Somewhat tangential, but I'd like to suggest an alternative to the Elam ending in basketball, which I find a bit confusing for casual fans because the target score is different every time and requires new graphics and scoreboards to explain. I call it "Score to Win."
The idea is simple: once regulation time is over, the game continues until a team scores while in the lead or to take the lead.
This removes the incentive to intentionally foul, and gives many trailing teams the opportunity to play perfectly and come back (14-0 runs do happen!) Teams will still be "in it" in the closing minutes, but most games will end quite quickly. The one downside I can see is players intentionally trying to draw fouls and the likelihood of the game ending on a free throw, but that is a problem more broadly of basketball. Free throws are a legitimate way to score and win at any point of the game.
I'm not sure it's better than Elam from a game theory perspective, but I think it's a simpler change and easier to explain. "You have to score one last time to end the game."
I agree and have thought that field goals should be disallowed in overtime for a long time.
But I'm not sure I follow how #1 works. If either team scores a touchdown in the first overtime, it's for sure over? Does this work like the NFL overtime where the other team doesn't get an attempt?
First touchdown does not end the game, just disallows a team from kicking an extra point to tie.
Here’s an example: in overtime, team A scores a touchdown and kicks an extra point. Team B scores a touchdown, they must go for two.
Another example: team A scores a touchdown but misses their extra point, so they are only up by six. Team B scores a touch down, they can kick an extra point.
Or it could just end in a tie (in the regular season). Sometimes teams play an evenly matched game and it seems unjust to severely hamper playoff chances based on an overtime loss.
I'm aware this is very unpopular, but to me it makes more sense for the record to reflect how the game was played. Awarding three points to winners, none to losers, and zero to those who draw encourages teams to still try to win.
I can't follow the rationale behind why preventing xps diminishes the advantage of the coin toss. Teams will still have all four downs. Are you treating 2-pt conversions as having less than a 50% success rate? If so, it would diminish the advantage.
Nonetheless, I can see how preventing field goals diminishes it. That seems like a good change. However, I honestly have no issue with more overtime periods. Each additional period adds on a layer of emotion, and I loved the two games I've seen going deep 5-OT or so territory.
All well and good... I am interested in making football (much) safer then it currently is. I am told that some simple rule changes would accomplish highly significant reductions in serious head trauma and lower extremity orthopaedic injury. One such change would be prohibiting linemen from 3 and 4 point stances. There must be several other such possible rule changes. Have you spent any time looking at this? Thank you and kind regards.
I would also like to see one or more stats determine who gets the ball first in OT instead of a coin flip. How about most net yards or least penalties/penalty yards? Seems fairer to determine who gets the ball in OT first based on performance within the game.
Somewhat tangential, but I'd like to suggest an alternative to the Elam ending in basketball, which I find a bit confusing for casual fans because the target score is different every time and requires new graphics and scoreboards to explain. I call it "Score to Win."
The idea is simple: once regulation time is over, the game continues until a team scores while in the lead or to take the lead.
This removes the incentive to intentionally foul, and gives many trailing teams the opportunity to play perfectly and come back (14-0 runs do happen!) Teams will still be "in it" in the closing minutes, but most games will end quite quickly. The one downside I can see is players intentionally trying to draw fouls and the likelihood of the game ending on a free throw, but that is a problem more broadly of basketball. Free throws are a legitimate way to score and win at any point of the game.
I'm not sure it's better than Elam from a game theory perspective, but I think it's a simpler change and easier to explain. "You have to score one last time to end the game."
I agree and have thought that field goals should be disallowed in overtime for a long time.
But I'm not sure I follow how #1 works. If either team scores a touchdown in the first overtime, it's for sure over? Does this work like the NFL overtime where the other team doesn't get an attempt?
First touchdown does not end the game, just disallows a team from kicking an extra point to tie.
Here’s an example: in overtime, team A scores a touchdown and kicks an extra point. Team B scores a touchdown, they must go for two.
Another example: team A scores a touchdown but misses their extra point, so they are only up by six. Team B scores a touch down, they can kick an extra point.
Got it that makes sense, thanks.
Or it could just end in a tie (in the regular season). Sometimes teams play an evenly matched game and it seems unjust to severely hamper playoff chances based on an overtime loss.
I'm aware this is very unpopular, but to me it makes more sense for the record to reflect how the game was played. Awarding three points to winners, none to losers, and zero to those who draw encourages teams to still try to win.
I can't follow the rationale behind why preventing xps diminishes the advantage of the coin toss. Teams will still have all four downs. Are you treating 2-pt conversions as having less than a 50% success rate? If so, it would diminish the advantage.
Nonetheless, I can see how preventing field goals diminishes it. That seems like a good change. However, I honestly have no issue with more overtime periods. Each additional period adds on a layer of emotion, and I loved the two games I've seen going deep 5-OT or so territory.
All well and good... I am interested in making football (much) safer then it currently is. I am told that some simple rule changes would accomplish highly significant reductions in serious head trauma and lower extremity orthopaedic injury. One such change would be prohibiting linemen from 3 and 4 point stances. There must be several other such possible rule changes. Have you spent any time looking at this? Thank you and kind regards.
I would also like to see one or more stats determine who gets the ball first in OT instead of a coin flip. How about most net yards or least penalties/penalty yards? Seems fairer to determine who gets the ball in OT first based on performance within the game.
Doesn’t forbidding XP to tie give an advantage to the winner of the coin flip?