Nfl 2011

[mpare]

Spoken with the conviction of one who has won the coin toss.

This is as silly as deciding a hockey game on the basis of a shoot-out (not an overtime period), with the first team to score being declared the winner. The team who won the coin toss would get to shoot first, and then the other team would get its chance if the other team had not scored. Would you be as happy with that outcome as you are with deciding a football game that way? Based on your approach you should say "If you can't prevent a goal, you don't deserve to win!"

If you can't prevent a touchdown, you don't deserve to win. Suck it up and play some defence.

[jonf]

I think your analogy is poor. Football would be much more comparable to your proposed scenario if the team that won the coin toss immediately had a shot at a 45 yard field goal. As it currently stands, the team that loses the toss has plenty of opportunity to stop the opponent (in your example, the team aspect of the game is also taken away, with the results falling onto two players).

Now, assuming a starting position of the 20 yard line (which is almost automatic with the stupid change in kickoff position...don't get me started on that travesty), a team needs 3-4 first downs to get into field goal range. There is lots of opportunity for the defence to stop them.

Check out this link: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009...e-results.html

According to the third graph, less than 20 percent of drives that start between the 20-25 yard line result in touchdowns. That means that, over 80 percent of the time, the team that loses the toss will get the ball back. And before that happens, they will be given ample chance to stop their opponents.

[HoganWoods]

I agree with jonf, it's not just an offensive game. Now that said, my Pats better not lose in OT because they lost the coin toss!

[mpare]

Jon, I wouldn't be against resolving it according to the present method, if winning the coin toss did not provide that team, who will always choose to receive, with a statistical advantage. But NFL stats establish that it does. Even if the advantage were only slight, that impairs the fairness of the outcome. There's a reason why those who win the toss choose to go on offense.

This is not a problem with being forced to play defense as opposed to having had a chance to go on the offensive. Rather, as I have already said, my objection is to obtaining an advantage in the determination of the game's outcome on the basis of a coin toss.

As for my analogy being unconvincing, I remain convinced that it is perfectly apt. But then again, my bias on this issue is obvious.

[Chieflongtee]

If you can't prevent a touchdown, you don't deserve to win. Suck it up and play some defence.

How can you suck it up if the winning team never has to defend???

[HoganWoods]

It's go time! Lets go Pats!! Unfortunately I can't even watch the game, I'll be in MTL at the Bell center for the sens game! It's a cool dilemma to have I guess BB updates it is!

[nokids]

Jon, I wouldn't be against resolving it according to the present method, if winning the coin toss did not provide that team, who will always choose to receive, with a statistical advantage. But NFL stats establish that it does. Even if the advantage were only slight, that impairs the fairness of the outcome. There's a reason why those who win the toss choose to go on offense.

This is not a problem with being forced to play defense as opposed to having had a chance to go on the offensive. Rather, as I have already said, my objection is to obtaining an advantage in the determination of the game's outcome on the basis of a coin toss.

As for my analogy being unconvincing, I remain convinced that it is perfectly apt. But then again, my bias on this issue is obvious.

Most of the time the home team wins in the NFL. That is a statistical advantage. Should they play every game on a neutral field?

Yes the coin toss gives an advantage to the team who wins, but what other option is there? I put a few examples in my last post, but how about ending the 4th quarter as if it was just an intermission? So the team driving with the ball keeps it going into overtime, downs are not reset, and the first team to score wins.... be it a fg, td, safety whatever.

[mpare]

Pablo, the home field advantage may be an advantage, but it is one that is acquired by virtue of how the team plays during the season. It is earned, so it is not comparable to the flip of a coin. As for devising a fair playoff system, give each team an opportunity to score. Yes, it may take a little time to resolve the game, but so what. No one has suggested that a baseball game shouldn't be decided by extra innings because it takes too long. Why should football?

[nokids]

What do you propose Mike? Coin toss, then let both teams get a possession, then if they are still tied the first team to score wins?

[mpare]

Brady and the boys are playing keeps. It's not a fair fight.

[fundonny]

Brady better not hoist the trophy. I'll get nauseated with more comparisons to Montana.

[mpare]

There's still a lot of football to be played, but if I were you I'd buy a large supply of gravol.

Brady better not hoist the trophy. I'll get nauseated with more comparisons to Montana.

[mpare]

The Niners will be playing the Patriots (I hope) in the Super Bowl.

[Chambokl]

Mike... just to let you know...Pats are big time favorite to win the SB...

[mpare]

Getting past the Ravens will not be easy, but I am sure that they will give it their best effort. I happen to think that they can win that game. Here's hoping I'm right.

Mike... just to let you know...Pats are big time favorite to win the SB...

[Weazl]

NE Vs. SF in SB with a SF victory! Go Niners!

[Sakuraba]

I'm picking a now healthy and very impressive Giants team... The very scoundrels who bounced me in week 1 of my suicide pool back at the beginning of this thread.

[mpare]

I think the Niners will beat the Giants, but part of me would like to see the Giants win. That way, if the Patriots win their game, they'll have a chance to avenge their two regular season losses to the boys from New York.

I'm picking a now healthy and very impressive Giants team... The very scoundrels who bounced me in week 1 of my suicide pool back at the beginning of this thread.

[nokids]

Brady almost got snapped in half on that qb sneak.

[mpare]

The Pats were lucky to win that one! Phew.

[nokids]

Cundiff's no Vinatieri

[BC MIST]

The Pats were lucky to win that one! Phew.

How long does a receiver have to be in control of a catch, before it's knocked from his hands and ruled a no-catch? It seemed to me that the end zone reception was a touchdown.

[jeffc]

Cundiff's no Vinatieri

but he sure is a Norwood.

[jeffc]

How long does a receiver have to be in control of a catch, before it's knocked from his hands and ruled a no-catch? It seemed to me that the end zone reception was a touchdown.

10 years ago it would have been....

[nokids]

How long does a receiver have to be in control of a catch, before it's knocked from his hands and ruled a no-catch? It seemed to me that the end zone reception was a touchdown.

He never had two feet down. He had 1 and was stripped before the other foot toUched the ground.

[mpare]

I agree. It seems silly to call that a no catch in the end zone, but that is the rule. Thank goodness. It saved the Patriots.

10 years ago it would have been....

[nokids]

I'd like to see Pats win but those Giants receivers are playing amazing. Eli is going to carve up that secondary all day.

34 - 24 Giants win.

[jeffc]

Brady will seek revenge for the last time they played.

[mpare]

To say nothing of the two losses this season to the Giants. The Pats will have to play errorless ball if they are to beat the Giants. I think they can do it, but Brady will have to play a lot better than he did against the Ravens. As for the defence, my sense is that they are steadily improving. They last two games proved that.

Brady will seek revenge for the last time they played.

[mpare]

While the word from the Pats is that Gronkowski is likely to play in the Super Bowl, I have my doubts. High-ankle sprains typically take 6 weeks to 6 months to heal. The twisting that his ankle took was severe. I cannot imagine that the injury could repair itself that quickly. Nor can I imagine that even with the best basketweave tape job, the symptoms of that injury can be masked. If the Gronk plays, he cannot possibly be as effective as he would be when his healt is 100%. He is the Pats biggest offensive weapon. Without him, they are a much weaker team. For the Pats to win without him, they'll have to play well over their heads, while getting a break or two. Here's hoping that will happen.