Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Hopeful Change

Good to see that the NFL changed the overtime rule for postseason games. The rule is still less than ideal, but it's a step in the right direction. And the reaction was good for a little blog fodder, courtesy of Brad Biggs of the Chicago Tribune, who scores a great point against proponents of the change:

The new system would mandate that if the team that wins the coin flip kicks a field goal on the first possession of overtime, it would be forced to kick off.

Of course, no one backing this plan mentions that earlier in the playoffs the Packers lost on the opening possession in overtime after Aaron Rodgers fumbled and the Cardinals' Karlos Dansby returned it for a touchdown.

Right, backers of the plan frequently cite the statistic that the receiving team has won 60% of overtime games since kickoffs were move back in 1994, and believe that to be an unacceptable advantage. They also think that teams playing exclusively for a field goal detracts from the excitement of the game. Mentioning that the kicking team managed to win with a touchdown once really blows a huge hole in both of those arguments.

Then he convincingly argues that the change would be a disaster for the Bears:

All the Bears need to do is examine their own recent history to realize they should vote against any change. For starters, the Bears are 11-3 in the last 10 seasons in overtime and 8-1 under Lovie Smith, including an overtime victory over the Seahawks in the divisional round of the 2006 playoffs.

Ah, yes, the Monsters of Overtime, sample size be damned. Also, never mind the fact that exactly two current Bears - Urlacher and Kretuz - were even on the team 10 years ago. (Hell, there are only three offensive starters from the 2006 NFC champs still with the team.) It's obvious that the Chicago Bears as an organization have adapted to overtime, as well as to cold weather.

Then, if they're still in doubt, they need to consider that with the third-most accurate kicker in NFL history, they would be foolish to vote for any system that limits the possible outcome[sic] Robbie Gould can have on a game.

Dropping the ironicalism for a moment, I'll admit the point about Gould is a fair one. Having a awesome kicker is more of a boost under the current rules, although not nearly so much as having an offense that can get the ball into field goal position, and a defense that can keep the opponents from moving the ball. But I guess it's beyond Biggs to string two convincing sentences together:

In the last decade, the Bears are 4-1 in games ending with a field goal on the first possession of overtime.

Which proves absolutely fuck all without knowing how many of those 13 games the Bears had the ball first. I think a reasonably intelligent 7 year-old would be able to grasp that point. Too much for your average sportswriter, I suppose.