Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Quote (Nytecrawla @ 12th February 2010 14:06)

Edit

These opinions were not expressed on CoN, but they are being expressed all over NFL and ESPN.com in the comment and chat sections. Just a little clarification before people start going 'No U!'

If you read ESPN comments looking for anything smart, you deserve to be posting at ESPN. Seriously, everything about that site's commentary is nothing but homerism and uneducated and often racist drivel, particularly in SoccerNet.

On paper, I'm not sure either team was better. There's plenty of reasons to argue for either team, and anyone who can't concede that has a horse in the race, IMO. In practice, the Saints were better. Other than that, who cares? The team that won, won. Them's the breaks!

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

The D-word that gets thrown around a lot, well, gets thrown around too damn much. A dynasty is a near-unopposed rule for a long time. UCLA had a dynasty. The Boston Celtics had a dynasty. The New York Yankees might have had two or three dynasties. No team in the NFL, not the Steelers, not the Cowboys, not the Patriots, has ever had a real dynasty. Sorry, Colts fans.

I'll just reiterate what I said earlier - I'm glad the Saints won. I was extremely surprised at how much this game lacked penalties and turnovers and still had a convincing winner, even. Anyone remember the four interceptions in the Bucs/Raiders Super Bowl six or seven years ago? Rich Gannon didn't win the Super Bowl for Tampa Bay, the Bucs defense won the Super Bowl for Tampa Bay. It's silly to think that Manning handed the game to the Saints; the Saints just played very well, and Manning had a very costly mistake near the end of the game while playing from behind. Worse and more controversial things have happened.

And wow, sorry for that ramble-rant. I've had a bad week and I maaay have been drinking....

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

Quote (Nytecrawla @ 12th February 2010 14:06)

As far as the whole 'Manning is from New Orleans so he let them win' give it a rest! The Colts got outplayed, and we have a whole off season to figure out how and why.

Oh, I wasn't saying that at all. I was more just taking a jab at how he screwed it up. XD

Quote (BlitzSage)

Yeah, but that's another problem. Everybody was acting like they were the underdogs, when they were the #1 seed in the NFC!

Like R51 said, the Saints were definitely painted as the underdogs for this game. Even many of the people making predictions who wanted to see a Saints victory expected the Colts to win.

Quote (R51)

On paper, I'm not sure either team was better. There's plenty of reasons to argue for either team, and anyone who can't concede that has a horse in the race, IMO. In practice, the Saints were better. Other than that, who cares? The team that won, won. Them's the breaks!

Agreed on all counts.

And, yeah, both teams played well. In fact, if not for the interception, I think we might have seen the game go into overtime, where it would have been anybody's game.

--------------------

My Final Fantasy VII Plot Analysis

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" — Edmund Burke

Quote (Squall of SeeD @ 12th February 2010 16:16)

In fact, if not for the interception, I think we might have seen the game go into overtime, where it would have been anybody's game.

We had several people in chat praying for an overtime game so that it would freak people out when the team that won the toss won the game (and in so doing, push the NFL to change its OT rules).

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

Quote (Rangers51 @ 12th February 2010 17:35)

Quote (Squall of SeeD @ 12th February 2010 16:16)

In fact, if not for the interception, I think we might have seen the game go into overtime, where it would have been anybody's game.

We had several people in chat praying for an overtime game so that it would freak people out when the team that won the toss won the game (and in so doing, push the NFL to change its OT rules).

I don't think they should change the overtime rules. It is unique for starters, vastly different from all other major leagues. Also, it forces teams to rely on both their offence and defence. Most people's argument is that the first team on offence has the greatest advantage, but that shouldn't be the case. If the Colts had forced overtime and if they got the ball first, it would've been on the Saints defence to stop them.

Now, if they were to change the rules, I would like to see them take away the field goal. Make teams score touchdowns instead of field goals. I would be in favor of that, to make it offence versus defence.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 12th February 2010 19:36)

I don't think they should change the overtime rules. It is unique for starters, vastly different from all other major leagues.

I must respectfully disagree, especially regarding keeping them for their uniqueness. I think there is a reason most overtime rules aren't sudden death: it prevents lucky/unlucky breaks from determining the game's outcome.

I'm with Kane on this one. It's not unique as much as uniquely bad. Since when is NOT having the ball on offense NOT an advantage in a sudden-death game? It's like you're fighting a duel, pistols at twenty paces, and you flip a coin to decide who shoots first.

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

I was watching some game this year, and Bob Costas had a really good point - a lot of times on defense, a field goal is a huge victory, but in the context of overtime, it ends the game. If an excuse for sudden death is "Well, your defense should also be complete," then how do those two statements mesh?

--------------------

Hey, put the cellphone down for a while
In the night there is something wild
Can you hear it breathing?
And hey, put the laptop down for a while
In the night there is something wild
I feel it, it's leaving me

Quote (laszlow @ 13th February 2010 20:05)

I'm with Kane on this one. It's not unique as much as uniquely bad. Since when is NOT having the ball on offense NOT an advantage in a sudden-death game? It's like you're fighting a duel, pistols at twenty paces, and you flip a coin to decide who shoots first.

In a gun fight, the person being shot at cannot catch the bullet and shoot it back. But i football, a defence can score, or cause a turnover. I think it should remain sudden death and an offence versus defence battle. That's why I agree with what Neal and Bob Costas said about field goals.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 14th February 2010 14:09)

Quote (laszlow @ 13th February 2010 20:05)

I'm with Kane on this one.  It's not unique as much as uniquely bad.  Since when is NOT having the ball on offense NOT an advantage in a sudden-death game?  It's like you're fighting a duel, pistols at twenty paces, and you flip a coin to decide who shoots first.

In a gun fight, the person being shot at cannot catch the bullet and shoot it back. But i football, a defence can score, or cause a turnover. I think it should remain sudden death and an offence versus defence battle. That's why I agree with what Neal and Bob Costas said about field goals.

I still disagree with you, for no reasons other than the basics of fairness. A team playing offense will be in better position to score than a team playing defense, especially when a field goal makes it so much easier to win in a sudden-death game. The NFL's current overtime rules place too much at stake in a coin toss.

And... I don't think that Neal and Bob Costas were agreeing with you; Costas was remarking on how field goals are a defensive victory in regulation, but a defensive failure in overtime. That isn't exactly a positive remark.

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

Quote (BlitzSage @ 14th February 2010 15:09)

In a gun fight, the person being shot at cannot catch the bullet and shoot it back. But i football, a defence can score, or cause a turnover. I think it should remain sudden death and an offence versus defence battle. That's why I agree with what Neal and Bob Costas said about field goals.

I don't know how you can both want sudden death AND agree with what I posted.

--------------------

Hey, put the cellphone down for a while
In the night there is something wild
Can you hear it breathing?
And hey, put the laptop down for a while
In the night there is something wild
I feel it, it's leaving me

If the OT rules were to change, what would be the alternative? Something like a sudden death where each team's offence has to match what the other team scored?

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (Neal @ 14th February 2010 16:04)

Quote (BlitzSage @ 14th February 2010 15:09)

In a gun fight, the person being shot at cannot catch the bullet and shoot it back. But i football, a defence can score, or cause a turnover. I think it should remain sudden death and an offence versus defence battle. That's why I agree with what Neal and Bob Costas said about field goals.

I don't know how you can both want sudden death AND agree with what I posted.

I've said it two times. You keep the same overtime rules, but you can't win by kicking a field goal. In other words, you must score a touchdown to win the game. I said that in my first post about this.

When someone says that the coin toss, because it's easy for an offence to score, that is a slap in the face to defensive players, especially when it was a defensive player that secured the game against the best QB in the game. Their job is to stop an offence from scoring. If they can't do that, then they deserve to lose. You know the saying, "defense wins championships."

I'll say again, I completely agree that field goals should be eliminated from OT, but it should remain sudden-death for two reasons. The first is what I said; it places pressure on both sides of the ball to win the game. And the second; football is not a game that is designed to go into 6 quarters, it's not basketball. It is a contact sport where people get injured quite easily. I'm sure that's why they implemented sudden death in the first place.

This post has been edited by BlitzSage on 14th February 2010 22:50

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Even with that change, I still don't like it. Without an equal, or at least play-determined chance to score on offense, the NFL's OT still places too much value in the coin toss.

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

Quote (laszlow @ 14th February 2010 18:39)

Even with that change, I still don't like it. Without an equal, or at least play-determined chance to score on offense, the NFL's OT still places too much value in the coin toss.

That's why I edited and put the part about the physical element of football compared to other sports, which is probably why they did sudden death in the first place. They can't have a game go one for six or seven quarters.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 14th February 2010 14:52)

That's why I edited and put the part about the physical element of football compared to other sports, which is probably why they did sudden death in the first place. They can't have a game go one for six or seven quarters.

I'm with laszlow on the ridiculous value which the current OT rules give to the coin toss.

As for your own statement about having a game go into six or seven quarters, I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself. I mean, how often are both teams shut out in any quarter? (I realize this does happen, but bare with me, since at the very least the outcome would be on par with the current rules.)

If you want my 2 cents (actually, even if you don't want them), here's my proposal:

Begin with a single extra quarter--or, if you're so concerned about player fatigue (which I concede is a valid concern), an extra period of 10 minutes--during which both teams proceed as though it were just another regulation period. At the end of that period, whichever team is ahead wins. Simple as that. In the event of a tie, then I could see doing a 5-minute (or 10-minute) sudden death period.

Quote (Kane @ 14th February 2010 19:39)

I'm with laszlow on the ridiculous value which the current OT rules give to the coin toss.

If you want my 2 cents (actually, even if you don't want them), here's my proposal:

Begin with a single extra quarter--or, if you're so concerned about player fatigue (which I concede is a valid concern), an extra period of 10 minutes--during which both teams proceed as though it were just another regulation period. At the end of that period, whichever team is ahead wins. Simple as that. In the event of a tie, then I could see doing a 5-minute (or 10-minute) sudden death period.

And I'm staying with my belief that that is a slap in the face to defenseive players, especially when in the Superbowl we just watch, one of the greatest QBs of all time was intercepted, and that interception was brought back to seal the game.

Quote

As for your own statement about having a game go into six or seven quarters, I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself. I mean, how often are both teams shut out in any quarter? (I realize this does happen, but bare with me, since at the very least the outcome would be on par with the current rules.)

It would not be about shutting your opponent out if the league took away sudden death, as you propose. How many quarters have there been where teams have scored the exact same points? While it is improbable, it would be made even worse because teams could go 7-7, or 3-3, and go to numerous OT qtrs. If they changed the rules and took out sudden death, they would have to play until there's a winner. And that would include the five playoff games to go into second overtime.

Quote

Begin with a single extra quarter--or, if you're so concerned about player fatigue (which I concede is a valid concern), an extra period of 10 minutes--during which both teams proceed as though it were just another regulation period. At the end of that period, whichever team is ahead wins. Simple as that. In the event of a tie, then I could see doing a 5-minute (or 10-minute) sudden death period.

I'm not saying I'm concerned necessarily, I'm a fan too (actually, I'm more of a pro wrestling fan, I like my sports fake, lol). What I'm saying is the owners that give Peyton Manning and Drew Brees loads of money are.

But honestly, that doesn't sound too bad: extra quarter 2/3 the length of the regular quarters; if no winner, 5 minute sudden-death quarters. Now, if you say that, in the 5 min. SD quarters, there are no field goals and only touchdowns, I'll actually buy that.

This post has been edited by BlitzSage on 15th February 2010 03:34

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Well, one thing I have heard logically argued is that NFL OT rules instill the general attitude that going into extra time is a definitively bad and avoided thing to do. And it almost makes sense; a team shouldn't have the mentality to push the game into overtime if at all possible, and winning in regulation should be of the highest priority. That is to say, nobody should be rewarded for skating into overtime, rather, it should be a terrible arena of chance and luck that nobody really wants to find themselves in.

That being said, college shoot-out OT rules certainly leave a much better taste in my mouth.

--------------------

I find your lack of faith disturbing...

Quote (Kappa the Imp @ 15th February 2010 05:56)

That being said, college shoot-out OT rules certainly leave a much better taste in my mouth.

Maybe a field-goal contest could settle it then, with the distance to goal getting steadily further. That discounts the fatigue problem and it's still something that both teams wouldn't want to get to therefore meaning the teams will push to finish the game in regular time. I don't know exactly what the chances are of a defence blocking the FG but at least they've still got something to do.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

If the overtime period ends in a tie during the regular season, the result of the game is a draw. There are no draws in the playoffs, and the game would go into a second overtime.

As far as rules are concerned, abolishing the Field Goal wouldn't really do much to determine the outcome of the game anyway. If an offense drives down the field well enough to get in a good spot for the kick, they could logically just score a TD and win anyway. The reason most teams opt for field goals is too keep from giving the impression that they are running up the score.

The current OT rules have been under review for decades, but lets take a look at the alternative shall we? NCAA OT rules start each team at the 35 and allow the offense one chance to score, TD, Field Goal, whatever. The defense gets a stop, the other team gets the ball. Wash, rinse, repeat. That isn't much better than what the NFL has in place. The only difference is that both teams are guaranteed to touch the ball.

I get that everyone wants to see more parity in the NFL in terms of OT. But lets be realistic here, if the defense that managed to keep the game tied ( or in some cases was just good enough to stop the other offense once) cannot be called upon to do its job one more time, well, they really do not want to win that game.

--------------------

This is a webcomic and gaming blog where I rant about nonsense. Enjoy.

I was a soldier, now I just play one in video games.