NFL OT rules

[Brother Brian]

NFL OT Rules suck.

Multiple times this year, games have been decided by a coin toss. (Yes, I know that the D could make a stand, but more often than not they don't. They are run down and tired, and it's a lot harder to defend against a team that only needs a field goal.)

I can think of 2 games with implications on the playoffs, the Jets / Patriots and the Giants / Panthers from last night.

I say the hell with that. They need to change playoff rules to a 15 minute quarter, not sudden death. Sudden death only makes sense when possession is earned, not given by chance.

[silverwhisper]

i don't know about that, BB. while i'm sympathetic to what you're saying, OT only exists b/c both teams already turned in 60 mins of equally good/poor play. and it isn't always about the d making a stand, either: turnovers, after all, have decided a few OT games too, no?

[Brother Brian]

i don't know about that, BB. while i'm sympathetic to what you're saying, OT only exists b/c both teams already turned in 60 mins of equally good/poor play. and it isn't always about the d making a stand, either: turnovers, after all, have decided a few OT games too, no?

Since 2006, 44% of the time, the team that wins the coin toss wins the game on the first possession. That is 44% of the time, the team that loses was not even given the opportunity to win.

Pre 94, it was less so, because they kicked from 5 yards further up. Big returns are far more common now, because the receiving team has more time to operate. Plus, with kickers regularly having legs strong enough to make a 50 yard field goal attempt reasonable, you're looking at having to have all of a 30 yard drive on average to get into field goal range.

Sudden death works in hockey because both teams have the opportunity to get the puck.

Not so in Football. And it sucks.

[silverwhisper]

so in 56% of the time, the coin-toss winner doesn't then, right? i'm not seeing a disparity here yet, BB. ?

[Detritus]

so in 56% of the time, the coin-toss winner doesn't then, right? i'm not seeing a disparity here yet, BB. ?
No, he's saying that 44% of the time, OT ends after the first possession, so the other team doesn't even get the ball.

[Starhawk]

I wonder if there's a middle ground.

I don't have a problem with the idea of each team getting at least one possession before overtime can be complete -- but I don't know about a full fifth quarter of action every time.

What I really don't want to see is something goofy like the college overtime system...

[Brother Brian]

so in 56% of the time, the coin-toss winner doesn't then, right? i'm not seeing a disparity here yet, BB. ?

In half the games, there's no chance for one team to win. Even in the other half, there can be expected to be a disproportionate number of opportunities for one team than the other. All for the purpose of squeezing a game into a time window it never fits in anyway.

[Brother Brian]

I wonder if there's a middle ground.

I don't have a problem with the idea of each team getting at least one possession before overtime can be complete -- but I don't know about a full fifth quarter of action every time.

What I really don't want to see is something goofy like the college overtime system...

While the college system isn't good by any stretch, it is MILES ahead of what the NFL uses.

Honestly, why the resistance to a full 5th quarter?

[Starhawk]

While the college system isn't good by any stretch, it is MILES ahead of what the NFL uses.

Says you. I like the current NFL system better than the current college system.

Arguing that the team which loses the coin flip is "never given the opportunity to win" rings hollow to me. Either team can score a touchdown on any offensive play. The game is up for grabs at all times.

Anyway. As I posted before, I'm not saying that the NFL system couldn't be improved. I think the quickest, easiest, and least intrusive fix would be to mandate that each team gets at least one possession. i.e. scoring on the opening drive of overtime is not an instant win; you must kick off and hold serve.

Honestly, why the resistance to a full 5th quarter?

Partially because football games are already so damned long. That's another ~45 min of real-world time.

Partially because of extra wear and tear on the players. There's already a lot of attrition due to injury on most teams without playing an extra full quarter. Trying to put a team back together after that, especially on a short week, would be hell.

But mostly because I like the idea of two teams that have battled to a standstill being FORCED to pull out all the stops, get in there and Win The Damned Game! Overtime should heighten drama and make every play even more important than it already was.... not allow teams to wank about for another 15:00, punting back and forth for field position. That's what the other four quarters are for.

[Brother Brian]

Starhawk, you're far to intellegent to believe that the Defense has a comparable chance of scoring as the offense.

So far this year, there have been 1069 Offensive Touchdans. Compare that to 89 Defensive Touchdowns.

So the offence has 12 times the chance of scoring on average.

And if it's just about time, hell with it. Stop OT all together in the regular season. Let games end in ties. And use full quarters in the playoffs to get a more accurate guage of which team is better.

As it is now, you may as well have a field goal kicking contest to determine winners.

[Detritus]

I'd love to see both teams get the ball at least once in OT, but I don't think we're going to be seeing that anytime soon. If I had absolute power over NFL rules, this is what I'd decree:

Do the coin toss. The winning side may choose to kick or receive, as usual.

The receiving team has the choice of taking possession on their own 30, or to run a kickoff back to however far they get.

If the receiving team doesn't score, the rules revert to simple sudden-death OT.

If the receiving team winds up scoring, the other team will be given the same choice of possession at their 30 or running back a kickoff.

If the game's tied after the other team's first OT possession, revert to sudden-death OT rules, and if the game isn't tied, the score after the other team's first OT possession is the final score of the game.

[Brother Brian]

So Team 1 scores a TD, and then Team 2 scores a TD, and then Team 1 scores a TD and wins?

How is this better?

[Detritus]

It eliminates "Team 1 stops trying for the end zone and kicks a FG to win" scenarios and gives additional incentive for them to go for the TD on the initial possession of overtime. Team 2 actually gets their hands on the ball once. Also, Team 1 has to score twice to actually end the game in sudden death, if Team 2 comes up with an equalizer. And, there's the Team 1 scores FG, Team 2 scores TD and wins outcome. Or, Team 2 goes for 2 after a TD and the game hinges on that.

[Brother Brian]

It eliminates "Team 1 stops trying for the end zone and kicks a FG to win" scenarios and gives additional incentive for them to go for the TD on the initial possession of overtime. Team 2 actually gets their hands on the ball once. Also, Team 1 has to score twice to actually end the game in sudden death, if Team 2 comes up with an equalizer. And, there's the Team 1 scores FG, Team 2 scores TD and wins outcome. Or, Team 2 goes for 2 after a TD and the game hinges on that.

But again, it is giving a significant advantage to one team based on a chance occurance. If the two teams play exactly equally, the one that is fortunate will win.

Why not just give the other team the same opportunity to score again?

[Detritus]

But again, it is giving a significant advantage to one team based on a chance occurance. If the two teams play exactly equally, the one that is fortunate will win.

Why not just give the other team the same opportunity to score again?
Luck is part of the game. Unless you actually go to college-style OT rules, winning the coin toss is going to be a significant advantage. A full fifth quarter doesn't eliminate that. What if there's only time for 5 possessions in the quarter? The team that lost the coin toss gets screwed then, too, just because they ran out of time. And if you go to untimed OT, that can last for a very long time, especially if we're positing defenses too worn down to stop the offense.

[Brother Brian]

Luck is part of the game. Unless you actually go to college-style OT rules, winning the coin toss is going to be a significant advantage. A full fifth quarter doesn't eliminate that. What if there's only time for 5 possessions in the quarter? The team that lost the coin toss gets screwed then, too, just because they ran out of time. And if you go to untimed OT, that can last for a very long time, especially if we're positing defenses too worn down to stop the offense.

Here's the thing, if you go to a timed OT, the nature of play doesn't change to "shootout". The strategy of the game remains pretty much what it was through the first 4 quarters. Clock management is part of football.

On the other hand, I'm OK with ties as well. I'd be happy with "Give each team a possesion, and if they're still tied they are still tied. (In the regular season. In the post season, 15 minute quarters until you have a winner should be the rule IMO.)

[Detritus]

Sure, clock management is part of football, but a team who receives the kickoff at the start of a 15-minute overtime period will never have fewer possessions than the kicking team, and will have more possessions in a significant number of cases. That's still an advantage that arises completely from chance.

[Brother Brian]

Sure, clock management is part of football, but a team who receives the kickoff at the start of a 15-minute overtime period will never have fewer possessions than the kicking team, and will have more possessions in a significant number of cases. That's still an advantage that arises completely from chance.

But one at least partially in the control of the other team.

You get the ball with 7 minutes left and need a touchdown. You have control over what kind of plays you run and how quickly you move the clock down. If you score too quick, then at least you had a say in it.

That's still better than "We'll give them 2 shots and you 1."

[Starhawk]

So Team 1 scores a TD, and then Team 2 scores a TD, and then Team 1 scores a TD and wins?

How is this better?

It invalidates the complaint that one team or the other "didn't get a chance to score." Both offenses touched the ball. Both defenses got a chance to try and stop them.


Starhawk, you're far to intellegent to believe that the Defense has a comparable chance of scoring as the offense. ... So the offence has 12 times the chance of scoring on average.

Brian, that is not even close to what I said, nor was it the point that I was arguing.

My point was that defensive players can and have scored touchdowns in the NFL. Thus a complaint that the defensive team in an overtime "had no chance to win" is utter bullshit. Is it less likely? Sure. But you had a chance.



And if it's just about time, hell with it. Stop OT all together in the regular season. Let games end in ties. And use full quarters in the playoffs to get a more accurate guage of which team is better.

That would certainly make fourth-quarter play more interesting.


As it is now, you may as well have a field goal kicking contest to determine winners.

That's just more biased rhetoric.

[Brother Brian]

It invalidates the complaint that one team or the other "didn't get a chance to score." Both offenses touched the ball. Both defenses got a chance to try and stop them.




Brian, that is not even close to what I said, nor was it the point that I was arguing.

My point was that defensive players can and have scored touchdowns in the NFL. Thus a complaint that the defensive team in an overtime "had no chance to win" is utter bullshit. Is it less likely? Sure. But you had a chance.




That would certainly make fourth-quarter play more interesting.



That's just more biased rhetoric.

Which would you say is closer to the truth. That the team that loses the coint toss has no chance of scoring or that they had an even chance of scoring?

[Starhawk]

Which would you say is closer to the truth. That the team that loses the coint toss has no chance of scoring or that they had an even chance of scoring?


It's closer to the statistical truth to say that the team losing the coin toss has an even chance of scoring, rather than no chance of scoring. Although I think that your presentation of the issue in this way smacks of a false dichotomy.

[Wook]

All the NFL needs to do is set OT so that both teams get a chance to score and match each other's scores. So if I socre a TD det gets a posession to match that. If he can't I win. Kickoffs and such should be handled exactly as normal. The only thing we're doing is giving the other team a chance to match the other. In fact I'd say scrap the clock and play the game until one team can't match the other.

[Brother Brian]

All the NFL needs to do is set OT so that both teams get a chance to score and match each other's scores. So if I socre a TD det gets a posession to match that. If he can't I win. Kickoffs and such should be handled exactly as normal. The only thing we're doing is giving the other team a chance to match the other. In fact I'd say scrap the clock and play the game until one team can't match the other.

I'd be perfectly OK with that.

[Brother Brian]

It's closer to the statistical truth to say that the team losing the coin toss has an even chance of scoring, rather than no chance of scoring. Although I think that your presentation of the issue in this way smacks of a false dichotomy.

So 1 to 12 is closer to even than zero?

That doesn't seem right to me.

You are honestly telling me that you don't think winning the coin toss in OT isn't a major factor in who wins the game? Seriously?

I'm not saying it's the only factor. But considering that 44% of the time the losing team never gets an offensive play, and considering the 12-1 ratio of Offensive to Defensive TD's, to dismiss it in the interest of a half hour of time, when doing so has proven long term implications on the season, is horrid.

[Starhawk]

You are honestly telling me that you don't think winning the coin toss in OT isn't a major factor in who wins the game? Seriously?


Why do you continue to try and make up an argument for me?

Once again, that isn't close to resembling anything I've said.

[Detritus]

But one at least partially in the control of the other team.

You get the ball with 7 minutes left and need a touchdown. You have control over what kind of plays you run and how quickly you move the clock down. If you score too quick, then at least you had a say in it.
So, "You must run a 6 1/2-minute scoring drive to stay competitive" is your awesome solution? The team that loses the coin toss has their strategy dictated to them when you say something like "Don't score too fast!"

That's still better than "We'll give them 2 shots and you 1."
Right, because every single time it would turn out that the three drives would go TD-TD-TD/FG. There are whole classes of outcomes that won't fit this structure, and I don't think they'd be a small percentage of the cases.

[Detritus]

All the NFL needs to do is set OT so that both teams get a chance to score and match each other's scores. So if I socre a TD det gets a posession to match that. If he can't I win. Kickoffs and such should be handled exactly as normal. The only thing we're doing is giving the other team a chance to match the other. In fact I'd say scrap the clock and play the game until one team can't match the other.
This essentially is the NCAA solution, with the notable exception of kickoffs after each score. There would definitely need to be a "must go for 2" rule after, say, two pairs of TDs, and I could see this going for a long time if it's the case that the game is one where the defenses have dominated.

I think I'd vote for each team starting around their own 40 instead of straight kickoffs, so that the offense has to do a little something to get in scoring position, instead of starting there like the way it is in college.

[Wook]

This essentially is the NCAA solution, with the notable exception of kickoffs after each score. There would definitely need to be a "must go for 2" rule after, say, two pairs of TDs, and I could see this going for a long time if it's the case that the game is one where the defenses have dominated.

I think I'd vote for each team starting around their own 40 instead of straight kickoffs, so that the offense has to do a little something to get in scoring position, instead of starting there like the way it is in college.

The only real flaw in their OT system is that one team doesn't get a chance with their O on the field. I don't see why the other things would be necessary. Given the ebb and flow of a game I think you might get an occasional really long and super hard fought game and that's fine.

[Brother Brian]

Starhawk, what is your point then, since I'm clearly not understanding it?

[Starhawk]

Every time I've posted in this thread it's been to state my opinion or speculate on OT rule changes.

Twice you've either leapt to some sort of conclusion I didn't say (that the defense has the same chance to score as the offense) or tried really hard to rope me into arguing something I have no interest in (zero chance or an even chance? pfah).

My basic position is that the sudden-death rules are just fine as they are. However, if a change were to be made, I believe the most subtle, basic, and unobtrusive change would be to mandate that each team gets the ball on offense at least one time: i.e. if the coin-flip-winner scores, the other team gets a chance to match. If they match, the game becomes true sudden-death. If not, the game is over.

Your argument seems to be that losing the coin flip is not faaaaaaaaaaaaaair -- look at the statistics! My opinion is that I don't give a damn whether or not it's faaaaaaaaaair... you had sixty minutes of football to win the game before and an opportunity to play defense in overtime.

Look at the Bears/Packers OT game last night. Are you really going to tell me they "never had a chance to win?" They had a game-winning field goal blocked in the last :18 of regulation. The Bears won the coin toss and marched down the field, aided by a 15-yard penalty on the Pack and a pair of ~15-yard completions. The Pack had every opportunity to force a punt.

[Wook]

Look at the Bears/Packers OT game last night. Are you really going to tell me they "never had a chance to win?" They had a game-winning field goal blocked in the last :18 of regulation. The Bears won the coin toss and marched down the field, aided by a 15-yard penalty on the Pack and a pair of ~15-yard completions. The Pack had every opportunity to force a punt.

Not every team's strength is on defense. For the bears defense is definitely one of their strengths. Making sure each team gets the ball and a chance to match ensures each team gets a chance to lead with their best foot. If you're going to argue that an inherently unfair system constitutes good sportsmanship and good policy rules wise you're going to have a mighty steep hill to climb. And while yes I know that's not what you said exactly it is the very obvious conclusion I'm going to draw from it.

[Starhawk]

If you're going to argue that an inherently unfair system constitutes good sportsmanship and good policy rules wise you're going to have a mighty steep hill to climb.

Funny, me and the NFL already seem to be at the top of the hill. :wave: You can start your steep climb to convince them to change things.

Also, I disagree with your appraisal of the system as "inherently unfair".


Not every team's strength is on defense.

So what? Are you trying to suggest that overtime won't be faaaaair unless each team is allowed to play to its strength? Perhaps they should be allowed to knock off for a meal and some rest, and come back the next day after a nice massage and some group therapy.

[Brother Brian]

Every time I've posted in this thread it's been to state my opinion or speculate on OT rule changes.

Twice you've either leapt to some sort of conclusion I didn't say (that the defense has the same chance to score as the offense) or tried really hard to rope me into arguing something I have no interest in (zero chance or an even chance? pfah).

My basic position is that the sudden-death rules are just fine as they are. However, if a change were to be made, I believe the most subtle, basic, and unobtrusive change would be to mandate that each team gets the ball on offense at least one time: i.e. if the coin-flip-winner scores, the other team gets a chance to match. If they match, the game becomes true sudden-death. If not, the game is over.

Your argument seems to be that losing the coin flip is not faaaaaaaaaaaaaair -- look at the statistics! My opinion is that I don't give a damn whether or not it's faaaaaaaaaair... you had sixty minutes of football to win the game before and an opportunity to play defense in overtime.

Look at the Bears/Packers OT game last night. Are you really going to tell me they "never had a chance to win?" They had a game-winning field goal blocked in the last :18 of regulation. The Bears won the coin toss and marched down the field, aided by a 15-yard penalty on the Pack and a pair of ~15-yard completions. The Pack had every opportunity to force a punt.

Ah. I thought you were making an argument. Instead you were simply posting an opinion.

My bad.

As to the Bears Packer game, the Packers were given less a chance to win it than the Bears were. This is inarguably true.

[Brother Brian]

Funny, me and the NFL already seem to be at the top of the hill. :wave: You can start your steep climb to convince them to change things.

Also, I disagree with your appraisal of the system as "inherently unfair".

So what? Are you trying to suggest that overtime won't be faaaaair unless each team is allowed to play to its strength? Perhaps they should be allowed to knock off for a meal and some rest, and come back the next day after a nice massage and some group therapy.

Does adding extra "a"s to fair somehow invalidate our point?

Besides, I though you just didn't care about fairness, but now you disagree with the appraisal? Which is it?

[Wook]

Funny, me and the NFL already seem to be at the top of the hill. :wave: You can start your steep climb to convince them to change things.

Also, I disagree with your appraisal of the system as "inherently unfair".


That's funny. You're not one I'd ever expect to argue from, or for, tradition Starhawk. That said the complete worthlessness of your smug claim is pretty obvious IMHO.

We aren't talking about what the rules are or aren't. We're talking about what the rules should be and whether or not the rules as they exist actually constitute fair play and/or foster competition.

They don't.

[Starhawk]

Here's an interesting idea I stumbled across while surfing:

http://www.sportsline.com/mcc/blogs/view/5815072

This guy thinks that a good change would be to abolish the game-winning field goal in overtime. First team to score a touchdown wins. Thoughts?

[silverwhisper]

i don't like it but i'm having trouble articulating my reasoning why.

i think my issue is that football generally, at least at the pro level, tries to make the OT period as close to a 5th quarter as possible. adding a restriction on requiring a TD and ruling out a FG (would it also rule out a safety?) seems to run against that.

i think that the the issue i have is the level of intrusiveness required for special OT periods. this is the problem i have w/ the alternatives suggested here: the more you monkey with the rules, the more you change the game. it's just like adding houserules, IMHO.

[Wook]

There's a reason the other team gets a chance to win in, say, baseball. It's because the chance to score in a sport where possession is not fluid like it is in Hockey or Basketball is pretty core to the game. Any system that does not give the other team an equal chance to score as to defend isn't going to correct the flaws inherent in the current system.

[Starhawk]

ed: I could see field goals being allowed... just not being game-winning. If you're up by three when overtime ends, you win. So they would still be worthwhile.


re: each team getting an offensive possession....I dunno. If you mandate that the second team gets an equal chance at possession, would that lead to teams kicking the ball away to start overtime?

After all, the first team would probably play vanilla, three-down football, punting away if they don't score.

If they score, the second team could then play balls-to-the-wall, no-punting ball knowing that if they fail, they lose.

Technically speaking, that's not equal, either.

[silverwhisper]

starhawk: OK, but what about turnovers or safeties?

[Wook]

ed: I could see field goals being allowed... just not being game-winning. If you're up by three when overtime ends, you win. So they would still be worthwhile.


re: each team getting an offensive possession....I dunno. If you mandate that the second team gets an equal chance at possession, would that lead to teams kicking the ball away to start overtime?

After all, the first team would probably play vanilla, three-down football, punting away if they don't score.

If they score, the second team could then play balls-to-the-wall, no-punting ball knowing that if they fail, they lose.

Technically speaking, that's not equal, either.

Teams kick the ball away to start overtime now. Teams plan vanilla, three-down football, in overtime now. And I would tell you any team that isn't playing balls to the wall in OT when the game is on the line has a problem.

[Brother Brian]

Starhawk's point is valid, and you see it in the charlie foxtrot that is the college OT system.

On the other hand, the advantage between knowing what is needed of you is far less than "I get to be on offense, and you don't."

I'll be honest, a full extra period is the only truely equitable way to do it. (It need not be 15 minutes, but can't be less than 10.)

[Paulypalooza]

Multiple times this year, games have been decided by a coin toss. (Yes, I know that the D could make a stand, but more often than not they don't. They are run down and tired, and it's a lot harder to defend against a team that only needs a field goal.)

Playing defense is part of the game. How many times have you seen a team go three and out?


Honestly, why the resistance to a full 5th quarter?
I'm sure part of it is the reluctance to have the 1:00 game go over into the 4:00 game.

One thing everybody is missing is this. If teams don't like the overtime rules and don't want to play using them they should of played better in the preceding 60 minutes of football.

Personally I would prefer to see another full period of football in the overtime rules but I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon.

[silverwhisper]

you know, that's a good point re: TV schedules, pauly, and something i didn't consider myself. and even though the later game kick-off was pushed back to 4:15, it isn't unusual for the early game to run long as it is now.

[Wook]

Playing defense is part of the game. How many times have you seen a team go three and out?


I'm sure part of it is the reluctance to have the 1:00 game go over into the 4:00 game.

One thing everybody is missing is this. If teams don't like the overtime rules and don't want to play using them they should of played better in the preceding 60 minutes of football.

Personally I would prefer to see another full period of football in the overtime rules but I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon.

This is silly. I don't know of any team that doesn't want to win in regulation. Saying that sucky rules that gives one team an unfair advantage over the other because they should have won in regulation is silly. Obviously defense is part of the game. So it's as much unfair that one team never gets to field their offense as it is that the other team never has to field their defense.

[Brother Brian]

Playing defense is part of the game. How many times have you seen a team go three and out?

In OT? I'm not sure I've ever seen it.

You ignore the reality that offensive players simply do NOT have to work as hard as the D, because they know what they play is and that they only need to block for a second or two.


I'm sure part of it is the reluctance to have the 1:00 game go over into the 4:00 game.

One thing everybody is missing is this. If teams don't like the overtime rules and don't want to play using them they should of played better in the preceding 60 minutes of football.

Personally I would prefer to see another full period of football in the overtime rules but I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon.

What a piece of platatudinous bullshit that is. Both team played hard for an hour. Ending in a tie does NOT indicate a failure on the part of either team.

I'd prefer flat ties to the current OT rules. Ties are not the end of the world.

[Paulypalooza]

What a piece of platatudinous bullshit that is. Both team played hard for an hour. Ending in a tie does NOT indicate a failure on the part of either team.

Whether you hang it on the coaches or the players it most certainly does.

When you out play your opponent you win.
When your opponent out plays you you lose.
When playoff time comes around unless somebody else also has a tie in their record (which is very rare) a tie is just as good as a lose.

[Wook]

When you out play your opponent you win.
When your opponent out plays you you lose.
When playoff time comes around unless somebody else also has a tie in their record (which is very rare) a tie is just as good as a lose.

So the 1 game that ties every 15 years or so is the most relevant piece of information when making tie-breaking and game policy decisions? C'mon Pauly.

[Paulypalooza]

So the 1 game that ties every 15 years or so is the most relevant piece of information when making tie-breaking and game policy decisions? C'mon Pauly.

If BB gets his way there would be several ties in 2008 alone. These are the ones I can think of off the top of my head there may be more.

Philly - Cincinnati
Dallas - Arizona
Chi - GB
NY - Carolina

four of which are are playoff teams. In a sport where there are only 16 games in the season every game is crucial.

[Brother Brian]

Whether you hang it on the coaches or the players it most certainly does.

When you out play your opponent you win.
When your opponent out plays you you lose.
When playoff time comes around unless somebody else also has a tie in their record (which is very rare) a tie is just as good as a lose.

Factually wrong.

A tie to the Jets would have put the Patriots rather than the Dolphins in the playoffs.

I tie is half as good as a win, and half as bad as a loss.

Ascribing "play hard" as the sole metric that defines wins and losses is so simpleton a theory as to be laughable.

[Brother Brian]

If BB gets his way there would be several ties in 2008 alone. These are the ones I can think of off the top of my head there may be more.

Philly - Cincinnati
Dallas - Arizona
Chi - GB
NY - Carolina

four of which are are playoff teams. In a sport where there are only 16 games in the season every game is crucial.

Which is precisely why the current bullshit system needs to end.