If the team that gets the ball scores a TD, the game's over.
If the team that gets the ball ends up with a safety, the game's over.
If the team that gets the ball first punts or turns the ball over, the game becomes sudden death.
If the team that gets the ball first kicks a FG, they'll kick off. If the other team scores a TD, the game's over.
If the team that gets the ball first kicks a FG, they'll kick off. If the other team also kicks a FG, the becomes sudden death;
These rules are only for the playoffs so ties do not come into play.
See? It's simple. If the two teams alternate FGs and score a combined 6 points the game's still going. If one team scores a combined 2 points the game's over. Two points = Win, 3 points = nothing really. Now I understand a safety's rarer than a FG, but still it does seem weird the numerical value of a safety is less than that of a a FG, but the importance of a safety is greater.
Beyond that, what really bothers me about the change is that it was wholly uncalled for. The overtime system was fine the way it was. I do not understand why people are making such a big deal about it this year. Actually, I think I do understand and that annoys me more than anything else.
These changes were only instituted for the playoffs. That's odd, don't you think. If a system is messed up, wouldn't you utilize it's replacement throughout the season? And if you wanted to test the replacement, would you choose the playoffs for a time to experiment? So, then, why the playoffs? Think back to last year's postseason. During championship weekend, a certain gunslinger lost the chance to go to the Super Bowl in an overtime game in which he never touched the ball. Suddenly, everyone in the media's crying out for overtime reform as if it was healthcare. I'm surprised that they didn't try to change the rules as soon as the Saints won the coin toss.
Now the misnomer that the previous system was unfair to the team that lost the toss. First, logically, the toss was fair to both teams. Each team had an equal chance to win that. Second. winning the toss does not equal winning the game. There is a defense on the field. Since 1993, the team that won the toss marched down the field for a game winning kick on the first posession in 27 percent of the games. Which means in 83 percent of the games the toss winning team scored a TD (which would end the game in the new system as well) or gave the ball to the other team.
Teams that win the toss end up winning the game 59 percent of the time. Far from a given. Is at an advantage? Absolutely. Is it unfair? How can it be? The fairest method possible was used to determine who gets the ball. Is an unsurmountable obstacle for the team that lost the toss? Definately not. The percentages bear it out. An advantage, yes, but conlusive, no.
Anyway, since we're only talking about postseason here, let's look at the postseason numbers. In the past 16 years, the teams that won the toss in a playoff overtime game are 7-7. I'm no genius, but that seems pretty even to me.
Now with the new overtime, I think I would automatcially kick off if I won the toss. The advantage is there. The only way you don't get the ball is if the other teams gets into the endzone, which you have to believe won't happen. So when you get the ball, you know what you need to do.
Still, I could predict how these games will generally go. We all know how conservative coaches tend to be towards the end of games, So when the first team gets into FG rangem they'll go into their shell and kick. Then the other team will generally answer the same way. Now they've gotten into sudden death where the first team will again march and kick another FG. Ooooh, excitement! All these media members will be watching with their jaws open when they realize that what's happened now it that rather than one FG winning in overtime, it's become that you need two. This is going to take a lot of excitement out of the overtimes.
Peace
No comments:
Post a Comment