TenYards.comJust another WordPress weblog

Sudden death has gotten a little less sudden in the NFL playoffs.

The league on Tuesday changed its overtime rules for post-season games. Starting next season, if a team wins the coin toss and then kicks a field goal, the other team gets the ball. If that next series ends with another field goal, play will continue under the current sudden-death rules.

If the team winning the toss immediately scores a touchdown, however, the game is over.

Team owners voted 28-4 on Tuesday in favour of the proposal at the NFL meetings. Minnesota, Buffalo, Cincinnati and Baltimore opposed the change.

Passage was helped by commissioner Roger Goodell’s support and by a spate of statistics indicating the coin toss had become too prominent in determining OT winners.

Minnesota lost last season’s NFC championship game in overtime to New Orleans. The Saints won the toss, drove downfield and kicked a field goal to win.

“Modified sudden death is an opportunity to make a pretty good rule … even better,” said Atlanta Falcons president Rich McKay, co-chairman of the competition committee. “Statistically, it needed to change. It wasn’t producing the ‘fairest result.”‘

Those statistics showed that since 1994, the team that won the overtime coin toss won the game on the first possession 34 per cent of the time.

Overall, the team that correctly called the coin toss won overtime games nearly 60 per cent of the time in the last 15 years, or since kickoffs were moved back five yards to the 30.

“Plenty of people on the committee, myself included, are so-called traditionalists,” Indianapolis Colts president Bill Polian said. “I am proud to be one. But once you saw the statistics, it became obvious we had to do something.”

The new rule applies only to post-season games. But McKay said even that could change, and several owners expressed interest in further discussions at their May meetings in Dallas.

“There was a lot of sentiment in the room to change this rule for the regular season,” McKay said, adding he doesn’t expect that to happen this year. “Our thought is to take our time and study it a bit and make sure everyone understands the implications there would be for that.”

McKay and Polian said the Vikings-Saints game had little role in the vote to modify the rule.

“That’s interesting,” McKay said. “One of the teams that voted against was in the game and, last I checked, I don’t think they won.”

Vikings owner Zygi Wilf said Monday he was inclined to vote no.

“You need consistency of the regular season and the post-season,” Wilf said.

But the overtime rules already are different. During the season, games end in ties after a 15-minute OT. In the playoffs, a winner must be determined.

McKay and Tennessee Titans coach Jeff Fisher, the other competition committee co-chairman, said coaches quickly began favoring the change once they learned the details. It became such a hot issue that the owners’ vote was taken one day earlier than expected.

One of those coaches, Marvin Lewis of the Bengals, is on the committee. Hours before his team voted no, Lewis expressed approval of the alteration.

“There’s a lot of elements that come into play,” Lewis said. “For all the proposals we’ve discussed, this is, I think, the most complete one.”

McKay said it was critical in making the rule change that “no phase of the game” was “adversely affected.”

The players’ union has said it believes any change in overtime needs to be collectively bargained. Of course, the contract between the league and players expires next March. While the competition committee briefly discussed potential OT changes with the union in February, the NFLPA was not consulted this week.

Denver Broncos receiver Brandon Stokley doesn’t like the rule change.

“I just think that they should keep it like it is,” he said. “It makes things interesting. Some people don’t like the coin toss, but that’s just the way it goes. If you’re on defense first and you don’t have the ball, you’ve just got to stop them.”

Matt Field
TenYards.com Sports Editor

What a season it was, a great regular season, outstanding individual perfomances and an exciting but disappointing loss in the NFC Championship game. What if it never even happened? A football season without our beloved Purple? It could happen if the Vikings, the fans and the state of Minnesota cannot get the stadium issue resolved.

I had an opportunity to talk with Vikings Assistant Director of Public Affairs, Jeff Anderson. I wanted to ask the questions from a fan’s stand point and push a bit of the politics aside. I enjoyed the reponses and I hope it clears up some of the questions surrounding the issue. Enjoy the Q & A.

Matt Field- Let me begin with the basic question. Why do the Vikings need or want a new stadium?

Jeff Anderson- The Vikings have just 20 games remaining on the lease at the Metrodome, and we have been firm the team will not sign a lease extension without a stadium solution in place. We currently rank at the bottom of the NFL in stadium revenue due to the challenges of the Metrodome. Since 1992, 28 of the 32 NFL cities have either built new stadiums or significantly renovated their existing facilities, making it difficult for us to remain competitive. As a result of the Metrodome, the Vikings receive subsidies from other teams each year in order to compete.

Matt- What are the benefits of building a new stadium?

Jeff- Building a new stadium secures the Vikings in Minnesota for the next generation of fans. This team is part of  the fabric of Minnesota, a common bond for us to discuss at work and enjoy with our families. In 2009, nearly half of the state’s five million people watched, listened to or attended Vikings games on Sundays. Just as all professional sports teams do, the Vikings truly impact Minnesota’s quality of life.

A new facility will also create jobs and spur economic development at a time when the State desperately needs both. This project will create 8,000 construction jobs and support approximately 13,400 jobs during the construction period. Over half the cost, or $577 billion, will be directed toward wages and salaries, and upon completion, over $21 million will be generated per year in tax revenue, $3 million more than the Vikings currently generate inside the Metrodome annually.

Matt- What do you feel is the reality of the Vikings future without State funding for a new stadium?

Jeff- We’re confident a solution that includes a public-private partnership will be found in Minnesota. The reality is that stadiums are expensive, and there has to be a public-private partnership on the funding of these facilities, which in this case would be publicly-owned and the Vikings would pay rent to play our games there each season. With the team’s lease set to expire after the 2011 season, however, there is a sense of urgency to resolve this issue.

Matt- Where do things stand as far as progress on the stadium issue both within the Viking organization and with relation to talks with the State of Minnesota?

Jeff- Currently conversations are taking place with state leaders as well as the business community and organized labor in an effort to resolve this issue. The public intensity around a Vikings stadium is increasing, and our fans are becoming more vocal. With all of that, we’re confident a solution can be found during the 2010 Legislative Session.

Matt- There is a popular argument with supporters of funding for a stadium that if the Vikings were to leave the State, bringing the NFL back to Minnesota would come at a much higher cost than what is currently needed now. Is this a reality?

Jeff- Again, we’re confident a solution will be found that will ensure the Vikings remain in Minnesota for the next 30 years or more, but yes, the cost of bringing an NFL team back to the Minnesota market would be much higher than the current projected cost of a new facility. That is largely due to the relocation fee - several hundred million dollars – that must be paid. Along with that, any type of delay will only raise the cost of a new stadium. Had this been resolved in 2001, the cost would have been half of what it is today, so if you move the project several years out, that trend will continue.

Matt- What can be said to taxpayers that may never use the facility or are not fans of the Vikings and the stadium issue? What is their return on a possible tax to support the stadium?

Jeff- I alluded to this earlier, but really there are several benefits. This would be a publicly-owned multi-use facility that could be used for many other events other than Vikings games. The construction of the stadium creates thousands of jobs and provides an incredible economic impact, and at the same time retains a State asset that improves the quality of life in Minnesota. Finally, the team believes any taxes should be user-based, meaning those who use or benefit from the facility should contribute.

Matt- I am of the belief that this – or nearly any issue – should go to a vote. If the voters speak, then the process has worked. What will it take to get this issue in front of the voters?

Jeff- While we certainly respect your opinion on a referendum, the precedent has been set with several major development projects like the Xcel Energy Center, Target Center, Mall of America, and the new Twins ballpark. Each of those used public money for at least a portion of the funding and each was completed without a referendum. All of them have since become state assets. The Vikings stadium issue needs leadership at the State and local level from those who were chosen to represent the citizens of Minnesota.

Matt- How real is the possibility of ‘alternative funding’?

Jeff- Many creative finance ideas are being discussed at the Capitol. For example, Governor Pawlenty recently suggested a new lottery as well as taxes generated from the new facility being directed toward stadium construction costs as two potential options. In recent years, lottery taxes were used in Baltimore and Seattle to help pay for a new football and baseball stadiums. While the Vikings are not committed to any one solution, we believe there are several viable options and as I said before, we support those that are user-based. The Vikings have provided information to the Legislature on how all recent NFL stadiums have been financed and we look forward to other creative ideas.

In terms of the Racino idea, we certainly applaud those advocates and their proposals and creativity. While we don’t have a position on the issue, if that’s the route the State wants to use to help fund a new facility, the team would participate in that effort. But gaming is a controversial topic at the Capitol, and when you mix it with another hot topic like a new stadium, it becomes even more complicated.

Matt- As we all know, the economic struggle in this state and across the country is a force for all of us to deal with. Why should the Vikings be considered for State funding during such a difficult time?

Jeff- We certainly understand and respect the many challenges facing the Legislature, but we believe 2010 is the best year to address this issue. The Metrodome lease expires after the 2011 season, interest rates and construction costs are extremely low and this project will spur economic development and add 8,000 construction jobs at a critical time for the State’s economy. The team has been at this for a very long time – during times of surplus and deficits, during election years and non-election years – and has been patient throughout. In 2006, we stood down so bills could be passed for the new Twins ballpark and the new Gophers stadium. In 2007, we had the bridge collapse and over the last two years the legislature has understandably had other priorities. But we expect the conversation to move forward during the 2010 Legistlative Session, and the goal is to create a stadium solution. State leaders have already built new stadiums for the Twins, the Gophers, and the Wild; they need to partner with the Vikings to resolve the remaining stadium issue. If we want an NFL team in this market, we have to resolve this issue. That begins with dialogue.

Matt- There is a stigma of “why should taxpayers build a stadium for millionaires?’. What can be said to those with that frame of mind, and further, how or can those people be convinced of a benefit to support the stadium issue?

Jeff- Oftentimes what people forget is that this facility would not be owned by the Vikings. It would be publicly-owned and operated, and we would pay rent and operating costs for our games each season. We see this as an opportunity to retain one of Minnesota’s best assets for the next 30-plus years. It’s also the biggest jobs project on the horizon – over 13,000 jobs would be supported, including 8,000 construction jobs. According to the Minnesota Building and Construction Trades Council, unemployment in the industry is nearly 40%, so this provides a great opportunity to put those workers back in the game. Of the construction costs, over $500 million would go back toward salaries of these workers and be reinvested into Minnesota’s economy.

We certainly know that not everyone will be convinced to support this project, but we’re hopeful that we can engage in some dialogue and discuss creative potential solutions. We know it’s an expensive project (in fact, the project has doubled in cost since 2001), which is why it is necessary for a public-private parnership. Hopefully the combination of new jobs, significant economic development and the retention of the State’s most popular team will give people a reason to support the project.

Matt Field
TenYards.com Sports Editor