Comments on: SportingNews.com: 10 non-Super Bowl stories for Super Bowl week

By: shukey11

shukey11 — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:03:18 +0000

I have an exciting idea, leave overtime in the regular season how it is. In the playoffs just add a whole extra quarter at the end of that extra time frame then revert to sudden death.

By: Lucky5927

Lucky5927 — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:38:04 +0000

Mighty strong assumption that a 17-17 tie would turn into an all of a sudden 63-61 “Mockery of the game”. This is not college. Adopting the college overtime rules or a compromising variation of it will not always lead to shootouts. It doesn’t even do that on a consistent basis in college. Now, in an attempt to understand your logic, you feel a high scoring game is a mockery? You probably felt the Cardinals and Packers game was a mockery because the of total points allowed… Or perhaps it is only a mockery if a both teams score over 50 points. Now you have told me your opinion on the matter, but nothing else to substantiate your stance. So I am going to assume you are some football purist who is against the forward pass and the non-leather helmets as well. Meanwhile, I am going to stick by my position that equal opportunity (not excitement) is best for the game of football.

By: samh

samh — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:35:37 +0000

Lucky,
I for one don’t want to see a 17-17 game turn into a 63-61 mockery of a game. If you try to make every single thing THE MOST EXCITING THING you end up creating something meaningless. If the NFL was *only* interested in making things “interesting” they could script the games each week to make for the best stories. What’s best for the game is not necessarily what is interesting or exciting or “MORE TOUCHDOWNS POR FAVOR PLEASE”

By: Lucky5927

Lucky5927 — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:44:16 +0000

I am hearing a lot of “the overtime rules are fine”. Well sure they are. No one is questioing that they are fine. But are they the best option for both teams and are they the most exciting? Personally, I feel the college overtime rules are more exciting to watch. And before I hear the argument that the defense is paid to stop the offense, well wouldn’t that be true for both defenses? They should both be allowed to earn their pay and “stop the other team’s offense”. No in case of the Packers-Cardinals game, it wouldn’t have mattered as much because the Packers gave up points when on offense. But when a game is decided on a winning drive with 3 questionable calls, then the other’s team offense should have the ability to match the score. Point blank, the current overtime rules are fine, but are not the best way to end a game.

By: Colinito

Colinito — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:58:45 +0000

are you sure this one reached the word limit?? a bit skimpy Michael.

By: slipkid

slipkid — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:24:14 +0000

current OT rules are fine.
also not convinced chad would be welcomed back in cincy anyway.

By: last starfighter

last starfighter — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:20:42 +0000

Sorry but its only you and a small handful of other media folks that have a problem with the current OT. The fans (ie the ones who foot the bill for the NFL) don’t have a problem with it. The media’s job is to report stories, not make them. This is glaringly unprofessional to continue with. Maybe if fans revolt with outrage with someday you can write a story about it. Until then, let it go.

By: hineswardcriesafterfumbling

hineswardcriesafterfumbling — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:05:05 +0000

You really hate the NFL’s overtime rules. Strangely, just two weeks before the Saints-Vikings OT thriller, there was another game in OT where only one team had an offensive possession. The packers lost, and lo-and-behold the coin flip didn’t determine the outcome.