Wouldn't playing an extra quarter be the fairest way to do overtime? -- nm
Posted by
Krusty (aka krustylu)
Feb 6 '17, 07:43
|
(No message)
|
Responses:
-
nah. not if you've been spotted 25 points.
-
Diva
Feb 6, 07:56
6
-
Royal Rumble. 15 players from each team. -- nm
-
Beaker
Feb 6, 07:53
-
Serious question. If Atlanta wins on first possession in overtime are you asking this question? -- nm
-
Bacon
Feb 6, 07:52
14
-
What ty97 thought while I read this post "Doesn't overtime pay time and a half already?"
-
ty97
Feb 6, 07:46
-
because they need to add another 45 minutes to the gametime. -- nm
-
groiny
Feb 6, 07:46
1
-
As I've said before, in the playoffs, both teams need to get the ball.
-
David
Feb 6, 07:46
1
-
I think you end up with a more likely scenario of a tie at the end of that. Also the longer the game and fatigue the more likely of injury
-
Bacon
Feb 6, 07:46
15
-
For the Superbowl, absolutely. Even 7m30secs would be fine if they want to end sooner -- nm
-
budice
Feb 6, 07:45
-
It's not like they have next week to rest up for. -- nm
-
Reagen
Feb 6, 07:45
-
When has the NFL ever been about fairness? -- nm
-
Ender
Feb 6, 07:45
|
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.
|
|