Super Bowl

[WBBFanWest]

54 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Oh I'd want the ball.  I wouldn't use it as an excuse if I didn't get it first and lost though.  That's BS.  Starting on D you still have as much of a chance to win, even a mild advantage in that you don't need a TD to win if you can get a stop/turnover and the other guys do.  It goes both ways.  You need to play the game out.  

Umm, if you have an equal chance (or better) to win by playing D, why would you want the ball.  You're arguing against yourself.

[JuranBoldenRules]

55 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

Umm, if you have an equal chance (or better) to win by playing D, why would you want the ball.  You're arguing against yourself.

Control.  Having the chance to outright win or at least put it on the other team to need a field goal to tie.  Doesn't change the probabilities or fact that both teams have a shot.  The probability of the team receiving the kickoff scoring the TD to win is only slightly higher than the team kicking off.  Not enough for the team kicking off to get their collective undies in a bunch and complain about it being unfair.  Sort of like the 54-46 probability in baseball for last at-bat.  Good luck finding a system that's completely 50-50 with no slight advantages.

Edited February 7, 2017 by JuranBoldenRules

[Eternal optimist]

4 hours ago, WBBFanWest said:

Umm, if you have an equal chance (or better) to win by playing D, why would you want the ball.  You're arguing against yourself.

Have to agree with JuranBoldenRules here. If nothing else, when you're on offense (especially in football), you are inherently in control of the game...as the team on offense dictates the pace of play, when the play starts and gets to set the tone. Obviously, the defense gets the opportunity to call their own coverage as well, and there is definitely an art in calling effective defensive schemes. At the end of the day though, the D is really just guessing what they think the offense is going to run, and calling what they feel will be effective coverage against that.

It's for this same reasoning that predictable offensive schemes fail so miserably, when the defense knows (or know more likely) what the offense is going to call, they lose that inherent edge of unpredictability.

Also, choosing to start on D in OT kind of goes with that whole "playing not to lose" idea - you're counting on the opponent's offense to make a mistake first, instead of trying to win the game with your own offense.

[17to85]

oh god if you think face offs and coin flips are the same thing then this isn't going to go anywhere. 

[Atomic]

When people argue "But the other team didn't get a chance!!!!!!!!", all I read is "I got too many participation ribbons growing up!"

[WBBFanWest]

9 hours ago, Eternal optimist said:

Have to agree with JuranBoldenRules here. If nothing else, when you're on offense (especially in football), you are inherently in control of the game...as the team on offense dictates the pace of play, when the play starts and gets to set the tone. Obviously, the defense gets the opportunity to call their own coverage as well, and there is definitely an art in calling effective defensive schemes. At the end of the day though, the D is really just guessing what they think the offense is going to run, and calling what they feel will be effective coverage against that.

It's for this same reasoning that predictable offensive schemes fail so miserably, when the defense knows (or know more likely) what the offense is going to call, they lose that inherent edge of unpredictability.

Also, choosing to start on D in OT kind of goes with that whole "playing not to lose" idea - you're counting on the opponent's offense to make a mistake first, instead of trying to win the game with your own offense.

This sort of goes to the heart of my argument, which is that offence has the clear advantage.  That being the case, the winner of the coin flip gets handed that advantage.  Is that advantage insurmountable?  No, but again, it could easily be rectified by a OT format such as ours.  Ultimately though, I find watching NFL football about as interesting as watching paint dry, so a change in how they do OT matters little to me.  I just think that how the NFL does this is dumb.

[MOBomberFan]

You guys have convinced me. NFL OT rules are great! So great I think that some other sports should try to imitate them.

Golf could take on a more cut throat approach. You and your opponent are tied on the 18th green, but they get to shoot first and sink the ball before you get a chance to putt? ELIMINATED. Enjoy the walk to the parking lot, loser.

NHL shootouts could move to sudden death. If the first team to shoot scores, the other team doesn't need a chance to score back. Buncha participation ribbon wearing pansies! They should have just scored during extra minutes.

In chess, putting your opponent into checkmate is so tedious. I think simply putting someone into check should be good enough for the win.

Yay for CFL OT rules. You get to see both sides of each team compete for the win, and let the best complete team effort claim the top prize. The Pats seemed destined to win this game, I'm fairly sure their D would have stopped the Falcons anyhow, but it would have made their victory that much more decisive and impressive.

On the other hand, who wants to watch more NFL football than necessary? That's probably the best part about sudden death OT and the NFL; it ends sooner.

[Fatty Liver]

Truth be told, the CFL O.T. format has made for some pretty exciting finishes, cept if you're a Rider fan.

[JCon]

1 minute ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Truth be told, the CFL O.T. format has made for some pretty exciting finishes, cept if you're a Rider fan.

So, it's the best system.

[Atomic]

Pretty clear from this thread that the only people who really don't like the OT rules are the same ones who don't actually watch NFL.  Probably would also argue that CFL players are just as good as NFL players... the game's just "different".  

Here you go MO... everyone wins:

[JuranBoldenRules]

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

oh god if you think face offs and coin flips are the same thing then this isn't going to go anywhere. 

A centre ice faceoff dropped by a referee who does about 6 per game.  It's a scramble.  O zone and D zone faceoffs involve skill.

[MOBomberFan]

Personally, I watch enough NFL to know I like the CFL better, and more importantly why. There are some pretty significant differences dontcha know!

Aww shucks thanks Atomic, but I grew up in the 90s, so thanks but I've got piles of my own participation ribbons, you keep yours.

[sweep the leg]

31 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Pretty clear from this thread that the only people who really don't like the OT rules are the same ones who don't actually watch NFL.  Probably would also argue that CFL players are just as good as NFL players... the game's just "different".  

Here you go MO... everyone wins:

You get a participation award for trying so hard to make the ribbon joke work.

[Atomic]

5 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

You get a participation award for trying so hard to make the ribbon joke work.

It's not a joke Sweep this is serious shit

Quote

Aww shucks thanks Atomic, but I grew up in the 90s, so thanks but I've got piles of my own participation ribbons, you keep yours.

Ah ha, yes then I was correct

Edited February 7, 2017 by Atomic

[17to85]

1 hour ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

A centre ice faceoff dropped by a referee who does about 6 per game.  It's a scramble.  O zone and D zone faceoffs involve skill.

hardly. faceoffs are a skill no matter where they occur on the ice, which is why some guys make a very good career out of being face off specialists. 

[Jesse]

22 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Real game as in the rules of the game stay the same. Kick off then play from the point you return it to and see if you can't score. If you don't score then you have to punt the ball back to the other team. If you manage a FG, the other team gets a chance to match or beat you. If you score a TD, then you win outright, which is the one problem that most folks seem to have with the NFL rules. Both sides getting a turn on offence wouldn't make it more like a real game. Having 2 15 minute halves would.

CFL OT rules have no kick off or punts. You start at the 35 either score a FG or a TD then the other team takes over at the 35. You get no advantage for moving the ball better or further than the other team. It's basically a shoot out format, where you eliminate a lot of the games intricacies.  

I also dislike this part of our OT.

[17to85]

3 hours ago, Jesse said:

I also dislike this part of our OT.

yes there are ways to improve the CFL OT for sure, doesn't mean that it's still not superior to the NFL method. Hell you could start it off with a kick and let the special teams determine where a team starts then let the other side have a go. 

[Eternal optimist]

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

yes there are ways to improve the CFL OT for sure, doesn't mean that it's still not superior to the NFL method. Hell you could start it off with a kick and let the special teams determine where a team starts then let the other side have a go. 

I think the reason they shy away from full kickoffs in OT is because then you could potentially end up with very long games in overtime....example in OT:

Team 1 receives kickoff, botches the return and starts from their 15, they drive the field (taking as much time as a full drive in the CFL) and score a TD.
Team 2 would then get a chance to answer, with the possibility of an equally long, sustained drive and if they were to score another TD, it'd go to double OT.

Also if they were to enforce kickoffs, I'd assume they'd have to eliminate/omit the rouge on kickoffs in OT, which would just further confuse any layperson watching the CFL.

[Dragon37]

The NFL still exists?

 

[Fatty Liver]

3 hours ago, 17to85 said:

yes there are ways to improve the CFL OT for sure, doesn't mean that it's still not superior to the NFL method. Hell you could start it off with a kick and let the special teams determine where a team starts then let the other side have a go. 

Start with a kickoff and the team that gets closer to the goal line in one drive wins.  No FG's allowed because they're anti-climatic, if the drive stalls out on the 40 or wherever, the other team has to beat that mark.  If both teams score TD's, do it again. 

Edited February 8, 2017 by Throw Long Bannatyne

[17to85]

13 hours ago, Eternal optimist said:

I think the reason they shy away from full kickoffs in OT is because then you could potentially end up with very long games in overtime....example in OT:

Team 1 receives kickoff, botches the return and starts from their 15, they drive the field (taking as much time as a full drive in the CFL) and score a TD.
Team 2 would then get a chance to answer, with the possibility of an equally long, sustained drive and if they were to score another TD, it'd go to double OT.

Also if they were to enforce kickoffs, I'd assume they'd have to eliminate/omit the rouge on kickoffs in OT, which would just further confuse any layperson watching the CFL.

give em their 2 chances and if no one scores then it's a tie, problem solved. 

[TBURGESS]

Give them 2 15 minute halves and let them play football. Ties give each team a single point in regular season. 2 more 15 minute halves in post season. Yup.... longer games once in a while, but no one could complain winning the coin flip won them the game.

[Atomic]

1 minute ago, TBURGESS said:

Give them 2 15 minute halves and let them play football. Ties give each team a single point in regular season. 2 more 15 minute halves in post season. Yup.... longer games once in a while, but no one could complain winning the coin flip won them the game.

Would never make it past the players association

[TBURGESS]

38 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Would never make it past the players association

Probably not, but it's the best way to do OT IMO.

[tacklewasher]

I'd be happy if they started at the 50 instead of the 35. Don't like them starting in FG range. But I don't want it dragging on any longer than it has to.

The NFL method just sucks.