In today's edition of Around the Pound, we take a look at the new proposed overtime rule for the NFL, what the Browns will do with DL Corey Williams, some tidbits from Terry Pluto's Sunday column, and another look around the AFC North.
The NFL competition committee will discuss a possible change to the league's current overtime format when they meet mid-way through March. The proposed change is an interesting one, and reportedly gained steam after Brett Favre and the Minnesota Vikings never got the football in this year's overtime loss to the New Orleans Saints in the NFC Championship. Under the new overtime system, the following rules would apply...
I am intrigued by the proposal. It gives more incentive to the defense for knowing a field goal won't end the game. It also changes the strategy in overtime, where teams might be more aggressive to score a touchdown first rather than settling for the game-winning field goal as the other team wishes the coin toss could've gone the other way.
The only problem that I see? The fact that the changes would only take place in postseason games. Sure, postseason games are always "win or go home" type of games, but in the regular season, there are some games that have that billing as well. If the system is going to be implemented, it should be for the entire NFL season, or not at all.
In a vote, at least two thirds of the teams would have to agree to adopting the rule change.
"There have been various concepts that have been discussed in recent years, but this one has never been proposed," Greg Aiello said.
While we've known that Corey Williams has been generally unhappy with the 3-4 system in Cleveland compared to the 4-3 system in which he thrived in at Green Bay, a decision on the defensive lineman will have to be made soon:
Defensive end Corey Williams was unhappy with his lack of playing time in 2009. Williams is due a $1.7 million roster bonus in March and a $4.2 million salary, and the Browns might either release him or try to trade him.
We might be able to find a trade partner for Williams. He finally seemed to come alive a little bit toward the end of last season, showing glimpses that he might just be able to work in Rob Ryan's system. Do we keep him, cut him, or trade him?
In Terry Pluto's Sunday column, he does a little Q&A session with himself regarding which team ended up benefiting from the trade last April that sent Mark Sanchez to the New York Jets:
Mack will be a 10-year starter at center. Elam probably starts at safety for at least half of the teams. He is especially strong against the run, but suffers in coverage. The Browns still need a big-time safety, which is why they are dreaming about Tennessee's Eric Berry falling to them at No. 7.
0 recs | 111 comments
I think obviously trade Williams if we can, otherwise it’s a choice between cut and keep. I would lean toward cut.
Roger Dorn - March 1, 2010
Can someone remind me why Savage traded a 2d rounder for a 4-3 guy? Seriously, what was the thinking here?
TheDriveStillHurts - March 1, 2010
Our run D was awful the year before (2007), and he thought we were a couple D lineman away from serious contention (hence the moves for both Williams and Rogers. I have to agree that our run D had been the worst part of the team, but he took a risk on assuming Williams could make the switch to 3-4 and then doubled down by giving him a huge contract that makes him one of the highest paid D lineman in the league.
Roger Dorn - March 1, 2010
We are paying nothing for our players. There is no cap, and if there was we would be nowhere near it. I don’t understand increasing needs and abonding talen.t
TheRealSlimShady - March 1, 2010
Because most people assume that some sort of cap will be back in effect in ’11.
We as a franchise have (hopefully) one season window to rid ourselves of bad contracts so if a cap comes back in ’11 we will be rid of overpaid, nasty contracts.
Bernie19Kosar - March 1, 2010
If there is a cap, we should still be in great shape with it.
TheRealSlimShady - March 1, 2010
This team has 99 problems and Corey Williams ain’t one.
Sorry
TheRealSlimShady - March 1, 2010
lol…nice reference. his contract is a bit of a problem though.
bross09 - March 1, 2010
How bit was his signing bonus? Even if there was a cap, we could cut him next year and take less of a cap hit (albeit against an actual salary cap).
It would also give us more time to try to move him for picks.
rufio - March 2, 2010
I think Corey Williams just needed the right coach to help him with his switch to this 3-4 look. Ryan will take care of that. I say keep him. This team needs all the talent we can get on D. UNLESS….we get an offer we can’t refuse on a trade deal.
Kimble_79 - March 2, 2010
I guess I just don’t think Corey Williams is that talented. Browns are currently right in the middle in terms of cap space, and by cutting Williams we would be in even better shape. Resources are finite, lets use them on players that are actually good. Look at any sport in history, teams that overpay marginal players do not succeed in the long run.
Roger Dorn - March 2, 2010
I think he is very talented. I also think we won’t ever see what he can really do because he wants to be in a one-gap style of D, and he wants to play a lot of snaps, and he will get out of shape and will play lazy if he doesn’t get what he wants.
He should not be a building block for the next 5+ years, but we don’t have to get rid of him right now.
rufio - March 2, 2010
but we might.
Roger Dorn - March 2, 2010
I wouldn’t be opposed to that. Just not only to save his bonus money which counts against a cap that doesn’t exist. If we can get a 3rd or better, why not?
rufio - March 3, 2010
I’ve heard that overtime rule propsed before and I like it a lot. Why wouldn’t they make it apply to the regular season, though? It makes no sense to implement it only for the playoffs.
Buckeye Brad - March 1, 2010
I agree. I remember when we were arguing about this and this was similar to the proposal me and Rufio liked. the one he proposed from what I remember is first to 6…so this is basically that. it is IMO the best way to do it.
bross09 - March 1, 2010
I did not like either of those rules. I am against playing to points. Playing to 6/this rule sound better than the way it is now, though.
rufio - March 1, 2010
I"m thinking someone wants it implemented and figures they can get more support if it’s limited to the postseason and they can always come back later if it’s successful and propose it for the regular season.
Villeslgr - March 1, 2010
Totally agree. Regular season OT games are just as important.
emily522 - March 2, 2010
My idea for overtime (for all sports with clocks) is to set the clock for a certain amount of time (say 8 minutes). If one team is ahead after that time they win, if it is tied just keep playing, next team to score wins.
You can find a time that ensures both teams will get a chance to score, and this way you’re still playing the same game, unlike in college football.
sarcasmdave - March 1, 2010
so a team can just run out the clock for 8 minutes, drive the ball into the red zone and kick a last second field goal? even with this proposal, there will be times that a team will not get the ball and only lose by a FG.
bross09 - March 1, 2010
Absolutely, if the other team is that good at running the ball/eating clock, and your team is that bad at getting them off the field, you deserve to lose. It will never happen because the league wants exciting, flashy, drama-filled finishes, but it would be the best option.
rufio - March 1, 2010
but at the same time, it is not the way to do it to find out who is truly the better team…
bross09 - March 1, 2010
Rufio just explained that it is the way to find out who the better team is. Learn to read my friend.
SpecialBrownie - March 1, 2010
its not the way to decide who is the best overall team..it is the way to decide who can run the ball most effectively and stop the run most effectively. yes, it is up to the defense but at the same time, if a team has an amazing rushing attack and not much else, they can win just by running it and milking 6 or so minutes off the clock and getting a FG. is it fair that the other team gets a short amount of time??
It is not the way to decide who truly is the best team. even good rushing Ds would have trouble stopping the titans this year in this situation…the titans in this scenario would beat the colts 9 out of 10 times if they got the ball first…who is the better team? easily the colts…
bross09 - March 1, 2010
I’d say the Titans. They got the short end of the stick because of Collins ruining their chances.
And sometimes a great rushing attack makes a great team. If you can’t stop whatever is given to you, you’re the more worse team. It’s plain and simple. Don’t over complicate it like you do everything else, man.
SpecialBrownie - March 1, 2010
Colts are not better than the Titans.
A team that got housed 59-0 isn’t better than a Super Bowl team.
Bernie19Kosar - March 1, 2010
I attempted to blame a lot of it on Collins. And also, I was trying to spite him.
SpecialBrownie - March 1, 2010
Wait, what? You contradicted yourself.
TheRealSlimShady - March 1, 2010
He just slipped. It’s all good. I knew what he meant.
Brownie's Year - March 1, 2010
How?
Bernie19Kosar - March 1, 2010
SpecialBrownie - March 1, 2010
You said the Colts aren’t better than the Titans, then explained why the Colts are better
TheRealSlimShady - March 1, 2010
He probably meant for there to be a question mark. I got it. its pretty simple…
I guess we all need to make question marks here for you or you won’t understand it…
bross09 - March 1, 2010
I am very dumb today.
Bernie19Kosar - March 2, 2010
You can’t seriously think that the Titans are better than the Colts. You don’t start 1-7 or whatever because of one player.
Buckeye Brad - March 1, 2010
If that player is the QB and he completely whiffs every game he’s in you do.
SpecialBrownie - March 1, 2010
no. they had some serious problems to on defense. those 1-7 titans though would beat the colts 9 times out of 10 if they started with the ball…plain and simple…how should an 8-0 team lose to a 1-7 team (their records at the time he was talking about) and it is deemed a fair process.
bross09 - March 1, 2010
No way. Collins did not play bad enough to take them from 7-1 (or whatever) with an average QB to 1-7. It’s almost impossible for an NFL quarterback to alone be responsible for that difference.
You’re forgetting how bad the defense was in the first half of the season. Did you see New England light them up? They scored on seven or eight drives in the first half, I think. How is that entirely the fault of the QB?
Buckeye Brad - March 1, 2010
Denfense is on the field for way too long because Collins throws INTs one after another.
SpecialBrownie - March 1, 2010
Yeah, I’m sure that’s the entire problem.
By the way, Collins threw 8 interceptions in 7 games this season, so about one a game. You’d better come up with another excuse.
Buckeye Brad - March 2, 2010
Oh. I’m just trying to string this useless argument as far as possible. It’s fun.
SpecialBrownie - March 2, 2010
No. it is pretty simple. this format favors teams with excellent running attacks and punishes teams with average rushing defenses…pure and simple. if you want a format that doesn’t give an advantage to a certain style, that would be what the NFL is proposing.
bross09 - March 1, 2010
False.
rufio - March 2, 2010
Thank you.
SpecialBrownie - March 2, 2010
no…how is this false?
bross09 - March 2, 2010
You just set yourself up for a Rufio beatdown.
SpecialBrownie - March 2, 2010
Just read my comment a few comments down.
rufio - March 3, 2010
They could do that anyway under the current OT rules.
I don’t know if 8 minutes would be a good amount of time for the NFL or not, but if you wanna talk about what’s fair, giving the team that loses a coin toss 2 minutes is closer to fair than giving their offense no chance to play in overtime.
sarcasmdave - March 1, 2010
Wrong.
If you play to points, you change some of the fundamental rules of the game.
Regular (non-overtime) games are now often won in the NFL by teams who pass, and pass a lot. Why would playing an extra quarter change that? Teams don’t try to run out the entire 4th quarter—and it would be really difficult to do so. But, if they happen to be up in the last 2ish minutes, they will.
The Colts are built to score and stop teams from passing to catch up. They are very good at this. There is no reason their philosophy would have to change in an OT period because it would be exactly like any normal game.
Tied at the end of regulation and you are a passing team with a porous D? Pass the ball, score, and try to outscore the other team like you do normally. If you can get TDs every time and hold the other team to one FG, you win (assuming an equal number of possessions). You are a running and defense team? Pound the rock, play D. If you score 2 FGs in the whole period and you can hold the other guys to only one, you win.
Playing to points fundamentally changes the rules of the game, and favors different styles of teams that normal games do not.
Playing an extra period, the same thing will still win games: having scored more points than your opponent when the clock hits 0:00.
rufio - March 2, 2010
How’s that any different from doing the same thing when the score is tied towards the end of regulation??
TheDriveStillHurts - March 1, 2010
It’s different in that if the two teams are tied after regulation time, they are in equal positions. With that idea, there would be no reason for a team to score in a tied game with just a few seconds left.
I feel that if a game is tied after regulation, one team should not a better chance to win than the other. Restarting with a coin flip does add luck into it, but this way both teams have a chance to start with the ball.
My idea might be better if there was some incentive to winning in regulation instead of OT, like how the Olympic Hockey pool-play worked (3 points for winning in 60 minutes, 2 for winning in OT).
sarcasmdave - March 1, 2010
I think you’ve figured it out.
Shoot-outs!!!
15 minute overtime period, 1st team to score a td (maybe lead by 7) wins, no winner after overtime, field goal attempts starting from the far 35. Moving towards the goal in 5 yard increments until someone misses after the opposing team’s make or a make after a miss (coin toss winner decides who goes first, or field direction)
Villeslgr - March 1, 2010
how about plain first to 6.
bross09 - March 1, 2010
I’d probably rather keep Williams but i he can be traded for a 3rd then that would be great.
The Licensed Pessimist - March 1, 2010
How about just 15 more minutes of football? Someone will eventually score the game winner, or return it 100 yards for a score, or miss that all important tackle. Let ’em go.
Andrew Tolliver - March 1, 2010
What they realy should do is make OT like college….. both get the ball and have a chance
GIBBY82 - March 1, 2010
Yeah, but none of that 25 yard line garbage. Kickoff, return, the works.
Andrew Tolliver - March 1, 2010
except that the college system isn’t much better. not only does it make 6 hour games, but there is a distinct advantage there too. the team that is second to score 1st wins about 55% of the time, in the first OT! in general, there is a distinct advantage to whoever wins the coin toss in college too…
bross09 - March 1, 2010
With as few college OT games as there are, I am fine with “team who does x wins 55% of the time”. I bet you could find similar win percentages for things that have absolutely nothing to do with the game.
The college rules are much better because people like them more. The NFL wants to improve it’s product for people to watch.
rufio - March 1, 2010
so because of this, it is the best way to do things???
Honestly, the college game isn’t significantly more fair than the one in the pros. the proposal put on the table noe is truly IMO the best idea put forward to find out who SHOULD win.
bross09 - March 1, 2010
No because of this i think is what rufio meant
If you want people to watch you give them what they want. At least as much as you can tolerate.
Villeslgr - March 1, 2010
I didn’t say this. I said it wasn’t less fair.
Not in my eyes. But the NFL has a product to sell, and the fact that more people like the college rules is a great business reason for them to switch. If something is roughly as fair and people are a whole lot more happy with it’s procedure, why not switch to it?
rufio - March 2, 2010
so because something is not an improvement but is more popular, it is the right idea?
bross09 - March 2, 2010
…You do know sports are only sports because they’re popular right?
If people don’t like it, we won’t have the sport. It’s not hard.
SpecialBrownie - March 2, 2010
so we should choose the most popular improvement over the one that makes the most sense???
yeah, the oscars should also choose all the most popular movies instead of the best too…oh wait they already do that…
just speaks to how everything in society is losing its meaning.
bross09 - March 2, 2010
As you prove so well sometimes, society rarely makes sense, if at all.
People will watch and choose what they like, not necessarily what’s best. And even then, what gives you the right to say what’s popular or an improvement? Is anybody? Not to break the rules, but politics is largely based on popularity, sometimes rarely being based on good information or research. A lot vote on what sounds and looks the best. Same thing applies here. It sounds good, looks good and it still an improvement.
And about the Oscars. Usually, the most popular nominee is the best. Even when you’re screaming at the t.v. because they didn’t pick the nominee you were sure they’d pick.
Boom.
SpecialBrownie - March 2, 2010
well…now that you have compared using the college system to politics…it is less of a reason for me to support it…
and about the oscars, usually the most popular nominee ISN’T the best. if we are talking about quality, best produced, best acted, people usually don’t care. Perfect example: lord of the rings. that won the oscar. there were 2 movies that were easily better than it quality wise (lost in translation and mystic river…an eastwood movie). I am saying this and I LOVE LOTR.
in 2002. chicago won it (and it wasn’t a good movie) and LOTR movie got a nomination…even though y tu mama tambien and about schmidt were much better movies.
the best picture is the most subjective thing ever and the best movie doesn’t often win. was slumdog the best movie last year? I thought milk was a little better, but slumdog was the popular movie and the hip movie that everyone was behind…but does that make it better.
what you are saying is that common knowledge and popular consensus is very often/most always right. look through history, this proves not to be the case…
BOOM…
bross09 - March 2, 2010
That was a sucky BOOM. It was like a bottle rocket.
whizzzzzz….
And just because you love LOTR doesn’t mean that your opinion of the other movies is any more correct. You’re just subjective and biased.
SpecialBrownie - March 3, 2010
So because I have an opinion I am subjective and biased, but because the Oscars often pick the popular movies they are objective?
Technically we are talking about a very subjective field here but the oscar voting is the most subjective of it all. I read many critics (peter travers of rolling stone, Roger Ebert, the LA times Steven Holden and AO Scott) and many of these guys dislike the Oscars because of how they do things. I know that ebert doesn’t and even peter travers always has a special podcast in his weekly podcasts called “damn you oscar”. most of these people hate the oscar voting b/c it panders to what is popular or what choice will get them the most money and most viewers. I understand their reasoning but if you are declaring winners and losers or awards, I think that things like this should be OBJECTIVE as possible. I understand movie critic is a very subjective industry but the oscars err on the side of subjectivity, even for that field. if the awards didn’t mean anything, I would understand giving them out to what is most popular to get awards…the MTV awards do that…it is really easy to predict the winners…Ebert and Travers do it. But oscars have a history. Oscars DO mean A LOT. people DO care about the oscars. that is why it SHOULD go the the person most deserving and not the person the public would most like to see.
bross09 - March 3, 2010
I read about 1/4 of the comment then clicked Z. I’m done.
SpecialBrownie - March 3, 2010
yeah…sorry i was tired and rambling.
the basic summary is that the oscars truly do not give it to the best movies. I understand the field of movie critic is subjective but most movie critics dislike the oscars in some sense. the ones that don’t are ones at places like variety and village voice (and Entertainment weekly and salon.com sometimes) that, because of the type of publication they are, pander to what is popular…in fact they tend to often agree with the oscar picks. now these critics are not going to say HSM3 was the best movie of the year (even though 1-2 did) but they will rank a movie like dark knight last year over a movie like milk.
I don’t mind when something has no meaning and they do it to what is popular…but the oscars have MEANING.
bross09 - March 3, 2010
I am saying something that makes fans happier but is equally fair is better than the current system.
You begin putting words in my mouth when talking about changing the NFL OT to college OT as the best possible change out there.
College OT = the best football OT currently out there > Current pro OT
Play to 6 > Current pro OT
Play an extra 15 mins > current pro OT
Play an extra 15 mins = the most fair OT that resembles all other football games the most.
Does that mean it is the “best”? To me, probably. But that leads into a whole philosophical discussion about the value of sports, one which I really don’t have time to get in to here. What makes a sport “good” or what makes some rules the “best option”? And even if I were to give a great answer to that question, wouldn’t there be equally relevant, equally good, yet different viewpoints and arguments?
rufio - March 3, 2010
I do agree it is the best current system…granted pros aren’t very good so It is hard to be worse than them.
I understand and I really don’t want to get into a whole philosophical thing either…my mind feels zapped right now…
My only question is, which is better in your opinion, college or play to 6?
bross09 - March 3, 2010
I don’t get how the college ones are less fair. It’s hard to get more fair than college rules to me.
TheRealSlimShady - March 3, 2010
To you, everything about college is perfect. Especially ND.
SpecialBrownie - March 3, 2010
I don’t like the idea of creating a short field even if it means both teams get the same opportunity. It is too different from how the rest of the game is. Kindof like how I don’t like a shootout determining the outcome in soccer or hockey.
Roger Dorn - March 4, 2010
I assume you mean a fifth quarter (non-sudden-death)?
Chris Pokorny - March 1, 2010
If it comes down to it, yes.
Andrew Tolliver - March 1, 2010
They have yet to create a device that can measure my level of disinterest in Leno.
Bengals fans want to extend Lewis? Goody! The guy hasn’t won anything yet, which is how things will stay with him in charge.
I know it’s not my money, but keeping Williams is not going to coat the team anything wrt the salary cap, so I prefer to keep his talent. If he is going to be a malcontent, then let him go. I’m not sure we can get a third rounder, but would his trade value go up if we extend him and then trade for a pick? Trading him before the bonus nets us a 4 while trading after the bonus nets us a 3??? If that is the case, is a 3rd round (or maybe a 2nd) pick worth $1.75M?
In other words, I’m willing to cover salary for Williams, DA, and anyone else if it gives us decent picks in the 2010 draft.
Spidey - March 1, 2010 via mobile
Oh! And you can take that to the bank… The blood bank.
Spidey - March 1, 2010 via mobile
This is my thinking. If we can spend 1.75M of Randy’s money to move up from one round to another, I’m cool with it.
Bernie19Kosar - March 1, 2010
I am firmly in the Conan boat, and I refuse to watch the Tonight show. I was never a fan of Leno anyway, and it’s kind of funny, this is the second time he stole the tonight show from someone who is funnier than he is.
North Coast Flea - March 1, 2010
The proposed overtime rule doesn’t do enough. If you’re going to fix it, do it right.
In which case, it’s still decided by a coin toss.
I like the logic here. Only apply that to the first possession as well: i.e. Team that receives scores a touchdown, Team that kicked, gets a chance to score a touchdown, if stopped, game is over, if they score, game continues.
This makes no sense what-so-ever. By accepting it for the post-season, one acknowledges that it’s a better system. Why not apply the better system to every game?
Simmsinns - March 1, 2010
I think the idea about a team scoring a TD on the opening drive getting the win is that it’s much more difficult to get a TD than a field goal, so you’re forcing the team that wins the toss to drive all the way down the field and give the defense more oppourtunities to stop them. By winning with a field goal, a team can get a good return and then only need to get a couple first downs to get in field goal range. If they’re required to score a TD then it’s greatly reducing the impact of winning the coin toss. I think the idea is that if a defense gives up a TD on the opening drive then they don’t deserve to win the game anyways.
Buckeye Brad - March 1, 2010
I agree…
bross09 - March 1, 2010
But it still gives some philosophies an advantage by changing the fundamental nature of the game.
Example:
Texas Tech is playing SMU. OT is first to 6 wins. At the end of regulation, score is tied 59 to 59. Both of these teams are built around passing the ball, knowing they will score TDs, and holding opponents to occasional field goals causing them to fall behind, then capitalizing on the increased risks the other team takes in order to catch up.
Neither team had had trouble scoring (clearly, due to 59 points apiece). In OT, SMU wins the coin toss and promptly marches down the field and scores a TD, just like everyone expects. Instead of relying on their normal philosophy of outscoring the opponent and not being all that concerned with defense (which is perfectly legitimate, if unlikeable), Texas Tech loses because they could not get a stop on one particular drive.
Playing to points is like playing extra half-innings or playing to points in basketball OT. Should the Cavs lose if Kobe hits a 3-pointer to open the OT period? No. Basketball should be played to time, and the Cavs should have the chance to counter with a 3 of their own, and get stops later in order to gain a lead. A baseball game should not end after 10 1/2 innings because the away team put up 10 runs. Everyone always gets a fair number of innings in baseball. Football is played to time, play it to time.
rufio - March 2, 2010
Speaking of bad movies, has anyone ever seen The Room?
gahnki - March 1, 2010
Good call. I can’t believe that movie even exists.
"Slumber Party Massacre" is at the top of my bad list. I recommend it. It’s sooo hilarious and lame.
Brownie's Year - March 1, 2010
Wow, that was tough to watch for :22 secs
Bernie19Kosar - March 1, 2010
“I did naaht. Oh, hi Mark.”
Brownie's Year - March 1, 2010
You’re tearing me apart, Lisa!
gahnki - March 2, 2010
It gets worse.
Bernie19Kosar - March 2, 2010
gahnki - March 3, 2010
Am i the only one that thinks college overtime is perfect and should be like that in the NFL?
TheRealSlimShady - March 1, 2010
Read up, a few people agree with you.
Chris Pokorny - March 1, 2010
maybe…while it is glossed over by many, this overtime system has just about as many problems as the current one oin the NFL…
bross09 - March 1, 2010
The one in college is 10x more entertaining and 10x more fair.
TheRealSlimShady - March 1, 2010
1. It is not entertaining to me
2. It is slightly fairer than the one in the pros but not significantly more fair. the one that the NFL is proposing is much more fair
3. It is a great example of what the current generation is like…the “everybody wins” generation. they push something as fair b/c it seems like everybody wins. in reality it is not extremely fair.
bross09 - March 1, 2010
Uhh . . . what? How does “everybody win” in the college football OT? I don’t get that at all.
Buckeye Brad - March 2, 2010
its not that everybody does win but exemplifies the mindset of the generation.
both teams get the ball for equal amounts of posessions. they start from the exact same spot every single time…Oh yeah, it really isn’t fair b/c the team that goes second wins significantly more often than the team that goes first.
I like the idea of first to 6 tho…
bross09 - March 2, 2010
Nope. I doubt it is statistically significant.
There is no such thing as a “mindset of a generation”. People do not have one collective brain. I am of the ‘current generation’, I do not believe in “everybody wins”. Furthermore, college OT is a far cry from exemplifying an “everyone wins” mindset, it is actually designed to have one team emerge victorious. You are doing it again.
rufio - March 2, 2010
Exactly right. He’s making sweeping generalizations which almost always leads to dumb conclusions.
Buckeye Brad - March 2, 2010
it is pretty statistically significant. I saw a somewhere that calculated it and it had the % at about 55% the 2nd team winning in the first OT.
I would find the link but I have an extremely busy week. I could find it but I honestly have things more needed with my time this week…
bross09 - March 2, 2010
I’m thinking context counts on this one. 55% of the time in one season? Not really that significant. 55% all-time? Slightly more impressive, but only slightly.
I doubt you could find a system that over the long term would bring you closer to a flat 50% rate (except maybe just calling the game with the coin toss and going home).
JustBob - March 2, 2010
I believe you completely that the number is 55%. That isn’t what makes it statistically (in)significant.
If we played one OT game, one side of the coin toss (winner or loser) would have won the game 100% of the time. The home or away teams would have won 100% of the time. The team who lost the most weight in sweat would have won or lost 100% of the time. The team with the most money invested in gold would have won or lost 100% of the time.
The problems with those numbers are twofold.
1. They don’t point to causality. The team with the most money invested in gold probably has absolutely zero impact on a game. It doesn’t cause anything. The coin flip conceivably could cause one team to have an advantage, but that isn’t proven with a simple winning %.
2. If you only play one game, you can’t take the numbers seriously because of a ridiculously small sample size. Even if you played two or three games, those numbers could be way off of where they would even out to be if you played an infinite amount of games. If you took all of the college OT games played under these rules, I would guess you wouldn’t have a significant amount of data to determine that the flip-winning team benefits. It might be significant if the number was 90% (meaning you would need the flip-winning team to LOSE a large number of games in a row to average back out to 50%).
I am probably not doing a good job at explaining this, I need a math guy. Brad? Anyone else who works with numbers?
rufio - March 3, 2010
you know what…it confused me so I think it should be fine…
from what I understood there are some valid points. I agree 55% isn’t extremely significant…but where do you draw the line too when you say that. over the past 10 years I think the football team that won the coin toss won slightly over 60% of the time…so is the 5-6 percent between college and the pros more significant than the 5 percent between dead even and college??
Hopefully this makes sense…I really should go to bed right now…its too late to even think for me.
bross09 - March 3, 2010
I hate college OT.
Roger Dorn - March 2, 2010
I think it’s a good way to do OT.
emily522 - March 2, 2010
I think college OT is entertaining, but not especially great. In my opinion, I think all overtimes should be a continuation of the actual game. Play 15 more minutes, if you’re leading then than you win. It’s extremely simple, it doesn’t change what makes the game great, and it’s just as fair as regulation.
Legoman0721 - March 2, 2010 via mobile
Offer Corey Williams a lower salary, they all know what uncapped seasons will mean, and he´s made his cut by now, I´m sure he´d like to be a Brown. He´s a definate starter outside.
Keep Shaun Rogers happy, he´s the nose guard, and move the gritty Ahytyba Rubin outside.
I associate “Dawgs” with the Browns d-line, and they fit the mold to a tee.
I´m a football purist however, and 6foot6 no matter how big and strong at defensive tackle, just isn´t what I´m looking for, I like a little more leverage from below, 6foot2 max. If we do commit to a 3-4, why look beyond these guys though. In other words, since we have them, and they are beastly, I´ll grit my teeth at these giants, because they will bring us wins.
mooncamping - March 2, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.