i don't see how it's not fair. each team has the same chance to win the coin toss. not saying something like what college does wouldn't be a better option to take luck out of it, but fair is not a good word to use here because it absolutely is "fair".
it a lot of the times helps when you don't win the coin toss, people never realize that. in lower scoring games i always see the team win the coin toss, go no where and give it to the other team at around the 40/45 with only a couple first downs to go to put them in FG range instead of around 5 first downs if they had won the coin toss and started around the 20/25.
it a lot of the times helps when you don't win the coin toss, people never realize that. in lower scoring games i always see the team win the coin toss, go no where and give it to the other team at around the 40/45 with only a couple first downs to go to put them in FG range instead of around 5 first downs if they had won the coin toss and started around the 20/25.
So what happens if a defensive oriented team losses the coin toss, kicks off, the other team gets the ball at the 20...
The defensive oriented team stops the other teams offense 3 and out, gets the catches the punt at their own 40 yard line.... They would then be 3 first downs away from winning.
Football is about offense, defense and special teams. If you can't win the game in regulation, don't bitch that your defense/special teams couldn't hold the other team.
from a betting standpoint i cant stand ncaa OT rules. it really fucks you sometimes if you have a dog, and you can lose even if they are +7.5. in nfl as long as you have the 3 you're typically safe. it also fucks totals up. an under could look great all game, 10-10 going into OT with a 43 total, and all it takes is teams to trade off a couple of scores and now we're 20-20 going into 3rd OT and I've lost my under bet that was clearly the right call. nothing worse than that.
Redskins#1-
The only idea that I thought mildy sounded nice from the people that think like you, is having overtime the way we have it now, but that that the first team to score 4 points wins.
If I kick a FG
you kick a FG
then I kick a FG then tough luck, you could have adapted your strategy.
The only idea that I thought mildy sounded nice from the people that think like you, is having overtime the way we have it now, but that that the first team to score 4 points wins.
If I kick a FG
you kick a FG
then I kick a FG then tough luck, you could have adapted your strategy.
When you say let the game be decided by players... do you mean offensive players?
Because correct me if I am wrong, but the Saints had a chance to stop Kyle Orton in regulation, and then a couple minutes later they had a chance to stop Kyle Orton in overtime... now do you think they really deserve to win after that?
They deserve to let Drew Brees run on the field?
Redskins#1- What you need to understand, is that the NFL wants a quick and "FAIR" resolution to a tie at the end of regulation. They don't want Donovan + Ryan Fitzpatrick 3 and out punting over and over and over again...
they don't want FG rebuttal, FG, rebuttal
They don't want 1 score in OT, and then all this ball control offense....
The way they have it now is fair, unless you have an over + offensive fetish.
