[Chron]NFL passes revamped overtime rules for playoff games

Interestingly, the Vikings voted against it.

 

That makes going for an onside a no brainer if you're the kicking team in overtime.

 

I'd still be in favor of actual sudden death. Now THAT would be an incentive to try and win the game.

 

Not unless you have a shutdown D or an offense that will you get you points for sure.

 

I don't know about you guys. But you play to win the game.

 

Unless you have absolutely garbage for a defense, it is a no brainer.

There almost is no drawback.

If you get the OSK, all you have to do is go 30 yards or so and kick a FG to win.

While if you miss the OSK, your opponent has to go 40+ yards and and get a TD to win.

No brainer.

 

I don't like the new OT rules. Call me old fashioned but I have no problem with the first team that scores in OT winning the game.

If they had to make changes I would rather have seen the kickoff moved up.

If the NFL is so concerned about kicker's accuracy then they should move the goal posts closer together or raise the cross bar from 10 feet to maybe 12 feet.

I can see why Bob McNair voted yes for the OT rule change. The Texans are 0-6 all-time in OT games. Maybe he thinks the new way will change their luck.

 

Why? In the 90% of the time you don't get it, you have to hold them to a FG (now they only have to go 40 yds for a TD) to even have a chance to extend the game. If you kickoff normally, they have to go 40 yds for just the FG. If you hold them to anything less than that, you get the ball with a chance to win with the FG.

Only 10% of the time are you better off by going for the on-side kick.

 

So, if you OSK, then 10% of the time, you need 30 yards to win, and 90% of the time, your opponent needs 40 yards for the win (and 5 yards for the FG, which puts you in a must-score position).

It definitely is a no-brainer... to not onside kick.

 

Where are you guys getting 10% from?

The league average is around 25%.

 

That's for all onside kicks, I believe. Expected onside kicks are much lower. I'm not sure the latest stats, but last I saw, it was somewhere around 10%. According to Wiki:


Onside kicks are generally very risky and are not often successful. Overall, between 2003 and 2006, an onside kick in the NFL was successful about 20% of the time (41 times out of 206 attempts), though there is a wide discrepancy between surprise kicks and those that the hands team expects. Among anticipated onside kicks, between the 2005 and 2006 seasons, the onside kick was 10-for-86, less than 12%.[3] This was before the league's rules changed to eliminate stacked formations, so that number has likely gone down even further. Surprise onside kicks, however, have had more success; in 2006, more than half of the surprise onside kicks were successful.[3]

But even at 25%, you're talking about getting a 25% chance of winning by going 30 yards, while giving the opponent a 75% of chance of winning by going 40 yards (not to mention also giving them the free FG).

 

I think it's important to note that it gets increasingly difficult to score a touchdown as the field shortens, while the chances of making a field goal don't drop off nearly as quickly as the field lengthens.

I think it all comes down to 1) your defense and 2) their redzone offense.

And nobody said you had to kick the onside in an obvious manner either, stacked field to one side, etc.

But hey, I'm a gambling man... if the game is on the line, I want the damn ball in my hands... not the other team. I still think it is crap the game is over on a touchdown, even without equal possessions.

 

One of the teams that voted against were the Minnesota Vikings.

 

Vikings voted against it due to the fact that they didn't want to feel screwed over by last year and give other people the go ahead on new rules for this year when they got screwed by the same rules last year.

 

Doesn't change the fact that the rules were changed after what happened to Favre in the NFC Title game.

 

What? Why?

If you aren't going to end it on a touchdown, how are you going to end it? If both score a touchdown THEN it would go to sudden death? Why would it more fair to let one team have two possessions and one only one then 2-1? There has to be some way to end the game. Touchdown is the most logical way.

 

College rules.

 

College overtime is entertaining, but its hardly football.

 

So not really football then. Why don't we just get rid of special teams and defenses all together and have QBs just have a shootout?

 

Seems like football to me.

Plus, its about as fair as fair can be.

What is not "football" about it?

The only thing that isn't involved is the kick off.

*edit

Seems like it is a nice compromise between "sudden death" and "penalty kicks" style of overtime. Almost all elements of the game are still involved, and both teams get their fair chance. I don't see anything wrong with it. Plus, as you said, its probably the most exciting football you'll ever see.