Given that winning the coin toss is an advantage (although less than ESPN idiots think) and that a coin toss provides an arbitrary means to giving one side that advantage (whether large or slight), I still don't like the new playoff overtime rules. The old rules (which are still in effect for the regular season) may assign an advantage arbitrarily, but the football is still the same. Score. It's just that the first to score wins. So the pressure against the clock is replaced by the pressure to stop the opposing offense. But you always want to stop the opposing offense, so that's not an arbitrary replacement. The bottom line is: apart from the coin toss, there's nothing very distinct from normal play.
For the regular season, I've often felt that teams should play the full overtime quarter, and if after that the score was still tied, then chalk up the tie.
The new playoff overtime rules are that if the receiving team scores a TD on the first possession, game over. If the receiving team scores a FG, the opposing team has one possession. If they score a TD, game over. If they score a FG, then the next team to score wins.
What's strange to me about this is that it's a new set of strategies that is distinct from normal play. While hockey shootouts are exciting, I hate that they are markedly different from normal hockey play. Same with college football's system. It's too arbitrary. Play hockey to resolve a hockey game. Play football to resolve a football game.
For the playoffs, I'd like to see this: flip a coin. Winner chooses to receive in overtime quarter or sudden death. Opposing team chooses sides. Play a 5th quarter with 2 timeouts. If the score is still tied after a full quarter, then the 6th quarter is sudden death with 2 timeouts.
0
No replies to this topic
