NFL Overtime (1 Viewer)

[Kiko13]

I kind of like the Arena Football League OT rules. If the team that got the ball first scores on their first possession, the other team gets a chance to match or beat that score. If after the 2nd team's possession the game is still tied, they go into sudden death format.

This at least guarantees each team gets the ball at least once.

I do like the suggestion of first to 6 or first to 4 also though.

 

[thayman]

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.

I don't really see how this is any different than how the rules are now. If a coach wants to avoid the luck of the coin flip he could have gone for the 2pt converstion instead of the game tieing XP.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

I like 2 ideas I've heard:

1) No OT in regular season...just let it stand as a tie and deal with it.

2) Each team gets 1 opportunity minimum on offense, then if still tied after 1 offensive possession each you go to standard sudden death rules.

Only thing to work out on #2 is what if a safety occurs? Any ideas on that?

It really bothers me the stat someone raised that 30-33% of the time, the 1st possession in OT wins the game. Lets face it, NFL players (particularly defense) are like Formula 1 race cars. They're built for high revs over a short period of time and then they blow up (i.e. they aren't endurance Le Mans racers). NFL players are only conditioned (at best) for 60 minutes of high quality play. There are so many busted/broken defensive meltdowns that occur as soon as OT starts its pathetic. Offenses by both teams need a chance or do away with OT all together in the NFL.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

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.

 

[Slum Lord]

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.

No no no no no. You CANT eliminate 1/3 of the game of football. That would make things a complete joke. Special teams are a part of football, and taking it away means your no longer playing football, but some obsurd hybrid that sucks (see college football). 186 vs 160 and you have to cry that overtime rules are unfair? You'd have a case if it was 300 vs 46. Its about as even as it could get. 54% vs 46%??? And its a problem???? Gimme a break.

 

[AB in DC]

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.

This one's my favorite.

 

[PatsFanCT]

A 7 and half minute overtime period with no time outs and the clock would run no matter what would seem fair to me. It would only extend gameplay for a half hour and it's enough time for both sides to at least get one possession, or it would reward any team that could milk the clock that long and could keep tha ball from the opposition (in which case, they deserve to win)

Wouldn't this only extend the game play for 7 and a half minutes?

 

[BlueOnion]

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.

No no no no no. You CANT eliminate 1/3 of the game of football.

Teams could still win by kicking a field goal, so there would still be 3 unique thirds of the game.

 

[Hamstring]

You should have a jump ball to start ot. Perfect solution.

 

[posty]

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.

Bzzz... The only difference is that they play in the playoffs until the tie is broken, but all of the rules remain the same...

 

[Defending Champs]

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.

OK, am I the only one that didn't know this? I've just got to throw myself under the bus here, I seriously didn't know this was the rule. How the hell is that possible? And why is it different for the Super Bowl and all other NFL games? That just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Liquid Tension]

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.

When I started reading this I was getting annoyed, but then I realized that you didn't want to adopt the ridiculous college format and were looking for minor tweaks.First, 54% winning because they won the toss is pretty close if you ask me. But, before we get into how bad every other solution I have heard is, think about this. The only reason we have OT is because "we" can't stand a tie. I am not sure why after playing 4 quarters to a tie either team should be rewarded with a victory. That being said, though, our society is anti tie and excepting that, I am absolutely fine with a coin flip to take the ball. Yes, in offensive games it would appear that the team winning the toss has an advantage, but the toss itself is a fair event so why is that unfair? If you are so worried about the toss then win in regulation.

In terms of the ideas, the bids are an interesting idea. Everything else doesn't seem right to me. The you need two possession idea would throw the % out of whack as the team going 2nd has a huge advantage of knowing what to play for. Wat is the % in college of the team going 2nd?

In a normal game and a strong wind, I would take the wind EVERY time.

 

[Godsbrother]

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.

OK, am I the only one that didn't know this? I've just got to throw myself under the bus here, I seriously didn't know this was the rule. How the hell is that possible? And why is it different for the Super Bowl and all other NFL games? That just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think this correct. I believe the only difference is the SB (and the playoff games) cannot end in a tie. If no one scores in the first OT they go to a 2nd, 3rd, etc. until someone does. It is still sudden death.

 

[Defending Champs]

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.

OK, am I the only one that didn't know this? I've just got to throw myself under the bus here, I seriously didn't know this was the rule. How the hell is that possible? And why is it different for the Super Bowl and all other NFL games? That just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think this correct. I believe the only difference is the SB (and the playoff games) cannot end in a tie. If no one scores in the first OT they go to a 2nd, 3rd, etc. until someone does. It is still sudden death.

That makes sense to me. A different set up does not though.

 

[posty]

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.

OK, am I the only one that didn't know this? I've just got to throw myself under the bus here, I seriously didn't know this was the rule. How the hell is that possible? And why is it different for the Super Bowl and all other NFL games? That just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think this correct. I believe the only difference is the SB (and the playoff games) cannot end in a tie. If no one scores in the first OT they go to a 2nd, 3rd, etc. until someone does. It is still sudden death.

It isn't correct, unless he is talking about non-American football...

 

[Jayrok]

Why not give each team one possession on the 50 yard line? Coin flip winner decides who goes first. Each team can select which direction they want to go on offense. If it's windy, both teams can have the wind. That's no disctinct advantage to either team. The only advantage is the coin toss winner can make the other team go first, or they can go first and put pressure on the other team. If the other team goes first and doesn't score, the second team knows they only need FG range.

Similar to college, but from the 50, or maybe your own 40..

 

[shadow2k]

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.

No no no no no. You CANT eliminate 1/3 of the game of football. That would make things a complete joke. Special teams are a part of football, and taking it away means your no longer playing football, but some obsurd hybrid that sucks (see college football). 186 vs 160 and you have to cry that overtime rules are unfair? You'd have a case if it was 300 vs 46. Its about as even as it could get. 54% vs 46%??? And its a problem???? Gimme a break.

That's not the stat that people complain about. It's that 28.6% of the time, the team receiving the ball scores on their first possession. That means that in 1 out of 4 games, one team never gets a chance to run their offense in the OT. I see that as a problem. I like football because there are three distinct phases of the game which a team must excel at. I don't want to watch a game based on one team's O vs one team's D. I want to see all three phases of the game, in every period.The other one that bothers me is that 70% of OT games are decided by a FG.I believe we had this discussion here after the KC vs DEN game. That was the game where Jim Nantz and Phil Simms started arguing about it on air.

 

[strong]

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.

This one's my favorite.

Exactly. There was hardly a difference in which team won when they kicked off from the 35. Make it the 40 and guaranteee a touchback, if you like... Just don't go doing anything silly and eliminate sudden death. None of this first to 6 or guaranteed one possession baloney. The only tweak that I would be okay with is possibly eliminating the field goal. But still, the first team that scores, wins.

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

Anybody remember the XFL?

Each side pick a player. Ref tosses the ball on the ground and a scrum ensues. Beat the #### out of your opponent and come up with the ball.

Congratulations. You now get the kickoff.

 

[strong]

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.

OK, am I the only one that didn't know this? I've just got to throw myself under the bus here, I seriously didn't know this was the rule. How the hell is that possible? And why is it different for the Super Bowl and all other NFL games? That just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think this correct. I believe the only difference is the SB (and the playoff games) cannot end in a tie. If no one scores in the first OT they go to a 2nd, 3rd, etc. until someone does. It is still sudden death.

It isn't correct, unless he is talking about non-American football...

Never heard of this special Super Bowl Overtime Rule...

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

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.

OK, am I the only one that didn't know this? I've just got to throw myself under the bus here, I seriously didn't know this was the rule. How the hell is that possible? And why is it different for the Super Bowl and all other NFL games? That just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think this correct. I believe the only difference is the SB (and the playoff games) cannot end in a tie. If no one scores in the first OT they go to a 2nd, 3rd, etc. until someone does. It is still sudden death.

It isn't correct, unless he is talking about non-American football...

Never heard of this special Super Bowl Overtime Rule...

Godsbrother is correct. SB cannot end in a tie.

 

[Liquid Tension]

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.

Bad idea as the team going 2nd has a huge advantage knowing what to play for and the percntages would be much higher than 55%I still don't get what the big deal is that when neither team can decide who is the better team after 4 full quarters that a 50-50% chance leaves one of the teams with only 55% chance of winning is unfair? How much fairer do you want it?

 

[Liquid Tension]

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.

No no no no no. You CANT eliminate 1/3 of the game of football. That would make things a complete joke. Special teams are a part of football, and taking it away means your no longer playing football, but some obsurd hybrid that sucks (see college football). 186 vs 160 and you have to cry that overtime rules are unfair? You'd have a case if it was 300 vs 46. Its about as even as it could get. 54% vs 46%??? And its a problem???? Gimme a break.

With you slum lord, I just don't get the big deal What is funny is that these same people talking about how each team must get a possession "for fairness" don't realize that allowing the team to go 2nd gives them a much larger advantage than the way the have it now. What are the %'s of teams going 2nd? I guarantee it would be higher than 54%

 

[Liquid Tension]

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.

This one's my favorite.

I could live with this IF you had to do something

 

[Liquid Tension]

Why not give each team one possession on the 50 yard line? Coin flip winner decides who goes first. Each team can select which direction they want to go on offense. If it's windy, both teams can have the wind. That's no disctinct advantage to either team. The only advantage is the coin toss winner can make the other team go first, or they can go first and put pressure on the other team. If the other team goes first and doesn't score, the second team knows they only need FG range. Similar to college, but from the 50, or maybe your own 40..

 

[Jayrok]

They could go world cup and kick FGs starting at the 35 and move back 5 yards if both make it. Make that kicker earn his paycheck.

 

[Jayrok]

They could go world cup and kick FGs starting at the 35 and move back 5 yards if both make it. Make that kicker earn his paycheck.

 

[Xenopax]

They should just add a quarter to the game. No coin flip for the kickoff or anything, just at the end of the 4th if they are tied add a quarter and keep going.

 

[Fullback Fro]

How about they have a coinflip to determine who gets to decide if they want to recieve or defend first and then the game is decided by the first team to score.

 

[Jayrok]

They should just add a quarter to the game. No coin flip for the kickoff or anything, just at the end of the 4th if they are tied add a quarter and keep going.

The thing with just adding time or another quarter and proceeding on is it would eliminate the two-minute offense in the 4th quarter. If you had the ball and knew you were heading to OT, there would be no hurry to get down the field in the last minutes of the 4th quarter. Seems like it would hurt the game if the team with the last possession in the 4th quarter got extended time on a drive to score to win the game.

 

[ratdog]

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]

How about they have a coinflip to determine who gets to decide if they want to recieve or defend first and then the game is decided by the first team to score.

 

[Tom Servo]

They could go world cup and kick FGs starting at the 35 and move back 5 yards if both make it. Make that kicker earn his paycheck.

Tell me you didn't just go thumbs down on your own quote.

 

[ratdog]

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.

sounds like it could take to long and the NFL likes speed.Both teams get the ball once unless a TD is scored sounds good and then death

 

[Mario Kart]

What is with all the complaining about "things are not fair" in the overtime stuff? Life is not fair, trades are not fair, sports is not fair, the overtime is not fair. Get over it already. The teams know going into the game that if they are tied after 4 they have a coin flip and play.

What if the defense who loses the coin flip causes a turnover and scores... that is not fair because their offense was never on the field so a turnover should not be able to be advanced. Come on already!!

During a real game the teams dont have the ball for the same number of possessions... dont have the ball for the same amount of time, dont have the same players on each side of the ball, is this all unfair too?

Good grief.

 

[Liquid Tension]

What is with all the complaining about "things are not fair" in the overtime stuff? Life is not fair, trades are not fair, sports is not fair, the overtime is not fair. Get over it already. The teams know going into the game that if they are tied after 4 they have a coin flip and play.What if the defense who loses the coin flip causes a turnover and scores... that is not fair because their offense was never on the field so a turnover should not be able to be advanced. Come on already!!During a real game the teams dont have the ball for the same number of possessions... dont have the ball for the same amount of time, dont have the same players on each side of the ball, is this all unfair too? Good grief.

 

[Green and Gold]

Extending football games even further is bad for several aspects of the NFL. It creates problems with TV coverage, interrupting either the show following the game or the game itself. Injuries are more likely to happen when the players are tired. As exciting as it would be to see a new OT system, from a fan's perspective, I think the NFL front office as well as the player's association would be adverse to most of these kinds of changes.

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

What is with all the complaining about "things are not fair" in the overtime stuff? Life is not fair, trades are not fair, sports is not fair, the overtime is not fair. Get over it already. The teams know going into the game that if they are tied after 4 they have a coin flip and play.What if the defense who loses the coin flip causes a turnover and scores... that is not fair because their offense was never on the field so a turnover should not be able to be advanced. Come on already!!During a real game the teams dont have the ball for the same number of possessions... dont have the ball for the same amount of time, dont have the same players on each side of the ball, is this all unfair too? Good grief.

Yes, life is unfair, but your post is spurious. Within the construct of a game the idea is to, as much as possible, give each team an equal chance to win. So saying 'it's not fair, but life is unfair' is not a reasonable answer.Everyone knows this isn't completely possible, but if the parameters of the game significantly favor one team, it should be dealt with. In this particular case, I don't think the playing field is tilted that much in favor of the team that gets the ball first to change things.But 'Life is unfair' isn't a valid argument here.

 

[The Kerminator]

How about they have a coinflip to determine who gets to decide if they want to recieve or defend first and then the game is decided by the first team to score.

You know, this idea is just crazy enough that it might actually work.