Onside kick versus 4th and 15

[Shanedorf]

The NFL and their network partners are heavily invested in paving the way for a comeback, its a direct boost to their bottom line
If the competitive portion of the game is over, ratings drop, and the advertisers don't get as many eyeballs as they would in a close game

What's weird about it is that their obsession with maximizing revenue can have unintended consequences - and one of those consequences is that the NFL becomes just like the NBA where the first 3.5 quarters don't really matter all that much, just tune in to the end of the game. I actually don't mind when the better team wins, which may / may not be the same goal the owners have. $$$$

 

1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

The one problem with the present proposal though is that they allow more than a simple conversion - you could get 30, 40, 50 yards, or a TD.  You could NEVER get that with an onsides recovery.

point stands, but there have been a few really cool ones where the guy caught the onside and took it to the house

 

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by Shanedorf

[lancerman]

1 hour ago, August4th said:

 

Thank god 

[Turnobili]

1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

The historical data with 4th and 15 shows a similar rate - but the beauty is that if it's too easy, they change it to 4th and 20, etc.

The one problem with the present proposal though is that they allow more than a simple conversion - you could get 30, 40, 50 yards, or a TD.  You could NEVER get that with an onsides recovery.  That alone is a good enough reason for the rule to not pass IMO - but I do think its time is coming, if onside recovery with ATL's Koo as the kicker is basically a single-digit likely event.

they didnt preivously change the onside kick rule because it was too easy... it was for player safety. as long as the 4th and 15 rule is comparable in odds to the old onside kick i dont see a big issue. but yes, they can adjust and slide it as needed

i'm excited for the first time one of the dinosaur coaches tries to run a draw

Edited May 28, 2020 by Turnobili

[Deadpulse]

Quote

Jason McCourty on the NFL's fourth-and-15 proposal as an alternative to an onside kick: "If I'm a team and I've earned a right to be up, we've made the plays necessary to be winning in the fourth quarter or whatever it might be, I have a chance to go seal the game by just catching an onside kick vs. being out there for a fourth-and-15 – from that standpoint, I don't really understand it. We're now basically rewarding you for being behind. That's the only thing, for me, that is a negative of it."

I'm with Jason

[DannyB]

1 hour ago, Deadpulse said:

Quote

Jason McCourty on the NFL's fourth-and-15 proposal as an alternative to an onside kick: "If I'm a team and I've earned a right to be up, we've made the plays necessary to be winning in the fourth quarter or whatever it might be, I have a chance to go seal the game by just catching an onside kick vs. being out there for a fourth-and-15 – from that standpoint, I don't really understand it. We're now basically rewarding you for being behind. That's the only thing, for me, that is a negative of it."

I'm with Jason

Huh? With him on WHAT though? Like, what is his point? What specifically does he find unfair?

[incognito_man]

36 minutes ago, DannyB said:

Huh? With him on WHAT though? Like, what is his point? What specifically does he find unfair?

i buy his argument and I feel similarly. The 'spirit' of football is kicking off to your opponent after you score (aka taking turns). The onside kick is simply leveraging a live-ball rule within the general spirit of sport (alternating possessions). The 4th and 15 advent eliminates (in principle) the taking turns spirit by giving the ball back to the team that just scored if they want it. Obviously it's risky - but it DOES defy that great underlying equalizer of taking turns with the ball after scoring.

I can completely understand why that's a hard pill to swallow philosophically, even if the math makes it more or less the same outcome (ends justify means)

[DannyB]

8 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

i buy his argument and I feel similarly. The 'spirit' of football is kicking off to your opponent after you score (aka taking turns). The onside kick is simply leveraging a live-ball rule within the general spirit of sport (alternating possessions). The 4th and 15 advent eliminates (in principle) the taking turns spirit by giving the ball back to the team that just scored if they want it. Obviously it's risky - but it DOES defy that great underlying equalizer of taking turns with the ball after scoring.

I can completely understand why that's a hard pill to swallow philosophically, even if the math makes it more or less the same outcome (ends justify means)

Is that what he's saying? Jesus christ that's an incoherent and meandering way of getting there. Just say you think making it an offense vs. defense play feels unfair.

I think one thing that bothers people is this, and I can see where they're coming from: No matter how far the "4th" down play has to go, certain teams will have a MUCH better chance at making it, or stopping it. Even if the chance is slime for everybody, some will inevitably be much better. On the other hand, I don't care who the kicker is, or who the hands team is, I feel like the chance to recover a kick is fairly uniform across the board, so, IN GENERAL, every team has the same change to recover.

For example, and I'm ENTIRELY making these numbers up: pretend the league average for picking up 15 yards on a single down in 15%, and recovering an onside kick is also 15%. Say team A has a great quarterback and passing game, as well as a great kicker when it comes to placing onside kicks. That might mean that they could pick up those 15 yards at a clip of like, 30%, whereas the onside kick is still probably only recovered 18%. Like, it's still LARGELY chance, and I think most people want to keep that degree of chance rather than allowing one team to convert at a rate of three times as often as another team.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense I'm rambling.

[AngusMcFife]

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Hopefully the NFL will get smart and adopt what I've been saying all along: the ball only has to travel 8 or 9 yards before the kicking team can recover. Problem solved. Just test it out and see what gets about 15%. 

[kwolf68]

You want to make things exciting for a comeback, just give each team 15 time outs a half. Not only would teams getting beat get a chance to comeback but imagine the extra commercials we can experience? 

/j/k btw