Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

0 (0%)

No

1 (100%)

Total Members Voted: 1

Voting closed: October 22, 2020, 02:04:36 PM

[CaptainCargo]

Interception called back, Edelman touched the kick, fix in.
Sad.

Pitchers and catchers report in just a few weeks.

Notoriously Fixed League.

I don't think he touched it but I can't be sure.

Seems like it would have been one of those 'the play stands' type of ruling because one couldn't be absolutely sure. But that's the way the ball bounces sometimes.

They had one angle which clearly showed the left hand did not touch it.

They had another angle which clearly showed the right hand did not touch it.

They have the ability to run those side by side in time step.

I don't understand why there is any doubt.

Well apparently they could be sure. ;-)

[CaptainCargo]

I've been reflecting on my reaction to the "touchdown wins" rule.

It is very true that the Patriots have now twice used that rule to their advantage in the playoffs (plus once when it was just a field goal needed).

But in the game right before the team that had the ball first in the overtime lost, rather than winning.

It's not the coin flip that determined the winner, but the play of the teams after the coin flip, for all the the coin flip provides an advantage.

It's not a huge advantage. Contrary to the 55% figure usually cited, it's actually a hair below 52% --> 45/87. 42.5% of the time they lose.

But giving both sides a chance at the ball doesn't actually seem to make things even, again! It merely changes the result to be tilted toward the second team to get the ball, based on college stats.

I kind of like one of the proposals from the Quanbeck brothers, roughly equivalent to "I get to cut the cake, but you get first choice of which piece to take." One team would choose the field position to open overtime, while the other team chooses whether to play offense or defense from that spot.

So... of those 87 overtime games, how many were determined on a touchdown on the first sequence, anyway?

I understand your position.

I would rather both sides get to have an offensive series. Just seems the American way to me.

Personally I like the way the NCAA handles their OTs. I would rather they start on their own 45 though and earn that FG attempt. 

[josh]

Interception called back, Edelman touched the kick, fix in.
Sad.

Pitchers and catchers report in just a few weeks.

Notoriously Fixed League.

I don't think he touched it but I can't be sure.

Seems like it would have been one of those 'the play stands' type of ruling because one couldn't be absolutely sure. But that's the way the ball bounces sometimes.

They had one angle which clearly showed the left hand did not touch it.

They had another angle which clearly showed the right hand did not touch it.

They have the ability to run those side by side in time step.

I don't understand why there is any doubt.

Trolling Pats fans.

The rules maven on the show made the same "can't be sure" claim during the game and I was befuddled at the time.

[josh]

I've been reflecting on my reaction to the "touchdown wins" rule.

It is very true that the Patriots have now twice used that rule to their advantage in the playoffs (plus once when it was just a field goal needed).

But in the game right before the team that had the ball first in the overtime lost, rather than winning.

It's not the coin flip that determined the winner, but the play of the teams after the coin flip, for all the the coin flip provides an advantage.

It's not a huge advantage. Contrary to the 55% figure usually cited, it's actually a hair below 52% --> 45/87. 42.5% of the time they lose.

But giving both sides a chance at the ball doesn't actually seem to make things even, again! It merely changes the result to be tilted toward the second team to get the ball, based on college stats.

I kind of like one of the proposals from the Quanbeck brothers, roughly equivalent to "I get to cut the cake, but you get first choice of which piece to take." One team would choose the field position to open overtime, while the other team chooses whether to play offense or defense from that spot.

So... of those 87 overtime games, how many were determined on a touchdown on the first sequence, anyway?

I understand your position.

I would rather both sides get to have an offensive series. Just seems the American way to me.

Personally I like the way the NCAA handles their OTs. I would rather they start on their own 45 though and earn that FG attempt.

NCAA is where the proportion tilts to the 2nd possession - the team on defense first - wins as disproportionately as the first possesion touchdown wins in the NFL. And their sample size is huge, by comparison - over 500 games, I think.

What have you gained?

[josh]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/21/chiefs-mahomes-didnt-deserve-the-ball-he-deserved-a-better-defense/

[CaptainCargo]

I've been reflecting on my reaction to the "touchdown wins" rule.

It is very true that the Patriots have now twice used that rule to their advantage in the playoffs (plus once when it was just a field goal needed).

But in the game right before the team that had the ball first in the overtime lost, rather than winning.

It's not the coin flip that determined the winner, but the play of the teams after the coin flip, for all the the coin flip provides an advantage.

It's not a huge advantage. Contrary to the 55% figure usually cited, it's actually a hair below 52% --> 45/87. 42.5% of the time they lose.

But giving both sides a chance at the ball doesn't actually seem to make things even, again! It merely changes the result to be tilted toward the second team to get the ball, based on college stats.

I kind of like one of the proposals from the Quanbeck brothers, roughly equivalent to "I get to cut the cake, but you get first choice of which piece to take." One team would choose the field position to open overtime, while the other team chooses whether to play offense or defense from that spot.

So... of those 87 overtime games, how many were determined on a touchdown on the first sequence, anyway?

I understand your position.

I would rather both sides get to have an offensive series. Just seems the American way to me.

Personally I like the way the NCAA handles their OTs. I would rather they start on their own 45 though and earn that FG attempt.

NCAA is where the proportion tilts to the 2nd possession - the team on defense first - wins as disproportionately as the first possesion touchdown wins in the NFL. And their sample size is huge, by comparison - over 500 games, I think.

What have you gained?

Fairness?

I mean think about what you just said. To summarize it tilts to the second team. Well, that is because they got a shot. If you get the logic here.

[josh]

I've been reflecting on my reaction to the "touchdown wins" rule.

It is very true that the Patriots have now twice used that rule to their advantage in the playoffs (plus once when it was just a field goal needed).

But in the game right before the team that had the ball first in the overtime lost, rather than winning.

It's not the coin flip that determined the winner, but the play of the teams after the coin flip, for all the the coin flip provides an advantage.

It's not a huge advantage. Contrary to the 55% figure usually cited, it's actually a hair below 52% --> 45/87. 42.5% of the time they lose.

But giving both sides a chance at the ball doesn't actually seem to make things even, again! It merely changes the result to be tilted toward the second team to get the ball, based on college stats.

I kind of like one of the proposals from the Quanbeck brothers, roughly equivalent to "I get to cut the cake, but you get first choice of which piece to take." One team would choose the field position to open overtime, while the other team chooses whether to play offense or defense from that spot.

So... of those 87 overtime games, how many were determined on a touchdown on the first sequence, anyway?

I understand your position.

I would rather both sides get to have an offensive series. Just seems the American way to me.

Personally I like the way the NCAA handles their OTs. I would rather they start on their own 45 though and earn that FG attempt.

NCAA is where the proportion tilts to the 2nd possession - the team on defense first - wins as disproportionately as the first possesion touchdown wins in the NFL. And their sample size is huge, by comparison - over 500 games, I think.

What have you gained?

Fairness?

But it's not any more fair. It just changes which team has the balance tilted in their favor.

The first team's possession determines what the second team's goals minimum goal must be.

1st = 0
2nd needs anything

1st = 3
2nd needs 7 to win, but can settle for 3.

1st = 6 or 7,
2nd needs a TD.

That's why the imbalance in college is so worth noting. Fairness is not achieved:


(2008-2013, a mere 156 overtime games)

It looks, however, as if there may be a bigger factor: when did the last team to score score during regulation.

If they scored less than two minutes before the end of regulation, there was no appreciable difference. If they scored more than two minutes before, they won 56% of the time.

But wait! There's more...

If they scored less than 30 seconds before the end of regulation, they lost 59% of the time!

If they scored more than 30 seconds before the end of regulation, they won 58% of the time.

That sounds like a far bigger factor than who got the ball first, but I would love to see that broken down further. And I am curious how it extends to the NFL, not just the NCAA.

[josh]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2816858-nfl-rumors-league-to-discuss-making-pass-interference-reviewable-at-length?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

[CaptainCargo]

I've been reflecting on my reaction to the "touchdown wins" rule.

It is very true that the Patriots have now twice used that rule to their advantage in the playoffs (plus once when it was just a field goal needed).

But in the game right before the team that had the ball first in the overtime lost, rather than winning.

It's not the coin flip that determined the winner, but the play of the teams after the coin flip, for all the the coin flip provides an advantage.

It's not a huge advantage. Contrary to the 55% figure usually cited, it's actually a hair below 52% --> 45/87. 42.5% of the time they lose.

But giving both sides a chance at the ball doesn't actually seem to make things even, again! It merely changes the result to be tilted toward the second team to get the ball, based on college stats.

I kind of like one of the proposals from the Quanbeck brothers, roughly equivalent to "I get to cut the cake, but you get first choice of which piece to take." One team would choose the field position to open overtime, while the other team chooses whether to play offense or defense from that spot.

So... of those 87 overtime games, how many were determined on a touchdown on the first sequence, anyway?

I understand your position.

I would rather both sides get to have an offensive series. Just seems the American way to me.

Personally I like the way the NCAA handles their OTs. I would rather they start on their own 45 though and earn that FG attempt.

NCAA is where the proportion tilts to the 2nd possession - the team on defense first - wins as disproportionately as the first possesion touchdown wins in the NFL. And their sample size is huge, by comparison - over 500 games, I think.

What have you gained?

Fairness?

But it's not any more fair. It just changes which team has the balance tilted in their favor.

The first team's possession determines what the second team's goals minimum goal must be.

1st = 0
2nd needs anything

1st = 3
2nd needs 7 to win, but can settle for 3.

1st = 6 or 7,
2nd needs a TD.

That's why the imbalance in college is so worth noting. Fairness is not achieved:


(2008-2013, a mere 156 overtime games)

It looks, however, as if there may be a bigger factor: when did the last team to score score during regulation.

If they scored less than two minutes before the end of regulation, there was no appreciable difference. If they scored more than two minutes before, they won 56% of the time.

But wait! There's more...

If they scored less than 30 seconds before the end of regulation, they lost 59% of the time!

If they scored more than 30 seconds before the end of regulation, they won 58% of the time.

That sounds like a far bigger factor than who got the ball first, but I would love to see that broken down further. And I am curious how it extends to the NFL, not just the NCAA.

Nice stats. And I mean that good stuff, kudos on the research.

Once again, in the score a touchdown first system the second team never has a chance to put up stats. It goes to reason if they did the stats would be different. As to the College rules the Pro's don't necessarily have to follow the college model.

And the college rule flaw could easily be fixed. For instance no FG's allowed. Score a TD or nothing. Start in the Red Zone and have at it.

[josh]

I've been reflecting on my reaction to the "touchdown wins" rule.

It is very true that the Patriots have now twice used that rule to their advantage in the playoffs (plus once when it was just a field goal needed).

But in the game right before the team that had the ball first in the overtime lost, rather than winning.

It's not the coin flip that determined the winner, but the play of the teams after the coin flip, for all the the coin flip provides an advantage.

It's not a huge advantage. Contrary to the 55% figure usually cited, it's actually a hair below 52% --> 45/87. 42.5% of the time they lose.

But giving both sides a chance at the ball doesn't actually seem to make things even, again! It merely changes the result to be tilted toward the second team to get the ball, based on college stats.

I kind of like one of the proposals from the Quanbeck brothers, roughly equivalent to "I get to cut the cake, but you get first choice of which piece to take." One team would choose the field position to open overtime, while the other team chooses whether to play offense or defense from that spot.

So... of those 87 overtime games, how many were determined on a touchdown on the first sequence, anyway?

I understand your position.

I would rather both sides get to have an offensive series. Just seems the American way to me.

Personally I like the way the NCAA handles their OTs. I would rather they start on their own 45 though and earn that FG attempt.

NCAA is where the proportion tilts to the 2nd possession - the team on defense first - wins as disproportionately as the first possesion touchdown wins in the NFL. And their sample size is huge, by comparison - over 500 games, I think.

What have you gained?

Fairness?

But it's not any more fair. It just changes which team has the balance tilted in their favor.

The first team's possession determines what the second team's goals minimum goal must be.

1st = 0
2nd needs anything

1st = 3
2nd needs 7 to win, but can settle for 3.

1st = 6 or 7,
2nd needs a TD.

That's why the imbalance in college is so worth noting. Fairness is not achieved:


(2008-2013, a mere 156 overtime games)

It looks, however, as if there may be a bigger factor: when did the last team to score score during regulation.

If they scored less than two minutes before the end of regulation, there was no appreciable difference. If they scored more than two minutes before, they won 56% of the time.

But wait! There's more...

If they scored less than 30 seconds before the end of regulation, they lost 59% of the time!

If they scored more than 30 seconds before the end of regulation, they won 58% of the time.

That sounds like a far bigger factor than who got the ball first, but I would love to see that broken down further. And I am curious how it extends to the NFL, not just the NCAA.

Nice stats. And I mean that good stuff, kudos on the research.

Once again, in the score a touchdown first system the second team never has a chance to put up stats. It goes to reason if they did the stats would be different. As to the College rules the Pro's don't necessarily have to follow the college model.

And the college rule flaw could easily be fixed. For instance no FG's allowed. Score a TD or nothing. Start in the Red Zone and have at it.

The "no field goals" approach is discussed a fair amount. It has some clear advantages in this day of dominant offenses. In the past, it would have meant more multi-overtime playoffs, I suspect, and more ties in the regular season, not that I object to those as much as some seem to.

As noted, I kind of like the "you choose the field position the ball starts from, I choose whether to play offense or defense from it" notion.

[bankshot1]

Fair or perfectly fair?

In play-off only, play an additional 15 minute qtr, then revert to calling the other quarters, fifths, and then go drink.


All OT 15 minutes are played to the whistle, winner wins, if its a tie, then flip a coin, and play sudden death.

and keep drinking.

or keep it the way it is, and if a team's D can't prevent a TD, thems the breaks.

[bankshot1]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/patriots/2019/01/21/did-fan-arrowhead-stadium-point-laser-tom-brady/9JJp7P83vUkd0jWdkDOT0I/story.html

Lasergate?

...that a fan at Arrowhead Stadium appeared to flash a laser on the Patriots quarterback on two occasions in the AFC Championship game, caught on camera by KMBC-TV in Kansas City, Mo.

[CaptainCargo]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/patriots/2019/01/21/did-fan-arrowhead-stadium-point-laser-tom-brady/9JJp7P83vUkd0jWdkDOT0I/story.html

Lasergate?

...that a fan at Arrowhead Stadium appeared to flash a laser on the Patriots quarterback on two occasions in the AFC Championship game, caught on camera by KMBC-TV in Kansas City, Mo.

You have to be a special kind of total loser to want your team to win so bad that you'd do that.

[bodiddley]

As noted, I kind of like the "you choose the field position the ball starts from, I choose whether to play offense or defense from it" notion.

Too gimmicky for me.
That'd be fine in your backyard, but for the pros ...?

[bankshot1]

it kind of reminded me of "Name that tune" a TV show WBW.