It's All His Fault

In his most recent article, Gene Wojciechowski compares the "old" NFL Overtime rules to a game of "Rock, Paper, Scissors."  In fact, he intimates that "Rock, Paper, Scissors" is actually a better system for resolving a game that has bled into an extra session.

Gene Wojciechowski, ladies and gentlemen, is a fucking clown.

Like so many of this other cohorts down in Bristol.  After the Vikings lost to the Saints in this passed January in overtime, one morning Sportscenter (LIVE!) anchor quipped: The Saints score and [BFF], one of the great quarterbacks of all-time doesn't get a chance to respond?  Something's wrong.

Oh, you must mean that BFF, the guy who threw that MONSTER interception just a few minutes earlier, essentially blowing the game for himself, his teammates.  That BFF?  You're right, sweetheart, there is something wrong, but it is primarily with your perception of how football works, how often teams actually score, and your memory with respect to recent events.

Football consists of three essential pieces on the field: Offense, Defense, and Special teams.  Each of these components has their own responsibilities.  The offense must score.  The defense must prevent scoring.  Special teams must improve field position.  This is an oversimplification, but each of these components has their own role and are arguably equal in importance with respect to one another (with the exception of special teams, but mainly because we refuse to acknowledge that Vai Sikehema was as important as Randall Cunningham.  Then again, remember that guy named, Vinatieri?).  The point is, offense does not stand alone as the main determinant in any game; since defense and special teams played just as much of a role in the promotion or prevention of putting points on the board.

So often when discussing overtime, people seem transfixed on the notion that whoever gets the ball first wins.  Well, this actually only happens 60% of the time.  However, how many times did the receiving team score immediately?  30% of the time.  So, less than 1/3 of the time does the team receiving the ball immediately win the game (the other half of the time, the offense punts, and eventually gets the ball back).  But these numbers are not deterministic.  Just because this is the trend, it does not guarantee that out of 10 games OT games in the 2010 season, 3 defenses will never get the ball back to their offense.Is it an advantage to get the ball immediately?  Sure.  In a sudden death format, the team that has the ball is more readily capable of scoring as the team that does not.

During regulation, does the offense score everytime they are on the field?  Of course not.  Does the offense have a responsibility to score during regulation in order to win games?  Sure.  But does the defense have a responsibility to stop the offense also in order to win games?  Absolutely.  So what changes during overtime?  These responsibilities seem to be unchanged actually.  Oh, the immediacy and importance of the game takes on a new tone in OT?  How is it any different than a two-minute drill for the defense?  Make the stop.  How does the goal change for the offense?  Score.  If you don't score, well, then your defense must make a stop.  And because of the natural fluidity of overtime (unlike the college format), the nature of offense doesn't change.  Teams are not more willing to go for it on the 4th down in their own end, because of the obvious potential for repercussion.  So. What. Changes?

But what is amusing about this debate is it's apparent amnesia with respect to recent events: anyone remember that Cardinals-Packers barn burner back in the Wild Card round?  Now, how did that game end?  Oh, the defense scored?  Weird.  With the manner in which people discuss overtime rules, one would have to assume that the defense scoring would be forbidden by the rules or something.  Oh, feeble defense!  Ye captain has selected the improper side of the schilling and has left you to toil thanklessly in the muck only to fall to the sword once the scroll is fully unfurled!  Is this an exception?  Yes.  Does it mean that it cannot become the rule?  No. 

People like to reference other sports as evidence that the football rules are silly.  Look at basketball; what if the first team that scored in OT won the game.  Look at hockey; at least both teams get a chance to obtain the puck right away.  In baseball: both teams get a chance to win the game with an at-bat.  In basketball, while very unlikely, it is possible that a team could hold the ball for an entire overtime session, no?  A series of unbelievable offensive rebounds, the ball being held to the final shot, and a buzzer beater to win it.  Would this be unfair?  In hockey, a face-off is essentially a coin toss.  Of course, there is much more skill employed than in a 50-50 guessing game, but betting on a face-off between two teams top centers would be just as ridiculous as betting, well, on a coin-toss.  Center wins the face-off, winger scores a goal, game is over. Unfair?  And in baseball, is it unfair to ask the pitcher and his defense to prevent the home team from scoring any runs in the bottom of the 10th?  Well, they had their shot in the top of the 10th to score, as well as in the rest of the game to win.  But isn't the road team just unlucky that they had to be on the road during this extra inning game?  I mean, it seems unfair...

And this is what it comes down to:

There is an element of luck/fortune in any game.  You lose the tip, you lose the draw, you lose the coin toss.  There is an element of missed opportunities in any game, too.  Third base coach should have held him at third, goon should have never taken that penalty in the third, shithead should have hit his free throws, BFF should have tucked and run, rather than throwing that awful INT.

And now that football has changed its rules, it is actually less like these other sports and even more than before.  In basketball, hockey, and baseball, the game remains fluid and unchanged (with the exception of going 4-on-4 in hockey, the essential relationship between OT and regulation goes unaltered).  Now, OT football has become a cheap knock-off of its more authentic regulation.  Allowing the other team to respond to a field goal in OT, just seems to bring up the original complaint once again.  Both teams score a field goal in OT and the game continues.  So now, the original defense is once again back on the field with their backs to the wall.  All they've done is delayed the inevitable.  Teams will play it safe and score the field goal when necessary.  There is no emphasis on the touchdown because it's not necessary.  The more they attempt to make it unlike college, the more it resembles college, and that's pretty lame, since it is college that should be trying to be like the NFL and not the other way around.

So, nice work, everyone.  Go ahead and think that you've actually done some good with all your bitching and whining about how unfair overtime is.  But before you open your mouth next time, consider the alternatives and maybe even consider the actual nature of football itself.  We know, you like when teams score touchdowns and defense can be boring, but behind that myopic approach we've ushered in an era bastardization, and for what?  8 or 9 overtime games a year?  Maybe instead of changing the rules, we should teach coaches, players, and analysts the original rules, because in all honesty, that would probably clear up a lot of the trouble.

Oh, and PS. ESPN,  the Vikings owner voted against the new measures... So fuck yourself, you know, after you're done fucking BFF.