Saving the NFL from OT Humiliation
The Final Four is in full swing, hockey and basketball playoffs are virtually moments away, and baseball’s Opening Day is in the air. So let’s talk a little football.
This week the NFL meets to discuss changes in the overtime rules. Specifically, they are meeting because they can no longer ignore the complaints that sudden death just isn’t fair. Or, to put it a bit more precisely, they can’t ignore the complains that sudden death, which has always been a bit unfair, has become, in a day and age when teams kick off from the 30 and when field goal kickers are pretty automatic, almost prohibitively unfair to the team that loses the coin toss in the overtime round. In response to this, the league, which doesn’t want to look like a bunch of damn liberals and just mandate that both teams get to possess the ball, is contemplating looking like a bunch of liberals on a congressional subcommittee, and mandating that both teams get to possess the ball, unless the first team to possess the ball scores a touchdown.
Now what in the name of Kill Bubba Kill Smith is going on here? First of all, having been reared on Butkus, Bednarik, Nitschke, Huff, Lambert, the Fearsome Foursome, the Steel Curtain, the Purple People Eaters and the Steel Curtain, I like football where the teams play a little defense. I hated that Green Bay-Arizona shootout in the playoffs this year, where both teams’ defenses resembled nothing so much as a group of pylons. Football is about offense and defense, and yes, it’s an advantage in sudden death to have the ball first, but that why need the defense needs some big fast mean sumbitches who can stop the other guys on third down.
But, yes, it is true that advances in the kicking game have given offenses tremendous advantage–better field position to start, and a shorter distance to cover to reach field goal range. But the answer to the problem needs to be a football answer, not a non-football answer, like acknowledging that defense is a secondary part of the game or that both sides should possess the ball (hey, in a game, neither side is actually guaranteed a possession!)
My answer is simple: eliminate the overtime kick-off. Treat the overtime period the way we three the second and fourth periods, and just play the game from point where the clock ran out. Obviously this will result in games where one team enjoys better field position than the other, but that position will result from the game action that preceded it, not from clean slate kick-off that gives the coin toss winner an advantage. And think of the quandries this will create for the coaches late in regulation–should they try to drive for the win, or punt the ball and set stick the other team deep in its own end?
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
1. hmmm, i’m not sure i’m following exactly; but it appears you are admitting -as is obvious- that the present OT sudden death is unfair, then proceed to recommend a new system which is ALSO unfair, but that you personally like…
starts to approach ‘get off my lawn!’ territory…
2. frankly, i don’t see anything much wrong with the college system of OT/sudden death… the only thing i would do is tweak a couple of the requirements like making them go for touchdowns exclusively, etc…
3. your point about field position at the end of the game doesn’t necessarily obtain for this reason: teams/coaches decide their endgame strategy on a number of factors, with field position only one… many times, they sacrifice field position for running off time (for example)…
4. if you like ‘defense’ so much, may i suggest two boring sports: soccer and hockey… they BOTH sacrifice scoring and action to the idea of endless stalemates (oh, the tension!), interminable running around in circles (such conditioning!), and ineffectual scoring opportunities (5 shots on goal, none of them scored! what an exciting game!)…
hell, i’d sooner watch curling… (which isn’t even a real sport: anything you can play with a beer in your hand -while a good thing in itself- is not a sport… and, yes, i’m looking at you softball…)
they may require skill (like poker or billiards), but i dont’ really think of them as ’sports’… if there is no sweat involved in exertion, then i dont’ think of it as being too sporty…
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
No, I didn’t say my proposed system was also unfair–I said that one team or another would have an advantage. That’s a different point altogether–in every game that is played in the NFL, teams enjoy advantages–skill, coaching, weather. Most of them are part of the game. A coin flip really isn’t. Your point about field position at the end of 60 minutes is exactly right–a lot of factors go into positioning. This would be another one. The college system is OK, but the NFL plays a much longer season, and the players have already expressed reluctance to adding more playing time. Longer games = more playing time = more injuries, especially when the added playing time comes when the players are quite tired. This is less of a factor in college, with its shorter schedule and patsy match-ups. Thanks for your suggestion about hockey and soccer–I’ll look into it.
In response to another comment. See in context »My beloved Green Bay Packers had their last two post-season runs ended in Sudden Death- each time, they won the toss, and lost the game. So, I’m less than convinced that winning the OT toss means a nearly certain win. (By the way, I don’t know what happened to our defense in the Cards game, and I’m not sure I want to.)
keep the sudden death part in, but make it a race to six points
Looks like you got your wish!
In response to another comment. See in context »1. i didn’t say YOU said your proposed system was unfair (? that would be kind of self-defeating), *I* said the existing *AND* your system were unfair…
2. not sure why the nfl only made the ‘new’ system only applicable in playoffs, makes no sense to me, why bother ? may not even happen for years…
3. if injuries are the big concern, reduce or eliminate the useless ‘exhibition’, pre-season games…
4. a suggestion for future research/columns: i am personally interested in (and i think has widespread interest): what percentage of a state’s (florida, in my case) ‘all-star’, ‘1st team’, ‘all-state’ (whatever the metric or combination might be) high school ‘elite’ athletes go on to accomplish in these regards:
A. drop out/don’t finish high school
B. go on to college (with or without scholarships)
C. go to college on scholarships
D. complete college
E. go on to pro careers (of any duration)
F. go on to a ’successful’ pro career
the reason i ask, is my spousal unit is a teacher, and the percentage of (mostly) boys who anticipate or believe they are going to grow up to be pro players is astounding…
(*not* just the normal wishful thinking stuff of, ‘i want to be an astronaut/cowboy/ballerina(?) when i grow up…’)
i know i have seen some figures in the past about how it is an infinitesimal proportion, but hard/real numbers and research might be illuminating, and *possibly* instructive to the kids…
oh, soccer and hockey (an elitist sport if ever there was one) still suck… ‘icing’ is stupid: imagine if basketball had a similar rule concerning fast breaks ? that would be retarded, and its *still* retarded in hockey…
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof