NFL Overtime (1 Viewer)

[thecoolnamesarealltaken]

The Steelers-Falcons game today was yet another example of a flawed rule in the NFL. The Falcons won the overtime toss, marched down the field, and kicked a field goal. The Steelers didn't get the ball because they couldn't predict a coin flip.

OK, here come the "The Steelers could have had a shot at the ball. All they had to do was play some defense!" Honestly, the way that game was going, do you think the Falcons could've stopped the Steelers if the coin toss had gone the other way? Is it fair to have an overtime system where 189 coin toss winners went on to win, compared to just 160 coin toss losers? (results thru 2003 from this article).

If the NFL continues with sudden death, they need to change the rules to give the team that starts on defense better field position. The team that wins the toss should have to think twice before taking the ball. Here are a few possible improvements that would keep sudden death, but would take away some of the advantage of getting the ball first:

1. Eliminate the kickoff to begin overtime. Give the ball to the offensive team at their own 10. A team with a tough D may opt to start on defense to get great field position.

2. Move the kickoff to the 50, or maybe even the receiving team's 45 or 40. The kicking team can try a squib kick to back the receiving team deep in their own territory, and more adventurous teams can try an onside kick.

3. This article had quite a few good ideas. Their most interesting proposal is to have both teams bid for the ball. The team that 'bids' closest to their own goal line gets the ball at that spot. Neither team would be able to complain about random luck; they would have complete control of their outcome.

I like sudden death better than the college OT, which lasts forever. The format just needs to be changed to minimize the effects of a coin toss.

 

[azgroover]

 

[Chase Stuart]

3. This article had quite a few good ideas. Their most interesting proposal is to have both teams bid for the ball. The team that 'bids' closest to their own goal line gets the ball at that spot. Neither team would be able to complain about random luck; they would have complete control of their outcome.

I was against this system for awhile, but now that Herm Edwards is in Kansas City, I am 100% behind this idea.

 

[Tat]

Yeah, I was hoping Wille would improve on the 4 points he gave me....

GB LJ and Chester!

 

[The Kerminator]

Is it fair to have an overtime system where 189 coin toss winners went on to win, compared to just 160 coin toss losers?

I don't think those numbers are really helping your argument. I don't think they are that out of line that drastic changes need to be made. I'd guess that you would see similar results with each of the three scenarios proposed. I'd be curious to see what the percentages are from college overtime games and how often the team on offense wins.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

If you're going to tinker with OT rules, the only acceptable alternative is "first to six".

Everybody complains about OT b/c a team wins the toss, goes 30-40 yds and kicks a FG. Feels cheap after a full game. But nobody would complain about the team winning the toss winning the game if they had to march it all the way down for a TD. If they have to settle for 3, then the other team gets a chance with the ball. Scoring a TD or 2 FG's (not just one) seems like a fair way to decide an OT winner, and it's not "gimmicky" like the college method.

 

[The Gator]

3. This article had quite a few good ideas. Their most interesting proposal is to have both teams bid for the ball. The team that 'bids' closest to their own goal line gets the ball at that spot. Neither team would be able to complain about random luck; they would have complete control of their outcome.

I was against this system for awhile, but now that Herm Edwards is in Kansas City, I am 100% behind this idea.

 

[Gordo]

Is it fair to have an overtime system where 189 coin toss winners went on to win, compared to just 160 coin toss losers?

I don't think those numbers are really helping your argument. I don't think they are that out of line that drastic changes need to be made. I'd guess that you would see similar results with each of the three scenarios proposed. I'd be curious to see what the percentages are from college overtime games and how often the team on offense wins.

Agreed. To me those numbers don't show a need for change at all. The team that wins the coin flip wins less than 55% of the time.

 

[RoarinSonoran]

Both teams get equal numbers of possessions, starting at their own 20, but have the defensive players play on offense, and vice-versa.

 

[FrostBite]

I agree that they should eliminate the kickoff and just start at the 20. I hate it when theres a return that gets the team in FG range right off the pop. The team runs twice then kicks a field goal. Terrible way to finish what usually is a good game.

 

[azgroover]

I agree that they should eliminate the kickoff and just start at the 20. I hate it when theres a return that gets the team in FG range right off the pop. The team runs twice then kicks a field goal. Terrible way to finish what usually is a good game.

Why would that be any worse than a handoff that gets carried for 70 yards on the following play?

 

[azgroover]

A game of HORSE for the kickers is the only righteous way to solve this dilemma.

 

[NJ]

I thought they flashed a stat which said that something like 30% of OT games end on the first possession with the team losing the coinflip never getting their offense on the field. That certainly doesn't seem like an ideal system.

 

[RoarinSonoran]

A game of HORSE for the kickers is the only righteous way to solve this dilemma.

Neil Rackers> "I vote no"

 

[thecoolnamesarealltaken]

Is it fair to have an overtime system where 189 coin toss winners went on to win, compared to just 160 coin toss losers?

I don't think those numbers are really helping your argument. I don't think they are that out of line that drastic changes need to be made. I'd guess that you would see similar results with each of the three scenarios proposed. I'd be curious to see what the percentages are from college overtime games and how often the team on offense wins.

Agreed. To me those numbers don't show a need for change at all. The team that wins the coin flip wins less than 55% of the time.

Would you make a $1000 bet with me, knowing in advance that you have a 45% chance of winning, a 52% chance of losing, and a 5% chance of a push? This is quite a difference, considering a sample size of 350.

 

[thesurfshop19]

A few thoughts, all that keep sudden death ....

1. The bidding system explained above

2. First to 4 points wins

3. No field goals until each team has had 1 possession

4. 10-yard backup before all plays run out of a field goal formation

 

[Hov34]

Why don't they just play a 15 or 12 minutes OT period all the way through and be done with it.

 

[Bill Brasky]

If you're going to tinker with OT rules, the only acceptable alternative is "first to six". Everybody complains about OT b/c a team wins the toss, goes 30-40 yds and kicks a FG. Feels cheap after a full game. But nobody would complain about the team winning the toss winning the game if they had to march it all the way down for a TD. If they have to settle for 3, then the other team gets a chance with the ball. Scoring a TD or 2 FG's (not just one) seems like a fair way to decide an OT winner, and it's not "gimmicky" like the college method.

 

[PsychoMan]

The current OT rules stink. I was thinking the exact same thing today watching the Pitt/Atl game ... There's several variations that would work better.

 

[Tomahawk]

I think the whole issue can be resolved with one small change:

On the first posession of overtime, if the team that wins the toss scores, the game doesn't end. They must kick off to the other team giving them one possession to score. At the end of that possession, if a winner hasn't been determined, it becomes sudden death. Otherwise, the game ends.

 

[Gordo]

Is it fair to have an overtime system where 189 coin toss winners went on to win, compared to just 160 coin toss losers?

I don't think those numbers are really helping your argument. I don't think they are that out of line that drastic changes need to be made. I'd guess that you would see similar results with each of the three scenarios proposed. I'd be curious to see what the percentages are from college overtime games and how often the team on offense wins.

Agreed. To me those numbers don't show a need for change at all. The team that wins the coin flip wins less than 55% of the time.

Would you make a $1000 bet with me, knowing in advance that you have a 45% chance of winning, a 52% chance of losing, and a 5% chance of a push? This is quite a difference, considering a sample size of 350.

No, but I would be willing to bet $1000 with you if we could flip a coin to see who has the first chance to go after that $1000 and if I wasn't first I could field 11 professional athletes to try and stop you from getting it.

 

[RoarinSonoran]

Both teams get equal numbers of possessions, starting at their own 20, but have the defensive players play on offense, and vice-versa.

Same possessions details, but teams recruit "players" from among their fans in the stands at random, preferably those wearing player jerseys (no duplication; i.e. only one Favre jersey at a time). Three women and a child must be included on each side of the ball. Full rules apply (i.e. tackle, not touch or flag).Maybe have 'em play nekkid as well. Could be :X , but could be interesting during those late December games up north.

 

[BGP]

I think some of the ideas proposed here, like first to 6, etc., would result in more tie games. Not sure that's the best thing.

 

[Green and Gold]

I'm just surprised we don't have one of these threads after every OT game.

 

[BGP]

I really don't see a need for a change.

 

[Unlucky]

I think the whole issue can be resolved with one small change:On the first posession of overtime, if the team that wins the toss scores, the game doesn't end. They must kick off to the other team giving them one possession to score. At the end of that possession, if a winner hasn't been determined, it becomes sudden death. Otherwise, the game ends.

This is my favorite. Just guarantee each team at least one possession. It's simple, and it's fair. Not gimmicky, and my guess is that coinflip winners would elect to kickoff. BTW - all the Steelers had to do was stop that 3rd and 9 play. It's not like ATL just ran one or two plays and kicked the FG. They put together a drive, and PIT couldn't stop them. They had chances to stop them, but couldn't.

 

[Chase Stuart]

If we're really concerned with being "fair" and trying to make the result of the game be representative of what happened (i.e., it's a shame the Steelers lost without getting the ball in OT), we'd just eliminate overtime.

A tie is a much more accurate indicator of how the team played. A 41-0 win is rewarded just as much as a 27-24 win in our OT system. If a team goes 4-0 in overtime one year, that will probably inflate their record a good bit. Giving them four ties would be more "fair" in proportionately rewarding teams for their play.

 

[Chaz McNulty]

I think instead of flipping a coin to see who recieves, it should be the team that scored the last point in regulation. This way the team that came from behind gets the first shot. This would eliminate on the whiners that complain about the luck of the coin flip.

If you had an established rule in place like this, everyone would come to except it. You can even have it the other way (the team that did not score last gets first possesion). As long as there was a set rule in place, most people would accept it.

 

[Pat Patriot]

I think instead of flipping a coin to see who recieves, it should be the team that scored the last point in regulation. This way the team that came from behind gets the first shot. This would eliminate on the whiners that complain about the luck of the coin flip.If you had an established rule in place like this, everyone would come to except it. You can even have it the other way (the team that did not score last gets first possesion). As long as there was a set rule in place, most people would accept it.

There is a set rule in place. Overtime starts the same way that the game starts, a coin flip.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think it is just fine the way it is. I would hate to see a low-scoring game end up being 37-31 because they adopted some stupid format similar to college football's.

 

[Mario Kart]

The only and I mean ONLY alternative would be to have a field goal shoot-out. Each team picks five players consisting of one WR, RB, CB, LB and OL/DL. All placed on the 25 yard line = 35 yard field goal. If tied after these kicks they move back 10 yards and repeat. This is the only way it should be done.

Oh, and, Play some defense either all game or when in OT.

 

[Bri]

Is it fair to have an overtime system where 189 coin toss winners went on to win, compared to just 160 coin toss losers?

I don't think those numbers are really helping your argument. I don't think they are that out of line that drastic changes need to be made. I'd guess that you would see similar results with each of the three scenarios proposed. I'd be curious to see what the percentages are from college overtime games and how often the team on offense wins.

Agreed. To me those numbers don't show a need for change at all. The team that wins the coin flip wins less than 55% of the time.

what he said.I mean OT is there because they did not accomplish their task during the 4 quarter game. Any team that doesn't like it should try winning in the time given.Someone years ago wrote an article breaking this down and thought they should get a tie for regulation and w-l for OT. I think, that doesn't seem right. Something along those lines. I'd have to play with win % to figure it out.

 

[popeye]

Head Coaches square off in a cage match.

 

[comfortably numb]

If and when anything ever does change, it most likely will be after this determines a Superbowl.

 

[thecoolnamesarealltaken]

I think it is just fine the way it is. I would hate to see a low-scoring game end up being 37-31 because they adopted some stupid format similar to college football's.

All of the ideas I mentioned would keep the sudden death format. They would just reduce the advantages of winning the toss.

 

[TinHat]

I say elimnate sudden death in the first 10 minutes of the OT.

It's simple yet effective.

plus, we'd get another "2-minute drill"

 

[Godsbrother]

The only thing I would change is eliminate the coin-toss and kickoff in OT. Play would simply pickup where it left off at the end of the 4th quarter, the same as when the 1st and 3rd quarter expire.

There is no need for a kickoff.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I think that every time the Steelers lose, we should change a rule so that they can never lose that way again.

 

[BlueOnion]

 

[radballs]

I don't see the need for great change either. If I was going to do anything, how about just move the ball up five yards for the kicking team. Five yards doesn't seem like a lot, but that might be just enough to skew the numbers closer to 50/50. Why completely change the format?

 

[moondawg]

If and when anything ever does change, it most likely will be after this determines a Superbowl.

There is no sudden death overtime in the Super Bowl. They play full 15 minute OT periods until they have a winner.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

The great thing about the NFL is you must play offense and defense. The Steelers didnt lose because the Falcons won a coin flip, they lost because they couldnt stop the Falcons offense from getting enough yardage for a FG.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I'd for either the bid system or the first to six system.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I'd for either the bid system or the first to six system.

I'd be more for the first to six since it feels more right, whereas bidding introduces a whole new element to the NFL.

 

[trogg78]

I'd for either the bid system or the first to six system.

I'd be more for the first to six since it feels more right, whereas bidding introduces a whole new element to the NFL.

Why six...why not four?...that would allow for a fg and a safety to end the game.

 

[Godsbrother]

The great thing about the NFL is you must play offense and defense. The Steelers didnt lose because the Falcons won a coin flip, they lost because they couldnt stop the Falcons offense from getting enough yardage for a FG.

I agree with this 100%. But I would be in favor of getting rid of the coin-toss to start OT. Just pick up OT right where you left off in the 4th quarter.

 

[trogg78]

The great thing about the NFL is you must play offense and defense. The Steelers didnt lose because the Falcons won a coin flip, they lost because they couldnt stop the Falcons offense from getting enough yardage for a FG.

I agree with this 100%. But I would be in favor of getting rid of the coin-toss to start OT. Just pick up OT right where you left off in the 4th quarter.

I dont like that...It would prevent a team from running on the field to attempt a field goal on third down with the clock running out...they would just let it run into ot.

 

[Godsbrother]

The great thing about the NFL is you must play offense and defense. The Steelers didnt lose because the Falcons won a coin flip, they lost because they couldnt stop the Falcons offense from getting enough yardage for a FG.

I agree with this 100%. But I would be in favor of getting rid of the coin-toss to start OT. Just pick up OT right where you left off in the 4th quarter.

I dont like that...It would prevent a team from running on the field to attempt a field goal on third down with the clock running out...they would just let it run into ot.

So what? If they don't make the 3rd down they're just going to try a FG on fourth down anyway. Who cares if the FG attempt is the last play of the fourth quarter or first play of OT?

 

[Steeler]

The Steelers didn't get the ball because they couldn't predict a coin flip.

Wrong. They didn't get the ball because they couldn't stop the Falcons in OT.

 

[trogg78]

The great thing about the NFL is you must play offense and defense. The Steelers didnt lose because the Falcons won a coin flip, they lost because they couldnt stop the Falcons offense from getting enough yardage for a FG.

I agree with this 100%. But I would be in favor of getting rid of the coin-toss to start OT. Just pick up OT right where you left off in the 4th quarter.

I dont like that...It would prevent a team from running on the field to attempt a field goal on third down with the clock running out...they would just let it run into ot.

So what? If they don't make the 3rd down they're just going to try a FG on fourth down anyway. Who cares if the FG attempt is the last play of the fourth quarter or first play of OT?

because if they dont have a timeout they have to run on the field and kick a field goal. I think its an exciting play.