NFL overtime rule
 

Since I'm on a roll with my whine today .....

Isn't it about time to do away with the NFL's overtime rule?

The 11-5 Pats (who didn't make the playoffs) lost a shoot-out in OT to the Jets without ever getting an offensive possesion.

The 8-8 Chargers (who might host the AFC championship game in their stadium) won a home playoff game in OT against the 12-4 Colts. The Colts had their 9 game winning streak snapped in OT without ever having a single possession.

In other words, the outcome of a coin toss played a huge roll in deciding the outcome of two VERY important games.

Each time should get one offensive possession in OT...after which, the game becomes sudden death .. and the team who scored first gets the kickoff first again.

The reason the team who scores 1st is awarded with the ball to start the sudden death version .. is because they were limited to not playing risky football on 4th down with the ball in their own territory ... while the team who is behind on the scoreboard is going to always go for it on 4th down in their one guarenteed offensive possession.

I think the NFL overtime is the stupidest thing in sports, much more ridiculous than the BCS. I believe I read before that the team that gets the ball first wins something like 70% of the time. That's totally unfair. I'd go with something like the college rules. I'd have them start on the 50 and each team gets a possession. Back and forth until there is a winner. After each team has had two possessions, no field goals allowed.

I agree the rule needs to be changed...teams have advanced too far to be
denied an equal chance to score. College rules seem equitable.

I personally don't think that there's anything wrong with overtime and should be left alone. It was a hot topic on the radio last week after Peyton Manning never touched the ball in OT. I get the feeling that if it was the other way around no one would be complaining. I forgot the stats they mentioned, but there wasn't a huge advantage to the team getting the ball first (statistically speaking). The one point that made sense was that since the kickers have gotten better and they moved the kickoff point back ten yards. It incresed runbacks and field position. It seems that teams pick up 2 first downs and they are in FG range. To counteract that, in OT the team that gets the ball first would just start at the 20 and then normal rules would be in effect. Otherwise, I would just rather leave them alone. Defense is a huge part of the game. If you lose the toss, make a play. It's not like defenses can't score.

The college rules are a little lame.

I say give each team a possession ... obviously the team who gets the first possession last has a slight unfair edge if the other team scored. Because they are going to go for it on every 4th down until they can match score. They also have a slim chance at winning on a defensive TD.

However, that inital edge the team who starts on defense gets is offsetted by the game reverting to old sudden death OT rules ... which greatly favors the team that gets the ball first.

It would also make for fascinating strategy.

Think back to the Pats VS Jets shootout. Say the Jets kick a field goal on their first OT possession.

Now say the Pats have the ball 4th and 1 at the Jets 5 yard line behind 3 in OT.

Do they:

A.) kick the field goal to tie knowing the game reverts to old OT rules where they are 70% to lose and might not see the ball again.

or

B.) Go for the first down and try to win the game right there...knowing you also lose the game if you don't get the 1st down.

i also think the OT rules need some tinkering-not surprised that the team who gets the coin toss wins 2/3 of the time. you shouldn't win a game based on the coin flip.

Some old stats (through 2003)
 

Total no. of overtime games (1974–2003) 365
Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %)

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html

I like Mitch Albom's take on sports reporters this morning regarding this subject. Why dont they simply take the "sudden death" part out of the equation? Let them play a whole quarter and whoever has the lead at the end of the quarter wins. If no one has the lead, let them play another quarter.

Whats wrong with doing it that way?

Cry me a river. If your defense can't get a stop, you lose. This "everybody gets a chance" bullshit is absurd. This isn't Little League. Get a stop or go home. The shitty Pats couldn't stop old man Favre on 3rd & 15 and the Colts committed THREE asinine penalties that screwed them over. I'm supposed to feel sorry for these two teams.

You think the Eagles would've lost today if they'd lost a coin toss in overtime? I don't, because they have a competent defense.

No overtime game should come down to a coin toss. Each team should be given one possession in the overtime. After that -- sudden death.

Just like college rules. They used to say the same things about the two point conversion, with regard to not adopting it for the pros. I think most would agree that the two point conversion has added depth to the game.

wow, we agree on something

sorry

It doesn't come down to a coin toss. It comes down to whether or not your defense can get a clutch stop. Saying that it comes down to a coin toss is completely letting defenses off the hook for failing.

So if they both score, it's goes back to a coin flip? Then it's the same thing as regular OT now. That makes no sense. There is nothing wrong with the system they have now.
And as far as Joey Eagles competent defense quote before, it wasn't the Giants D that lost them that game today.,

I didn't say it was.. It's just that the Eagles are playing the best defense in the league now, including the Ravens.

Don't change a thing. If you can't get it done in 60 mins. then too bad if you lose in OT. It's the shills like Jim Nance who are pushing for this. TV has already pretty much ruined sports, don't let them ruin it more. KP

altho i don't care for all the commercial breaks, i still think football is better viewed on t.v. than live-replay and camera angles, etc, so you never miss a thing...

now hockey on the other hand....best viewed live.

instead of the coin toss, how about a little rugby style scrum to see who gets the ball

Do you remeber how the XFL decided who gets the ball?

no, but I know it was something better than a coin toss

In addition to these rules changes, the XFL also announced that no game will end in a tie due to its "can you top this" overtime. Each team will get four downs to score from the opponent's 20 yard line. However, if team A scores a touchdown in less that four downs, team B only gets that many downs to respond.

Flip a coin for kick-off/goal to defend, if Team A scores in first possesion, they kick off and Team B has same chance A does. If A doesn't score, or B scores with their possesion, then it becomes sudden death

That's the same exact thing we have, it just delays the sudden death for one possession. Then if Team A scores on its second possession and wins, you'll still have people whining that Team B didn't get two possessions like Team A did.

To me I think the only "unfairness" is not having a chance because of a coin flip. I get your whole "Defense" thing, but a guaranteed possession seems fair. After that, yeah, it's up to the defenses.

Plus I think it would put a lot more thinking into what to do if you win the coin flip. Knowing you at least get a chance to score, maybe you kick off and try and pin them deep and force a punt with good field position.

But what would happen after the B possesion if they didn't score? Does the game just go on with regular sudden death rules?

Why does there need to be sudden death? Why can't they just play another quarter?

Because generally people don't want to watch five-hour games in the regular season.

You have a valid point but there arent that many overtime games anyway. Maybe ten to twenty a year? It would seem the most fair way to settle it to me.

I disagree, I still say that it's not unreasonable to ask a defense to get a clutch stop or else, and I also think that it would be brutal to watch. Something about this topic from KSK last week that I agree with:

Yes, at that point it would revert to Sudden Death

I think the whole problem with a situation like this is, it gives the team who gets the ball second an advantage. If team A gets in a 4th and short on the cusp of FG range they might punt to play the field position game. 4th downs will be a bit sketchy. Team B will have sort of a free look on the first possesion. If the game is tied, they would play it normally. If they are down then 4th down becomes an automatic go for it because the game is on the line, in a situation where they would usually punt. I feel that it gives Team be and advantage on the 1st possesion.

So why not a full quarter?

That's kind of my point..it would introduce some more strategy, especially on what to do if you win the flip.

Look...not saying it's perfect but I don't like the randomness of a coin flip and the gimmickieness (?) of how it's settled in college, so...this is what I ended up with.

My stance from the beginning is that there is nothing wrong with the current system. I truely believe that if it was reversed and Peyton Manning got the ball 1st and marched the Colts to victory that we aren't even having this conversation. But since the MVP got left on the sideline everyone is in an uproar about an injustice. The stats prove that the recieving team doesn't have a statistical advantage. Defense is a huge part of the game and last time I checked they could score too. The only thing I would agree to is letting the team getting the ball 1st start at the 20 this way there is no huge field position adavntage there. But then again Special Teams are important too and could pin teams in deep. Like I said, there's nothing wrong so don't fix it.

As far as your question, what is the solution if it's still tied after ot?

I don't think there is any strategy there. Everyone would kick off, because you can't lose if you let the other team score, plus you would have a free look at 4th down. Just like everyone takes the ball when they win the flip now, everyone would be kicking off under that system.

ask McNabb???? ;)

Play another one.

I guess im different but i dont mind watching a good game go into overtime. I would have enjoyed watching Peyton attempt to take his team down to tie the game against SD or potentially win with a two point conversion.

they could always use hockey rules. you have a five minute sudden death overtime( of course football would need more than that i'd imagine), followed by a shoot out. for the shoot out, set the teams kickers up at the forty, and see who makes more field goals out of 3 attempts. if it's still tied, back to another overtime. and their OT's are sudden death.

That's crazy, besides there is no shootout in playoff hockey. They will play all night if they have too. You can't compare hockey to football, it's like comparing apples to oranges.