I am interested in what House P suggested though. What if you team goes first and scores the td but decides to go for 2? Does that end the game since that score can't be beat?
Hmm what if it was done your way but also add the caveat of a time trial. So let's say the first team kicks a fg and the drive lasted 6 mins 42 seconds. The 2nd team can win by beating the score or kicking the fg quicker. That could make for some interesting decisions. If your at 6 mins and 30 seconds but the fg is a 45 yarder do you kick it for the win off of time or keep going for the TD?
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge" -Stephen Hawking
This idea and JNort's notion of timing are two of the best OT ideas I have heard in a long time. I still kinda like the college football model (it eliminates punting and KOs from the OT, but that seems like a reasonable sacrifice) but this "outscore your opponent" notion really appeals to me.
-Jason "if only the DBR had a vote on the NFL competition committee" Evans
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
Given the ratings from the two conference championship games, the NFL competition committee is probably trying to come up with ways to get more games to OT (without blowing an obvious call, Buffalo Wildwings style), not tinker with something that produced two wild, popular games.
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
I’m curious, have you heard of anyone associated with the NFL suggesting that the OT rules aren’t working out just fine?
I’d be surprised if this is an issue they look at. Perhaps it’s just me, but everyone I talk to IRL thought the conference championship games were fantastic — although completely marred by the missed call in the Saints game. The only place I have heard people complaining about the OT set up is this one.
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
Of course there are many in the NFL who don't like this rule, and many never have. For someone (not you) to suggest otherwise is just plain silly...totally unserious. And BTW, I'm neither a Pats hater or a Pats fan....nor a Rams or Saints fan either...but this system is so flawed, there are any number of systems that would be significantly superior with no downside.
I am not sure what your issue is, but it is not silly to suggest that the OT rules in the NFL are fine. That is my opinion, and the opinion of what a few other people. Seriously.
Perhaps it is time to accept that your opinion is not the only “serious” one?
So, who does everyone got on Sunday? Part of me wants the Rams, simply because of how great it would be to have Dean Spanos see the other owner of an LA team win. Part of me thinks the Pats will be too much for the new kid on the block.
Apparently all the sharp money... I mean all the experienced analytical gamblers... are taking the Rams. There's a reason the line opened at Rams -1.5. The smart money is on the better team, not the legendary QB/Coach. Any time a casino number hits Pats -3, the sharps rush in and bet it like crazy until it gets back to Pats -2.5. If you can find a Pats -3, bet the farm on it.
-Jason "this is not to say that the Rams will certainly win or cover, anything can happen in one game, but the analytics guys say they are the better team" Evans
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
Game day! The official end of football season, and when causal fans start watching roundball.
I suspect the game will be close. If either team pulls away, I think it is the Rams. I don't think the Pat's can put up a boatload of points on LA.
A fool who has a lot of money. You can do quite well betting against Brady in the Super Bowl.
2002 14 point underdog, won and covered
2004 7 point favorite, won but did not cover
2005 7 point favorite, won but did not cover
2008 12 point favorite, lost and did not cover
2012 2.5 point favorite, lost and did not cover
2015 pick'em, won and covered
2017 3 point favorite, won and covered
2018 4 point favorite, lost and did not cover
So, against the spread, he is just 3-5.
-Jason "Vegas lines found here: http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/superbowl/history/ " Evans
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
spread, schmed, infatuations with covering nothwithstanding, I think more people just wonder who's going to win the game.
Well, with the spread at 2 (having crept down from 2.5), a non-cover for New England is going to be a loss >90+% of the time, anyway.
I think Jason's point was that it has hardly been foolish to bet against NE in the Super Bowl. For example, "Bettor X" famously won millions on the Eagles last year and he's back for more on the Rams this year. And gambling aside, NE really hasn't been that dominant in Super Bowls. They've played 8 games that could've gone either way and have gone 5-3 (with most of those 5 victories being extra razor close, like the goal-line interception against Seattle or the overtime comeback win against Atlanta). But maybe they surprise today and play a non-competitive game for once.