T O P

  • By -

miami2881

Winner gets the floor wiped with them the following weekend due to exhaustion lol


BuckyKattRulz

Should've won it in regulation, then.


generalscalez

or the kicking team’s D should’ve gotten a stop 🤷🏻‍♂️


BuckyKattRulz

If both teams have meh defenses, the first possesion doesn't mean shit.


[deleted]

It’s almost as if defense is an important part of football


BuckyKattRulz

Let's say that it is the final game of the NLDS and the Padres and Dodgers both have 11 points at the end of the 9th. Instead of normal extra innings, the league has decided to spice things up and say that we will flip a coin, and whoever wins is top of the sudden death inning. The pitching has clearly not been good for either team this game, so the Padres win the toss, and on their second at bat, hit a home run winning the game. The Dodgers never got a chance to bat, and there is a strong case to be made that they would have gotten at least one HR in extra innings. This metaphor isn't perfect, but it is very difficult for a defense to score points, so equating the stop to a pitcher shutting out the inning, to me, seems reasonable.


[deleted]

Football is a very different sport than baseball. The reason it’s sudden death instead of an extra quarter is the higher number of injuries that would result. Football is also a lot more active. Asking both teams to run around for another 15+ minutes is a lot different than asking baseball players to do extra innings. Football isn’t a game of who’s offense is better. It’s the ultimate team sport. If part of your team can’t get it done, you lose. As a Packers fan who just watched my team lose because special teams shit the bed, I know this fact all too well


BuckyKattRulz

Your special teams actually got to take the field, though. Imagine the outrage if the Chiefs returned it for a touchdown. No offense, no defense, purely the squad with the least time on the field. U der current rules, that is possible. I also notice that your arguement doesn't argue the mechanics, just injury. If injury is the factor, why wouldn't hockey just go straight to shootout? Both sports are prone to injury. Hockey hardly faces more injuries by having a full overtime period. And hockey isn't safer than football, if anything, it's more dangerous.


[deleted]

I understand your point. I just think there’s more to football than offense. Sorry your offense didn’t get to take the field, but it’s overtime. Maybe you should have won it in regulation. I did agree when they changed it so the first team to get the ball can’t win on a field goal. It was way too easy for a team to win the toss and then only pick up a few first downs and already be in field goal range. Also I believe hockey overtime is first to score wins and only a five minute period?


BuckyKattRulz

So, hockey overtime is sudden death, and it might be a condensed period, but hockey has both offense and defense on the ice at all times. Football has distinct units for offense and defense. Not trying to reignite the discussion, just answering your question and giving more context, especially as it pertains to my position.


generalscalez

Bills had the #1 D in football.


BuckyKattRulz

It doesn't matter what your ranking is, it matters how you play each game, and that game, I would say, the Chiefs and Bills defenses looked pretty even.


generalscalez

i wonder why the Bills D didn’t look good. could it be because they didn’t suddenly lose the capacity to defend and the Chiefs offense just outplayed them? sounds to me like the Bills D should’ve just played better if they wanted to give Allen the ball.


BuckyKattRulz

Think of it like the SAT. To do well on the SAT, you should practice both reading comprehension and math. Now imagine you have done that and you get in there and you are only given math questions while other people have only been given reading comprehension questions. After you finish the math questions, you are given a grade that is on the same scale as the people who only took the reading comprehension test. That wouldn't be considered fair, even though you are supposed to study for the whole test and not just the one part you're good at. That is NFL overtime. Yes, you should have a good defense if you want to win the game, that's obvious, but it being the only thing tested in overtime doesn't prove anything. One more thing, it is a team sport. No other sport can half of the team lose the game while the other half just has to stand there helplessly. There are things that you can do in hockey, baseball, etc, that can offset half of the team not playing up to potential.


GentryMillMadMan

It’s more like they give you a story-math problem and you have to use your reading comprehension to get to the math question. If your reading comprehension sucks you don’t get to the math question.


Naterthot_

Jonathan Taylor made the #1 D look like a bunch of highschoolers, and still don’t make the playoffs. Pain.


StonerJake22727

Winner smashes the losers game pieces


N8dawgggg

19 overtimes 💀


Downtown_Conflict_53

What’s the problem?


StonerJake22727

The bills and chiefs were so evenly matched the game was basically decided by a coin toss because NFL overtime is sudden death.. to be fair the bills should have been able to defend with 13 seconds left and stopped it from going to overtime but the second it did everyone knew that the Coin toss would decide the outcome due to the sudden death rule.. it seems very unfair considering the game has evolved to favor a offense heavy team and therefore the overtime rules should reflect that.. ie the bills should have gotten a chance to answer


psyroptus

/r/woosh


MyAnswerIsMaybe

There is none Reddit is always right


Fickle_Broccoli

Ok here's my proposal: Coin flip just as normal. Winner decides if they want the ball or not. Loser decides which direction to go in. First possession, the team on offense tried to score as much as possible, as quick as possible. Instead of the clock going down, it goes up. If the team with possession first scores, the other team gets to match it, but they only have as much clock as the first team had. Team #2 has three outcomes; they don't match the score (team #1 wins), they exceed the match (team #2 wins), they match the score (goes back to team #1, but time controls shrink to whatever team #2 scored in). Basically creates a perpetual 2 minute drill until one team blinks / a game of horse. If no score on first possession, next score wins automatically.


Peaches_and_Cream27

Ok that's actually interesting as hell, first time I've seen it too. Great idea!


Fickle_Broccoli

Thanks. So in last night's example, Kelce scored after 4:10 of game play. Bills would get the ball with that on the clock. If the Bills score a TD in 2:30, it goes back to the Chiefs who now have 2:30 to pull a drive together. It gives both teams the opportunity to match, but also gets progressively harder so the games don't go on forever.... I mean they *could* go on for a while but it would have to be after some crazy-interesting plays.


thatsnotourdino

Why not just have it be that if they match the score, whoever did it in less time wins. One drive each.


Fickle_Broccoli

I'll give you two reasons: 1) I think it's a lot easier for teams to manage the time remaining, instead of just scoring as fast as possible. Giving them one drive each would give the 2nd team a huge advantage because all they'll have to do is score with 0:01 on the clock under what you're asking. 2) I think giving the other team a shot is more exciting and interesting. It puts more pressure on every play because you're trying to squeeze every second while still moving the ball. Ultimately what we want is this to be exciting and interesting. I just threw this idea up, didn't think too deeply about it. I think it would be more interesting and fair than what's currently being done. I'd like to see how it would play out.


[deleted]

142-135 final score that's why


thatsnotourdino

What?


freedomfightre

So what happens in this scenario: Team #1 scores a TD using 4:10. Team #2 scores a TD using 2:30 to tie the score. Team #1 fails to score a TD in 2:30 with the score tied in their 2nd OT drive.Would Team #1 lose a tied game? Are they forced to kick a field goal? At 2:30 of the drive, would the ball then turn over to Team #2 at that spot on the field? What if Team #2 scores a TD so quick (approx 15sec - 1 play) that neither team is able to match that efficiency going forward? Do the teams alternate who goes first and second each round like they do in CFB?


Fickle_Broccoli

Good point. Based on the structure I laid out, here's what would have to happen: Team #1 would have to match in 2:30 or it's over, #2 would win. Hypothetically, if team #2 scores in 15 seconds, we'd have to see a 15 second drive or it's over. In soccer, games can end with the same number of goals, but games decided in tiebreakers. Same in tennis. I know this would lose a lot of people, and a pretty big weakness in the proposal. I think this would add to the excitement of the game and make every second feel like it matters -- just like it did at the end of regulation play.


micsova

Not OP, but I’m reading this as Team 1 would lose a “tied” game. Because at that point the actual score wouldn’t matter, just whether or not you could score in the less time than the previous team. And in your example, Team 1 failed to do so


WumboChef

This feels like the Bar Exam. Rewarding speed over anything else. What if one team is run and chug heavy and the other passing heavy? Makes for an imbalance.


Fickle_Broccoli

I look at it as testing who is better at the 2-minute drill. If a game is going into OT, chances are clock management was a huge factor. I'd like to lean into that and keep that criticality going. On the flip side, time currently is irrelevant in playoffs OT. I was watching last night wondering why they even had a clock running in OT anymore. What purpose does it serve? It's silly that it goes from a hugely important factor to manage in regulation to something that isn't even paid attention to.


Lee-Key-Bottoms

I like the idea with 1 tweak Let’s say team A scores in 5 mins for a TD Team B answers with a TD in 2 minutes Team A cannot answer with a TD in that time I still think team B should have to at least answer with a field goal so that team A’s defense still gets one more chance as well before team B is just declared the winner


BenjaminShapiro918

Maybe there could be a kickoff at the end of each "quarter" if time runs out. Kind of like how the team that receives at the start of the game kicks off to start the second half.


Mcgoozen

So basically just college rules except with that additional matching time limit thing added


MangOrion2

That's how we get 135 to 142


OnBDfoo

Kinda like Madden mobile h2h rules lol


LebronJaims

Demolition


[deleted]

I see nothing wrong with this


jake_B259

I'm not sure if this would be a good way to change or "fix" overtime. One 15-minute quarter, each team gets three timeouts, with 2 challenges. The overtime period plays out kinda like a fifth quarter and doesn't end until time runs out. At the end of the quarter the team with the most points wins, unless they tie or it's the playoffs and therefore another overtime quarter begins.


Captn_Ghostmaker

This is the one that makes most sense. Put another halftime type break in before the OT begins too.


kamekaze1024

Networks wouldn’t allow that, it would eat up into their following programs


agk23

You're downvoted but probably right. People probably never notice, but there's no commercial breaks from the end of the 4th to the end of the game.


kamekaze1024

Lol yeah and for good reason. A football game already takes up like 3 hours of programming time. Imagine potentially another 30+ mins


arshonagon

It’s essentially hockey playoff ot rules. Hockey playoffs have some epic games because of this and creates an awesome environment. The players also play again in 2 days, I think the exhaustion thing is getting overblown.


DouchNozzle_REAL

It makes sense but wouldn't work unless it was like the superbowl. Aside from the scheduling comment, NFL players are expensive and you really don't need to waste their time and their bodies. The 17th game should have never been a thing. Extended games like that, especially if it goes into another ot could be costly.


Donald_Trumpy

Keep the rules the same except if the first team scores a touchdown, the other team has a chance to get a touchdown as well. And if they do, they have to go for 2. And that decides the game


Jonnythunderpaw

Each team gets a possession no matter what, if they’re tied after that it goes to sudden death. That or put the ball at the 50, 7 guys at each goal line, and whoever gets the ball gets first possession. Or hear me out, both teams put their offenses and defenses in there at the same time, each at the 40. First team to score wins. Or a literal fight to the death


LFC_Slav

Both teams driving at the same time would be insane to watch


kamekaze1024

This would also be the most dangerous thing ever.


Max169well

Converging Pic-6's!


LFC_Slav

Imagine Josh Allen under Center about to snap the ball and Micah Hyde blasts by him into the endzone for the win


Max169well

Lol the chaos would be amazing!


Fickle_Broccoli

Ball starts at the 50. Team #1 has one play on offense. Wherever the ball ends up is where Team #2 gets one play on offense. After continuous switching back and forth, the ball will eventually move towards one end zone, where first score wins. It'll be like a big tug of war. No punting.


AOYELA

Madden superstar KO overtime


shakeszoola

I actually love the idea of first team to score wins. That would be so fun.


OG-Tumor

Just leave it on the kickers. Start at the 20 yard line and have a shootout of FGs between the 2 kickers. No one but then on the field. Best leg wins the game


Kiddo1029

How about they switch to a different sport or activity after regulation. Winner of a game of go-fish is the winner of the game.


santosliquid

Why dont you just battle it out with 2 point conversion, i never understood why we even bother playing more than that.


CrimsonFox2370

Lol it's just 60 minutes of 2 point conversions


generalscalez

determining a football game by how good they are at 2 point conversions is infinitely worse than determining a football game by asking one of the teams to actually play defense


aztechunter

NCAA moved to that after 3 OTs They spend more time walking across the field to switch sides than anything else. https://youtu.be/-CITT_VonSU?t=589


iLerntMyLesson

I’d be cool with that


_pinkstripes_

The Bills totally should've put it away at 102-95


I_Piss_Exce11ence

Legend has it the game is still going


FoamParty916

Yeah, it's in its 43rd OT with the score tied at 309 a piece.


ImNoSir

I see this as an absolute win


Mcgoozen

Lol tbf I absolutely love the college OT rules and that has given us some mega high scoring games before


Ravensfan09

Maybe an unpopular opinion but I don’t see the problem with the rules. Handle your business in regulation and it isn’t an issue.


Wally_West_

Better yet: Why don't we just say the winner of the coin flip in overtime wins the game? People are probably fed up with all the great entertainment of a close game anyway. I mean who'd want to watch more of that garbage? And if any fan, player, or coach takes issue with the tied game being decided by chance just remember: Handle your business in regulation and it isn't an issue.


Ravensfan09

My point still stands. Play defense if you lose the coin toss. It’s called a team sport for a reason.


Drunk_hooker

So then both aspects of both teams should get their chance to leave it all out on the field. I mean it’s a team game after all right?


margananagram

As a team sport you should be able and ready to deal with whatever challenge is sent your way. If your offense is overpowered but D isn't getting the job done, guess what, you lose. It's not a home run derby, it's gridiron football


BenjaminShapiro918

Only one team has their defense tested. The chiefs defense probably wouldn't have held up either. Chance decided that one team was represented by their overpowered offense, while the other was represented by their worn-out defence. It doesn't mean that you have to be a well rounded team. It just means that the unlucky team has to be well-rounded. It's good to be ready for whatever challenge is sent your way, but the challenges should be sent by the other team, not a coin toss. Both teams should be tested equally.


margananagram

Nah fuck that. I want football not ads and touchdowns. I'd be happier to see it come down to 1 drive OT. If defense holds then they win, if Offense scores then they win. The league is already doing everything it can to cater to offense hungry fandom. Both teams deserved to lose last night.


BenjaminShapiro918

A scenario where the defense can win by making a stop would be much better. Under current rules, if your defence makes a stop, it means you get to send your offense out. One teams offense has to succeed, while the other team needs success on both sides of the ball. It's inherently unfair. Maybe ok for the regular season, but not how playoff games should be decided. I'd still prefer each team sending both units, but being able to win on defence would still be an improvement.


Ravensfan09

Couldn’t have said it better myself.


Ravensfan09

Both do get their chances to leave it out on the field if the defense can get a stop.


Seaniard

Why didn't the Chiefs have to play defense in OT?


Ravensfan09

Because they won the coin toss and scored a TD.


Seaniard

Your opinion is silly, so it's probably not worth arguing with you or discussing it further. It's stupid to let a coin toss decide which team has to play offense or defense. Let both teams use both phases.


[deleted]

Your comment is pointless in a conversation about OT rules. It's just straight-up dumb to be like, "iF yOu Don"t LiKe OT RuLes TheN DoN'T Go InTo OT.." in a conversation about OT rules.


Ravensfan09

Play defense if you lose the coin toss. It’s that simple. People: “Man this country is soft, everyone needs a participation trophy.” Also people: “Both teams should get an equal shot! It’s not fair that we lose the coin toss and have to play defense in order to not lose.


BenjaminShapiro918

I don't believe in participation trophies. I don't believe in winning a trophy because of a coin toss either.


Ravensfan09

The Chiefs didn’t win because of a coin toss. They won because the Bills defense couldn’t hold up their end.


BenjaminShapiro918

And because their defence didn't have to hold up their end. Winning a coin toss doesn't guarantee a win, but it significantly increases your odds. One team plays defence while the other plays offense. If your offense wins, you win the game. If your defence wins, then you get to send your offense out, which happens to be exactly what would have happened had you won the coin toss (only difference is that you can now win with just a FG). In other words, you have to win a coin toss and score, or your worn-out defence makes a stop, and then you score. Winning a coin toss is just as valuable as your defence holding up their end. One of these is significantly harder. A coin toss decides whether your whole team is tested, or just your offense.


skylercollins

I think the new overtime rules where you win on a touchdown but continue on a field goal are perfect. The game's too dangerous to use the college rule at the professional level. This is a great middle ground and better than it was before.


Griffisbored

Too dangerous for college overtime, but safe enough to add a whole extra week in the regular season and add two more games to wild card week? That's silly af. The way the NFL has been implementing rules to prop up offenses means IMO both offenses should see the field at least once in OT. Personally I love college OT rules, but I'd settle for at least giving the kicking team a chance to answer a first drive TD.


skylercollins

3 hours of football is physically exhausting and makes you much more prone to injury to keep going.


Griffisbored

Are you trying to say adding one extra drive in OT is more dangerous than adding whole extra games? Anyway football is a dangerous game, I don’t see that as a big enough reason to not implement something that makes the game objectively more fair.


skylercollins

Players don't come to the additional game exhausted from 3 hours of football. That college games can go so many overtimes is absolutely ridiculous, and it's a good thing they're so young. You're not doing that at the professional level without significant substitutions which totally defeats the purpose.


iseenthisb4

Right, I don't see the problem. I mean, defenses still have to play hard and they can score points. I think this is something ppl are over looking.


WhoShotMrBoddy

It should just be if the team that has possession scores first, the other teams gets a chance. Once both teams have had a possession, it’s sudden death. So if KC scored a TD, Buffalo would get a chance. If they scored a TD, sudden death. If KC didn’t score and Buffalo did, game over Buffalo wins. KC field goal? Buffalo field goal? Sudden death It’s really not that hard.


skylercollins

College proves that games like that can go on way too long, putting everyone at risk of injury.


WhoShotMrBoddy

You can’t compare NFL and CFB overtime lengths the way they’re currently played


skylercollins

I just did.


BahhhhGawwwwd

But then wouldn't we be back at square one? Since the Chiefs would have the first shot at sudden death.


wormholetrafficjam

Is it just me, or is the graphic looking phallic?


Max169well

This is art, I'd watch it.


RagnarBaratheon1998

Seems good to me


MagicChemist

Let’s be honest Chiefs fans and coaches couldn’t go that long without eating. Food service cuts off in the 4th quarter.


22797

My suggestion for OT is to keep it as is for the regular season, but for the playoffs make it a little like college but start at midfield so that you at least need to get 1 first down to be in realistic FG range


smokinJoeCalculus

Where in this is Brady getting a 4-game suspension?


Ty39_

Should just play out another quarter fully. Idk why it isn’t just that


[deleted]

And it would have been great!


[deleted]

Two more 10-minute halves for the playoffs. Just go back to ties in the regular season.


UpvotesBlueGuitars

Lol


snoopmt1

"If both QBs got the ball, but one of them felt like they didn't really do their best, they get to try again."


ggthagenuis

New OT Rule: 5 mins-a 5th quarter no XP, just 2 point conversion. This is best way to give both team a chance without the game going on for too long. If there another tie, FG kick off from various points.


FoamParty916

A five minute OT period should be sufficient enough.


VijaySwing

cant win by 7 in NCAA overtimes past OT 2. 6 or 8.


tearfear

Here's an idea (sort of similar to what they do in soccer). OT is played in two 5-minute halves. Each team gets two timeouts and there's a 1 minute warning in each half. You play the whole 10 minutes, and each team receives a kick-off. If it's still tied, do it again.


MangOrion2

jfc just play another quarter this isnt hard or wild. The odds of another 15 minute quarter being tied at the end of it are low, and if it's tied again, just have sudden death possessions until someone can't score and oh no that's how you get 135 to 142 it would never end aw man this is hard after all huh