Yup. Had two years left on the 5 year 55.125 million extension he signed in 2018. He made some nice money. Gets out while he is healthy and has a Hobart education. He will do just fine.
That’s gotta feel awesome. Make the NFL, win the super bowl, set multiple generations of your family for life, then gtfo.
I’ve known his dad for well over 20 years. He’s been to almost every game since Ali was drafted.
Congratulate him on his son's sense of perspective and good judgment. Far-removed from the family, obviously, but your friend appears to have done a great job raising him.
"I think he accomplished his goals, values his health, is looking for more challenges. Ali has a very strong inner voice, and he is courageous enough to follow it. I'm in awe," Marpet's father, Bill, told ESPN.
We all wish Ali Marpet was our kid.
I think we’re going to see a lot more of this, especially in football. Get out when you’ve had success, earned your money, and everything’s intact. And why not? He’s got his whole life ahead of him. Heck, he’d still be in school getting his MD or PhD if he’d had a different skill set or pursued a different path.
I think we’re going to see a lot more of this, especially in football. Get out when you’ve had success, earned your money, and everything’s intact. And why not? He’s got his whole life ahead of him. Heck, he’d still be in school getting his MD or PhD if he’d had a different skill set or pursued a different path.
Last edited:
Overtime rule drama begins anew
View: https://twitter.com/MySportsUpdate/status/1498088600830947334?s=21
View: https://twitter.com/MySportsUpdate/status/1498088600830947334?s=21
I think so. There’s maybe some infinitesimal advantage on defense knowing what the offense needs to score after your offense has already played (if they scored 3 or 7), but I assume that’s overshadowed by the informational advantage of knowing how many you have to score.
My only ask is that if you go first you can't go for 2 and if you go 2nd you can't go for a tie.
Yes but then all we’ll hear about is how unfair it is to one team.
This shit is exhausting. Get a stop for fuck’s sake.
This shit is exhausting. Get a stop for fuck’s sake.
The first team could theoretically have scored 0, 3, 6, 7 or 8 points. That lets team two know if they need to go for it on fourth down from their 30, if they can go for the FG when they are on the opponent’s 30 or if they need to try for the touchdown, how to handle the extra-point if they want to win it- or make sure they tie it - right there etc.
edit-but of course if it is even score and sudden death after two possessions that is presumably then an advantage for team 1, they can likely win or run out the clock for a tie
edit-but of course if it is even score and sudden death after two possessions that is presumably then an advantage for team 1, they can likely win or run out the clock for a tie
Last edited:
I'm still in favor if you get 6 + 2 it's game over, but 6 + 1 and the other team gets the ball. You can still say it's unfair to the second team because they wouldn't be guaranteed a possession, but at least this way you'd give them a second chance at a "50-50" type of play to extend the game. Plus the first team can chose to not risk it and just kick the PAT and play D.
I think a blanket “both teams get 1 guaranteed possession” rule swings the balance so far in the direction of the team to get it second. I guess it’d be marginally better than what we have now, but I’m not a fan.
The advantage is still with the team that gets the ball if it's sudden death after one possession each. They have potentially two possessions and it could force the team that gets the ball second to go for it in bad spots (say, 4th and 8 in FG range down three), knowing that if they just tie the game they may never see the ball again. That's the case right now too, of course, but I don't think knowing how many points you need on your first possession outweighs getting one fewer.
This has always seemed like an easy fix that is being completely over-thought by the league:
Regular season:
10 minute overtime period.
Begins with a coin toss
Each team guaranteed one possession
If the game is still tied, sudden death after that.
Playoffs:
All of the above, expect for the time limit. Not perfect(obviously doesn’t completely eliminate a regular season tie), but fair. Don’t know why it would be/is such a hard sell to the teams.
Regular season:
10 minute overtime period.
Begins with a coin toss
Each team guaranteed one possession
If the game is still tied, sudden death after that.
Playoffs:
All of the above, expect for the time limit. Not perfect(obviously doesn’t completely eliminate a regular season tie), but fair. Don’t know why it would be/is such a hard sell to the teams.
Patriots play both GB and Arizona on the road this year so there's a possibility they have a game in the UK or in Mexico.
View: https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/1498306275511349254
View: https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/1498306275511349254
You can't have four hour games in the regular season with TV windows, not to mention the toll it would take on the players. I'd prefer each team gets equal possessions if they remain tied after each set, but once the clock runs out that's the end of the game.
Agree. If my first point didn't make it clear, in the regular season, if tied after the 10 minute OT period, game over.
"Every team gets a possession" is a great solution until the following happens:
Chiefs win coin toss
Chiefs score TD
Bills score TD
Chiefs score TD (or FG) and win
"Not fair, they had more possessions!!!!"
The only way out of this is something along the lines of what college does. Otherwise, getting the ball first = advantage.
EDIT: Unless you want to go really gimmicky, like doing bid-a-note to determine possession, or saying "KC scored in 5 plays, now Buffalo has to score in 4". But I don't see that flying.
Chiefs win coin toss
Chiefs score TD
Bills score TD
Chiefs score TD (or FG) and win
"Not fair, they had more possessions!!!!"
The only way out of this is something along the lines of what college does. Otherwise, getting the ball first = advantage.
EDIT: Unless you want to go really gimmicky, like doing bid-a-note to determine possession, or saying "KC scored in 5 plays, now Buffalo has to score in 4". But I don't see that flying.
LOL ... I also love the concept that if the first team scores 7, the second team being forced to go for a two-pointer conversion. It's still unequal circumstances based on a coin flip
I think the best solution to this "problem" is simple and elegant and fun. Someone else here suggested it but I wholeheartedly sign on.
Team A receives the kickoff in OT. If they turn it over, punt, kick a FG, or score a TD and either kick the PAT or miss the PAT, Team B gets a possession. If Team A scores a TD and then goes for 2 and converts, the game is immediately over and Team A wins.
So in order to win on the first possession of OT, Team A must not only score a TD (which is hard enough; NFL teams scored TDs on 25% of their drives), but also convert a 2-point conversion (49.6%) chance. So they need to beat the odds and do both things, and if they do, God bless them, they deserve to win.
But they can score a TD and kick the PAT, which means Team B gets the ball. They need to drive down the field and score a TD, and if they do, they can either kick the PAT to tie it, or they can go for the 2 point conversion and the win outright. Obviously if they try for 2, they would either win or lose on that play. But if they go for the regular PAT and make it, then Team A gets the ball and can win now on a FG, since both teams have had a possession.
Simple. Straightforward. Team A needs to do a lot of things right in order to win on their first possession, and even going for 2 there is risky because if they fail, Team B can score a regular TD and kick a regular PAT to win. So there's strategy involved there, and it's not clear which strategy is preferable - it likely depends on who's playing, how the game is going, etc. It's a little like a golf hole that has a "safe" route or a "risky" route that comes with very high reward should you pull off a great tee shot.
It would make it really interesting but it's not complicated at all.
Team A receives the kickoff in OT. If they turn it over, punt, kick a FG, or score a TD and either kick the PAT or miss the PAT, Team B gets a possession. If Team A scores a TD and then goes for 2 and converts, the game is immediately over and Team A wins.
So in order to win on the first possession of OT, Team A must not only score a TD (which is hard enough; NFL teams scored TDs on 25% of their drives), but also convert a 2-point conversion (49.6%) chance. So they need to beat the odds and do both things, and if they do, God bless them, they deserve to win.
But they can score a TD and kick the PAT, which means Team B gets the ball. They need to drive down the field and score a TD, and if they do, they can either kick the PAT to tie it, or they can go for the 2 point conversion and the win outright. Obviously if they try for 2, they would either win or lose on that play. But if they go for the regular PAT and make it, then Team A gets the ball and can win now on a FG, since both teams have had a possession.
Simple. Straightforward. Team A needs to do a lot of things right in order to win on their first possession, and even going for 2 there is risky because if they fail, Team B can score a regular TD and kick a regular PAT to win. So there's strategy involved there, and it's not clear which strategy is preferable - it likely depends on who's playing, how the game is going, etc. It's a little like a golf hole that has a "safe" route or a "risky" route that comes with very high reward should you pull off a great tee shot.
It would make it really interesting but it's not complicated at all.
10 minute overtime in the regular season makes the most sense to me. A fifth quarter with the same rules while playing the same game. The answer for the playoffs is more difficult.
The simplest, fairest solution in the regular season is no overtime. If you can't outscore the other team in the allotted 60 minutes you deserve to lose something in the standings anyway. Or play another 60 minutes, which is obviously not practical.
Any other solution will be somehow unfair to someone. Of course, ties are unmanly or something, so it'll never happen, even though that's the way it was when Johnny U played.
Playoffs should just go another 10 minutes at a time.
Any other solution will be somehow unfair to someone. Of course, ties are unmanly or something, so it'll never happen, even though that's the way it was when Johnny U played.
Playoffs should just go another 10 minutes at a time.
Or just give each team a possession in OT. If the score is tied, then it's a tie, even if neither team scores. Both teams get a second chance to win. Playoffs go another 10 minutes at a time, as suggested above.
Soccer, mainly. There’s nothing in MLB extra innings or NBA/NHL OT that I think would be called unfair to either team, though.
Why not just a continuation of the game, with next score wins (so no coin flip, play just continues at current down and distance)? Adds a little end-of-game strategy, but there's no inherent unfairness.
It puts no clock pressure on a team driving with the ball at the end of a tie game.
Think the Patriots Super Bowl against the Seahawks. They're on the 1 yard line with unlimited time to figure out what they want to do.
The Patriots were up by 4 so this is a bad example but in general I think you have the right point. How OT works shouldn't so drastically affect the way the game is played in regular time.
The Seahawks were behind. If they sat on it, they would have lost (again).
It probably results in more teams looking to improve field position at the end of a tied game (instead of taking a long FG or hail mary), but that carries risk too. And while it may be an advantage, it's an earned one unlike a coin flip.
How did I fuck that one up?
How about the first Super Bowl vs. the Rams then. Instead of the 48 yard FG attempt on 3rd down or need to work passes to the sidelines for maintaining clock, the Patriots would have taken their time going downfield.
Sure, and if that happens, they probably win. That doesn't seem patently unfair, considering they won anyway. But it also changes the strategy of both teams in that last possession. The Rams maybe don't play so soft, as now they're defending against a first down as much as a deep threat. Who knows how that changes things?
Beyond that, I think this rule would lead to less OT's and more exciting finishes. If a team is behind by three, maybe they think twice about milking the clock and sending it into overtime (or kicking a PT instead of going for 2pt conv), knowing they'll be kicking off. Instead, there's greater incentive to go for a TD and end it in regulation.
Last edited:
Doesn't it already though? This way would just change what that strategy is, and remove the luck of winning a coin flip from the equation and replace it with play on the field.
The Chiefs won the flip against Cinncy and lost.
The flip doesn't always decide the game.
Of course it doesn't, but it still provides the winner of the flip with an advantage born of luck. My fix takes away luck and replaces it with play. No doubt would it change some end-of-game strategies, but I think those changes would lead to more entertaining outcomes (and I'd think, eliminate cries about fairness).
Your idea is ambitious, I'll give you that.
But out of all the ideas I have heard, your idea is my least favorite. If there is a continuation of the game, it renders the clock meaningless. And that is a fatal flaw.
This was my suggestion on first page of the OT thread, but each team is subject to a two minute turnover clock after the two minute warning. Seems most likely to end with the team who played the best in the first sixty minutes as the winner without disrupting the drama at the end.
Not sure where else to put this and I don't think it deserves its own thread...
The Immaculate Reception occurred before my football-watching time, but I know that whether Harris actually cleanly caught the ball has been hotly debated for almost 50 years. All I've ever seen is the classic shot we've all seen a million times that shows him reach down and come up with the ball, but doesn't show him actually secure the ball (or show where the ball is in relation to the turf when he does). This morning, I came across this little beauty, which I don't think is conclusive but does make me more inclined to believe that he caught it cleanly:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1grVgWug20
The Immaculate Reception occurred before my football-watching time, but I know that whether Harris actually cleanly caught the ball has been hotly debated for almost 50 years. All I've ever seen is the classic shot we've all seen a million times that shows him reach down and come up with the ball, but doesn't show him actually secure the ball (or show where the ball is in relation to the turf when he does). This morning, I came across this little beauty, which I don't think is conclusive but does make me more inclined to believe that he caught it cleanly:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1grVgWug20
The controversy isn't whether he caught it it was did Tatum touch the ball because if he didn't and it only hit Fuqua in the rules back then would have made it an illegal catch and because it was 4th down the Raiders would've taken possession. the rule has since been changed where it wouldn't have mattered who touched it.
Right what Raiders fans were asking for was what would have been their version of the tuck rule. A sort of stupid rule, since changed, that would have negated a play that looked as if it should have gone against them. Of course if Tatum had focused on playing the ball instead of hitting Fuqua he wouldn’t have knocked the ball fifteen feet to Harris. My understanding was that it’s pretty well established that Tatum touched the ball.
Ah, that's right -- although I thought both whether Harris caught it and whether Tatum touched it were in question. Seeing it from this new perspective, I think I'm more inclined to say (but still not certain) that it was both a Tatum touch and a Harris catch.
This reminds of the time I got to meet the ownership of the Red Sox in the basement of the US Capitol. They were meeting with the New England congressional delegation after they bought the team – and my boss was a Yankees fan from Connecticut so told me I could go in her place (her exact words to me were “Fuck that” when I asked if she was planning to go).
At any rate, every member and Senator seemed to need to say something at one point. So when Olympia Snowe (wishy washy Republican Senator from Maine) spoke up, she said:
“I went to a baseball game once – it went into overtime.”
Carry on …
Bengals ST coach upset McPherson watched the halftime show, says he needs to be a better kicker ... in practice
“He needs to become a better practice kicker and kick better than he has,” Simmons said. “Not that it’s poor, but I think for him to be elite and go over the top, he’s got to kick better in practice and learn new things.”
https://www.si.com/nfl/2022/03/04/bengals-evan-mcpherson-super-bowl-halftime-show-darrin-simmons-special-teams-coach-sore-subject
“He needs to become a better practice kicker and kick better than he has,” Simmons said. “Not that it’s poor, but I think for him to be elite and go over the top, he’s got to kick better in practice and learn new things.”
https://www.si.com/nfl/2022/03/04/bengals-evan-mcpherson-super-bowl-halftime-show-darrin-simmons-special-teams-coach-sore-subject
Evan went 14 for 14 in the playoffs and tied the record for most FGs in the playoffs.(Vinitari was 14 for 15 one year) 6 for 6 on XPs too.
Tough to be better that perfect.
