70.5% of the time each team had a possession 29.5% of the time only one team had a possession There have been some non-standard possessions, however. 8 times the defense or special teams won without registering an official possession (5 interceptions, 1 fumble recovery, 1 blocked punt, 1 blocked FG) 1 time the special teams forced a fumble on the opening kickoff and drove for the winning score 1 time the punting team recovered a muffed punt and drove for the winning score with team muffing punt having no official possessions 2 times the team that won the toss elected to kick and the team receiving the ball drove for the winning score Note: these numbers do not include 2008 regular season action. My source is the league's record book. I don't care to go to www.nfl.com and factor in the '08 overtime stats. I'd have to go into GameBooks to do all that and I don't want to.
No, it's correct. It's 2000-2007. I'll add 2008 if you wish. ~61% of teams winning the coin toss go on to win the game. ~30% of teams winning the coin toss win without the other team getting a possession.
That makes zero point. Anyway, the Colts got screwed on that defensive holding or PI call on that one play, and that was a huge first down. It would have been cool to not have seen 3 penalties decide the game. And I know they shouldn't have commited them, but still pretty anticlimatic for a game of such magnitude. You're right, football is a TEAM game, so let's see which WHOLE team can better the WHOLE other team. The 6 point thing works for me. That way, fun instances like goal line stands are more prominent, and the D has something to play for once the opponent drives to their 20. You try to score the TD, and if you don't, then you hope your D can give you another try. And, if there's a lame turnover on the first play, the opponent doesn't win just off of one run back to FG range. No flaws in the 6 point system. Jetfanmack needs to submit it.
Okay, I'll take your word for it. If I had more time or could find more time, I could confirm those numbers by looking at each overtime game of this decade. Only looking at this decade's action is not best, of course. Why look at a small sample when you can look at overtime regular season games dating back to 1974?
because there was a change in the rules in 1994 which made a big difference, as I added to my first post. I could do 1994-2007 if you want. 2000-2007: 124 OT games. 37 times the team winning the coin toss scored on the first possession.
The coin flip does not decide games. If it did, the Chargers would have won the game the moment the actual coin fell on the ground. Do you get my point? Enough with "the coin flip won the game" crap already.
Yeah, post that, if you could. The kickoff rule change was significant. If there is a notable difference, I could be swayed. I was with you on this subject a couple years ago. At one time I was in favor of a system whereby each team would be guaranteed one possession. I have since backed off that because there are some problems with it.
There's no point to get, we're not retarded. The coin flip IS a clear advantage now, with the kick-off from the 30 since 94, which has been my entire football watching career. 60%. That's 3/5 times people are correct to groan "not another NFL OT/coin toss"
Two OT games have been decided by a safety. What if a team scores a safety (ex. a great defensive stop after a punt had been downed at the 3-yard line) and then after the free kick the team has a 10-play drive ending with a field goal? That team would now be leading by 5 points, but the game would still not be over. Their special teams, offense, and defense would have all performed well in overtime to that point. At some point these games have to end. There is too much of a toll on the players. The odds of a safety occurring are very small. History shows that. Therefore, any example involving a safety is probably not good. Your plan seems alright, though. I wonder what would happen if a team scored a FG on its first OT possession in a playoff game. (Regular season would be a different story because there would be only one 15:00 period.) If a team is trailing by 3 in an OT playoff game, I don't know that that team would ever attempt a FG. We'd probably see teams going for it on 4th down in that spot. If the trailing team kicks a FG to tie the game, they know that they will lose if the other team responds with a FG on the very next drive. I haven't spent much time thinking about it, though. I don't have all the answers. Your idea is certainly worth consideration. It would likely create more strategy.
You can make it 5 points to include safeties and everything remains the same, and yes, there would be more strategy and hard decision making, especially for the team that gets the ball 2nd. By that time, it's put up or shut up, but at least they have the chance to put up. Still retains some of the Sudden Death, but seems more fair. An 8% spike seems pretty signifcant to me. Just an average return to the 30 and a team only has 40 yards to go for a very reasonable shot at a game winner. It's just lame.
I like that idea. I'm okay with the current rules, but I hate seeing the driving team get stopped then kick a FG and win the game. That's lame.
I can agree that it sort of sucks and I think the competition committee might agree with it, too. But the thing is, the players and coaches know the rules. They know that if they do not outscore their opponent after 60 minutes, they either lost or they are going to overtime and may not possess the ball. Let's suppose the league goes to a system where each team is guaranteed a possession to ensure fairness. Example- Team A marches down the field and scores a touchdown. Team B then answers with a touchdown of their own. We would then be right back to where we are now. The team that lost the coin toss would still not be guaranteed to have the same number of possessions as the team that won the coin toss! Where things would be different would be scenarios where Team A opted to kick a FG and then Team B answered with a touchdown. Problem is, I don't think that would happen much more than a third of the time and, therefore, probably not worth making a change.
I like this idea. Other than this one tweak, I don't think any change should be made. I think it's completely bizarre that people are whining about it after the SD/IND game. It's not like the game ended on a 60 yard FG after a 30 yard drive.... The way I see it, if you can't stop the team from taking the ball on its first possession and scoring, you don't deserve to win...
