Thread: NFL proposes rules changes for 2017 season

Originally Posted by spikerman

I don't think I understand your argument. The only reason I'm not in favor of the old sudden death system is that the kickers are so good now that teams only have to get 2 or 3 first downs and they're in FG range. In my scenario neither team can say they didn't have a fair shot to win. At some point it's up to the players to stop or to overpower the other guy. It's, in no way, left to a coin flip.

In your scenario, even if both teams open OT with 99 yd TD drives, whoever won the toss can still win with a walkoff FG, denying the opponent even an opportunity. It's all well if one team starts OT by driving the field for a TD (or FG, or even a lone first down) their opponent fails to match, but if BOTH score a TD, FG, or just go three-and-out, we're right back to sudden deaths arbitrariness: Whoever loses the toss must manage an EXTRA stop just for a chance to win (or not-lose.)

All to avoid the dreaded tie, unsuccessfully if neither team can do ANYTHING for a full 15:00 (remember the 2012 Divisional playoff vs. Pitt?) That's an excuse, not a reason. The NFL managed to "endure" ties for its first 30 years without destroying the game or anyones career. Play 15:00 more; teams can still game the clock for the final possession, but they BOTH can, so the playing field's level, and WHEN the game ends is predetermined objectively, not by who scores last.

I've enjoyed this very much.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

Why play football at all? That is the real question.

It really is existential gimmickry.

Originally Posted by Jaded

It really is existential gimmickry.

Why are we here, Jaded? What is the meaning of this?

Originally Posted by Joel

In your scenario, even if both teams open OT with 99 yd TD drives, whoever won the toss can still win with a walkoff FG, denying the opponent even an opportunity. It's all well if one team starts OT by driving the field for a TD (or FG, or even a lone first down) their opponent fails to match, but if BOTH score a TD, FG, or just go three-and-out, we're right back to sudden deaths arbitrariness: Whoever loses the toss must manage an EXTRA stop just for a chance to win (or not-lose.)

All to avoid the dreaded tie, unsuccessfully if neither team can do ANYTHING for a full 15:00 (remember the 2012 Divisional playoff vs. Pitt?) That's an excuse, not a reason. The NFL managed to "endure" ties for its first 30 years without destroying the game or anyones career. Play 15:00 more; teams can still game the clock for the final possession, but they BOTH can, so the playing field's level, and WHEN the game ends is predetermined objectively, not by who scores last.

I only read your first sentence. If you give up a scoring drive and then your offense matches it and you give up another scoring drive well then, that's your fault; not the flip of the coin. Hell, by your logic, the opening coin toss decides the game.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

Why are we here, Jaded? What is the meaning of this?

We are everything...we are nothing...life...life, is but a gimmick.

Originally Posted by spikerman

I only read your first sentence. If you give up a scoring drive and then your offense matches it and you give up another scoring drive well then, that's your fault; not the flip of the coin. Hell, by your logic, the opening coin toss decides the game.

Except that's not YOUR SCENARIO: If you give up NOTHING, then your offense matches it, then the opponent gets so much as a FIRST DOWN, you lose, mainly because they won the toss and elected to receive (because who wouldn't in that scenario?) Or if you drive the field but they do the same, it's still the same: One first down wins, before you ever touch the ball again. There's a reason kickoffs are mandatory after each and every score. Except when it matters most.

The opening coin toss doesn't decide the game because even if the receiving team scores they MUST STILL KICKOFF to give the other team an equal chance. That's why the game's not SUDDEN death from the moment the starting line ups are introduced.

Originally Posted by Joel

Except that's not YOUR SCENARIO: If you give up NOTHING, then your offense matches it, then the opponent gets so much as a FIRST DOWN, you lose, mainly because they won the toss and elected to receive (because who wouldn't in that scenario?) Or if you drive the field but they do the same, it's still the same: One first down wins, before you ever touch the ball again. There's a reason kickoffs are mandatory after each and every score. Except when it matters most.

The opening coin toss doesn't decide the game because even if the receiving team scores they MUST STILL KICKOFF to give the other team an equal chance. That's why the game's not SUDDEN death from the moment the starting line ups are introduced.

From reading this post I don't think you understood my scenario at all. I also know that you never change your mind so I will stop the useless debate. Just continue to be annoyed.

Originally Posted by spikerman

From reading this post I don't think you understood my scenario at all. I also know that you never change your mind so I will stop the useless debate. Just continue to be annoyed.

Lol, like a boss spike

Originally Posted by Jaded

We are everything...we are nothing...life...life, is but a gimmick.

Or, more properly put, reality is a holographic projection from some higher dimension and our brains are holographic receivers!

"In 1982, French Physicist Alain Aspect and a team of physicists attempting to experimentally investigate Quantum Entanglement, were able to actually carry-out the polarization experiment that Einstein had proposed nearly fifty years before (Talbot, 1991, p.52-53). Photon pairs were created by heating calcium atoms with a laser, and then allowed to travel in opposite directions. Aspect discovered that the polarization of one photon immediately polarized the other--just as quantum theory had predicted. The photons were somehow communicating with each other at speeds exceeding the speed of light, or nonlocal connections existed between the electrons, or the separateness of the particles themselves was an illusion.

Princeton physicist David Bohm (1987) concluded that the implications of nonlocal connections are that objective reality itself is entirely a construct of the human brain. The true nature of reality remains hidden from us. Our brains operate as a holographic frequency analyzer, decoding projections from a more fundamental dimension. Bohm concludes that even space and time are constructs of the human brain, and they may not exist as we perceive them.

Originally Posted by Cugel

Or, more properly put, reality is a holographic projection from some higher dimension and our brains are holographic receivers!

“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather".

Originally Posted by Jaded

“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather".

Nice Hicks reference. I knew you had one redeeming quality.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

Nice Hicks reference. I knew you had one redeeming quality.

I have all Tom Hicks records.