Right, they BOTH had 60 minutes to win the game. So why should one team have a certain advantage by a coin toss? Man up and play D? That's not much of an argument. the O did their job by scoring so why shouldn't the other teams O have the same opportunity? With that said, why doesn't baseball allow for the 1st run in extra innings to win the game? Tha't because each team should have the same opportunity to win. Sudden death does not allow for that until each team has the ball.
if they decided not to count the stats, I suppose it gives teams more time to pad a stat, then so be it. At least it allows for a true winnerig both teams have a possession.
regardless of the %s involved, each team should have the same opportunity with the ball. suppose the Fins were playing in the SB and went into OT and lost. Doesn't matter if they lost by a FG or a TD if they didn't have at least one possession to even it back up again. The team winning the toss is just like the visiting team in baseball. If they score, the home team still has a chance to at least tie it back up. Baseball's results always produce a true winner.
I'd think teams are more concerned with winning than they are stats, which is why I don't think it would be an issue.
Well you should buy it....a coin toss (ie possession) is the most arbitrary ending to a well played back and forth tie ever invented. Its not hard to keep it simple and uncomplicated but fair to both teams at the same time.... Simple Steps: 1) Coin Toss - kick or receive (Onside kick recovery would only change who possessed ball first but not be viewed as both possessing it, etc) 2) Team possesses the ball via KO.....any turnover once team receives the ball equates to other team now possessing it (whether turnover occurred on kickoff or any play from scrimmage). 3) If Team scores prior to any turnover, that allows other team 1 chance to possess the ball for their own and attempt score to end game to tie it back up. (no onside kick allowed - since team must be afforded a possession) 4) A FG can be answered by FG, or a TD with a TD (onside kicks would then be fair game again) and game continues until next score to produce points advantage. Or a winning TD cant be attempted in comparison to other team settling for FG thus producing more points from similar possessions. 5) If both teams have possessed and scored or failed to score then next score wins (or 2pt conversion, etc) Its far better than college system of 40yd line, 30yd line, or 25yd line and forced 2pt conversions, etc. College rules for OT are Not necessary or conducive at NFL level.
It may make overtime more entertaining, but something tells me the 4th quarter will become " Play for the Tie. " Not a fan of this rule.
BD, I like what you're saying but this might be more complicated than it needs to be. However, any kind of score wins, as long as the other team had a possession. Also, if the kicking team does an onsides and recovers it, that it a turnover, thus taking possession away from the other team. It's no different than the return guy fumbling it away on the 20, say. the receiving team has their shot at possession and if they lose it by the onsides, then it sucks being them.
Being that a kickoff is "live" regardless if the intended receiving team touches it...I view it very differently than a punt that must be touched by receiving team member before any expected possession can change. But as long as both sides earn a possession I am fine...so really the onside was just a scenario I pointed out, but not concerned if it wasnt as detailed as I suggested.
the onsides is a bit nitpicky but if it went that way, I would be OK with it. But an onsides to start OT would be even more rare than the Saints to start the 2nd half!!!
