OT in the NFL
This may sound like sour grapes, but I swear I believed this before Sunday:
The NFL overtime system is crap.
Here's the problem: when teams only have to play for a field goal, it changes the way the game works. The game is essentially won 0n the coin flip; the first team with the ball wins most overtime games. Because teams only need a field goal, they play differently, and defenses must play differently, too. Worst, though, is the anticlimax of a hard-fought game ending on a 32-yard field goal kicked on third down. It's an injustice to the sport.
The college system, in which teams take turns from the opponent's 25, is better but not good enough. Kick offs and kick returns are too important (as the Steelers loss shows).
Here's my suggestion: if the team that wins the coinflip scores a touchdown, the game is over. If, though, the first team kicks a field goal, the other team gets the ball and the opportunity to score a game-winning touchdown. So a team with the ball on the edge of the red zone has a choice to make: 3 points and play defense? Or go for the TD? Much more exciting.
I know the arguments in favor of the current system: "Don't the defense get paid, too?" said Shannon Sharpe after the Steelers' loss Sunday. And, certainly, a timely stop would have put Pittsburgh in a position to win. But the problem is that, in the current system, the overtime ends just as it's beginning. Overtime isn't treated by teams like an extra quarter of play; it's treated like a one-minute drill without the time-outs.
Think if baseball did the equivalent: if a team scores in the top of the 10th, the game is over. The home team is out of luck. Bad idea, isn't it?
Then why do the same thing in football?
The NFL overtime system is crap.
Here's the problem: when teams only have to play for a field goal, it changes the way the game works. The game is essentially won 0n the coin flip; the first team with the ball wins most overtime games. Because teams only need a field goal, they play differently, and defenses must play differently, too. Worst, though, is the anticlimax of a hard-fought game ending on a 32-yard field goal kicked on third down. It's an injustice to the sport.
The college system, in which teams take turns from the opponent's 25, is better but not good enough. Kick offs and kick returns are too important (as the Steelers loss shows).
Here's my suggestion: if the team that wins the coinflip scores a touchdown, the game is over. If, though, the first team kicks a field goal, the other team gets the ball and the opportunity to score a game-winning touchdown. So a team with the ball on the edge of the red zone has a choice to make: 3 points and play defense? Or go for the TD? Much more exciting.
I know the arguments in favor of the current system: "Don't the defense get paid, too?" said Shannon Sharpe after the Steelers' loss Sunday. And, certainly, a timely stop would have put Pittsburgh in a position to win. But the problem is that, in the current system, the overtime ends just as it's beginning. Overtime isn't treated by teams like an extra quarter of play; it's treated like a one-minute drill without the time-outs.
Think if baseball did the equivalent: if a team scores in the top of the 10th, the game is over. The home team is out of luck. Bad idea, isn't it?
Then why do the same thing in football?
posted by Shane at 11:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home