Leonard Washington Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 It seems like the media and players really don't like overtime that much. Players don't like b/c they are tired and playing longer increases the chances of getting hurt. The media doesn't like it b/c they have deadlines, have planes to catch, or don't really care much about the game. What do you FANS think about overtime in the regular season and playoffs? POLL TIME!!!!!! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupidsuck Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 well it definetly beats going home with a tie. (That stupid tie we had with the Giants years back just felt like a waste of time) I just think they need to adopt something like the college style of OT, I don't like the sudden death thing that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manichispanic Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 more drama = a better game although I would like to see College and NFL adopt the same overtime rules, either the each a chance to score or sudden death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underwater Ally Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 POLL TIME!!!!!! :laugh: Ramsey!!! Oh wait, wrong thread... :doh1: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebornempowered Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 OT in the NFL needs to be changed but I doubt they will ever pull their heads out and do anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwpanic Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 nfl overtime is perfect as it is. why should both teams get the ball? either your offense is good enough to score or your defense is good enough to stop somebody. if they're not, you deserve to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rydemps Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 I like overtime, but I always thought the sudden death part of it could be better. I think the winner should be the first to 6 points -- if you score a touchdown then you should win, but not kicking a 40 yard field goal. Two field goals while holding the other team to nothing is much more deserving of a win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Prime Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 I think OT should be held like a scrimmage.. So many plays to score, both teams gets the same ammount of plays. It's fair. Short and isn't sudden death. Which seem to be the complaint a lot of people have on OT, sudden death isn't fair. Which I don't agree with btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkowi Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Overtime should be either another full quarter OR the college style. The current system is decided by the coin toss and is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrapeApe Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 I like it the way it is. If you are on defense, then stop them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwebst1 Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 I wouldn't mind each team getting the ball at their 20 for one possession. If it's still tied after each teams possession, then you flip a coin for a sudden death OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Let me start by saying College OT is the biggest showcase of idiocy available in sports. Even the soccer shootout doesn't come until after a real period of OT has been played. College football takes you right into the redzone and thus removes so many of the elements of real football from the game. No field position, no advantage given to teams with better special teams unless one has a piss poor field goal kicker. All in all it's a perversion of the game the ruins it completely. The problem with the NFL system is less severe. Sudden death isn't such a great idea for a first period of OT. 6 minutes of game clock would be better IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsdude Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Both offenses should get the ball in OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrepDC Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 As a player overtime sucks! I once played in a high school game that had SIX freakin' overtimes. Players started to drop like flies. The chance of injures really rises. I was sore for a LONG time because I was playing off. and def. Ever since that I hate overtime. I understand why players don't like it, OVERTIME SUCKS!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig11 Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 The college Ot is so much more exciting to watch. The National Championship game in '03 Ohio St vs Miami was one of the best football games I have ever seen, period. Th's because of the OT system they have. In the NFL the first team to get into field goal range wins, that is so boring. The only reason they do that is to keep the networks happy so the game doesn't go longer than they want it to.:point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidenreich Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 The correct response was already posted by a couple of people. If you can't stop your opponent, you deserve to lose, plain & simple. Last week, the Steelers tied their game with a minute left, and New England drove down & scored to win the game at the gun. Should Pittsburgh get another chance to tie? That might sound asenine, but that's the overtime argument in a nutshell. Overtime was never a problem until a couple of years ago. Some media tool said that overtime games are decided by "coin flips", and enough people bought into that thought that the theory took off. You didn't lose the game because you called heads instead of tails (especially since everyone knows tails never fails). You lost the game because your defense couldn't stop the other team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Prime Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 The correct response was already posted by a couple of people. If you can't stop your opponent, you deserve to lose, plain & simple. Who are you to judge what is correct and incorrect? Not saying I disagree with you, but you are far to presumptuous and presume to speak for the football community in it's entirety.. It's correct for you. That doesn't make it correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
great28 Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 I have spoke on this before in the past. My stance on the situation remains the same. I absolutely despise the way the NFL conducts it's overtime. I feel that both teams should have the opportunity to go on offense. For instance if you have two teams that are strong offensively, and weak defensively, one of those teams are going to get the shaft because the posibilty of the opposing team's defense getting scored on is high. Overtime, if you think about it, is designed for good defenses. The reason why teams go into overtime in the first place is one of three reasons. 1) Both teams have a strong offense. 2)Both teams have a strong defense, or 3) Both teams match up well on both sides of the ball. Now in order for both teams to get possesion of the ball, the team on defense must hold. If the defense does not hold they lose the game, while never having the opportunity to go on offense. This is the part I hate the most because if my offense is the strength of my team, I'm going to want them on the field at least once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveStrongSkins Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 I believe the team that scores first should kick off to give the team a chance to match the score. I dont like the fact that a coin can determine the outcome of the game. You really only need a few intermediate gains to kick a field goal after a average kick return. Also by allowing the other team to get the ball you are incorporating all 3 units of a team on both sides. It allows each teams strengths to help decide the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurman Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Move OT kickoffs to the 50. Some teams may _want_ to kick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveStrongSkins Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 The correct response was already posted by a couple of people. If you can't stop your opponent, you deserve to lose, plain & simple. Last week, the Steelers tied their game with a minute left, and New England drove down & scored to win the game at the gun. Should Pittsburgh get another chance to tie? That might sound asenine, but that's the overtime argument in a nutshell. Overtime was never a problem until a couple of years ago. Some media tool said that overtime games are decided by "coin flips", and enough people bought into that thought that the theory took off. You didn't lose the game because you called heads instead of tails (especially since everyone knows tails never fails). You lost the game because your defense couldn't stop the other team. My stance is the other team worked just as hard to get to overtime, so it should be even. If you cant stop your opponent then right, you should lose. But the other team should be forced to stop the opponent as well. All phases of the game should be incorporated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted September 30, 2005 Author Share Posted September 30, 2005 i don't think its fair that both offenses don't get a chance to score. its a let down when a team comes roaring back to force overtime and then lose when the other team gets the ball first. i think the college format is too easy for the pros and puts the defense at a disadvantage. i think an extra quarter would be perfect for the playoffs because there aren't as many scheduling conflicts (the other game is on a different channel), players wouldn't mind risking injury in that situation, and networks would LOVE the ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
great28 Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 My stance is the other team worked just as hard to get to overtime, so it should be even. If you cant stop your opponent then right, you should lose. But the other team should be forced to stop the opponent as well. All phases of the game should be incorporated. Great minds think alike :chestram: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Pepper Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 I like overtime, but I always thought the sudden death part of it could be better. I think the winner should be the first to 6 points -- if you score a touchdown then you should win, but not kicking a 40 yard field goal. Two field goals while holding the other team to nothing is much more deserving of a win. I agree 100% with you, rydemps. Field goals should be eliminated all together in overtime, it would give both teams an even chance, instead of who's lucky enough to get the call on the coin toss. You only need a semi good kick return and a couple first downs and your in field goal range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Both offenses should get the ball in OT. I completely agree. Play it like it is now with the only stipulation that both teams have at least one offensive possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.