It's Posts Like This That Make the Turdlog Number One
A high-caliber persuasive writer anticipates criticism and nullifies it before it is levied. Five days have proved to be insufficient for my astute readers to formulate the obvious objection to my overtime denunciation. I count my blessings.
In the playoffs it is necessary to have a winner and loser, so that one team may advance to the next stage of competition (or be crowned champions). This may require overtime. In such a case, I prefer basketball's method: more time is added to the clock, and there is no sudden death, whereby the first team to score wins. The NFL features a sudden death, and I remember hearing that something like 70% of coin-toss winners choose to receive the ball first and go on to win the game.
It's too easy in football, when all that is needed is a single score, to get that score and win. Lots of sideline passes until field goal range, then runs up the middle, and toward the middle of the field, will get you there. Why not just flip a coin and let that decide the outcome?
(The success of this overtime field goal scoring strategy got me thinking a while back about why teams don't use it all the time, and frankly I don't have a good answer. It's possible that, done enough times, a sideline pass's susceptibility, not just to interception but to interception and defensive counter-touchdown, render the technique too risky.)
Oh well. I do admit that sudden death basketball would be a riot. But I think that when overtime is necessary, the rules and strategy of the game should be sullied as little as possible. In football, sudden death changes the game too much. In NCAA football, overtime is a different game entirely. The head coaches should just arm-wrestle for it. Hockey and soccer shootouts are exciting, but if I wanted to watch an individual sport, I'd watch tennis. Tennis, on the other hand, should follow baseball's ideal overtime example: just keep doing what you're doing until one team or side blinks.
In the playoffs it is necessary to have a winner and loser, so that one team may advance to the next stage of competition (or be crowned champions). This may require overtime. In such a case, I prefer basketball's method: more time is added to the clock, and there is no sudden death, whereby the first team to score wins. The NFL features a sudden death, and I remember hearing that something like 70% of coin-toss winners choose to receive the ball first and go on to win the game.
It's too easy in football, when all that is needed is a single score, to get that score and win. Lots of sideline passes until field goal range, then runs up the middle, and toward the middle of the field, will get you there. Why not just flip a coin and let that decide the outcome?
(The success of this overtime field goal scoring strategy got me thinking a while back about why teams don't use it all the time, and frankly I don't have a good answer. It's possible that, done enough times, a sideline pass's susceptibility, not just to interception but to interception and defensive counter-touchdown, render the technique too risky.)
Oh well. I do admit that sudden death basketball would be a riot. But I think that when overtime is necessary, the rules and strategy of the game should be sullied as little as possible. In football, sudden death changes the game too much. In NCAA football, overtime is a different game entirely. The head coaches should just arm-wrestle for it. Hockey and soccer shootouts are exciting, but if I wanted to watch an individual sport, I'd watch tennis. Tennis, on the other hand, should follow baseball's ideal overtime example: just keep doing what you're doing until one team or side blinks.
posted by john at
12:42 PM
1 Comments:
C'mon man! Stick to your guns.
I say ties should be allowed in championships as well. Can you imagine the tension and rivalry that would be built between two teams after two back-to-back playoff championship ties?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home