With a tie on the field, an 8-7-1 team qualifies ahead of one that finishes 8-8, and isn't that more like what football ought to be?
The case for retaining OT might be stronger if any of the proposed solutions actually would "fix" it.
For those of you who want to read the complete story:
http://nfl.com/news/story/10116125