Correcting Bill Simmons, Part 6: Bill’s not-so-great NFL overtime idea
In his retro-diary of the second half of Super Bowl XLIV, Bill Simmons explains his seemingly infallible NFL overtime idea.
9:25: Two straight first-down throws. Suddenly we’re on the Saints’ 36. I remember thinking, “Great, they’ll tie it, then whichever teams wins the coin toss will march down and score, and we’ll have to hear about how to fix overtime for the next nine months. Shoot me.”
(FYI: I know how to fix it. Win the toss and score a touchdown, game over. Make a field goal on the opening drive and the opponent gets one possession of its own. From there, sudden death rules. Find a hole in that idea. You can’t.)
Um, yes I can. Doesn’t his idea have the same problem as current system? The team that wins the toss still has the advantage. If Team A drives down and kicks a field goal, and Team B kicks its own field goal to tie the game, and now the game is decided by sudden death, doesn’t the team that gets the ball first (Team A) still have the advantage?
Sure, if Team A kicks a field goal, Team B has an opportunity to win the game with a touchdown, but they still are at a disadvantage if the game is tied after each team gets a possession. This isn’t fair, seeing as both teams were equally effective on their first overtime drive.
I like the blind bid idea. On a note card, each coach writes down the yard line at which he’s willing to take the ball, and whichever team that is willing to take the ball closest to its own goal line gets possession. Each team has an equal opportunity at possession and there is strategy involved. Do you have more faith in your offense or your defense? Would you rather take possession at your own 15-yard line or give the ball to to the other team at the 18-yard line?
It’s fair and fun.
Follow the Scores Report editors on Twitter @clevelandteams and @bullzeyedotcom.
blind bid idea? this is the nfl not the price is right, i kind of like the first to six idea but ultimately, i think the current system is fine.
Open your mind, man. Blind bidding is the fairest way to do this and it would take seconds to complete.
I think the current system is fine, too. But if it were up to me to change it, I’d just put an extra 4 or 5 minutes on the clock.
I don’t think the blind bid system would continue to be intriguing very long if it were really used in the NFL. At first, coaches would try to outguess each other and there would be big deltas in each coach’s bid. But at some point, it’ll become about luck because one coach will say, “I’ll take it at the 8 yard line” and the other coach will say “I’ll take it at the 6”. Now, the coach who bid 6 will get the ball, but is that really materially worse than having the ball on the 8? It’ll just turn into a game of luck. Just like the coin toss.
And, of course, after coaches got sick of getting outbid by 2 yards, 5 yards, or whatever, every coach would eventually end up bidding 1 yard.
Unsurprisingly, I completely disagree. At some point, it becomes a huge disadvantage to take the ball that close to your own goal line, and that’s what would make a blind bidding system work.
How does putting extra time on the clock help the current system? You still have the problem of possession being decided by pure luck.
Yeah, I guess that’s true (about putting extra time on the clock). But as long as it’s not sudden death and there’s time for at least 2 possessions, I think it would be an improvement over the current system, however small.
And about bidding, I guess you have to figure it like this:
Value of possession at the 1 yard line > Likelihood you’ll lose the bid * Value of possession at the N yard line
I really don’t think a coach is going to blink an eye at that proposal. All he has to do is get into position to kick a field goal. I’d take it at the 1 yard line too because even if I didn’t score on that drive, I could still punt it and that would put me in an *almost equivalent position* to the one I would have been in if I lost the bid.
I think you’re overestimating the value of the possession at the 1 yard line. There are so many ways to lose the game if you take the ball inside your own 5. Fumble the snap and you could lose the game, get sacked in the endzone and you lose the game, get a holding call in the endzone and you lose the game.
Look at the Saints — they went for it on fourth down because they knew they were probably going to stop the Colts on a three-and-out because teams have to play so conservative inside their own 5. They forced the punt and got a field goal before halftime.
It’s not just that offenses have to play conservative inside their own 5, it’s that they’re a good 65 yards away from a long field goal attempt. Those kinds of drives aren’t guaranteed. And if they go three and out, or even if they get one first down to give their punter room to punt, they’re going to give the ball to the other team near midfield, and they’ll only need 15-20 yards for a FG attempt, and that’s w/o a return.
Yeah, you make some good points. But I still see the actual bidding game finding an equilibrium at a certain bid, like the 7 yard line, or whatever we end up discovering the threshold to be.
I think you have to have a situation in overtime where both teams get possession of the ball at least once. If the average possession is 2.5 minutes, stick 5 or 6 minutes on the clock and let good coaches manage it. (Watch Andy Reid suffer.)
Your equilibrium theory holds water, but only in a vacuum. With different matchups each week with varying levels of offense going against varying levels of defense, the bids are going to change. Say you’re coaching the best defense in the league and have a sketchy offense. Wouldn’t you be willing to give the ball to the other team at the 15 or the 18 figuring that your defense will be able to get the stop and give your offense superior field position? If you’re coaching against a team with a terrible offense, wouldn’t you be willing to give them the ball at the 18 instead of taking it at your own 12?
You also have a wide variety of coaches; some will study this to death and have a system, while others will go on “feel” based on what has gone on with the game (or what he thinks the other coach will do). All of these factors will impact the bids so I don’t think they would be that consistent game to game.
Unfortunately, we’ll never know.
No matter how much time you add to OT (or however long you make it), an OT system that ends in sudden death isn’t fair if first possession is decided by a coin flip. Even if it’s set up so that both teams get a possession, the team that got first possession in OT still has the first chance to win in OT if both teams perform the same (i.e. kick a field goal), and that’s not fair.
“Blind bidding”? What is this, the XFL? There is NOT a hole in the “first to 6 points” idea, because your idea of what’s “fair” is cockeyed. “What if both teams score field goals?” you whine. Well the point is that BOTH TEAMS WILL HAVE HAD THE BALL ONCE by that point, which is what the NFL is looking to ensure. And I’m sorry, but how is a team “still at a disadvantage” if both teams kick a FG in their first possession? What do you want to do, give BOTH teams the ball first?
Looks like they’re throwing around the idea of a system like the one BS talks about:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4953182
No, Joe. I want blind bidding. That way both teams have an equal shot at possession. In the “first to 6” idea the team that gets the ball first still has the advantage. By the way, writing your flawed points in ALL CAPS doesn’t make them any more correct.
Thanks for the link, Doctor. While it would be an improvement over the current system, it’s still flawed.
Interesting premise with the blind bid system. However, what you’re proposing still doesn’t address the problem at hand with regards to equal opportunity at possession and eliminates the element of special teams altogether. At least Simmons’ idea puts a more practical amount of burden on offense, defense, and special teams as to how it affects the game.
Unlike MLB where it’s impossible for the team pitching and fielding to score runs, NFL defenses can score points. While I don’t like how the current overtime system can allow a game to be decided with only one side on offense, I also don’t like how the defense that got burned can be absolved from blame because “the losing team never had a chance”. I’m fine with this better balance of responsibility.
Lawrence, thanks for your comment. The blind bidding gives equal opportunity for possession. If a team doesn’t get first possession it means that they didn’t bid high enough (or in this case close enough to their goal line).
While it’s true that the kickoff team won’t be a factor, special teams are still likely to have a big impact on the game via punts and field goals.
Simmons’ plan still gives a huge advantage to the first team to get the ball because if the two teams play to a draw after two possessions, then that team will have the ball first in a sudden death format. Not fair.
Dear Roger…please don’t allow these so-called “creative thinkers” to screw with the current overtime system. They’re the same people who think everyone in their kid’s soccer league deserves a trophy, no matter where they finish in the standings. If I listened to them years ago, half the league would be in the playoffs like the NHL or NBA…and we see how well that’s worked out for them. They should have their fan cards revoked for coming up with schemes like blind auctions, that have absolutely nothing to do with football. And they use the excuse that it will “add strategy”, as if there isn’t enough in the game already. I know it would be a great marketing tool for you…I’m sure you’ll have ebay lined up tomorrow to sponsor it…but the system I put in place back in ’74 is the best possible system for our game. If we don’t require an equal number of possessions in regulation, why would we in OT? I know we base the popularity of our game on gambling, even though we deny it publicly, but because someone got a hair up their ass when their team got beat in the playoffs or they lost a mortgage payment on a one-possession overtime game, isn’t reason enough to change a rule that has worked just fine for more 35 years. If you do that, next thing you know they’ll want you to use Canadian football field dimensions. The equal possession thing is for college football. And what do THEY know? They still use a popularity vote and a computer to determine their paper champion.
So I’m begging you Roger…PLEASE, when you get their emails, do yourself and your real fans a favor and hit the delete button.
Sincerely,
Former NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle
For the record, I don’t believe everyone in a kid’s soccer league deserves a trophy. Nor do I want a more inclusive playoff system, or switch to Canadian football field dimensions. Let’s not resort to putting words in people’s mouths, “Pete.”
The current system has not “worked fine” — not when the winner of a frigging coin toss wins the game 75% of the time. Make jokes (XFL, eBay) about the bidding system if you will, I notice that you did not make one single coherent argument against it. It’s the fairest way to determine possession — after that, sudden death rules the day.
People probably said that the forward pass and helmets were a bad idea when they were introduced. Why is a quick silent bid any tougher to swallow than a coin toss?
“Even if it’s set up so that both teams get a possession, the team that got first possession in OT still has the first chance to win in OT if both teams perform the same (i.e. kick a field goal), and that’s not fair.”
JP, how is that not fair? If both teams have at least one possession to put the game away, what more could you ask for? And in fact, that would give each team a couple of chances to win by putting both their offense and defense on the field. You get a chance to stop the opposing team (and potentially put points on the board with a turnover-TD) as well as a chance to score points offensively.
Just because each team gets a possession in OT it doesn’t eliminate the fact that Team A will get the ball first once a game goes to sudden death. Team A is at an advantage from the start because if they push on the first two possessions (i.e. neither team scores, both team scores FGs or TDs), they still get the first chance to win the game in sudden death. Why do they get the advantage when the two teams played to a draw again?
While I believe it would be an improvement over the current system, it’s still not fair. Not to me, anyway.
That’s why I love the blind bidding idea. Possession is awarded in such a way that Team B elects to allow Team A to have the ball at a certain point on the field. Both teams had an equal shot at possession and both teams made their own beds — they weren’t put behind the eight ball by an arbitrary coin toss.
Blind bidding just seems way too gimmicky to me, and out of place on a football field. Doesn’t sit right with me, and I’m guessing a lot of other fans would feel the same way.
I understand your point about Team A having the advantage if the two teams play to a draw, but at some point you’ve got to put the game in the hands of the players and coaches. If the teams play to a draw after the first two possessions, each team had a chance to win to that point, and therefore each team held its fate in its hands. If you lose once sudden death hits, that means you didn’t execute when you had the chance (nor did you execute in sudden death). At that point, you should be blaming yourself instead of the NFL’s overtime rules.
“If you lose once sudden death hits, that means you didn’t execute when you had the chance”
Did you do enough to win? No, but you played to a draw and executed as well as Team A, yet Team A gets the ball first in sudden death OT. You are punished for losing a coin toss.
“Blind bidding just seems way too gimmicky to me”
Understandable, but it’s the fairest way to start overtime. After a few OTs, it wouldn’t seem gimmicky at all. It would replace the coin toss, which when you think about it, is a really dumb way to determine possession.
Like I said before, giving each team possession before starting sudden death is an improvement over (and more fair than) the current format, but that’s not saying much.
John – I think you’re discounting one factor. The second team has a huge advantage in knowing what the first team did. Thus, they can adjust their strategy based upon what the first team did.
I don’t know that this is a huge advantage. The main scenario where this would come into play is if Team A scores a TD and Team B knows they have to match it. That would result in going for it on fourth down instead of kicking the field goal. Otherwise, Team B would proceed as normal. If Team A kicks a FG, then Team B would likely kick one once an opportunity for a TD becomes slim. (Forcing a “push.”) If Team A fails to score, then Team B would drive down and kick the first available FG to win the game.
If Team A kicks a field goal and Team B drives down the field, I guess they could go for it on a short 4th down thinking that they can score a TD to win the game instead of giving the ball back to Team A. But that also works in Team A’s favor if Team B fails on that 4th down attempt. They would win the game outright at that point and wouldn’t have to score again.
And here I thought I did a great job communicating my position, considering I’ve been dead for 14 years. It’s tough getting a good wireless connection 6 feet under. But since your reading comprehension seems to have been clouded by your rage against the most random of all selection processes, the coin flip, I will spell it out for you. No change necessary, when referring to the current overtime system. The numbers have only been skewed toward first possesion OT wins in the last 7 or 8 years, so ask yourself what has changed over that time? The answer is all the defensive rule changes to promote offense. So the root cause has nothing to do with the coin flip, and everything to do with the NFL shooting themselves in the foot. Give defenses back some of their mojo and you will see the numbers come back to earth. The NFL doesn’t need gimmick auctions and they don’t need to make themselves look like college football, who’s OT system is a joke. It forces teams to be reactive and not force the action, just sit back and wait for the other team to make a mistake. Not to mention what it does to stats. The current system in the NFL forces you to try and make a play, on both sides of the ball. It’s pretty obvious which is more exciting.
And just because first possession wins aren’t absolute 50-50 doesn’t mean the system isn’t fair. Last I checked, both teams are on the field at the same time. If your defense can’t stop the other team on one possession, then you didn’t do enough to win the game. Oh well…go home and figure out a way to get it done next time.
I hope this is a coherent enough argument for you. At my age and in my current state, I can’t do much better.
This argument is a little more coherent. There is no rage directed at you, Mr. Rozelle, just your inane argument bringing up unrelated issues and talking about kid’s soccer games, ebay and such.
So instead of changing a simple coin flip, you want to strip all the rules changes that have happened over the past seven or eight years and have helped to make the NFL the most popular sport in the country? Talk about radical.
The auction isn’t a gimmick if it’s the best way to award possession. And it is. It’s the fairest way to start a sudden death overtime. And I like sudden death — there’s a finality to it that is palpable, and that’s why I support a quick little auction to get things started.
I’ll take the ball on my own 14 yard line. You’ll take it on the 13? Here you go. Let’s play. Next score wins.
Again with the reading comprehension. Strip all the rule changes? Of course not. My comment was “Give defenses back some of their mojo and you will see the numbers come back to earth.” Some. Make SOME changes and allow defenders a chance to do their jobs, otherwise it doesn’t matter what format you have in place, offensive talent will always be the difference. The defensive rule changes have had little to do with the popularity of the NFL, but that’s an argument for another time.
I think you’re just in love with the novelty of the auction idea because there is no way that is more fair to determine possession than a coin flip. You’re a stats guy…what is more even than a 50-50 chance that is completely random? An auction will give a clear advantage for possession to the better offensive teams in the league and I’m willing to bet, the results wouldn’t be much different than they have been for the last 8 years.
I’m pretty confident in my reading comprehension. I can’t say the same for you, because after all I’ve written on the subject, you think I’m in love with the “novelty” of the auction idea.
Of course it’s more fair. Each team has an equal shot at possession and is in control of their own destiny. Would they rather get the ball at the 12 yard line or give it to the opponent at the 12? Each team would have to decide where it wants the ball based on its offense, defense and how the game is going. Most importantly, each team is in control of whether or not they get the ball.
If you don’t like the idea that’s fine, but you can’t convince me that it’s not the most equitable way to award possession — at least of all the ideas I’ve heard, anyway. A blind bid auction is no more gimmicky than a coin flip, and it’s a hell of a lot more fair.
By the way, a 50/50 chance of having a 75% chance of winning the game isn’t completely random…or fair. Under a blind bid auction both sides leave feeling like they got a good deal. The offense has the ball and the defense has the other team backed up in its own territory with a good chance to force a punt and get good field position for a game-winning field goal. Let’s play ball.
Each team doesn’t have an equal shot at possession in an auction and I can’t believe you don’t see it. Maybe it’s just the terms you are using but you’re way off base. A coin toss is 50-50…that’s equal last time I checked. Think of it in terms of dollar…who wins an auction? The guy that has or is willing to part with the most money. The only equitable part is that they both have the same opportunity to place a bid, but the guy with the bigger bank account has the edge, just like the team with the better offense will. So your scenario will award possession more often than not to the better team while a coin toss is the only way to give both teams an absolutely equal chance at possession, regardless of team strength.
And we weren’t arguing the chance of winning the game, we were arguing chance at possession. Let defenses play and the chance of winning on the first possession goes back to 50-50.
The team with the better offense is likely to bid closer to its own goal line, but getting the ball inside your own 10 or 15 is no treat. How many drives start that close the goal line and result in points? I think you’d be surprised.
The value of possession depends on a number of factors and a big one is field position. Would you rather have the ball at your own 7 or give it to the opponent at their own 7? Don’t you see that the value of the possession at that point on the field isn’t all it’s cracked up to be?
A team with a good defense also can have an advantage. If they give the ball to the other team and force a three-and-out, they are likely to get great field position at midfield with a good shot at a field goal even if their offense sucks. Their offense obviously doesn’t suck, but that’s why the Saints went for it on fourth down on the Indy two yard line in the Super Bowl. They knew they were likely to force Indy into a three-and-out and still get a field goal. And that’s exactly what happened.
The part you’re not getting after all of this is that it’s not about who ends up with possession, it’s about the opportunity for possession. A team with a terrible offense can get possession if they choose to do so — they control their own destiny unlike a coin flip which is completely arbitrary.
I totally understand the value of the possession and how taking the ball closer to your own goal is an equalizer, but unless both teams have equal talent, it’s not equal…certainly not as even as a coin toss. If the talent is equal on both sides, possession comes down to which coach has the bigger balls. When it’s not, it comes down to whichever is the better team and that’s not what should determine who gets the ball first in overtime, no matter what yard line they’re starting from.
Using your scenario, Tampa would be committing suicide bidding the 7 yard line against the Saints so it would be nearly impossible for them to gain first possession without totally compromising their offense, since the Saints would be more willing to sacrifice yardage for possession. Especially against an all around weaker team like Tampa. Give the Bucs an equal chance in a coin toss and kickoff and who knows. At least they’d have a shot. Is it a given that NO would score from the 7? Of course not. But 60 yards to get into FG range isn’t out of the question for an offense like that.
Teams that are better on defense would be more apt to bid a higher yard line but losing an auction outside the 20 is really no different than losing a coin toss. So that begs the question, other than wanting to add a game show gimmick to the game, what’s the point?
The bottom line here is, in an auction poor or mediocre teams couldn’t afford to take the risks that good teams could, making the system biased and unfair. At least with a coin toss, both teams have an equal chance to get the ball.
Hey, what if both coaches choose the same yard line? How are you going to break the tie…with the coin toss that you should have used in the first place? A re-bid would be re-diculous, especially if they chose the same yard line a second time.
Now if you’ll excuse me I have to go to my weekly poker game with my buddies Ronny Reagan, Pope John Paul II (talk about a dude that knows how to party!), Mickey Mantle, and Al Davis. What…you didn’t know Al Davis is dead? Happened in ’07…heart attack after he realized he hired Lane Kiffin. They’ve been doing “Weekend at Bernie’s” with him ever since.
Again, it doesn’t matter if a great offense is able to outbid a poor one. As long as the great offense is close to their own goal line, the value of the possession is equal to (or even less than) that of the defense having the offense backed up deep in their own territory. The whole point of this is that the value of the possession to start the overtime is approximately equal — that’s not the case with a 50/50 coin toss that results in a 75% win rate.
(BTW, I suspect good defenses would try to bid in the high teens somewhere. If they get the ball on the 17 — great — if they don’t, then they have the opponent backed up on the 16 or worse.)
Sure, good teams are going to have an advantage, but that’s true of any overtime system. At least this way the field position is such that it balances things out at the start of OT. And as a bonus, a bad team can bid for possession if they choose to do so. Right now, possession is handed out with the randomness of a roulette wheel.
As for ties, I think I’d go with the visitor bidding only odd numbers and the home team going with evens. The visitor would always be able to take the ball at its own one, but I don’t think that would happen too often.
Sorry, the yard line doesn’t balance out the value of possession. Are you saying the Colts starting at the 16 has the same value to them as to the Browns defense trying to stop them? Hardly. But for the Browns to win the bid, they’d have to start at the 15 which for them might as well be inside the 5. The Saints had 8 of 20 regulation drives of 50 yards or more against the Bucs, resulting in 7 scores (6 td’s and 1 FG)…you think they’d be afraid to take the ball deep in their own territory against Tampa? Of course not. So the only chance Tampa has is to bid deeper, hope to stop them, or hope for a turnover. Good luck with that. Your theory only creates equality when the sides are equal, but it’s shot to hell when they’re not. And if any two teams don’t have an equal chance to get the ball first, the scheme is just plain wrong.
It’s a blind bid, so the Colts would get the ball wherever they bid. So if they bid the 5 and the Browns bid the 16, Indy will get it on the 5. You said yourself that the better offenses would bid closer to the goal line, so it’s likely that a good offense will take the ball inside their own 10. Fine. That’s still a long way to go to get a score and there’s a good chance that the defense will force a three and out or six and out (generating great field position), force a turnover (winning the game with a field goal), or sack the QB for a game-winning safety (or even draw a holding call, also resulting in a win).
You brought up the Saints — 12 of 20 drives DIDN’T go for 50 yards or more, which means Tampa is more than likely to get a possession. It could come at midfield or in their own territory, but they’d get the ball back.
Even if this system is not exactly equal (and it probably never be EXACTLY equal) it’s still a hell of a lot more even than the current system which results in a 75/25 win/loss rate.
We keep going around and around, but you seem to be stuck on this one point — you think that possession of the ball at, say, anywhere inside the 5-yard line is always more valuable than playing defense with the offense backed up inside their own 5. It would be interesting to see all the drives (by good offenses) that started in that range and the results of those drives: I figure a) they drive down for a score, b) they give their opponent good field position or c) they move the ball a bit and give the opponent decent (or poor) field position. I wonder if there is a website out there that has the ability to search all the drives with those criteria. I think you’d find that the value of a possession inside your own 5 does not result in a 75% scoring rate. Not even close.
Regardless, this is our point of contention and if you don’t see how field position balances out the value of possession, then there is little left to say.
I’ve checked for days and couldn’t find a website that details drive statistics by team for a season, only game by game. My point about the Colts and their bid is they know the Browns are a lesser team, especially on offense and wouldn’t be willing to risk to low a bid, so the Colts have an advantage and wouldn’t have to bid as low as they would against the Chargers or Patriots. If the Browns bid too low, the Colts have a great chance of getting the ball at good field position after a 3 and out. If the Browns bid too high, the Colts win the bid and get the ball probably not far from where a kick return would be and 75% of the time, game over from that point. The system totally favors the stronger team.
Yes the Saints had 12 of 20 drives that were less than 50 but 2 of them resulted in points and couldn’t have gone 50 because they started in Bucs’ territory, and 1 ended on downs with the game virtually over in a blowout. So now we’re down to 8 of 17 drives going for 50 yards or more, which is incredible. A team’s offensive approach would be completely different and much more aggressive in overtime when the next score is going to win. You’re not going to see 2 or 3 runs and a punt that you might see in regulation because if you give the other team the ball at their own 45, game over. I don’t know how to factor that in but with New Orleans already having a virtual 50% chance to get in scoring position from inside the 15 WITHOUT the aggressive approach factor (only 2 of their 50 yard drives against the Bucs were less than 55), would you give the exact same chance to the Bucs in the same position? If the answer is no, then the system is completely flawed and the better offensive team will always have the advantage to get the ball first unless they are playing an equally strong offensive or defensive team. Possession means EVERYTHING in overtime since it’s sudden death.
I don’t think teams would be willing to bid inside the 10 since if they did go 3 and out, their punter is backed up near the goal. And I understand the rate of scoring from inside your own 15 or so is nowhere near 75 % but that is also in regulation, not overtime where teams won’t be as conservative. If we’re talking about the chance to get the ball in overtime, it should be 100% equal, as in a coin toss.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
My good friend Joe Pisarcik is channeling my spirit today since my wireless is down. I had to borrow Pope JP2’s Mac to get back on.
Joe — I am happy to agree to disagree, but when you make blanket statements like “the system totally favors the stronger team” and “the system is completely flawed” without any proof whatsoever, it makes it difficult.
These two statements are completely contradictory:
1. “Possession means EVERYTHING in overtime since it’s sudden death.”
2. “I don’t think teams would be willing to bid inside the 10 since if they did go 3 and out, their punter is backed up near the goal.”
If possession means EVERYTHING, why wouldn’t a team be willing to bid inside its own 10? What you’re saying is that at a certain point, possession DOES NOT outweigh field position, which is the whole point of this system.
To your next argument, aggression does not automatically equal success. If there was an easy way to score points, teams would do it throughout the entire game, not just in overtime. Offenses would still be conservative in their own territory because a turnover would probably end the game.
Saints vs. Bucs — okay, I’m taking your word for it, but that still means 9 of 17 drives DIDN’T go 50 yards or more. That means the Bucs would be getting a possession 53% of the time. And that’s against arguably the best offense/team in the league.
Wrapping up, the blind bid system probably won’t result in an exact 50/50 win pct, but it will be close. You can’t say the same about the coin flip, which has resulted in a 75% win pct over the last few seasons.
By the way, I am fully aware that this system will never be implemented. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be highly entertaining or far more fair than a coin flip.
We’ve all been there: http://scienceblogs.com/sunclipse/siwoti-cat.png
That is a great pic…I’ll definitely be sending that site to some friends.
My final post on this:
For some reason you think the coin toss is the root cause of the overtime disparity when it has absolutely nothing to do with it. The play of defenses and how the NFL has limited them is the problem. So you want to replace the one thing about overtime that is absolutely fair and unbiased and replace it with a scheme that has the potential to be unfair and biased if teams aren’t equal strength. That makes absolutely no sense at all.
I go back to my original argument…sudden death is the best overtime system for the NFL, using a coin flip because it gives every team a 50-50 chance to get the ball. Loosen up the rules a little on defenses in the passing game and it will fix the problem. It’s been proven because before most of these rules changes, first possession wins in OT were already 50-50, which is what the goal is, right? It’s so simple yet everyone wants to complicate the process for some very strange reason.
All right, my final post on this — at least my final post directed at you, Pete.
Given the fact that you contradicted yourself in the last post (by saying that possession always matters the most and then saying that field position trumps possession inside your own 10), I am not going to take offense to your opinion that blind bidding makes absolutely no sense.
It makes absolutely no sense to me why we would have a sudden death system where one team gets the ball with decent to good field position and the other team has to stop them. It’s true that a coin flip is a fair way to award possession, but it’s not fair that the loser doesn’t get an opportunity to match the winner’s score.
The NFL is not going to go back and allow defensive backs to grab and hold receivers because in their eyes, the more offense the better. So your plan isn’t going to work.
If you’re going to call that a contradiction, then I’ll point out that you say the auction is fair wai to determine possession but good teams will have an advantage. Okay…if that’s fair to you.
Possession DOES mean everything in overtime but it doesn’t mean you’re going to sacrifice everything and bid the 1 yard line to get it. At least be reasonable in your counter-point.
I’m not calling it a contradiction. It is a contradiction. If possession means EVERYTHING (all caps, your words), then you would give up all field position to get it. By saying that there is any point where you wouldn’t take possession, you are admitting that field position is more important than the ball.
The blind bidding is fair because it is going to even out the win pct so it doesn’t necessarily matter (on the whole) who gets the ball first. The team with the bad offense still has a great shot to stop the other team deep in their own territory and go on to win the game. In this case, maybe in your mind the assignment of possession isn’t fair (though both teams can get the ball if they so choose), but the overall overtime format is fair, and that’s the most important thing.
well FWIW’s the NFL basically implemented the idea that the Sports Guy stated. His fix wasn’t original, many others (including myself) have stated the same thing.
Fairness is, within reason, allowing the offense AND defense to have a say, that’s it. The only caveat is that the touchdown acts as the hammer, as it should be: a pick-six, a fumble recovery ran in for a score or the traditional successful TD drive. The point of OT is to determine a WINNER, not prolong a contest. If you really feel that one team was “equally as effective” as they match field goal kicks in OT, then add one tweak to the rule: The team that kicked the shorter field goal gets the next possession for sudden death. If the distance was equal, then proceed as usual. The logic behind that wrinkle is that the second team has the benefit of knowledge of what it needs to do as it attempts to WIN the game, not prolong it. The 2 field goal possession arrow is still unnecessary IMO. The point of OT is to determine a winner, not prolong a game. Within reason, allowing both offensive and defensive to have an impact in OT is fair enough. Look, we can’t play to a never-ending tie of matching field goals.
Also, I agree. this isn’t price is right. What if both coaches bid the same number?
In the absence of a touchdown, allowing one change of possession is perfectly reasonable.
The NFL just adopted Simmons’s proposal. “Correcting BIll Simmons”, indeed.
slam — Visiting team only bids odd numbers, home team only bids even. As for your declarations about overtime, Team B plays Team A to a draw, yet Team A gets the ball first in sudden death? We’re right back where we started. Not to mention your “hammer” which doesn’t give Team B a chance to match the touchdown. Like I said, it’s an improvement, but it’s flawed.
Adam — Just because they adopted it doesn’t make it the best available option. There are a few flaws to Simmons’ proposal — which was as “slam” noted, not originally his — as outlined in the post.
Oh, and this change doesn’t apply to the regular season. So we get the same old stupid rule all year and then change it for the playoffs. Silly.
Coming into the discussion late, but couldn’t shake a couple thoughts. I find it really odd that people seem to universally accept the idea that a “fair” overtime system should strive to make each team’s chance of winning 50/50. I disagree.
I think the most “fair” outcome is one that results in stronger teams beating weaker teams about as often as they normally do in regulation. Basically I want the outcome of overtime games to be representative of the teams’ strengths, and NOT to be a 50/50 affair. I mean, if you want it to be truly 50/50, why not just award a victory directly from the coin toss?
muppetsfan — the problem with this line of thinking is that we’re talking about two teams that just played four quarters to a draw. For whatever the reason, the two teams were evenly matched on that day.
The blind bid idea only balances out the value of first possession (with poor field position). The “better” team, if they’re truly better, is still going to have an advantage in overtime.