Why make it so complicated... Just use the College rules and be done with it. No whining over a coin toss, just who wants it more... Equal opportunity and a winner will be decided.

college rules would be the WORST way to do it.

That isnt real football.

thavoice wrote: college rules would be the WORST way to do it.

That isnt real football.

neither is the new NFL rule.

I love the way college football does it. Some people bitch that it takes away special teams? It takes away a kickoff, but special teams plays a HUGE part in OT. How many times has an OT game in college came down to a very high pressure FG attempt. That, to me, is the best kind of football. The NFL has to worry about the length of football games. I either say do a coin flip and start at midfield and have to go for two everytime. I just don't like the fact that a coin flip gives a team a pretty big advantage, more so than it does in college. I like my idea of earlier, or go with a non-stop 15m quarter (stop just for TO's), and whatever happens happens.

thavoice wrote: Ya gotta have a winner/loser in a game at the professional level

That's just where we'll have to agree to disagree. Seems to me that if two teams go at it for three hours and can't decide a winner, that a tie is the most reasonable outcome.

sonofsam wrote: Why make it so complicated... Just use the College rules and be done with it. No whining over a coin toss, just who wants it more... Equal opportunity and a winner will be decided.

The college rules are less about who wants it more and more about who has the better kicker. It's about half a step above having the team captains play rock-paper-scissors to decide the game. At the very least, if you're going to do the alternating possession thing, have the teams start from midfield, so that they have to get at least one first down to get into scoring territory.

jpake1 wrote: I love the way college football does it. Some people bitch that it takes away special teams? It takes away a kickoff, but special teams plays a HUGE part in OT. How many times has an OT game in college came down to a very high pressure FG attempt. That, to me, is the best kind of football. The NFL has to worry about the length of football games. I either say do a coin flip and start at midfield and have to go for two everytime. I just don't like the fact that a coin flip gives a team a pretty big advantage, more so than it does in college. I like my idea of earlier, or go with a non-stop 15m quarter (stop just for TO's), and whatever happens happens.

I'd like the college OT better if they started on the opposite 25. IMO, that would make it perfect. But starting on the opponents 25 makes it stupid.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

thavoice wrote: Ya gotta have a winner/loser in a game at the professional level

That's just where we'll have to agree to disagree. Seems to me that if two teams go at it for three hours and can't decide a winner, that a tie is the most reasonable outcome.

Fair enough.

But then do you believe that OT should be banned in all sports at all levels then? (except for postseason of course)

Just asking.

I just feel, as a player/coach, that every time I step onto that field I want an outcome. Good or bad.
As a fan who purchase the ticket and spends a ton of $$ and time I wanna see a winner or a loser

I was at the Steelers/Falcons OT game that was in a tie. The feeling after that game was just plain.....wierd. The more and more we thought about it on the 5 hr drive home it was like....that fuckin sucked.
Even tho it technically is better than a loss it actually felt worse than a loss.

Some people like the HS/College OT. Yes, it can be exciting...but so could a HR hitting contest, or three point contest for OT in the other sports.
In the last 4-5 years our HS team has played some playoff tournament games that have gone 3-4 OT's and have been exciting, but it just isnt the same game.

They just take too much out of the game. No KO's, KO return, Punts and PR, shoudl I go for it or punt,

SQ_Crazies wrote:

jpake1 wrote: I love the way college football does it. Some people bitch that it takes away special teams? It takes away a kickoff, but special teams plays a HUGE part in OT. How many times has an OT game in college came down to a very high pressure FG attempt. That, to me, is the best kind of football. The NFL has to worry about the length of football games. I either say do a coin flip and start at midfield and have to go for two everytime. I just don't like the fact that a coin flip gives a team a pretty big advantage, more so than it does in college. I like my idea of earlier, or go with a non-stop 15m quarter (stop just for TO's), and whatever happens happens.

If your gonna start it on the OPPOSITE 25 then why dont ya just play it as a regular game with a KO and everything. Each team gets at least one possession.


I'd like the college OT better if they started on the opposite 25. IMO, that would make it perfect. But starting on the opponents 25 makes it stupid.

jpake1 wrote: I love the way college football does it. Some people bitch that it takes away special teams? It takes away a kickoff, but special teams plays a HUGE part in OT. How many times has an OT game in college came down to a very high pressure FG attempt. That, to me, is the best kind of football. The NFL has to worry about the length of football games. I either say do a coin flip and start at midfield and have to go for two everytime. I just don't like the fact that a coin flip gives a team a pretty big advantage, more so than it does in college. I like my idea of earlier, or go with a non-stop 15m quarter (stop just for TO's), and whatever happens happens.

It also takes away alot of the strategy. Do you punt knowing that you may not get the ball back? Do you go for the first down? Of course you still have the same decisions now do you go for the FG or TD like you do now.
I think the game of football is a great game, so why change and take away some of the aspect in OT?

thavoice wrote: But then do you believe that OT should be banned in all sports at all levels then? (except for postseason of course)

Not necessarily, but I would prefer the occasional tie to gimmicks (i.e. the hockey shootout).

I just feel, as a player/coach, that every time I step onto that field I want an outcome. Good or bad.

A tie is an outcome.

As a fan who purchase the ticket and spends a ton of $$ and time I wanna see a winner or a loser

Even if the winner and loser is determined by something that is only marginally related to the sport in question? (hockey again comes to mind).

I understand about your hockey comment.
At first I was like.....the shootout isnt real hockey. It would be like a HR hitting contest or free throw in basketball.
The only other two options in hockey would be keep playing until there is a winner, like in the postseason, or ties.

Keep playing isnt really feasible or logical with the length many of those could go. A tie, ugh, not many people like ties.

So...im OK with the shootout. There is an OT to try and determine it so thats OK.

I understand what your saying.

I prefer a win or a loss.

thavoice wrote: But then do you believe that OT should be banned in all sports at all levels then? (except for postseason of course)

Not necessarily, but I would prefer the occasional tie to gimmicks (i.e. the hockey shootout). If the NFL instituted playing an extra quarter under the "Ohiochatter" rules (lead + possession = win), I'm OK with that. But should that not happen after an additonal quarter, it makes no sense to me to continue.

I just feel, as a player/coach, that every time I step onto that field I want an outcome. Good or bad.

A tie is an outcome.

As a fan who purchase the ticket and spends a ton of $$ and time I wanna see a winner or a loser

Even if the winner and loser is determined by something that is only marginally related to the sport in question? (hockey again comes to mind).

The hockey gimmick...I know.
Thing is this......if you go to a shootout and lose...you are no worse off than if you ended in a tie.

I agree tho....it is a gimmick. So many game ended in a tie and most people from fans to the league itself want to win, or lose the game.

My only saving grace for the shootout gimmick is it doesnt hurt ya if you lose it. You still get your point just like if the game ended in a tie so II can live with it because it could be the only realistic way of breaking a tie in a timely manner.

So yeah...every game I go to or watch, or play in, Id want a winner or a loser.

I just dont understand why the NFL would only wanna change the rule for the playoffs. Doesnt make sense. All season you can play an OT game, win it with a FG, but come playoff time taht isnt good enough?

One of teh Rooney's commented he believes a change is needed in the NFL OT and that any change should be for both post and regular season and also the scenario that I mentioned of each team having the ball at least once.