NFL considering changing overtime format for playoffs (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

NFL considering change to overtime format for playoffs

USATODAY

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — An NFL spokesman says the league could change its overtime format for playoff games at a meeting next month.

Greg Aiello said Satuday that under the new format, both teams would get the ball at least once unless the first team to get the ball scores a touchdown.

If the first team to get the ball makes a field goal and the other team ties the game, action would continue until a team scores again.

Under the current rules, the first team to score wins.

The competition committee will discuss the new concept with teams and players at league meetings March 21-24 in Orlando, when it could come to a vote. At least two thirds of the teams would need to agree to the changes for new rules to be adopted.

 

[identikit]

I'd love to see something like this for all games, not just the playoff games.

 

[The Kerminator]

Sounds like a pretty good format for overtime. Wish they'd consider it for all NFL games and not just the playoffs.

 

[Righetti]

I really like this idea..it's not perfect as it still doesn't guarantee both teams a chance to touch the ball but it will make overtime more exciting since teams may not be settling for FG's

not enough games end with a TD IMHO

 

[John Doe]

Stupid. Just leave it as is.

 

[gonzobill5]

Sounds half-assed to me.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Stupid. Just leave it as is.

Totally agree with this. You want the ball in OT? Then play D.

 

[Red Herring]

How long will it take for them to realize that NCAA football has this one right too? It seemed like the 2-point conversion had to be shoved down their throat, looks like this one will have to be too...

 

[Da Guru]

No FGs in OT. Score a TD to win.

 

[Native]

First team to six wins.

 

[Mentos]

No FGs in OT. Score a TD to win.

Problem with that is that teams can win in regulation without scoring a touchdown. So forcing teams to have to score a touchdown in overtime is actually a bastardization. Why force a team by rule to have to score a TD in OT, but not force them to have to score a TD in regulation?I like the current system.I also think the first to six points plan could work.

 

[ClownDogs]

First team to six wins.

I thought this too, but what happens if a FG/safety were to happen? I know it is a stretch, but takes a safety out of play in OT.First to 5 would be "safer" i guess

 

[Mentos]

First team to six wins.

I thought this too, but what happens if a FG/safety were to happen? I know it is a stretch, but takes a safety out of play in OT.First to 5 would be "safer" i guess

Yeah, first to 5 is better than first to 6.

 

[cstu]

How long will it take for them to realize that NCAA football has this one right too? It seemed like the 2-point conversion had to be shoved down their throat, looks like this one will have to be too...

College football OT is absolutely boring to me.

 

[cstu]

Stupid. Just leave it as is.

Totally agree with this. You want the ball in OT? Then play D.

 

[Franknbeans]

there is nothing wrong with the current format

 

[Steeler]

The current format is the best.

Plus, what counts as a possession? I’m guessing this is coming up because the last super bowl nearly went to OT and they are trying to address this argument: “What if Manning (or Brees) never gets to touch the ball in OT?!?!?!?!?!” Well let’s say this past super bowl did go to OT, NO wins the toss and drives down to kick a FG. NO then kicks off and the INDY return man fumbles the ball (after clearly having possession) and it’s recovered by NO? Is that a possession? Is the game over at that moment?

Another issue with this is that the team getting the ball 2nd clearly has a big advantage if the first team kicks a FG. The team to get the ball 2nd essentially gets 4 down to get into FG range instead of 3 because they have to tie the game or they lose. So this rule fundamentaly changes the way the game is played... which is bad.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I really like this idea..it's not perfect as it still doesn't guarantee both teams a chance to touch the ball but it will make overtime more exciting since teams may not be settling for FG'snot enough games end with a TD IMHO

making the defense stop a TD >> making them stop a FG

 

[FUBAR]

How long will it take for them to realize that NCAA football has this one right too? It seemed like the 2-point conversion had to be shoved down their throat, looks like this one will have to be too...

College football OT is absolutely boring to me.

I don't think it's boring, it just sucks. I really don't get why the need to compromise and make it worse, just add the rule that both sides get the ball on offense at least once or keep it as it is. It's fair, both sides have had plenty of opportunity to play offense during the first 60 minutes, if you can play good D you'll get the ball back. I respect the feeling that both sides should get the ball once but don't half-### it.

 

[sho nuff]

How long will it take for them to realize that NCAA football has this one right too? It seemed like the 2-point conversion had to be shoved down their throat, looks like this one will have to be too...

Because the NCAA does not have it right.College overtime rules are worse than sudden death rules the NFL currently has.

 

[sho nuff]

The current format is the best.Plus, what counts as a possession? I’m guessing this is coming up because the last super bowl nearly went to OT and they are trying to address this argument: “What if Manning (or Brees) never gets to touch the ball in OT?!?!?!?!?!” Well let’s say this past super bowl did go to OT, NO wins the toss and drives down to kick a FG. NO then kicks off and the INDY return man fumbles the ball (after clearly having possession) and it’s recovered by NO? Is that a possession? Is the game over at that moment?Another issue with this is that the team getting the ball 2nd clearly has a big advantage if the first team kicks a FG. The team to get the ball 2nd essentially gets 4 down to get into FG range instead of 3 because they have to tie the game or they lose. So this rule fundamentaly changes the way the game is played... which is bad.

That is the beauty of it actually. Why shouldn't it change the way OT is played.It does not change all of the way the game is played.Yes...it gives the 2nd team a slight advantage of knowing what they need.IMO...it is a good idea because you make a team think about kicking or receiving in OT.As for the possession part. Im sure they mean each team gets a chance to get the ball. Fumble on the kick...too bad, that was your chance.

 

[Red Herring]

How long will it take for them to realize that NCAA football has this one right too? It seemed like the 2-point conversion had to be shoved down their throat, looks like this one will have to be too...

Because the NCAA does not have it right.College overtime rules are worse than sudden death rules the NFL currently has.

Then I guess we disagree. I would much rather watch a college OT than NFL OT. It encourages playing for a TD, gives both teams an equal shot, rewards teams that play well on O and D, and doesn't put the final outcome in the hands of a kicker.

 

[Tau837]

First team to six wins.

I thought this too, but what happens if a FG/safety were to happen? I know it is a stretch, but takes a safety out of play in OT.First to 5 would be "safer" i guess

It doesn't really take it out of play. It stops the other team and gets your team the ball back, likely in good field position for getting in range for the winning FG.Still, first to 5 would also be fine.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think the least disruptive change would not be to the overtime format to the coin toss. I'd suggest either: 1) flipping the coin before the 4th quarter starts (either at the end of the first half or the 3rd quarter or even before the game) so both teams know what's up; or 2) just giving the home team possession (so both teams know what's up).

Giving the home team possession makes sense from an NFL standpoint; in the playoffs it rewards teams that accomplished more in the regular season, and in the regular season it is likely to have the home team win (something that, in general, is good for the NFL). Flipping the coin before OT just seems like a no-brainer to me. Is there any downside?

If you're the Colts and down by 3 with 2:00 to go with the ball at midfield, you're going to play for the TD if you know you don't get the ball first in OT. That's a good thing. It will decrease the number of OT games and it will increase the excitement at the end of regulation.

I absolutely think more significant changes should be made, but these are at a minimum improvements on the current system IMO.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I like moving the overtime kickoff to the 45 yard line. The recieving team would have to watch out for an onsides kick more often. The kicking team would have the option of putting the ball out of the end zone forcing starting position at the 20 rather than around the 27 to 30 which is more common now. The kicking team could also try to squib kick the ball in the hope of pinning the recieving team deep.

This would eliminate some of the percieved value of electing to recieve.

 

[Steeler]

As for the possession part. Im sure they mean each team gets a chance to get the ball. Fumble on the kick...too bad, that was your chance.

So that's why I don't like changing it to "each team gets a possession"... because under the current system, if your defense can't stop them from kicking a FG... to bad, that was your chance. This change doesn't guarantee anything.

 

[Steeler]

I think the least disruptive change would not be to the overtime format to the coin toss. I'd suggest either: 1) flipping the coin before the 4th quarter starts (either at the end of the first half or the 3rd quarter or even before the game) so both teams know what's up; or 2) just giving the home team possession (so both teams know what's up).Giving the home team possession makes sense from an NFL standpoint; in the playoffs it rewards teams that accomplished more in the regular season, and in the regular season it is likely to have the home team win (something that, in general, is good for the NFL). Flipping the coin before OT just seems like a no-brainer to me. Is there any downside? If you're the Colts and down by 3 with 2:00 to go with the ball at midfield, you're going to play for the TD if you know you don't get the ball first in OT. That's a good thing. It will decrease the number of OT games and it will increase the excitement at the end of regulation.I absolutely think more significant changes should be made, but these are at a minimum improvements on the current system IMO.

I like the idea of giving the home team the ball first in OT for the reasons you mentioned

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I like moving the overtime kickoff to the 45 yard line. The recieving team would have to watch out for an onsides kick more often. The kicking team would have the option of putting the ball out of the end zone forcing starting position at the 20 rather than around the 27 to 30 which is more common now. The kicking team could also try to squib kick the ball in the hope of pinning the recieving team deep.This would eliminate some of the percieved value of electing to recieve.

Not bad. One could also make a case for the winning coin flip team kicking off.

 

[sho nuff]

How long will it take for them to realize that NCAA football has this one right too? It seemed like the 2-point conversion had to be shoved down their throat, looks like this one will have to be too...

Because the NCAA does not have it right.College overtime rules are worse than sudden death rules the NFL currently has.

Then I guess we disagree. I would much rather watch a college OT than NFL OT. It encourages playing for a TD, gives both teams an equal shot, rewards teams that play well on O and D, and doesn't put the final outcome in the hands of a kicker.

But it does not resemble football...no special teams...just giving a team the ball at an arbitrary spot they set up.Blah.I like the entire game...you have to put special teams in there IMO.And many times, it does come town to a kicker anyway.

 

[Adebisi]

Even after reading this thread, I still have yet to read any proposal that is better than the current system.

I'm not going to name names, but some of these ideas are just laughably bad.

 

[footballsavvy]

I like this idea a lot as well. It makes perfect sense, especialyl considering statistically there is not that big of an advantage from gtting the ball first. Not sure how they would work the super bowl since there isn't a home team, but they could some up with something (like extend the game an additional 15 minutes for the superbowl).

I think the least disruptive change would not be to the overtime format to the coin toss. I'd suggest either: 1) flipping the coin before the 4th quarter starts (either at the end of the first half or the 3rd quarter or even before the game) so both teams know what's up; or 2) just giving the home team possession (so both teams know what's up).Giving the home team possession makes sense from an NFL standpoint; in the playoffs it rewards teams that accomplished more in the regular season, and in the regular season it is likely to have the home team win (something that, in general, is good for the NFL). Flipping the coin before OT just seems like a no-brainer to me. Is there any downside? If you're the Colts and down by 3 with 2:00 to go with the ball at midfield, you're going to play for the TD if you know you don't get the ball first in OT. That's a good thing. It will decrease the number of OT games and it will increase the excitement at the end of regulation.I absolutely think more significant changes should be made, but these are at a minimum improvements on the current system IMO.

I like the idea of giving the home team the ball first in OT for the reasons you mentioned

 

[shredhead]

First team to six wins.

I thought this too, but what happens if a FG/safety were to happen? I know it is a stretch, but takes a safety out of play in OT.First to 5 would be "safer" i guess

Yeah, first to 5 is better than first to 6.

Might as well just make it first to 4, just in case a team gets 2 safeties in OT. Not likely, but if you give up 2 safeties in OT then you deserve to lose.

 

[TheFanatic]

How long will it take for them to realize that NCAA football has this one right too? It seemed like the 2-point conversion had to be shoved down their throat, looks like this one will have to be too...

Because the NCAA does not have it right.College overtime rules are worse than sudden death rules the NFL currently has.

Then I guess we disagree. I would much rather watch a college OT than NFL OT. It encourages playing for a TD, gives both teams an equal shot, rewards teams that play well on O and D, and doesn't put the final outcome in the hands of a kicker.

My only problem with the college OT is no special teams. But otherwise I'm with you and I like it more than the NFL version by a ton...

 

[Stinkin Ref]

some of these ideas are ok....others not so much

I think the key factor is that it needs to be fair and give both teams an equal chance to win the game....

if it is still going to be first one to score wins then I do not like the "give the ball to the home team first" idea...just because they are at home does not mean they should get some type of advantage that could directly impact the outcome of the game.....at least make the visiting team lose the coin flip....the visitors worked hard to get in the playoffs too, so don't penalize them at the most important part of their season up to that point....

I like the idea of both teams getting the ball and special teams being included in some way....just not sure how you could make that work.....so the college system might be the best option....however, I would like to see them start at mid field as opposed to already being in the red zone....

 

[Godsbrother]

Stupid. Just leave it as is.

Totally agree with this. You want the ball in OT? Then play D.

I think the NCAA OT rules suck.

 

[vandyt]

Stupid. Just leave it as is.

Totally agree with this. You want the ball in OT? Then play D.

I think the NCAA OT rules suck.

Agreed...its not even football. Its a game similar to football that employs a completely different strategy. And bastardizes the statistics produced in that game. Would hate to see a Trent Edwards-type throw 7 TDs in a 63-59 game with the Dolphins because it went to 6 OTs.

 

[Truman]

How about just play a 10 minute OT period? Then go to sudden death if still tied. And instead of the coin toss go to the XFL scramble to decide possession. That thing was sweet.

 

[John 14:6]

How about just keep playing if the score is tied when the time hits 0:00 and then whoever scores first wins. This takes away the luck of a coin flip and, kind of like Chase's idea, both teams will know what's up as the 4th quarter comes to a close.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

How about just keep playing if the score is tied when the time hits 0:00 and then whoever scores first wins. This takes away the luck of a coin flip and, kind of like Chase's idea, both teams will know what's up as the 4th quarter comes to a close.

not bad....but this would drastically change how a team approaches their last possession as the clock is running out.... wouldn't attempt a real long FG to try and win it, use of timeouts, etc.....but I kinda like the thought process here

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Stupid. Just leave it as is.

It's broken as it is.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Play another quarter of football.

If it's tied after 5 quarters...... then it's tied.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I like moving the overtime kickoff to the 45 yard line. The recieving team would have to watch out for an onsides kick more often. The kicking team would have the option of putting the ball out of the end zone forcing starting position at the 20 rather than around the 27 to 30 which is more common now. The kicking team could also try to squib kick the ball in the hope of pinning the recieving team deep.This would eliminate some of the percieved value of electing to recieve.

Not bad. One could also make a case for the winning coin flip team kicking off.

Strong defensive teams may very well elect to kick off under this format. Weak defensive teams may very well elect to try an onsides kick. Teams facing questionable offenses may very well choose to kick and to place the onus on the other team to come out of the shadow of their own goal line. The coaching decision would not be automatic, and that is what I like about the option.

 

[Christo]

Play another quarter of football.

If it's tied after 5 quarters...... then it's tied.

Play 6. It's the playoffs!

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Play another quarter of football.If it's tied after 5 quarters...... then it's tied.

playoffs...?also, during regular season, I am not sure the NFL-players union- whatever would really like to see an entire extra quarter do to injuries, etc.....

 

[David Yudkin]

I used to be much more of a purist when it came to OT ( I don't mind regular season ties) and was in the camp of trying to have the OT rules the same as regulation as much as possible. But if they can't decide the game in 60 minutes, why not change things up?

For example,

If they didn't actually count the stats from overtime, I might not be adverse to having teams getting the ball at the opponent's 10 yard line with 4 downs to score. No kicking (FG or XP) and only 2 point conversion attempts. Each team alternates possession. This is similar to college but the ground to cover is a lot less and you can't ever kick the ball. I'm guessing that, in conjunction with mandatory 2 point conversion attempts, that games would not be tied for multiple possessions. However, if after 3 possessions the game is still tied, have a FG kicking contest starting at 40 yards, if both make or miss then 45 yards, then 50, etc.

Or if they really wanted to get crazy, give one team the ball at the opponent's 20 yard line and see how many plays it takes them to get in the endzone (no matter how many downs). Then give the ball to the other team and whoever scored in fewer plays wins.

And if possession has to be determined for OT, why is decided by a coin flip? Why not something skill related:

- One QB from each team, longest pass from the goal line . . . longest pass gets posession

- One kicker from each team, longest kickoff . . . longest gets posession

- One player from each team, 100 yard dash . . . fastest gets posession

IMO, any of these are more exciting and fairer than one team moving the ball for a 45 yard FG to win it on the first possession of OT.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Play another quarter of football.If it's tied after 5 quarters...... then it's tied.

playoffs...?also, during regular season, I am not sure the NFL-players union- whatever would really like to see an entire extra quarter do to injuries, etc.....

Sorry.... regular season.

 

[Christo]

Play another quarter of football.If it's tied after 5 quarters...... then it's tied.

playoffs...?also, during regular season, I am not sure the NFL-players union- whatever would really like to see an entire extra quarter do to injuries, etc.....

Sorry.... regular season.

I have no problem with this in the regular season. To me it's more palatable to have two evenly-matched teams tie after a full OT period than to have a winner where the flip of the coin is so important.

 

[Red Herring]

How long will it take for them to realize that NCAA football has this one right too? It seemed like the 2-point conversion had to be shoved down their throat, looks like this one will have to be too...

Because the NCAA does not have it right.College overtime rules are worse than sudden death rules the NFL currently has.

Then I guess we disagree. I would much rather watch a college OT than NFL OT. It encourages playing for a TD, gives both teams an equal shot, rewards teams that play well on O and D, and doesn't put the final outcome in the hands of a kicker.

My only problem with the college OT is no special teams. But otherwise I'm with you and I like it more than the NFL version by a ton...

I agree on the ST, really the NCAA should be using standard kickoff rules as well. I like to see teams have as many opportunities for exciting plays as possible. Watching teams edge into field goal range, run a couple plays to center the ball, then kick on 3rd down "just in case" isn't very exciting to me.

 

[FlapJacks]

unacceptable

 

[FlapJacks]

How long will it take for them to realize that NCAA football has this one right too? It seemed like the 2-point conversion had to be shoved down their throat, looks like this one will have to be too...

College football OT is absolutely boring to me.

College "OT" isn't the same game that has been played for te past 60 minutes.You might as well shoot baskets to decide the winner.