Auction-style bidding? It will never happen. Ever.

Amusing. Too amusing for the NFL

I can name that tune in one note.

How about at the end of regulation, the team with possession gets the ball where they ended up and at the same down? There's an added twist to your 2-minute drill

Yeah, and we could put cameras in the locker rooms and huddles, do away with penalties for roughness.. OH instead of a coin toss, we can just put the ball on the ground and let the players scramble for it! How do I come up with these things.

/just implement the NCAA's overtime system, farkwits

HaywoodJablonski: How about at the end of regulation, the team with possession gets the ball where they ended up and at the same down? There's an added twist to your 2-minute drill

With sudden death? I hate sudden death. Have them play another entire quarter, lather, rinse, repeat until someone is leading. I'd go for that.

We could add other fun things to football. Like if a coach hasn't used up all of his time outs, he can add the time to the end of the game. It might make it harder for the other team to sit on a lead and run out the clock.

If they are going to use an auction, though, use a Vickrey auction. The winner gets the ball at the loser's bid.

I like the 'first team to score 6 points wins' idea.

Meh how's about no field goals in OT? Just leave it the same but you have to score TD's to win?

That makes absolutely no sense.

DoBeDoBeDo: Meh how's about no field goals in OT? Just leave it the same but you have to score TD's to win?

pandabear: HaywoodJablonski: How about at the end of regulation, the team with possession gets the ball where they ended up and at the same down? There's an added twist to your 2-minute drill

With sudden death? I hate sudden death. Have them play another entire quarter, lather, rinse, repeat until someone is leading. I'd go for that.

These both run into the reason they don't have NCAA style overtime: takes too long, and they don't want it running too far into whatever bullshiat they put on after football games anyway. Because clearly an exciting triple OT ending isn't a good enough reason to cancel a sitcom rerun.

College football overtime sucks. It does. Stop lobbying for it. Even the current NFL system is better.

starmatt85:

These both run into the reason they don't have NCAA style overtime: takes too long, and they don't want it running too far into whatever bullshiat they put on after football games anyway. Because clearly an exciting triple OT ending isn't a good enough reason to cancel a sitcom rerun.

Not really, look at 2 minute drill percentages. There is a big difference between a first quarter drive and a sudden death drive. When they have to score to win the stops come out and you worry less about long ints or having to worry about your QB throwing or wide outs running for 60 more minutes. I would bet you'd see on average 2 possessions per OT period.

HaywoodJablonski: College football overtime sucks. It does. Stop lobbying for it. Even the current NFL system is better.

Maybe in bizarro world. The only bad thing about NCAA overtime is they keep stats from it.

It could stay in it's current format, just give the other team a chance for a rebuttal.

i.e.:
Team A wins the coin toss, but can't move the ball and has to punt.
Team B drives the ball down the field and kicks a field goal.
Team A get the ball and drives for a touchdown.
Team B gets the ball but is unable to score. Team A wins.

Basically the game would end when a team is unable to tie or go ahead with thier rebuttal possession. Most games would end in 4-5 possessions, though it could drag on with no scoring or with the teams trading touchdowns. I think it would be fair and exciting.

tdpatriots12: HaywoodJablonski: College football overtime sucks. It does. Stop lobbying for it. Even the current NFL system is better.

Maybe in bizarro world. The only bad thing about NCAA overtime is they keep stats from it.

And it runs for about 4 times the length of the regular periods. And takes defense completely out of the equation. You can't afford to throw an exotic D because the other team is already in the red zone.

I'd rather see ties than either of the current OT systems.

The leave-the-ball-where-it-is sudden death idea (The Jablonski Postulate) is my favorite idea so far.

Fark the auction. Fark the toss. Using football-playing ability to determine who puts points on the board? Ridiculous!

HaywoodJablonski: College football overtime sucks. It does. Stop lobbying for it. Even the current NFL system is better.

What he said.

The NFL could allow coaches to do auction-style bidding for possession of the ball in overtime. Marty Mornhinweg immediately bids his own 1-yard line

Uh, subby, you do know that Marty Mornhinweg isn't the Lions head coach any more, right? He's the OC for the Eagles.

As for the "bidding" that is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I could agree with the 6 pts/TD's only idea, but the current system to me isn't too bad.

This idea is so dumb i cant even acknowledge it. I still think college OT rules are best. They bring the most excitement and come on, how often will a game go past 3 OT's. In fact why not make the rule that it is college style OT, except the game is called a tie if the score is the same after 3 offensive drives for each team. That would pretty much do it I think.

Just allow them to tie, even in the playoffs. Just imagine what it would be like going without a championship in a given year. Well, it would roughly be like college football.

What the hell people? Why is this a worse way to decide a game then giving a team that wins a coin toss a 70% chance of victory or more? If you're gonna have sudden death, this is really the only wa it's fair.

PattyMcG: The Jablonski Postulate

That's a load of crap. Football is played in halves. Between halves, you lose possession, and either have to kick or receive all over again. This makes clock management significant. If a team knew that they'd keep the ball where they were when it goes into OT, there's no reason for them to try and hustle- you destroy the suspense of the closing minutes of a tight game. You know it's simply going to go to overtime.

I actually like the auction idea. It adds a poker-like element to it.

Another option is breaking the OT quarter into two 7:50 halves- team A receives, and then a 7:50, play stops and A has to kick to B. Or, if you want it to end real quick, disallow punting in OT. You turn the ball over where you stand.

Also, the Kygzian Rebuttal Theory has a lot going for it. It's got potential. Lots of strategy going on. Say you're a coach in OT who has the ball, 3rd and 7 on the enemy's 29-yard line. You have to think, can the other team can get 7 when they get the ball back?

The drawback IMO though is the chance at more lame ties. If Team A settles for 3 to stay in the game on their first posession, and then Team B does the same on their "rebuttal", that's lame. You should have to one-up the other team.

i.e.
Team A gets the ball and scores 3.
Team B gets the ball next and if they punt or can't score a TD, they lose.
And then, if Team B does get 7, Team A has one possession to shoot for 8. Some team gets 8, the game is mathematically over. Now that's exciting.

I love this idea.
I just worry it wouldn't take long for there to be a chart with wind velocity etc that almost every coach follows slavishly.
When the optimum bid is widely believed to be X and both coaches choose X are you back to flipping a coin?

But it would be fun to see how it plays out and it would add another element of strategy to discuss in the break room every monday.

cptjeff: What the hell people? Why is this a worse way to decide a game then giving a team that wins a coin toss a 70% chance of victory or more? If you're gonna have sudden death, this is really the only wa it's fair.

for sudden death yes. sure this makes sense. but why does it have to be sudden death? Sudden death doesnt work in football. It just doesnt make sense. In every other sport it makes sense. except maybe baseball. But in football it just doesnt make sense. Here are some other suggestions.

1) Field goals are not allowed. Only TD's win a game.

2)Field goals are allowed, but they dont win the game unless the opposing offense is held scoreless in the next drive. TD's win automatically always.

3)College style OT, but with a cap on 3 offensive drives per team. Then a tie.

I cant really think of anything else that would make sense.

I know it seemed a bit lame, but I loved the XFL scramble for the football. Maybe add a few more players to the mix (2 vs 2).

Or, each team puts their punt/kick return units on the field close to the 50. Dangle the ball above the 50 and then drop it. Whichever team comes up with the ball gets possession where they recover it.

Or, just make the punters fight for it, mma-style.

Ruffian: I know it seemed a bit lame, but I loved the XFL scramble for the football. Maybe add a few more players to the mix (2 vs 2).

Or, each team puts their punt/kick return units on the field close to the 50. Dangle the ball above the 50 and then drop it. Whichever team comes up with the ball gets possession where they recover it.

Or, just make the punters fight for it, mma-style.

lol. the idea is funny, but keeping in mind that they want to limit the chance of injury, i dont think it would work.

This idea is incredibly awesome.

t3knomanser: PattyMcG: The Jablonski Postulate

That's a load of crap. Football is played in halves. Between halves, you lose possession, and either have to kick or receive all over again. This makes clock management significant. If a team knew that they'd keep the ball where they were when it goes into OT, there's no reason for them to try and hustle- you destroy the suspense of the closing minutes of a tight game. You know it's simply going to go to overtime.

That's actually a significant point: the fact that if it's tied late in the 4th, everyone plays harder don't wanna get screwed out of a win by the toss.

^ *because they don't wanna

And yet, it would still be better than coinflip and sudden death. Seriously, what's wrong with giving each team at least one possession? Isn't symmetry the beauty of sports?

yogaFLAME: OH instead of a coin toss, we can just put the ball on the ground and let the players scramble for it!

And screw you. That was a brilliant idea and needs to be implemented as well.

Ruffian: Or, just make the punters fight for it, mma-style.

This would be cool. The Pat's "backup" punter would by Ty Warren and Chris Hanson would mysteriously get injured late in the 4th quarter.

Hey i got an idea! Everyone thinks kickers suck right? Right? so in order to determine who gets ball first in OT, the kickers must kick field goals starting at the 30 and moving back 5 yds every time they make it. First team to miss, say from the 40 yd line, the other team has an opportunity to make it from the 40 yard line and if they make it, they win possession.

/thats not half bad. Give kickers a reason to live.

Snarfangel: We could add other fun things to football. Like if a coach hasn't used up all of his time outs, he can add the time to the end of the game. It might make it harder for the other team to sit on a lead and run out the clock.

I've always thought it would be a fun twist to use a "time-out" as either a time-out or a time-in. Say Team A is up by two with eight seconds left and Team B just got into field goal range. They call a time-out. Team A then goes, "Not so fast...time *in* biatches!"

Gecko Gingrich: Snarfangel: We could add other fun things to football. Like if a coach hasn't used up all of his time outs, he can add the time to the end of the game. It might make it harder for the other team to sit on a lead and run out the clock.

I've always thought it would be a fun twist to use a "time-out" as either a time-out or a time-in. Say Team A is up by two with eight seconds left and Team B just got into field goal range. They call a time-out. Team A then goes, "Not so fast...time *in* biatches!"

I swear, I thought that the first time I'd ever facepalm in real life, it would be over something I read in the politics tab. But dammit, you got me. Bloody good job, would LOL again.

vinnydoz007: Hey i got an idea! Everyone thinks kickers suck right? Right? so in order to determine who gets ball first in OT, the kickers must kick field goals starting at the 30 and moving back 5 yds every time they make it. First team to miss, say from the 40 yd line, the other team has an opportunity to make it from the 40 yard line and if they make it, they win possession.

/thats not half bad. Give kickers a reason to live.


Until you go to a game early and watch the kickers warm up with no defense, most of them are money from 60 yards.

I say the players' SOs have to parade around in bikinis and the fans get to vote. Hottest set of women wins their team the ball.

there are only 4 options that i see that that are fair and allow you to keep all three phases of the game.

1. 5 min OT periods, no sudden death. 5 mins is enough time that both teams will probably have possession. Kickoff after each period. Tie after 3. I would be for a full 15 min period, but i guess that conflicts with tv so that can't happen. most OTs last around 5 mins anyway so it doesn't conflict with programming.

2. first team that gets 4 points wins. i've seen a lot of people say 6 points, but if you get 2 safeties you deserve to win.

3. Allow ties. really whats the problem with this? it would happen a couple extra times during the season, and would more accurately reflect the outcome of the game. in the postseason use method number 1 with full 15 min periods. nothing a network could put on would outrate nfl playoff football.

4. Football Outsiders' splitting the overtime pizza idea (new window). basically the reason why the receiving team scores more often in recent years is because kickoffs were moved back to the 30 yard line, so offenses were starting closer to scoring range. so let one team decide the yardline the kickoff would come on, and the other team gets to decide if they want to kick or recieve.

DoBeDoBeDo: vinnydoz007: Hey i got an idea! Everyone thinks kickers suck right? Right? so in order to determine who gets ball first in OT, the kickers must kick field goals starting at the 30 and moving back 5 yds every time they make it. First team to miss, say from the 40 yd line, the other team has an opportunity to make it from the 40 yard line and if they make it, they win possession.

/thats not half bad. Give kickers a reason to live.


Until you go to a game early and watch the kickers warm up with no defense, most of them are money from 60 yards.

I say the players' SOs have to parade around in bikinis and the fans get to vote. Hottest set of women wins their team the ball.

well the point is they would keep pushing back until one of them missed. I think it could work. the only potential problem is lets say they both get to the 50 yd line. And then they keep missing. They would have to figure a way to overcome that like 2 misses by each player and they go back 5 yds or something.

Personally, I'm OK with the current system. If you don't want to lose a game on the first possesion of overtime then play some damn defense.

Oobleck: there are only 4 options that i see that that are fair and allow you to keep all three phases of the game.

1. 5 min OT periods, no sudden death. 5 mins is enough time that both teams will probably have possession. Kickoff after each period. Tie after 3. I would be for a full 15 min period, but i guess that conflicts with tv so that can't happen. most OTs last around 5 mins anyway so it doesn't conflict with programming.

2. first team that gets 4 points wins. i've seen a lot of people say 6 points, but if you get 2 safeties you deserve to win.

3. Allow ties. really whats the problem with this? it would happen a couple extra times during the season, and would more accurately reflect the outcome of the game. in the postseason use method number 1 with full 15 min periods. nothing a network could put on would outrate nfl playoff football.

4. Football Outsiders' splitting the overtime pizza idea (new window). basically the reason why the receiving team scores more often in recent years is because kickoffs were moved back to the 30 yard line, so offenses were starting closer to scoring range. so let one team decide the yardline the kickoff would come on, and the other team gets to decide if they want to kick or recieve.

I dont know, ive seen a lot of football possession last longer than 5 minutes. so im not sure about that one. The second ones not bad. for 3 i dont want ties if i dont have to have a tie. 4 I like though.

have a sprint from one end of the field to the other to determine possesion. It would only take about 15 seconds or so.

tommyl66: Personally, I'm OK with the current system. If you don't want to lose a game on the first possesion of overtime want to claim to have won a game then play some damn defense.

FTFA

The Great EZE: I swear, I thought that the first time I'd ever facepalm in real life, it would be over something I read in the politics tab. But dammit, you got me. Bloody good job, would LOL again.

Glad to be of service. :)

How about this: field goals don't count in OT. It must be a touchdown.

DoBeDoBeDo clearly stole my idea.

Oobleck: 3. Allow ties. really whats the problem with this? it would happen a couple extra times during the season, and would more accurately reflect the outcome of the game. in the postseason use method number 1 with full 15 min periods. nothing a network could put on would outrate nfl playoff football.

Football already allows ties. I like the idea of keeping the overtime period at the same length as it is now, but forcing a team to score 4 points instead of drawing first blood. It makes the coin toss less of a deciding factor unless one team lets the other walk down the field and score a touchdown in their opening drive. At that point you cannot blame bad luck.

Emrick: I like the 'first team to score 6 points wins' idea.

No reason for it to be 6. I think if you can get two safeties in OT that's good enough. Make it 4 and it's better. That way everything still applies but a safety will still be useful. (a safety and a FG means you won on defense AND offense, you should get a win for this, too)

Taima: As for the "bidding" that is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

It really isn't. A coin toss is much stupider.

Use the Tug-of-War game from at least NCAA '09, I don't know about if it's in Madden or not; one play per possession, ball starts at the 50. Alternate plays until someone scores. If you give up a 50 yard play to start OT then you suck at football.

Or the bowling minigame. Possessions from the 10 yard line, one yard = one pin, no negatives.

FreeMedical: It makes the coin toss less of a deciding factor unless one team lets the other walk down the field and score a touchdown in their opening drive. At that point you cannot blame bad luck.

It would still suck if it were a kickoff return, but yeah.

IAmRight: FreeMedical: It makes the coin toss less of a deciding factor unless one team lets the other walk down the field and score a touchdown in their opening drive. At that point you cannot blame bad luck.

It would still suck if it were a kickoff return, but yeah.

If you let the guy return a kickoff for a touchdown, that's a special teams collapse and entirely your fault.

FreeMedical: If you let the guy return a kickoff for a touchdown, that's a special teams collapse and entirely your fault.

maybe there's an uncalled block in the back. I'm just sayin' that play renders the whole "well you guys never played defense" thing still valid.

Could always make the "you get one play to match" rule.

How about H-O-R-S-E? pick a yardline/location (hashmark to hashmark) and find a way to score from there in one play. Other team scores, no letter.

Better shorten it to P-I-G. (hey, it's a pigskin, it works even better that way)

Hell, for fun, we could have both offenses and defenses on the field at the same time in non-windy situations (I'm assuming that offenses are going to try to score from their opposition's territory). only problem is for the refs in that situation.

Kygz: It could stay in it's current format, just give the other team a chance for a rebuttal.

i.e.:
Team A wins the coin toss, but can't move the ball and has to punt.
Team B drives the ball down the field and kicks a field goal.
Team A get the ball and drives for a touchdown.
Team B gets the ball but is unable to score. Team A wins.

Basically the game would end when a team is unable to tie or go ahead with thier rebuttal possession. Most games would end in 4-5 possessions, though it could drag on with no scoring or with the teams trading touchdowns. I think it would be fair and exciting.

ummm, wouldn't Team B have won on their first rebuttal posession when they kicked a FG after Team A punted? Otherwise, I like this.

College rules!!!

Snarfangel: We could add other fun things to football. Like if a coach hasn't used up all of his time outs, he can add the time to the end of the game. It might make it harder for the other team to sit on a lead and run out the clock.

If they are going to use an auction, though, use a Vickrey auction. The winner gets the ball at the loser's bid.

Except that, knowing that, both teams bid 50. There's no incentive not to. Also, what would they do in the event of ties? Flip a coin?

b04155: How about this: field goals don't count in OT. It must be a touchdown.

That's basically the college system, applied to the NFL, since you start inside of field goal range already and NFL kickers are MUCH less likely to miss from that range than college kickers.

starmatt85: These both run into the reason they don't have NCAA style overtime: takes too long, and they don't want it running too far into whatever bullshiat they put on after football games anyway. Because clearly an exciting triple OT ending isn't a good enough reason to cancel a sitcom rerun.

Not to mention the gambling and fantasy implications.

DoBeDoBeDo: And it runs for about 4 times the length of the regular periods. And takes defense completely out of the equation. You can't afford to throw an exotic D because the other team is already in the red zone.

They shouldn't keep re-doing the toss in OTs but other than that it's fine. They don't start in the red zone, they start from the 25. I assume they'd move back to, say, the 35 in the pros because while most college kickers aren't reliable on a 42 yarder, pretty much all pros are.

No, the solution that most tickles the ivories...

Wait, the solution plays the piano?

IAmRight: No reason for it to be 6. I think if you can get two safeties in OT that's good enough. Make it 4 and it's better. That way everything still applies but a safety will still be useful. (a safety and a FG means you won on defense AND offense, you should get a win for this, too)

That's cool too.

DontMakeMeShushYou: Kygz: It could stay in it's current format, just give the other team a chance for a rebuttal.

i.e.:
Team A wins the coin toss, but can't move the ball and has to punt.
Team B drives the ball down the field and kicks a field goal.
Team A get the ball and drives for a touchdown.
Team B gets the ball but is unable to score. Team A wins.

Basically the game would end when a team is unable to tie or go ahead with thier rebuttal possession. Most games would end in 4-5 possessions, though it could drag on with no scoring or with the teams trading touchdowns. I think it would be fair and exciting.

ummm, wouldn't Team B have won on their first rebuttal posession when they kicked a FG after Team A punted? Otherwise, I like this.

No, cause Team B is the first team to break the tie, so Team A gets a chance (rebuttal 1). It's not about having fair-ups.

If Team A and B take turns going 3 and out for 10 drives each, then Team A finally scores, it's then only at rebuttal #1 and Team B gets a single drive to tie or take the lead.

pandabear: HaywoodJablonski: How about at the end of regulation, the team with possession gets the ball where they ended up and at the same down? There's an added twist to your 2-minute drill

With sudden death? I hate sudden death. Have them play another entire quarter, lather, rinse, repeat until someone is leading. I'd go for that.

Heck, just award the game to the visiting team and be done with it. Home field is supposed to be worth 2.5pts as far as Vegas is concerned, so if the home team can't manage at least a 1pt win, they don't deserve it.

It will make strategy at the end of the game much more interesting too if the home team needs to win but the visitors only need to tie. You'll see a lot more situations where the 2pt conversion comes into play.

How about they show a household good on the jumbro-tron and both coaches bid on it, the closest to the actual price without going over is the winner of the game?

cptjeff: What the hell people? Why is this a worse way to decide a game then giving a team that wins a coin toss a 70% chance of victory or more? If you're gonna have sudden death, this is really the only wa it's fair.

Total no. of overtime games (1974-2003) 365
Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %)

or better yet, don't play for overtime....

mikaloyd: cptjeff: What the hell people? Why is this a worse way to decide a game then giving a team that wins a coin toss a 70% chance of victory or more? If you're gonna have sudden death, this is really the only wa it's fair.

Total no. of overtime games (1974-2003) 365
Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %)

365 total games, 189 won toss and won, 160 won toss and lost, and 15 ended in a tie. What happened in the other game? (365-189-160-15=1)

Ok here is my newest one... send out the punters to the endzone and let them kick it as hard as they can. The punter whose ball goes the farthest gets possession for his team and include rolling distance so there is no way in the world that there can be any discrepancy.

Total no. of overtime games (1974-2003) 365
Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %)

Hmmm.

189
+160
+ 15
359

Where's the missing 6 games?

Alternatives that change the game are weird and confusing... although i do like the ncaa '09 tug of war concept.

Bidding is weird to me as i think coaches will come to the 'optimum bid' or that 'bid ties' really produce no result.

I do like first team to 4 points wins, which nullifies winning on a quick field goal. Tie at the end of the extra quarter.

I sort of like disallowing punting, but that also changes the game.

What about 1 possession per team with whichever team has the most net yardage winning (ties at this point mean the game ends in a tie).

The Great EZE: And yet, it would still be better than coinflip and sudden death. Seriously, what's wrong with giving each team at least one possession? Isn't symmetry the beauty of sports?

yogaFLAME: OH instead of a coin toss, we can just put the ball on the ground and let the players scramble for it!

And screw you. That was a brilliant idea and needs to be implemented as well.

Because the NFL is a professional sports league, and each team's defense should be able to stop the other team's offense because uh... that's the point. The only issue I see with NFL OT is that it ends in a tie if no one scores.

Sirsky: Because the NFL is a professional sports league, and each team's defense should be able to stop the other team's offense because uh... that's the point. The only issue I see with NFL OT is that it ends in a tie if no one scores.

Bolded for emphasis. If a team wins sudden death after one possession, then their defense doesn't have to do squat to stop the other team's offense. That seems like a pretty sweet deal for that team's defense.

If it's anything like the pace of a video review, It sgould only take them about half an hour to figure out who gets possession.

They should Roshambo for it.

Emrick: I like the 'first team to score 6 points wins' idea.

intriguing

Each team can have a dog put them at the 50 and whichever dog kills the other dog first gets the ball!

College football needed to change their rules due to much dissent and dissatisfaction declaring a winner. The NCAA used high school rules to grant a victor. However, since rankings are paramount at the college level, the 'winner' of a game may lose votes nationally for being taken to the overtime; the same way a highly-ranked squad drops a few spots for playing down to a less-heralded one. The overtime is for resolution of a game and excitement.

In the NFL, it's win, lose, or tie. The standings determine who'll make the playoffs, not the power rankings. If a team gets taken to overtime, it's both teams fault for not finishing the job in the first 60 minutes. I can understand giving each team a possession, but they don't really deserve it. With the level of talent in the NFL, we could easily see 5+ overtime games by putting the ball on the 20 or 25-yard-line. As it stands currently, the system is a win for the league and networks. The 6-point rule (no FGs) may take just as long, time-wise, as the college overtime. How about one series of college football-style, with each team getting a possession from the 50-yard-line, followed by a coin flip overtime if tied afterward? Vegas still would be pissed about the over/under for all of the extra points put on the board. The playoffs should really be the only time where both teams have a gripe about a coin toss.

Special J: If it's anything like the pace of a video review, It sgould only take them about half an hour to figure out who gets possession.

They should Roshambo for it.

Saw an example of the new CFL review process tonight and must say it was pretty slick. Instead of the ref going under the hood the replay calls are handled remotely like they are in the NHL where an offsite official makes the call. The one I saw tonight was already called by the time the ref was able to get to a headset. This is something the NFL should copy.

kpottruff: Special J: If it's anything like the pace of a video review, It sgould only take them about half an hour to figure out who gets possession.

They should Roshambo for it.

Saw an example of the new CFL review process tonight and must say it was pretty slick. Instead of the ref going under the hood the replay calls are handled remotely like they are in the NHL where an offsite official makes the call. The one I saw tonight was already called by the time the ref was able to get to a headset. This is something the NFL should copy.

The NCAA does it that way and I hate it. The refs make a call a certain way so it can be reviewable but the instant replay ref is usually a retired ref and really has no interest in overriding a field call and will only do so in the worst situation. The impotency of the replay refs compounds the bad call on the field.

Check out the OU Oregon fiasco sometime

Speedbts alt: kpottruff: Special J: If it's anything like the pace of a video review, It sgould only take them about half an hour to figure out who gets possession.

They should Roshambo for it.

Saw an example of the new CFL review process tonight and must say it was pretty slick. Instead of the ref going under the hood the replay calls are handled remotely like they are in the NHL where an offsite official makes the call. The one I saw tonight was already called by the time the ref was able to get to a headset. This is something the NFL should copy.

The NCAA does it that way and I hate it. The refs make a call a certain way so it can be reviewable but the instant replay ref is usually a retired ref and really has no interest in overriding a field call and will only do so in the worst situation. The impotency of the replay refs compounds the bad call on the field.

Check out the OU Oregon fiasco sometime

well being a smaller league means that they don't need too many people to make the call. the two guys who are doing it are the head of officiating (former head coach) and a ref who was in the field until last season and was a pretty good one. Given that everyone who is watching the game knows who these guys are they are under a microscope and I think they will do a good job.

Sirsky: Because the NFL is a professional sports league, and each team's defense should be able to stop the other team's offense because uh... that's the point. The only issue I see with NFL OT is that it ends in a tie if no one scores.

Its the Old Yeller Rule: if neither team can score in 15 minutes of overtime the game needs to be brought behind the woodshed and shot in the head for the sake of everybody involved.