NFL Tries to Take Step in the Right Direction with Bad Decision

The NFL announced this week that they will be changing the overtime system for the playoffs next season. While it will remain sudden death for the most part, the new rule states that if a team should score on a field goal in the opening possession, the other team will receive the ball for a possession. What this will do is prevent a team from putting together a short drive and scoring on a field goal without the other team even having a chance to score. Any field goals after the opening drive or touchdowns scored at any time will result in the end of the game.


If you're confused by this rule, you're not alone. NFL overtime has been criticized for many years, but this new rule change addresses only one of the two major issues. The biggest problem people have with the old rule is that a team can lose without ever getting a possession. This rule change is meant to prevent this, but it seems to be an odd roundabout way of addressing it. One team can still win without the other ever having a chance for a possession. Rather than guaranteeing both teams will get a chance, they have determined teams will only get a chance if the other team only scored an easy field goal. They have recognized that it's not fair for a team to not have a chance while still refusing to guarantee them that chance. It really doesn't make sense.

The new rule also ignores the problem of ties. The fact that teams can still tie in the NFL during the regular season is absurd. No one ever leaves a football game satisfied that their team has tied. It is a completely ludicrous way of concluding a game. There are two reasons why this rule still remains. First, is the rigid TV scheduling of the NFL. Have you ever noticed that the games switch at precisely 4:15 whether it's over or not? If you aren't in that team's market, you're not watching the end of that game. An open ended overtime system would wreak havoc on this careful timing. The second reason is the rigorous nature of the sport. The reason NFL teams play only one game a week with a bye for 17 weeks is because football is such a physically taxing game that any more games may put the players at risk for serious injury. Tacking more time onto games would really fatigue those teams and put them at a disadvantage come next week.

Such precautions are proven unnecessary by college football. In college overtime each team gets the ball on the 25 yard line for one possession. Whoever is leading after each team gets their possession wins. If it is still tied each team gets another possession with the order switched (team a gets the ball first when during the first overtime they played defense first). Even after long overtime sessions, you don't see teams collapsing or legs falling off during the next game. While NFL players are older and practice more, I really don't see what fatigue you avoid by having teams play the length of the field rather than 25 yards. With the skill of NFL kickers (minus the Redskins), the NFL would have to consider moving the ball back farther, but still a back and forth overtime allows for more excitement and equal play.

I am also surprised by the fact that the NFL would make the playoffs the guinea pig round for this new rule. What if it turns out to be a complete disaster? You really never know how these new rules are going to turn out. Even if this rule wasn't a completely confusing and roundabout solution, there's no guarantee that it would work. You really don't want teams walking away from the playoffs feeling cheated by a weird rule change that completely hurt them.

The new overtime rule is a bad solution to fix only part of a real problem. It will be implemented at the wrong time and could potentially blow up in the NFL's face. I am surprised the NFL owners agreed to this by such a large majority (only 4 voted against). Let's hope this is just a step in the right direction and not the actual solution to the NFL's overtime woes.

Brett Favre Shows Again Where His Priorities Lie

One of the big name free agents this year in the NFL was former San Diego running back, Ladainian Tomlinson. He narrowed his search down to two teams, the New York Jets and the Minnesota Vikings, and signed with the Jets on Tuesday. The Vikings asked their quarterback, Brett Favre, to help recruit Tomlinson. What did he do? He wouldn't meet with him and when Tomlinson asked him whether or not he would be back next year, Favre texted him saying that he had "no clue." Being the quarterback of one team and having played for both the Vikings and the Jets, his efforts to recruit Tomlinson no doubt would have meant a lot. Favre stated that he did not want to mislead Tomlinson with his status for next season and that both organizations could help Tomlinson succeed.

This is yet another example of Favre's baffling level of selfishness. How he can be so completely oblivious to how detrimental his "status" for next season is to his team just boggles the mind. On the surface it looks like a pretty innocent situation, so it's important to clarify. No, Favre should not mislead Tomlinson about whether or not he will be back and yes, he should be honest in his feelings for both organizations. It looks almost classy.

The problem is that Favre's indecision puts him in this ridiculous situation that is hurting the Minnesota Vikings. As a quarterback, Favre is looked at as a team leader just by the nature of his decision. For LT, this is the man that will be handing you the ball and calling plays at the line. If he's not there it completely changes the dynamic of the offense. The Vikings are now in a terrible situation in that they don't know who their quarterback will be next year. As you can see, this makes recruiting offensive players extremely difficult. Whatever LT may say, Favre's text had an impact. The offensive leader of the team won't meet with you and will only text you to say that he doesn't even know if he'll be back? No wonder why LT accepted less money to go to New York.

With the departure of back up running back Chester Taylor, the Vikings need a second running back. Adrian Peterson is of course one of the best, if not the best running back in the league, but the Vikings run a very successful two back system. Not only that, Peterson's aggressive style of play necessitates a very good running back who can step in if need be. The Vikings just missed their chance to sign one of the best running backs available because Favre didn't want to mislead him? Unless Favre has let the Vikings know what his decision is already, this is a very dangerous game he's playing. With free agency already underway and the draft quickly approaching, the Vikings need to know immediately if they should be looking for a new quarterback. What if Favre decides in August that he just doesn't have another season left in him? He will have hampered their free agency efforts and left the team with no quarterback capable of successfully leading the team (Tarvaris Jackson, really?).

How far are the Vikings willing to let this go? They need to sit him down and tell him that it's decision time. If he feels rushed, well that's too bad, thank you for your time and get out. He won't help you recruit, you don't know if he will be back, you don't know if you should be looking for a quarterback now and players like Brady Quinn and Jake Delhomme have already been signed, and the draft is approaching which is your last chance to get a quarterback to take the reins from Jackson. If Favre wants to pull the same trick he did last year where he won't make up his mind until after training camp, that's not going to cut it. Players don't get to pick and choose their practices. There were reports of players being upset with it last season, but the speculation surrounding it really took away some of the animosity. If he does the same thing this season, it will be blatant and it won't matter how good he is, this team will not respect him.

At what point did it stop being about what was best for the team and become what was best for Favre? The Vikings are a business and football is a team sport. They need to do what is best for the team and forget about Favre. If he won't make a decision then make it for him. You need to recruit players and begin setting up an offense for next season and you can't do either of those things without knowing who your quarterback will be. Favre's total disregard for what he's doing to the team is also contradictory to the entire sport of football in which the team is more important than the player. This guy won't even get off the coach to talk to someone. Favre's continued selfishness is inexcusable and I can't understand why the Vikings are sitting back and letting him string them along. Favre's one good season with the Vikings does not entitle him to do whatever he wants, but he will continue to do so until Minnesota tells him that they've had enough.

Christmas Day Sports

On Christmas Day fans saw one NFL game and five NBA games including a huge matchup between the LA Lakers and Cleveland Cavaliers. Basketball has had games on Christmas day for several years now, but not everyone is a fan. Magic coach Stan Van Gundy was clearly not happy about his team playing on Dec. 25 sayng:

"I would rather not play on Christmas. This is a day to spend with your family. The league has been good to all of us in terms of what we get out of these TV games, so it would sound a little disingenuous to complain too much. But if I had my way, we'd take a five-day Christmas break....I think we get a little carried away with ourselves with sports thinking we're more important than everything else. But that's the way it is. 'There's nothing more important than the NBA on Christmas Day'....I won't watch one second of the other four games. I have no interest. That's not great advertisement for the league, but I actually feel sorry for people who have nothing to do on Christmas Day other than watch an NBA game."

And coach Van Gundy is absolutely right. The desire to play on Christmas day I believe stems from the Thanksgiving football tradition. Football isn't just something to watch that day, but has actually become a part of Thanksgiving to many people. While being away from your family must be hard for the players, coaches, and personnel who make such games possible, it is not a religious holiday. Christmas is religious and the last thing on my mind that day is 'who's playing?" While I understand the desire to try and tap into the huge popularity the NFL enjoys from Thanksgiving games, how low are both leagues willing to go? Neither league is struggling for money or ratings. What do they lose by giving teams the day off? I really don't think the fans will complain if they have to wait until December 26 to watch their team again.

I have to wonder who's going to these games? The stadiums are packed and my guess is that the ratings must be pretty high if the NBA is pushing five games, but I can't imagine asking my family to go to a basketball or football game on Christmas day. While it does seem like there are a lot of people with nothing better to do that day, I'm sure they could find something to tide them over for 24 hours. At some point you have to ask what's more important? Does the NBA have to give these people a game to go to or can they allow people like Van Gundy to spend Christmas with his wife and four children? People can live a day without basketball. There's an entire offseason and somehow we manage to avoid the apocalypse every year during that time.

The day after Christmas I heard an interview with Washington Capitals winger Matt Bradley. Earlier this month, his wife gave birth to their first child. In the NHL, there were no games on Dec. 24 or 25 and he was talking about how special it was to spend time with his son on his first Christmas. Those moments are ultimately more important than the ratings you get on Christmas Day.