Safeties are really rare and really hard to do. I’d say getting one deserves a win.
The old system with a team getting down to the 20 yard line and then running the ball up the middle a couple of times to set up the FG was anti-climatic. Now there’s incentive to go for the TD. It’s not perfect, but it’s better. They will still kick the FG if it’s 4th down so it’s no different than it is during the first 60 minutes, where teams try for a TD and kick on 4th down rather than risk turning it over on downs.
Field goals are only devalued on the first offensive drive of the OT. After that first drive, the rules are basically the same as a normal game.
Yeah, I don’t really see this changing the way you play on offense. You’re still playing for a couple first downs to get into range, and you still take the opportunity for a big TD play if it presents itself, and the FG otherwise. I don’t think you’re going to give up a FG for a chance at a TD, especially given how risk averse coaches tend to be in situations like this.
I think it may change the way defense is played though. I could see defenses focusing more on covering deep threats just in case.
I think Mark Asher nailed it. A team in the NFL can still win with a Field Goal, they just can’t win outright with one. Typically in overtime, teams play only to get into field goal range, and which point there isn’t a lot the defense can do to change the dynamic. The team with possession will a few conservative plays to try to gain some yards and make it easier on the kicker, but the game is over baring a missed FG.
Plus, it is a bit more equitable for both teams to have an equal chance to win the game. It still slightly favors the coin toss winner, but if your defense cannot stop a team form scoring a TD, then you are not likely to win most other forms of tie breaking.
Defense and Offense are equal parts of the game. A team can win by defense, stopping the other team from scoring, as well as offense, scoring more themselves.
This is why I’ve always disagreed with the basic assumption that in overtime both teams should have a possession. To me overtime should be saying this “You dumbasses have had all game to win it outright, now because neither of you stepped up we’re calling it on the first score.”
This is the best way to encourage team to play their hardest in regular time. Of course, if you’re a football fan who is really just into seeing offense, and lots of it like in college football, then sudden death is not going to be appealing.
Sarkus
6286
Interesting NFL news of the day:
- Steelers/Broncos was the highest rated wild-card game since 1988.
- the Jaguars have fired one of the VP’s because he included language in the contracts of DelRio’s recently released assistants that seems to guarantee them through next year (meaning the team has to pay them).
- Hines Ward is thinking about retiring.
- the Chargers will excercise another one year option in San Diego (they are year to year on their lease at this point). Doesn’t mean they are staying long-term, but the could have flown to LA right away in theory.
- Tampa is focused mostlly on possibly hiring retread coaches this time around. Todays candidate to be interviewed? Marty Schottenheimer.
I didn’t realize Marty Schottenheimer was coaching in the UFL. Does he need the money or just love to coach that much?
About the overtime rules, teams would be foolish not to run their normal offense and try to drive for a TD instead of getting close and settling for a FG. Not only do you win the game outright with a TD, but if you settle for the FG you give the opposing team four downs to move the ball (without the pressure of time running out) and if they get a TD, they beat you.
The rule is designed to make it advantageous for teams to go for a TD instead of what the typically did in the past – get close and then run up the middle and kick on third down. C’mon, kicking a FG on third down is not exciting. We want to see touchdown runs and great catches in the endzone.
I would love to be able to go to a game locally again, but there is no way in hell I’d support spending one dime of taxpayer money to bring a team here. Those owners are guaranteed billions from tv contracts alone. There are a lot of people I know who feel the same way, and those are football fans, so I don’t expect to see a team here in LA any time soon.
So what is the story about an LA stadium? Does it require public funding to go forward?
I feel the same way about public funding for NFL teams. I don’t mind some tax incentives or even publicly financed low-interest loans, but there’s no need to hand these owners money.
DT1
6290
They’ve asked the Texans for permission to interview Wade Phillips also.
Sarkus
6291
Both the LA stadium proposals are already privately funded, at least as far as the building itself goes. There may be some need for transportation improvements around them, though, at least in the case of the one half way to Riverside County. The downtown one would be built in the same area as the convention center so probably nothing much else would be needed.
Thats why a lot of people think a team will move to LA in the next few years. Both stadium proposals are basically “a team is moving here” away from starting construction and since the NFL isn’t expanding anytime soon, relocation is the way that would happen. The problem is that the obvious teams in terms of their crappy markets and so forth are not the teams that would be easiest to move. There are a lot more teams that can easily get out of their stadium leases in the next few years then I think people realize. The Chargers are already year to year, the Vikings have no obligation anymore, and the Rams have a “top 25% of revenue” out-clause that will kick in shortly. And thats just to name a few of the teams that wouldn’t be that hard to transfer.
I read two things recently about the convention center stadium proposal, neither sounded good.
One, that the design the city agreed to involved a mechanically operated retractable roof, so that in the offseason the city can use the stadium to host other events, making it profitable. The private parties changed it after the agreement was made to a manually removable roof, the costs of opening and closing would to be picked up by the city. So already there are shenanigans going on.
Plus why does the city care about using it for other things if it’s not costing the people anything? Because they know it IS costing taxpayers and they need some way to make the money back.
Also, an architecture firm got a million dollar grant from the city to relocate their offices from Santa Monica to LA, apparently they need to be closer to work on this stadium. That makes no sense to me in this day and age of mobile networking, not to mention there are freeways from Santa Monica to LA. It just goes to show that if people don’t pay attention their money will be spent on frivolous crap like this.
Lorini
6293
Sarkus and I have disagreed over this in the past, but I don’t think it’s going to ever happen. Noting that Magic Johnson is now trying to pursue ownership of the Dodgers because he’s figured it out as well.
Basically the we’ll call them the 99% for conversation purposes know damn well that they won’t be able to afford anything but the worst tickets. Meaning that the net result of a team coming here will be that most of us will be denied that third afternoon game because the stadium won’t sell out because the tickets will be overpriced because the NFL is asking for a hefty premium for any team that moves here. So there’s no football fans foaming at the mouth to get a team here, it’s all businesses and the City Council. And without fan demand I don’t believe it’s ever going to happen.
LA has the Lakers, Dodgers, Angels, and Kings. These are all storied franchises (well maybe except the Kings) who have won championships. The last thing the LA football fan wants is some boguard team here because they have NFL in front of their names. If any team is wanted, it’s the Raiders with their huge Hispanic draw. After that, forget it.
Thongsy
6294
That’s how I used to feel, but sports franchises for the most part are basically break-even proposals. With the CBA they split some 10 billion in revenue but owners make very little money if any. For example, the Niners profit for the past 10 years was around a million dollars and this was with them spending vastly under the cap. So it’s not like they’re making a hundred million dollar profit every year which they can put towards a new stadium.
It’s an working relationship. Teams want a new place to play in, and cities want those teams there. The people who probably benefit the most from a new stadium is the city and people who attend the game. Stadium/Arenas can become a new centerpiece of economic boom and fan get to enjoy a better facility.
Really, what should have happened is the NFL or any sports league should do is set aside a certain percentage of revenue apart from any owners/player split for a stadium fund that teams can dip into. It is for the benefit of owners, players, fans, cities alike. But as long as there is somebody willing to pay for a new stadium, whether it’s govt. or private funding it will never happen.
That’s a good idea, the league pooling funds for stadiums. They could also partner with tv networks, since new fan interest in a new tv market would benefit ratings. Then of course they could get corporate sponsors. Or all of the above, but there’s really no reason to ask for public funds.
I read that New York still had to pay some money on the old stadium even after the new stadium was built, that kind of thing is ridiculous. I also read that Indianapolis was looking for the Colts to rework some aspect of their deal after the economy tanked, since that downturn made the deal onesided. That to me is also ridiculous.
That’s why I don’t trust those kinds of plans “Well, if we can get X% occupancy in the crapload of new hotel/shopping center/entertainment facilities we’re building around the stadium complex, the city stands to make…”
Yeah, IF. If the queen had balls she’d be king.
Thongsy
6296
The Niners released some pricing info for their new stadium and not surprisingly, it’s very expensive. But what irks me the most is PSL, not that I was going to buy season tickets since I’m no longer in the area but PSL are just so so stupid. I have to pay a deposit of 20-30k, up to 80k for the rights to buy season tickets? And these will still get sold out at those prices, no doubt about it which is why they do it, knowing people will still buy it up.
Christ, take some of that money and buy the biggest damn HDTV you can find and get NFL Sunday Ticket each year. You’ll still have money left over for nice steaks and expensive beer.
Lorini
6298
I’m sorry, but this is hilarious (off ESPN’s twitter)
Falcons offensive coordinator Mike Mularkey is scheduled to interview Tuesday for the Jaguars head coaching job.
Uh, yeah, how about that safety??
jeffd
6299
Can’t judge him off of one game plus shortage of HC talent and a lot of openings.
Lorini
6300
There have got to be better OC’s than one who could not score any offensive at all in a playoff game. I’m not buying he’s the best out there.
