What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

New suggestions for NFL overtime you never heard before (1 Viewer)

See above

  • Option #1 below

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Option #2 below

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Option #3 below

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • option #4 below

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Leave it the way it is

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NCAA way

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Write in suggestion

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

biggamer3

Footballguy
#1 Sudden Death, but no kickoff team starts from own 20 that wins coin toss. (so you gotta go at least 50 yards or so, much better than the usual 30 or 35)

#2 First team to 6 points wins, So u could see a FG attempt but they would have to hold and get another FG ( i really think this is the fairest one but doesnt have a shot at hell of getting approved)

#3 (combining Ebay with Football)Sudden Death, Each coach gives the Ref on a piece of paper where he will start the ball from on offense in OT, the coach who gave the lower starting position gets the ball first from that spot on field. How great would this be, coaches like Bellicheat would start from own 5 just to get ball first in a sudden death

#4 College OT rules BUT each team starts from midfield

 
Last edited by a moderator:
option #3 is TERRIBLE.

I say option #4, cept instead of the 50 yard line make it the 40 yard line.

 
option #3 is TERRIBLE.I say option #4, cept instead of the 50 yard line make it the 40 yard line.
Though 3 is outlandish its very clever and no crying about didnt get ball, you want ball so bad, start from inside your own 10I like the 50 better than 40 because its not just a one first down and FG range, adds a little more suspense if first team fails to get the FG
 
Each team gets one possession. If neither team is ahead after that - sudden death. It's a hybrid of the current NFL rule with an amount of fairness that is currently lacking.

So the Chargers could win the flip and get the ball. Drive down and score 3 points. The Colts would then get the ball and could end up with zip (Chargers win), kick a field goal (game goes to sudden death with the Chargers getting the kickoff) or they could score a TD (Colts win).

The college format goes on forever, set kickers up for chipshots from play 1, and it doesn't utilize special teams...this proposal fixes all of those issues.

 
Gregg Easterbrook had a solid idea in his Tuesday Morning Quarterback article on ESPN's page 2 where you play a 15 minute quarter and you can't kick the ball except after scoring TD and attempting your 2 pt conversion. This would mean no punting, field goals, or extra point kicks.

 
Gregg Easterbrook had a solid idea in his Tuesday Morning Quarterback article on ESPN's page 2 where you play a 15 minute quarter and you can't kick the ball except after scoring TD and attempting your 2 pt conversion. This would mean no punting, field goals, or extra point kicks.
Why is this a great idea? It not only changes the basics of the game but the players would be exhausted...effecting that game and the next. Horrible idea IMO.
 
The teams play 60 minutes. If they can't win in regulation, they have no right to complain about what happens in OT. Then, if they lose the coin toss, it means the defense has to step up. If they can't stop the other team, they deserve to lose. They need to step up and make a play if they want to win.

 
i hate the idea of taking the normal kicking plays out . if a team has invested and worked on special teams more why penalize them in overtime . the overtime should be a continuation of the same game played for 60 minutes . i dont like anything that makes it a home run derby or slam dunk contest .

the regular season should not have overtime, have ties .

post season i like it the way it is .

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The teams play 60 minutes. If they can't win in regulation, they have no right to complain about what happens in OT. Then, if they lose the coin toss, it means the defense has to step up. If they can't stop the other team, they deserve to lose. They need to step up and make a play if they want to win.
:thumbup: :lmao: :loco: :lmao: Heard Jim Nantz on Francesca's show yesterday, crying like a baby about the OT thing, and how its not fair.

But Nantz was ONLY crying because the NFL's Glamour Boy and current MVP, Peyton Manning, was defeated on saturday..

Nantz would NEVER have mentioned a thing about the OT coin flip business had it been the Az-atl game, or Miami-Balt, or Eagles-Vikings.. :lmao:

classic grandstanding move by Nantz. :lmao:

where was he when the NFC's homefield advantage was decided in an OT win by the Giants?! was that fair to the Panthers? why is he only crying about the Colts loss?! :wall:

I doubt this thread even exists , had that OT game been one of the other wildcard matchups.

Give me a break..

disclaimer: :giants_fan:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
trader jake said:
Each team gets one possession. If neither team is ahead after that - sudden death. It's a hybrid of the current NFL rule with an amount of fairness that is currently lacking.So the Chargers could win the flip and get the ball. Drive down and score 3 points. The Colts would then get the ball and could end up with zip (Chargers win), kick a field goal (game goes to sudden death with the Chargers getting the kickoff) or they could score a TD (Colts win).The college format goes on forever, set kickers up for chipshots from play 1, and it doesn't utilize special teams...this proposal fixes all of those issues.
If you're going to change the OT rules, this is the only thing that has ever made any sense. It's a miniscule change, and is completely fair.The college format is moronic.
 
Kicking team tees the ball at their 45 yard line. They have the option of Kicking off or designating the attempt as a free kick. Now we have some options and strategies.

Can you make a 65 yarder? If you do you win, if not the recieving team starts out at your 45.

Do you kick away? If so you are pretty much guaranteed a touch back if you want it forcing the recieving team to have a longish field.

Do you on side kick the ball? It's not like a failed onside kick would leave the recieving team in scoring position. They still would have to move the ball some.

I like this one so much I want it called the DW option.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still say it should be a matter of once a team takes the lead the other team has one shot to tie or take the lead.

In essence, you have to have the lead and possession of the ball to win. Simple... Fair...

 
I like Option #1 (no kickoff place the ball on the 20) which was proposed yesterday by a caller on WFAN and embraced by the host, Francessa.

Since the inception of OT, the team that has won the coin toss has won ~ 53% of the games, however since the 2000 season this % has crept up to slightly over 60%. Thus, there is a non-insignificant "luck factor" involved and the NFL Comp Committee will look at this during the off season.

The NFL does not want "gimmicks" (i.e., College-like solutions) and they do not solutions that will translate into ~ 4 hour games (wrecks havoc with TV schedule and extra fatigue = extra injuries), thus I see "play an extra 15 minutes" approach.

Since the kickoffs have been moved back to the 30 yard line. All too frequently the kickoff in OT results in field position in the 35 to 40 yard line area, thus making 2 or 3 first downs all that is needed for a FG attempt. By eliminating the kickoff and placing the ball on the 20 a team will have to get ~ 50 yards to be within field goal range. Also, in wintery, windy conditons you might even see a team win the "toss" and play defense. This solution doesn't really change the fabric of the game much and will not result in longer games.

 
Anthony Borbely said:
If they can't stop the other team, they deserve to lose. They need to step up and make a play if they want to win.
I agree, but the problem is that this applies for both teams. Does the team winning the toss deserve to win just because they don't have to prove they can "stop the other team?"
 
trader jake said:
Each team gets one possession. If neither team is ahead after that - sudden death. It's a hybrid of the current NFL rule with an amount of fairness that is currently lacking.So the Chargers could win the flip and get the ball. Drive down and score 3 points. The Colts would then get the ball and could end up with zip (Chargers win), kick a field goal (game goes to sudden death with the Chargers getting the kickoff) or they could score a TD (Colts win).The college format goes on forever, set kickers up for chipshots from play 1, and it doesn't utilize special teams...this proposal fixes all of those issues.
:lmao: I like this option the best
 
I would be fine with no OT in regular season, just leave it a tie. But I'm also ok with the current format.

Or use the current format w/o a coin flip, home team automatically gets first possession. That's what I call home field advantage.

Let's face it, 60 minutes of football is brutal enough on the players. They don't need to go through a whole extra quarter.

All of the gimmicky suggestions just make me go :rolleyes: .

 
I like Option #1 (no kickoff place the ball on the 20) which was proposed yesterday by a caller on WFAN and embraced by the host, Francessa.Since the inception of OT, the team that has won the coin toss has won ~ 53% of the games, however since the 2000 season this % has crept up to slightly over 60%. Thus, there is a non-insignificant "luck factor" involved and the NFL Comp Committee will look at this during the off season.The NFL does not want "gimmicks" (i.e., College-like solutions) and they do not solutions that will translate into ~ 4 hour games (wrecks havoc with TV schedule and extra fatigue = extra injuries), thus I see "play an extra 15 minutes" approach.Since the kickoffs have been moved back to the 30 yard line. All too frequently the kickoff in OT results in field position in the 35 to 40 yard line area, thus making 2 or 3 first downs all that is needed for a FG attempt. By eliminating the kickoff and placing the ball on the 20 a team will have to get ~ 50 yards to be within field goal range. Also, in wintery, windy conditons you might even see a team win the "toss" and play defense. This solution doesn't really change the fabric of the game much and will not result in longer games.
I heard this and kind of like it.If you want to keep the kickoff, another option would be to just move the kickoff back to the 40 in overtime. It would probably result in a touchback, but it would still give the receiving team a chance at a return.
 
Here's an interesting option I've never heard discussed. How about at the end of the 4th quarter, if the game is tied, you just turn off the clock, and keep playing? Pretty radical, but it would be interesting for sure. It might be just to simply let the teams keep playing from the current possession, field position, etc.

 
trader jake said:
Each team gets one possession. If neither team is ahead after that - sudden death. It's a hybrid of the current NFL rule with an amount of fairness that is currently lacking.So the Chargers could win the flip and get the ball. Drive down and score 3 points. The Colts would then get the ball and could end up with zip (Chargers win), kick a field goal (game goes to sudden death with the Chargers getting the kickoff) or they could score a TD (Colts win).The college format goes on forever, set kickers up for chipshots from play 1, and it doesn't utilize special teams...this proposal fixes all of those issues.
:rolleyes: I like this option the best
:drive: I second that...1) It is the most subtle of the changes that can be proposed.2) Doesn't mess with the rules of the game and the statisical compilations like college OT.3) Special teams maintains its place in the game.4) Teams with great defenses then might actually defer the kickoff. It's more strategic.
 
Anthony Borbely said:
If they can't stop the other team, they deserve to lose. They need to step up and make a play if they want to win.
I agree, but the problem is that this applies for both teams. Does the team winning the toss deserve to win just because they don't have to prove they can "stop the other team?"
They have to prove they can score. I like the "one possession for each team" option and deplore the options that are either gimmicky or negate special teams. Like it or not, special teams are a big part of a team's success.
 
trader jake said:
Each team gets one possession. If neither team is ahead after that - sudden death. It's a hybrid of the current NFL rule with an amount of fairness that is currently lacking.

So the Chargers could win the flip and get the ball. Drive down and score 3 points. The Colts would then get the ball and could end up with zip (Chargers win), kick a field goal (game goes to sudden death with the Chargers getting the kickoff) or they could score a TD (Colts win).

The college format goes on forever, set kickers up for chipshots from play 1, and it doesn't utilize special teams...this proposal fixes all of those issues.
If you're going to change the OT rules, this is the only thing that has ever made any sense. It's a miniscule change, and is completely fair.The college format is moronic.
:rolleyes: Personally I think it should stay the way it is but I could go along with this.
 
I like my solution because the coaching decisions are not obvious and are changeable relative to the team one is playing and to the weather conditions. Right now if you win the toss you elect to recieve, there is no decision 99 times out of 100. If you are the kicking team there is no way you go for the onside kick. Under my system if you win the toss the coach has a hard decision. How good is the other team's kicker?, their defense?, what is the wind like?, how good is your kicker. Likely a coach would still elect to recieve, but the decision is not foregone. Also, if one does elect to recieve they may have to watch a free kick (agonizing) and they have to guard against an on side kick. Finally, you likely have a long way to go even if you get the ball since a kick off from the 45 is very likely to result in a touchback.

I suspect my system would eliminate the current advantage of winning the toss, or at least reduce it. It would place coaches in a crucible as to their decisions.

I'd also like to see no overtime during the regular season. I like the mess ties can bring to playoff scenarios. I think I would like to see coaching decisions knowing they can play for the tie or a win.

A lot more coaches would get fired under my scenario and that is always fun.

 
trader jake said:
Each team gets one possession. If neither team is ahead after that - sudden death. It's a hybrid of the current NFL rule with an amount of fairness that is currently lacking.So the Chargers could win the flip and get the ball. Drive down and score 3 points. The Colts would then get the ball and could end up with zip (Chargers win), kick a field goal (game goes to sudden death with the Chargers getting the kickoff) or they could score a TD (Colts win).The college format goes on forever, set kickers up for chipshots from play 1, and it doesn't utilize special teams...this proposal fixes all of those issues.
Like others here, I think this is an improvement over the current rules. But why go to sudden death at all? In the 2nd scenario SD still has an unfair advantage IMO, because if they score on their 2nd possession as well, they have a 2:1 posession edge.I think it would be fairer to just give the team kicking off in overtime "last licks". Just my :rolleyes:
 
trader jake said:
Each team gets one possession. If neither team is ahead after that - sudden death. It's a hybrid of the current NFL rule with an amount of fairness that is currently lacking.So the Chargers could win the flip and get the ball. Drive down and score 3 points. The Colts would then get the ball and could end up with zip (Chargers win), kick a field goal (game goes to sudden death with the Chargers getting the kickoff) or they could score a TD (Colts win).The college format goes on forever, set kickers up for chipshots from play 1, and it doesn't utilize special teams...this proposal fixes all of those issues.
If you're going to change the OT rules, this is the only thing that has ever made any sense. It's a miniscule change, and is completely fair.The college format is moronic.
I don't like this rule change because it changes the way the game is played. In your example above, if the Chargers score 3 and the Colts get the ball, they will then be in "4 down territory" for the rest of the game. That alone is unfair to the Chargers, who would probably have punted on a 4th down during their first possesion. So now, the Cots will be going for it on 4th down everytime, until they're in comfortable field goal range. This could result in a sustained drive that leads more easily to a touchdown, thus giving an advantage to the Colts.I like the idea of the first team to score 6 points wins the game.
 
trader jake said:
Each team gets one possession. If neither team is ahead after that - sudden death. It's a hybrid of the current NFL rule with an amount of fairness that is currently lacking.So the Chargers could win the flip and get the ball. Drive down and score 3 points. The Colts would then get the ball and could end up with zip (Chargers win), kick a field goal (game goes to sudden death with the Chargers getting the kickoff) or they could score a TD (Colts win).The college format goes on forever, set kickers up for chipshots from play 1, and it doesn't utilize special teams...this proposal fixes all of those issues.
:mellow: I like this option the best
:goodposting: I second that...1) It is the most subtle of the changes that can be proposed.2) Doesn't mess with the rules of the game and the statisical compilations like college OT.3) Special teams maintains its place in the game.4) Teams with great defenses then might actually defer the kickoff. It's more strategic.
:goodposting: I've been anti-coin toss ever since Phil Luckett ###### the Steelers on Thanksgiving Day many years ago.
 
What if the team that had the ball at the end of the 4th quarter were allowed to keep it to start OT, but change ends of the field? Utilize whatever scenario you like described above (I kinda like DW's suggestion) and then that way there is no coin toss to worry about. A lot of times, the team that has the ball last in regulation was just scored upon to get the tie and it's usually on their 20-35 yard line anyway. :thumbup:

 
#2 First team to 6 points wins, So u could see a FG attempt but they would have to hold and get another FG ( i really think this is the fairest one but doesnt have a shot at hell of getting approved)
I agree except that it should be the first team to 4 points (thus allowing a FG and safety to result in a win for a team).-QG
 
None

Play it out like an additional period or just keep playing after the clock runs out in the 4th are the only two acceptable options for me

 
Regular Season - no OT...let ties reign supreme and cause havoc. You play 60 minutes and if you tie...both teams are determined equal on that given Sunday. Give the players a rest so they aren't damaged goods for the next week game.

Playoffs/Superbowl - I like the option that most folks agree with in that give each team 1 chance on offense then go sudden death. That way all 3 part of the game are proven on the field in OT by both teams (offense, defense and special teams). Even though I don't have any love for the Colts or Manning, it was so painful to watch the NFL MVP have to sit on the bench and not get any opportunity to prove anything in OT against the Chargers.

Lets face it, offenses have a huge advantage in OT over defenses. In fact I heard just last night on a sports show on TV that 30% of OT games are decided by the coin toss team winning the game on their 1st drive. Overall we've seen stats that it equals out to about 50/50 overall in OT, but 1 out of every 3 OT games the loser of the coin toss never gets their offense to take the field. That is way too high of a percent to me anyway for a game to be decided. Basically, the coin toss plays 30% into the equation of victory. That needs fixed.

 
Since the inception of OT, the team that has won the coin toss has won ~ 53% of the games, however since the 2000 season this % has crept up to slightly over 60%Since the kickoffs have been moved back to the 30 yard line. All too frequently the kickoff in OT results in field position in the 35 to 40 yard line area
well then the obvious solution is to move the position of the kickoff forward to the original position for OT onlythis keeps the kicking game involved, is a very simple change and drives the percentage back closer to 50%
 
Those all suck. My write in:

The game becomes sudden death at the first change of possession. (Each team gets at least one possession).

Simple. Easy. Understandable. Solves the problem.

 
trader jake said:
Each team gets one possession. If neither team is ahead after that - sudden death. It's a hybrid of the current NFL rule with an amount of fairness that is currently lacking.So the Chargers could win the flip and get the ball. Drive down and score 3 points. The Colts would then get the ball and could end up with zip (Chargers win), kick a field goal (game goes to sudden death with the Chargers getting the kickoff) or they could score a TD (Colts win).The college format goes on forever, set kickers up for chipshots from play 1, and it doesn't utilize special teams...this proposal fixes all of those issues.
:popcorn: I like this option the best
:bye: I second that...1) It is the most subtle of the changes that can be proposed.2) Doesn't mess with the rules of the game and the statisical compilations like college OT.3) Special teams maintains its place in the game.4) Teams with great defenses then might actually defer the kickoff. It's more strategic.
:goodposting: I agree with the above format as well. I've always thought that this proposal made the most sense, all though it isn't perfect either.The problem i have with the current format is that it isn't fair to BOTH teams. If flipping a coin was fair.... then why don't they flip the coin at the beginning of each half during regulation??? the way rules are geared towards offense....it is so easy to adjust playcalling, knowing that all you need is a FG to win the game. In my opinion, it just isn't fair. I don't care about "if your defense can't stop them, then you deserve to lose"...... well, whoever loses the coin flip has to A) stop the team from scoringB) scorewhereas, whoever wins the coin flip only has to do ONE task. NOT 2. and that's when it isn't fair.This current OT rule in the NFL is the stupidest Rule in all of sports.It is equivalent in other sports as flipping a coin and: - giving one posession to a basketball team, if they score they win, other team gets no chance. - one shootout chance for a hockey player, if they score they win, other team gets no chance. - one shootout chance for a soccer player, if they score they win, other team gets no chance - one inning to score in baseball...if they do, the other team does not get a chance.do these rules make sense??? NO, of course they don't.The question for me is about fairness. Other sports (MLB, NBA, NHL, Soccer) are fair because they give BOTH teams a chance. NFL does not do this. Don't give me this crap about "don't let the game get to a tie" If two great teams are fighting tooth and nail for every inch, and are equal (tied), then they deserve to be given extra time to determine the outcome....and the Advantage in OT should NOT be decided by some stupid coin.
 
The current rule is totally fine.

They've already played 60 minutes so the "Payton didn't get the ball in OT" argument doesn't mean anything to me... he shoulda done more before OT. Plus, if you lose the coin toss, you don't automatically lose the game... how about you cover a kick, play defense, and then get the ball for your O?

 
trader jake said:
Each team gets one possession.
What constitutes a possesion? What if the team who won the coin toss has to punt, but the punt is muffed and recovered by the kicking team?
 
#2 First team to 6 points wins, So u could see a FG attempt but they would have to hold and get another FG ( i really think this is the fairest one but doesnt have a shot at hell of getting approved)
I agree except that it should be the first team to 4 points (thus allowing a FG and safety to result in a win for a team).-QG
The issue with this one is a bit subtle - what about really bad weather conditions?If the game is 0-0 or like that Monday Night debacle in Pittsburgh last year where it was 3-0, do you really want a 0-0 game to go into OT and they have to score 4-6 points?

THAT could go on forever.

 
#1 Sudden Death, but no kickoff team starts from own 20 that wins coin toss. (so you gotta go at least 50 yards or so, much better than the usual 30 or 35)#2 First team to 6 points wins, So u could see a FG attempt but they would have to hold and get another FG ( i really think this is the fairest one but doesnt have a shot at hell of getting approved)#3 (combining Ebay with Football)Sudden Death, Each coach gives the Ref on a piece of paper where he will start the ball from on offense in OT, the coach who gave the lower starting position gets the ball first from that spot on field. How great would this be, coaches like Bellicheat would start from own 5 just to get ball first in a sudden death#4 College OT rules BUT each team starts from midfield
Why are you penalizing teams with good special teams by taking them out of the equation in options #1 and #4? It's a part of the game that really can swing the tide in close scores and OT, that is INTENTIONAL. Just because it's often overlooked doesn't mean it needs to be regulated to an even lesser role. Thus those options are terrible ideas.#2 is nice, I like it, it's simple. Like you said it's such a big change that the chances of approval is slim to none#3 sounds like something out of my Game Theory class. It's definitley the most strategic one of all, and I like it... for a board game or strategy game. For football no one would give it a thought (unfortunatley) as the perception would be more of a Game Show type event.
 
trader jake said:
Each team gets one possession. If neither team is ahead after that - sudden death. It's a hybrid of the current NFL rule with an amount of fairness that is currently lacking.So the Chargers could win the flip and get the ball. Drive down and score 3 points. The Colts would then get the ball and could end up with zip (Chargers win), kick a field goal (game goes to sudden death with the Chargers getting the kickoff) or they could score a TD (Colts win).The college format goes on forever, set kickers up for chipshots from play 1, and it doesn't utilize special teams...this proposal fixes all of those issues.
If you're going to change the OT rules, this is the only thing that has ever made any sense. It's a miniscule change, and is completely fair.The college format is moronic.
:potkettle: I would support this kind of rule change, but the rest are trash.For one thing, points differentials and scored are tiebreakers in the NFL. The college system would necessitate other changes to the tiebreak rules.For another, very significant passing record (TD's esp.) would go down in short order.The college system is xciting, and it works for college, but it's NOT good for the pros.The other proposals above are gimmicky.There's a lot to be said about the fairness of the system right now. As much as people whine about it...the team winning the coin toss wins less then 60% of the time (I think it's barely over 50%). That's not exactly the kind of imbalance that screams for a change!I understand that for a team who's got a great offense and lousy defense, it might be "unfair" for their Offense to not get a shot in OT. But that's a known risk they take when they create and manage an unbalanced team.I voted for no change...and still feel that way. But if a change had to be made...this one by TJ is the only one that makes sense...one single gaurenteed possession.
 
Lets face it, offenses have a huge advantage in OT over defenses. In fact I heard just last night on a sports show on TV that 30% of OT games are decided by the coin toss team winning the game on their 1st drive. Overall we've seen stats that it equals out to about 50/50 overall in OT, but 1 out of every 3 OT games the loser of the coin toss never gets their offense to take the field. That is way too high of a percent to me anyway for a game to be decided. Basically, the coin toss plays 30% into the equation of victory. That needs fixed.
:no: If the winning team is only winning the coin toss 53% of the time (give or take a point or two), then the toss has almost nothing to do with the results.

From another angle. If the coin toss winning team goes 3 and out (very common), then doesn't the second team usually get above average field postion? When the second team actually gets the ball....how often do they score on thier first possession? I bet it's well over the 30% you stated above.

 
Anthony Borbely said:
The teams play 60 minutes. If they can't win in regulation, they have no right to complain about what happens in OT. Then, if they lose the coin toss, it means the defense has to step up. If they can't stop the other team, they deserve to lose. They need to step up and make a play if they want to win.
You said step up twice in one post.
Have a great season guy,J
 
I see three big problems with the current overtime system:

1.) Only one team is guaranteed a possesion

2.) One team arbitrarily gets an advantage over the other

3.) There is no incentive for any team to try to score a touchdown

I would propose something like this. Each team gets one possesion. Use a statistic from the game like Total Yards to determine who gets posession first. So the team with the most yards in regulation (Team 1) receives the kickoff from Team 2. No game clock only the play clock is a factor.

Whatever Team 1 does with their OT possesion, must be BEATEN by Team 2 in order for Team 2 to be declared the winner. So if Team 1 doesn't score, then all Team 2 needs is a FG to win. If Team 1 makes a FG on thier possesion, Team 2 must score a touchdown to win, otherwise they lose. If Team 1 scores a touchdown and makes the XP Team 2 must score a touchdown and get a 2 point conversion to win. In the event that Team 1 scores a touchdown and converts the 2 points, then they automatically win.

In the regular season, if neither team scores on their possesion then the game is declared a tie. In the postseason their would be additional overtimes using the same format until a winner is determined.

In this scenario each team gets one possesion, but only one possesion so the games won't go on forever like in college. There is obviously an advantage to getting the ball first, but Team 2 has the benefit of knowing exactly what they need to do with their possesion.

 
I have no problem with the idea that if your defense can't stop the other team, then you don't deserve to win. For me, the overtime rules are fine.

I am in favor of making the goal posts closer together. I think Field goals, especially long field goals, are too easy. If the goal posts were closer, fewer teams would win overtime on the first posession. Also, more teams would go for it on 4th down during the actual game. I personally find a 4th down try more exciting than a field goal.

 
Play a 10 minute Overtime period .. if teams are still tie the game is ruled a tie .. with a 10 minute period your not extending the game too long yet long enough for both teams to at least get one if not more possessions.

:headbang:

 
I have no problem with the idea that if your defense can't stop the other team, then you don't deserve to win. For me, the overtime rules are fine. I am in favor of making the goal posts closer together. I think Field goals, especially long field goals, are too easy. If the goal posts were closer, fewer teams would win overtime on the first posession. Also, more teams would go for it on 4th down during the actual game. I personally find a 4th down try more exciting than a field goal.
Yes. I'm in favor of making the goal posts narrower in general and moving the kick up to the 35 or 40 just for OT. For the most part, this solves the problem.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top