Link: Jets Against Changes to OT Rules?
With a new proposal for overtime, it seems that the Jets won’t be in favor of any proposed changes.
Johnson and Rex Ryan both told The Post yesterday that the Jets are likely to vote against the proposed modification of the NFL’s postseason overtime rule when it comes up this week.
“It’s working pretty well the way it’s going now,” Johnson told The Post yesterday. “We’re going to look at it until the final moment, but as of right now, we’re kind of leaning toward keeping it the way it is now.”
Giants co-owner John Mara is in favor of the change, which would allow the team that loses the coin toss to get a possession in OT in the playoffs if the other team doesn’t score a TD on its first drive.
43 Responses to Link: Jets Against Changes to OT Rules?
-
Jetfan in Miami says:
We want Jets Chat!!!!
-
Lance Mehl says:
sorry but I like the way colleges have OT ..
-
TJBfan says:
I’d rather not have OT changes myself, but no biggie if they do.
They are announcing prime time games today right? Is that just season opener weekend + thanksgiving or more than that?
-
Shamik says:
What the hell is so hard about changing OT? First to 6 wins. There, its done. No more pissing and moaning. Instead the NFL has some bizarre rules about each team having a possession, different circumstances if there’s a FG vs. a TD, every team needed to do a Haka dance that’ll be judged prior to each snap. How did I end up watching Calvinball here?
-
On second thought, I think Calvinball rules in OT would be immensely fun to watch.
-
zenlaw says:
Here are some interesting stats:
Overtime stats since 1974
Both teams have had possession 235 times (72.3%)
The team that has won the toss has won 169 times (52.0%)
The team that has lost the toss has won 141 times (43.4%)
223 games were decided by a field goal (68.6%)
86 games were decided by a TD (26.5%)
One game was decided by a safety (0.3%)
There have been 15 ties (4.6%)The most telling stat is that the team that wins the toss only wins 52% of the time. What could be more fair?
-
Brendan says:
zenlaw,
You can’t use those stats because since 1993 or 1994 the stats are swayed heavily towards the first team winning. For whatever reason, the competitive advantage of receiving first has been greatly increased over the past decade and a half.
-
nyr2k2 says:
The rules changes the NFL has propose are bizarre and nonsensical. I’d vote against them, too.
-
Doug in Long Valley says:
The big swing took place when they moved the kickoff back 5 yards, then the % changed to 60% of the time the team that got the kickoff won because of the improved field position, which is an advantage to the offense.
-
mole57 says:
In the 90′s they moved the kickoff back to the 30 yard line from the 35. The improved field position and the subsequent rule changes that favor offense gives the team that wins the toss a greater advantage than in the 70′s.
I think they should get rid of the toss, and have the coaches bid on where they’ll let the opposing team kickoff from. That way overtime becomes strategy rather than luck.
-
zeike says:
Of course the Jets will now lose in the playoffs as their opponents will win the toss and kick a filed goal on the first possesion…
-
So if a shift occurred when the NFL moved the kickoff line to the 30, for overtime, can’t they just move the kickoff line to the 35?
-
zenlaw — believe it or not, that was suggested by Francesca
-
greg sec130 says:
Also, the footballs for kick-offs are different — they don’t travel as far.
-
SackDance99 says:
Think about how the spreads would be affected by the new rule. For instance, you have the dog getting 6. The game goes into OT and the favorite gets an FG. So, you’re looking pretty good. Then, the dog you’ve bet faces 4th and long, the QB throws a pick 6…goodbye cover. Also, think about how you’d be biting your nails on the under with a possible 9 points in OT!
-
Sack, it could be up to 12 points in OT. FG FG TD.
-
C Low says:
It just sucks that ST kickoff/punts are not a part of it. In OT it is the most exciting part of the game since the battle for field position and playcalling strategy is determined mostly by the result of the kick/punt return.
-
Dirty#6 says:
Why change overtime? This is so stupid. If you can’t win in regulation, you’re taking a chance losing in ot. Everyone points to how the vikings didn’t get the ball, but how about Brett Favre actually protects the ball! The NFL is the most exciting sport, why change it? Have you ever watched college ot? Boring as sh**. Do you really want hour long ot’s? If it aint’ broke, don’t fix it.
-
96DEBACLE says:
two words for ya:
Overly Complicated!Well if your taking away the sudden death OT by forcing each team to have a possession why not just put a time limit on the whole OT at say 10 minutes and let them play it out?
why start putting a stipulation on the kind of way you score in OT then how you score in Standard time?
you can win by 6 but not by 3?!i think their over thinking this. whats next you can only throw the ball in OT on your first drive. if it comes to your second possession then you can run and throw. but your defense has to run the nickel on third downs the next time their on the field.
jeeze, you know how i
you overly complicate things -
I think the Jets have lost enough coin tosses recently that they would be all for the new rule.
I say keep it as it is.. just play good defense…..get a punt and then kick the fg and go home. Done!
-
@ 96…while I agree that if they do in fact change ot, that is the best solution, but what happens if the game is still tied after that? A field goal off? NFL games are already incredibly long, no need to extend 10 more minutes of playing time and 15 more minutes of commercial and other bs.
-
hank/naples says:
Drew:
I think the fair way is to allow the team that wins it to PROVE it deserved to win the game.
No Kick-Off, just a coin flip and the winning team starts at their own TWENTY.
First team to score on a FG or TD, Wins!!
-
Marvel says:
I don’t understand the debate … The NFL is perfect but every time I look up they wanna change it … The OT rules are fine last time I checked , defensive players & ST players get paid good money to do a job. ..Now they wanna change the rules for WRs again,are you kidding me with this stuff ?
Remember that JETS vs BILLS game .. It would have never ended if .. They are basing theses changes off teams like the COLTS & SAINTS , but what about the teams that can’t move the ball as effectivly (browns,lions,half the NFL) ….
Oyea Vikings fan if you don’t wanna lose in OT then don’t turn the ball over 8 times during regulation … This is STUDIP ..
-
@ hank/naples
Why does special teams get eliminated in ot? What happens to teams (like the Jets) that thrive on special teams, and kick returning is an intricate part of their game. How does putting players on the 20 magically fix everything (not that it should be fixed). I understand the logic of wanting to guarantee both teams touch the ball (not that I agree that it’s a must), but I don’t get these people that want the kick off to be closer to the end zone, or just eliminate kick offs. Is it unfair if a team starts a game off with a kick return td? Why does that change in ot. If you don’t want the opposing team to score on kick offs, them kick the ball deep, or actually make a tackle.
-
Bent says: It bugs me when teams lose and then moan about the rules. The rules are what they are…if you don’t like them, win in regulation!
I’d like to add that I still think the Jets should’ve elected to kick against the Bills and would have won that game if they did so.
-
Dylan says:
Change the rule! I hate the coin flip! It doesn’t affect the Jets as much as it would other teams, but I still don’t like it. The Vikings season was basically decided by a coin flip. Who knows what would have happened if they had gotten the ball first in OT.
-
Hank I agree with Dirty#6,
Special Team is 1/3 of football (in terms of facets of the game, not actual plays). You can’t just eliminate kickoffs unless it’s to go to a college-style OT.
-
I would love if the NFL would use the college version of OT, but I don’t think it would ever happen.
-
Dylan
Are you serious ? Or joking ?
They turned the ball over 8 times in regulation !!!
They were in field goal range at the end of the game but the Viking coach is horrible & captain ” dumb a$$” threw another horrible pick to close out regulation ..
COME ON ….. Get Real ….. Just my thoughts
-
Bent
I don’t know if you remember but I think we got into field goal range in OT buy Hartstock got called for holdind .. I blamed him for that loss & I still do .. It was such a dumb hold , didn’t even effect the play ..
Oyea & digs punching evrybody in the face didn’t help matters …
-
^
but ….holding .. You get the point -
Brendan:
Becuase you are right whena you say: ” For whatever reason, the competitive advantage of receiving first has been greatly increased over the past decade and a half.”
What you want to do is remove the probabily “short field’ due to a long run back on the kick-off thereby giveing both teams a greater opportunity to “EARN ” the win!!
I mean, you are not “removing” anything because Punting is not eliminated.
I believe the league just wants the odds of winning more evenly distribubed after the coin toss.
-
Dirty # 6:
The fact is Bent is right, that the less we screw arround with the rules the better off football is!!
However, a couple of things are evident:
Only One team( special teams) touches the ball. Most of the time it is because of the field goal resulting from the run back on the kick-off.
Some Owners/Fans feel that the competitive spirit in OT as it stands now is being affected (tilted) towards the receving team!!
They want to increase the probability of BOTH teams (offense an deffense) to have a chance to rean the win!!
And last but not least, The want to mess THE LEAST possible with rule changes!!
My suggestion eliminates ONLY the OT Kick-Off. Everything else remains the same!!
-
Marvel,
I don’t feel sorry for the Vikings, I just don’t think that big games like that should be affected by a coin toss. Its impossible for us to know what would have happened if the Vikings had the ball. When they weren’t turning the ball over, they were marching down the field pretty easily.
I’m just not a fan of the current format. I think that having both teams touch the ball would create a more even playing field. I think it would also create more exciting football, since teams would actually be trying to score TDs, instead of just running it 3 times when they got inside the 30 yard line. Just my thoughts. Its fine if you disagree.
-
mole 57,
You’re right! One of the many reasons that you’ll never see college style OT is the spreads. Any change to the OT structure will change how Vegas sets lines, especially for the O/U. I’m not a huge math guy, but if the scoring can go beyond the max of 6 in OT, Vegas will have to adjust by ticking up the O/U, which Vegas already has set artificiallly high because most bettors prefer to bet the over. If the NFL ever adopts a scenario where another 12 points can be scored in OT, always bet the under because that is where the value will be, especially in games where the spread is 3 or less.
I waiver on the fairness of having the coin toss mean so much in OT. It just seems “fairer” to let both teams have a shot of winning in OT. Also, what’s so wrong with regular season ties? Give both teams at least one shot to win (and include extra points…a team working on an upset might opt for a 2-point conversion) and if they tie after the first 2 drives, play sudden death until the end of the quarter (if there’s a tie, so be it) or in playoff games until a team scores.
-
Bent says:
How about this – no coin toss, home team always kicks off in overtime.
That way the home team knows it won’t get the ball first so has an added incentive to win in regulation. The road team is rewarded for avoiding defeat in regulation. The home fans can still influence the outcome by getting loud and distracting the road team’s offense.
Just an idea.
-
The Ed(itor) says:
Another stupid decision by Woody The Weasel. The proposed OT rule makes so much sense only an idiot would oppose it.
Probably the same idiots who didn’t put a dome on their new stadium so they could attract a Super Bowl. -
jameson says:
“Giants co-owner John Mara is in favor of the change, which would allow the team that loses the coin toss to get a possession in OT in the playoffs if the other team doesn’t score a TD on its first drive.”
I think the proposed rule is applicable if the other team DOES score on its first drive.
Both teams’ offense gets an opportunity to score…
that sounds fair to me. -
I still don’t see the problem with the current rules … I don’t know everything about football but I do no it’s not as complicated as dome of you guys are making it out to be …
If you lose the coin toss PLAY DEFENSE/ST .. Sheeesh
-
If they change the OT rules and the WRs coming across the middle rules .. I swear will change me from a “die hard fan” to a “casual fan” ..
-
dakar says:
i dont care for the change…if it happens it happens…but i have to say that i am leaning more agaisnt then i am for the rule…
the way i see it…is if we didn’t beat a team in the 1st 60 mintues then loose it in the 1st series of OT then we deserve to loose…no need to drag the game on and risk injury…again,if it is changed it wont bother me…i’ll just see my team play for a bit longer…just my thoughts…
-
In the NFC Championship game the Saints win the toss – go down the field and kick a FG .. Minny and the so called miracle worker Favre doesn’t even get a chance? to go to the Super Bowl ? a coin flip is ridiculous ..
we are against it because we play great defense and it doesnt matter who gets the ball first because if we lose the toss revis is getting that ball back.