Overtime Rules - Keep As Is? (1 Viewer)

[sushinsky4tsar]

Have coaches bid for the starting possession field position.  The coach who wins the coin toss starts.  "We will start our drive from the 25".  The other coach can accept that or outbid it.  He could state well "we would start from the 22-yard line".  The first coach could put them to their proof or say, well "we will take first possession from the 19".  This strategy session, this "measuring" contest would go on until one team makes a claim to the ball that they have to then back up. "Take that possession". The non-winning team would have no beef because they could have shown some more fortitude and got the ball with a more daring bid for possession.  We fans would have an insight to our team's confidence and intelligence.  An interesting and daring process.  Too much confidence and you don't move the ball on your first possession and the other team is well set up.  First score wins.

Obviously if you have an idiot coach this would not be a compelling process.  I'm looking at you Dallas.

 Bingo!   I'm on Team Auction with Ditkaless.   I believe Harbaugh / the Ravens put something like this forward to the competition committee fairly recently.   While it was deemed a little too revolutionary, I think it garnered a fair amount of support and might have a shot in the future.   Here's my version of it after debating this topic with friends years back:

• OT ends on the first score, just like it used to be.   FG wins it.   This is good for quick resolution, protecting the players, keeping the final outcome somewhat simple (with the possible exception of the bidding process):
  
• both head coaches come to midfield, they can bid on starting field position in increments of 5-yard lines.  Home coach presents the lead bid.  e.g:
  
  Reid:   I will start from my 30
  
• McDermott:  I will start from my 20
  
• Reid:   I will start from my 15
  
• McDermott:  I will start from my 10
  
• Reid:  I will start from the 5
  

[*]While I'm sure that's as far as it would go in most situations, since coaches would generally be thrilled to let the opposing offense start 1st & 10 from their own 5 to get a defensive stop and set up a short field for the winning field goal, the case of the Bills and Chiefs might be the rare exception where both teams would rather take their chances with their own offense 1st & 10 from their own 5.   Hence, we will allow the bidding to continue in 5 yard increments for yards to gain for the initial first down.   Hence, the bidding continues:

• 
  McDermott:  I will start from my 5-yard line, 1st & 15
  
• Reid:   I will start from my 5, 1st & 20
  
• McDermott:  I will start from my 5, 1st & 25.......
  

[*]So essentially, the first coach willing to bid 1st & GOAL from their own 5  (95 yards from endzone, 50+ yards from long FG range) would guarantee themselves the ball on offense, if it actually ever went that far (which is doubtful)



ONE POSSIBLE REVISION TO SPEED UP THE BIDDING PROCESS....   make it a blind bid.   Have both coaches submit their best offer for starting the offensive possession to the referee on a card.   The coach willing to start from farthest out "wins" the bid for their offense to start with the ball.   A tied bid can either be awarded to the home team or settled via coin flip.   No need to deal in 5 yard increments if going this route.

The blind bid is probably the most feasible.  However, I do think having some of these larger than life head coaches come out to mid-field and stare each other down in full auction format would be amazing.   

THE AUCTION.   The same thing that made fantasy football draft order fair will now make NFL overtime football fair.

 

[dhockster]

 Bingo!   I'm on Team Auction with Ditkaless.   I believe Harbaugh / the Ravens put something like this forward to the competition committee fairly recently.   While it was deemed a little too revolutionary, I think it garnered a fair amount of support and might have a shot in the future.   Here's my version of it after debating this topic with friends years back:

• OT ends on the first score, just like it used to be.   FG wins it.   This is good for quick resolution, protecting the players, keeping the final outcome somewhat simple (with the possible exception of the bidding process):
  
• both head coaches come to midfield, they can bid on starting field position in increments of 5-yard lines.  Home coach presents the lead bid.  e.g:
  
  Reid:   I will start from my 30
  
• McDermott:  I will start from my 20
  
• Reid:   I will start from my 15
  
• McDermott:  I will start from my 10
  
• Reid:  I will start from the 5
  

[*]While I'm sure that's as far as it would go in most situations, since coaches would generally be thrilled to let the opposing offense start 1st & 10 from their own 5 to get a defensive stop and set up a short field for the winning field goal, the case of the Bills and Chiefs might be the rare exception where both teams would rather take their chances with their own offense 1st & 10 from their own 5.   Hence, we will allow the bidding to continue in 5 yard increments for yards to gain for the initial first down.   Hence, the bidding continues:

• 
  McDermott:  I will start from my 5-yard line, 1st & 15
  
• Reid:   I will start from my 5, 1st & 20
  
• McDermott:  I will start from my 5, 1st & 25.......
  

[*]So essentially, the first coach willing to bid 1st & GOAL from their own 5  (95 yards from endzone, 50+ yards from long FG range) would guarantee themselves the ball on offense, if it actually ever went that far (which is doubtful)



ONE POSSIBLE REVISION TO SPEED UP THE BIDDING PROCESS....   make it a blind bid.   Have both coaches submit their best offer for starting the offensive possession to the referee on a card.   The coach willing to start from farthest out "wins" the bid for their offense to start with the ball.   A tied bid can either be awarded to the home team or settled via coin flip.   No need to deal in 5 yard increments if going this route.

The blind bid is probably the most feasible.  However, I do think having some of these larger than life head coaches come out to mid-field and stare each other down in full auction format would be amazing.   

THE AUCTION.   The same thing that made fantasy football draft order fair will now make NFL overtime football fair.

Or you flip a coin and the coach that wins puts out a bid. The other coach then can elect offense or defense from that starting point. No back and forth.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

With just continuing, you would lose the last anxious minutes of regulation as whoever had the ball would have no time pressure to score. Those are exciting moments to lose. 

Yeah, you might have that on occasion, but often if a team gets the ball back after the other team ties, and there is less than 50 seconds, and no time outs or something like that they just run one play and hope for a big play, and if not just play for OT. That happens plenty, too.

On the other side, this would also create some big plays at the end of a game. If the team that ties it up at the end knows they were going to have to kick the ball back to a real good offense to essentially start sudden-death, they might go for two after a TD to win by one, go for a TD instead of a tieing FG, or try an onside kick after they tie it up.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

Or you flip a coin and the coach that wins puts out a bid. The other coach then can elect offense or defense from that starting point. No back and forth.

I like it, but if you win the coin flip, you would most definitely rather have final say if you're playing offense or defense, based on where the other team spots the ball.

But I suppose you can let the winning coin flip team elect.

 

[Godsbrother]

THE AUCTION.   The same thing that made fantasy football draft order fair will now make NFL overtime football fair.

I prefer simple so I am fine with current rules.  However I think  it would be fun to see them do it for the start of each half in preseason to see how well it worked.  I know that there is nothing on the line but they could at least try out the mechanics of the bidding process.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I prefer simple so I am fine with current rules.  However I think  it would be fun to see them do it for the start of each half in preseason to see how well it worked.  I know that there is nothing on the line but they could at least try out the mechanics of the bidding process.

Somehow, Belichick battling McVay 5 yards at a time in a bidding process seems a little too hokey (or perhaps a little too fun) to ever actually be a thing in the NFL.   I think if you require 5 yard increments, the bidding process really wouldn't take very long.   It would be a fun spectacle, bordering on epic in a playoff contest.

dhockster is probably on the right path.  If something like this were to actually happen in the NFL, it's probably one team spots the ball, and the other chooses defense or offense.

I really don't care which it is.   The main point is that it's a fair and equitable way to end an OT game.   Yeah, you still might have a Josh Allen that doesn't get his chance in OT, but in this scenario the skill of Allen and the Bills offense still creates leverage, forcing Andy Reid to accept the football in really bad field position, which requires an epic length-of-the-field drive.  Perhaps length-of-the-field, starting out in  1st & 25 to get the win.   

There will certainly be those that don't like most games ending on a FG again.   But that will be a feather in the hat for player safety.   With that said, you could do the same format where a TD is required to win, or perhaps make TD the requirement in the playoffs.  But that's not the right move for player safety or a quick resolution.

 

[jabarony]

Put the ball at midfield. Line up one player from each team on their own 30. Have them race to the ball like it’s a fumble. First team to secure the ball gets possession. 
 

Simple!

 

[Ack88]

I've never understood the pivot away from the typical game play during overtime. Keep it simple- play an extra 15 minute quarter- same rules apply. Each team gets two time outs.

Repeat as needed.

 

[zed2283]

"A little too revolutionary" = dumb.

 

[zed2283]

Put the ball at midfield. Line up one player from each team on their own 30. Have them race to the ball like it’s a fumble. First team to secure the ball gets possession. 
 

Simple!

Or the win!!!

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I've never understood the pivot away from the typical game play during overtime. Keep it simple- play an extra 15 minute quarter- same rules apply. Each team gets two time outs.

Repeat as needed.

lot of issues here with player union.....league in general, etc...as far as more football means more injuries.....they already shortened it from 15 min to 10....they aren't just going to play a "full" 5th quarter....with the potential of a full 6th or 7th, or 8th....they are going to want something that pretty much guarantees a pretty quick resolution to the game....

 

[Sam Quentin]

Rock Paper Scissors at midfield…

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

Put the ball at midfield. Line up one player from each team on their own 30. Have them race to the ball like it’s a fumble. First team to secure the ball gets possession. 
 

Simple!

As a kid, I remember being instantly disappointed by the XFL scramble.   

I wanted the head-on collision as you have layed out (except maybe from the 20 for added carnage).   Instead, we got a side-by-side track meet.    I knew before the first play that the XFL would never last.

 

[jabarony]

As a kid, I remember being instantly disappointed by the XFL scramble.   

I wanted the head-on collision as you have layed out (except maybe from the 20 for added carnage).   Instead, we got a side-by-side track meet.    I knew before the first play that the XFL would never last.

Agreed. That mishap is what doomed the XFL!  What could have been. 

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

"A little too revolutionary" = dumb.

What's your preference (or is it a really an XFL style ball scramble)?

I think the Ravens / Harbaugh submission to the competition committee was that one team spots the ball, and the other chooses offense or defense.   First score wins.

Simple, intuitive win condition.   Check.   

Quick resolution good for player safety.  Check.

Fair to both teams?  Check.  

What do you suggest as the better alternative?

 

[Anarchy99]

What's your preference (or is it a really an XFL style ball scramble)?

I think the Ravens / Harbaugh submission to the competition committee was that one team spots the ball, and the other chooses offense or defense.   First score wins.

Simple, intuitive win condition.   Check.   

Quick resolution good for player safety.  Check.

Fair to both teams?  Check.  

What do you suggest as the better alternative?

I get the concept, but does this in anyway address the issue that many people have that each side needs to have a possession in OT? In this scenario, if the first team that gets the ball kicks a FG, more people will scream it's not fair that their dreamy superhero QB didn't get a chance to put points on the board.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I get the concept, but does this in anyway address the issue that many people have that each side needs to have a possession in OT? In this scenario, if the first team that gets the ball kicks a FG, more people will scream it's not fair that their dreamy superhero QB didn't get a chance to put points on the board.

It makes it a fair and equitable.

It does not guarantee that both teams get their chance at offense.

If you're a fan of the Josh Allen team that didn't get their shot on offense, your outrage should be directed towards your defense and/or your head coach for selecting a spot that was too favorable to the Chiefs, giving Reid an easy decision to choose offense.

I don't think that this was in the Ravens proposal, but I would suggest that distance to go for the first set of downs should be part of "the spot".    In other words, McDermott could spot the ball at the 5 yard line, with the opening distance of 1st & 30 yards to go for the first.   If Reid elects to play offense, and the Chiefs get the first down and eventually kick a field goal, you either have to tip your cap to the Chiefs, hate your Bills defense, or blame McDermott for not "spotting" the ball as a 1st & 40 from the 5, which might have prompted Reid to give the ball to Josh Allen and the Bills offense.

"That's not fair, we didn't get the ball" should have no leg to stand on in this format.   You shouldn't have made the "spot" that favorable then.   

 

[Anarchy99]

It makes it a fair and equitable.

It does not guarantee that both teams get their chance at offense.

If you're a fan of the Josh Allen team that didn't get their shot on offense, your outrage should be directed towards your defense and/or your head coach for selecting a spot that was too favorable to the Chiefs, giving Reid an easy decision to choose offense.

I don't think that this was in the Ravens proposal, but I would suggest that distance to go for the first set of downs should be part of "the spot".    In other words, McDermott could spot the ball at the 5 yard line, with the opening distance of 1st & 30 yards to go for the first.   If Reid elects to play offense, and the Chiefs get the first down and eventually kick a field goal, you either have to tip your cap to the Chiefs, hate your Bills defense, or blame McDermott for not "spotting" the ball as a 1st & 40 from the 5, which might have prompted Reid to give the ball to Josh Allen and the Bills offense.

"That's not fair, we didn't get the ball" should have no leg to stand on in this format.   You shouldn't have made the "spot" that favorable then.   

I don't think the distance to get a first down should ever be part of any proposed plan if it's more than 10 yards. To me, that's just silly. At no other times would 1st and 40 happen, why have that in OT? Also, the way the rules are these days, might as well make it 1st and 80, as the offense can game the system and get an illegal contact or DPI penalty and get an automatic first down. 

All of these non-traditional remedies and solutions don't really wow me because they are nowhere near the same as how the game was played for the first 60 minutes. IMO, the closer OT is to the way they played for 4 quarters, the better. I am not one that insists that each side needs to touch the ball in overtime. I am also not one to suggest the current system is unfair (and I also think no one said it had to be fair in the first place).

Earlier in the thread, I suggested that a simple tweak to the rules would help teams with strategy late in the game. That was having the winner of the initial coin toss to start the game also be the one that got the ball to start OT. That way, the other team might play differently to avoid going to OT in the first place knowing they had to play defense to start OT.

 

[dhockster]

I get the concept, but does this in anyway address the issue that many people have that each side needs to have a possession in OT? In this scenario, if the first team that gets the ball kicks a FG, more people will scream it's not fair that their dreamy superhero QB didn't get a chance to put points on the board.

No need to get snarky with people who espouse a different viewpoint from you. I am not screaming and I don't have a dreamy superhero QB in the fight. You usually come across as much more reasonable than this.

I have come around on this, where it's not just about each team getting a possession, but each team having to win by having both their offense and defense play in OT. If KC drives down and scores a TD on the first drive and the game is over, all that proves is that half of each team determined the outcome. Neither Buffalo's offense or KC's defense factored into the OT outcome.

Keep in mind that the percentage of drives ending in TD's in the playoffs from 2017-2020 was 24%. KC and Buffalo in the regular season of 2021 were both around 30% of their drives ending in TD's. In the 2021 playoffs, KC scored TD's on 50% of their drives that could have resulted in TD's (2 drives ended in FG attempts at the end of a half), and Buffalo scored TD's on 75% of their possessions. As offenses have become more proficient, the coin toss becomes more of a factor in who wins the game. I do not think that is a good thing.

And I agree with you that playing a full OT period as the fairest way to settle the game. But due to the NFL not wanting games to run that long to protect the players, that doesn't seem to be an option.

 

[Gally]

For at least playoff games, I favor both teams being guaranteed a possession and if still tied (whether teams scored or not) continuing from whatever the situation then is into sudden death.

Why is this any different than what they do now?  The main complaint is that one team doesn't get the same opportunity as the other.  How is this any different by giving each team one possession then go to sudden death?  It's just a postponement of the original complaint.  

 

[zed2283]

What's your preference (or is it a really an XFL style ball scramble)?

I think the Ravens / Harbaugh submission to the competition committee was that one team spots the ball, and the other chooses offense or defense.   First score wins.

Simple, intuitive win condition.   Check.   

Quick resolution good for player safety.  Check.

Fair to both teams?  Check.  

What do you suggest as the better alternative?

I was joking about the XFL thing.  But basically anything hokey shouldn't be implemented, and that is hokey.  And by hokey I mean something that doesn't resemble normal processes.

 

[Anarchy99]

No need to get snarky with people who espouse a different viewpoint from you. I am not screaming and I don't have a dreamy superhero QB in the fight. You usually come across as much more reasonable than this.

I have come around on this, where it's not just about each team getting a possession, but each team having to win by having both their offense and defense play in OT. If KC drives down and scores a TD on the first drive and the game is over, all that proves is that half of each team determined the outcome. Neither Buffalo's offense or KC's defense factored into the OT outcome.

Keep in mind that the percentage of drives ending in TD's in the playoffs from 2017-2020 was 24%. KC and Buffalo in the regular season of 2021 were both around 30% of their drives ending in TD's. In the 2021 playoffs, KC scored TD's on 50% of their drives that could have resulted in TD's (2 drives ended in FG attempts at the end of a half), and Buffalo scored TD's on 75% of their possessions. As offenses have become more proficient, the coin toss becomes more of a factor in who wins the game. I do not think that is a good thing.

And I agree with you that playing a full OT period as the fairest way to settle the game. But due to the NFL not wanting games to run that long to protect the players, that doesn't seem to be an option.

I was not directing any comments at you or anyone else . . . but the narrative I often see and the rationale for allowing both teams to possess the ball in OT almost always involves fans of the losing team that didn't touch the ball having a HOF caliber QB and therefore the rules aren't fair. In the BUF / KC game, the Chiefs ended up having two more possessions than the Bills did. Should we try to make sure each team ends up with the exact same number of possessions each game?

I still am not convinced that OT was set up to be totally fair, nor do I think it should be. Overtime was installed to break a tie and declare a winner. The fact that some people are just willing to accept that NFL teams don't play defense anymore is disappointing. Just because a showdown between two teams that have offenses that can move the ball and score a ton of points doesn't necessarily mean the rules should be changed. As you indicated, most drives don't result in touchdowns, so most OT games should not end in first drive TDs. Why is it that 75% of drives in regulation DON'T end in touchdowns? Do teams just forget how to play defense in OT? As I indicated earlier in the thread, why do defenders all get gassed and don't have any energy left after 4 quarters, but the offensive players do?

Rather than change the OT rules again, how about teams play better defense, coach better, rotate players in regulation more so they don't get tired, or have the players be better conditioned in the first place? Changing the OT rules is the path of least resistance and a cop out for the losing team to point to as why they didn't win.

My first choice for the regular season would be to go back to games ending in ties and no OT (which will never happen). That way maybe they could do full OT periods in the post season (since there would be very few overtime games across the entire season). That probably won't happen either. Next up, I would favor the game continues at the down and distance at the end of the 4th quarter, have the teams switch sides, and keep playing until someone scores (ie sudden death).

To me, games that end regulation in a tie just need more time to finish as quickly as possible. What I haven't ever really understood is why OT somehow is a way for teams to pull out a miracle by starting over again and reshuffling everything. Why should teams go from almost dead to getting a get out of jail free card by rebooting in OT? If the game is tied and a team is driving, let them finish off the drive and win and not let the other team off the hook and get a new life by going to OT. Just play it out and whoever scores next wins.
 

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I don't think the distance to get a first down should ever be part of any proposed plan if it's more than 10 yards. To me, that's just silly. At no other times would 1st and 40 happen, why have that in OT? Also, the way the rules are these days, might as well make it 1st and 80, as the offense can game the system and get an illegal contact or DPI penalty and get an automatic first down. 

To be fair, we're talking about a juggernaut offense edition of OT where both teams are scoring at will throughout regulation.   We're also talking about a scenario where first score wins.   So what happens if both teams would prefer to start on offense 1st & 10 from their own 5,  if we're making that the limit.   For the most part, this wouldn't  be an issue for most OT games, but in the case of Chiefs/Bills I could see both teams wanting to put the ball in their offense's hands.   So why wouldn't you allow them to go for a distance beyond 1st & 10  for the opening set of downs?   1st & 15, 1st & 20, and 1st & 25 aren't super common, but most definitely come up from time to time.   Without allowing that component, you're back to same situation where the team that doesn't get to touch the ball on offense is complaining about a coin toss, saying that their QB was just as capable of scoring with a starting possession from their own 5.

If it happened this past Sunday in real life.   I think McDermott probably picks a spot, down and distance that looks like 1st & 25 from the 5.   I think Reid has a legit debate between giving the ball to Mahomes or making Allen get it done.   Him having the faith in his QB to hand Mahomes the ball at that spot, down and distance makes for incredible human drama.   How much faith do you really have in your star QB?

 

[MrJimiT]

What IF....keep OT rules as they currently are...except for the coin flip determining possessions. Have whichever team that possessed the ball at the end of regulation, kickoff to begin overtime. If a team scores a last second FG or TD in regulation, then they would be kicking off first in overtime. If a team decided to take a knee or run out the clock in regulation to send the game into overtime...then they would be relegated to kicking off to begin overtime.

Maybe that would give "some" urgency & extra incentive for the team with the ball to at least attempt to end the game in regulation with a score, instead of taking a knee - knowing that they would have to kickoff and play defense first.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I was joking about the XFL thing.  But basically anything hokey shouldn't be implemented, and that is hokey.  And by hokey I mean something that doesn't resemble normal processes.

Two coaches going back and forth bickering for starting position in increments of 5 yards.    Hokey?  Fair enough.

Coin flip.   Losing team spots the ball.   Other team chooses to take offense or defense.   First score wins.   For me, that's not hokey.   That's much more cut and dry than the current system.   

Current system, my wife asks me what happens in OT?  I say it's, "it's too complicated to explain".   However, if we can have a fair and equitable version of first score wins, I can once again say, "First score wins". 

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

All of these non-traditional remedies and solutions don't really wow me because they are nowhere near the same as how the game was played for the first 60 minutes. IMO, the closer OT is to the way they played for 4 quarters, the better. I am not one that insists that each side needs to touch the ball in overtime. I am also not one to suggest the current system is unfair (and I also think no one said it had to be fair in the first place).

Earlier in the thread, I suggested that a simple tweak to the rules would help teams with strategy late in the game. That was having the winner of the initial coin toss to start the game also be the one that got the ball to start OT. That way, the other team might play differently to avoid going to OT in the first place knowing they had to play defense to start OT.

I think I'm with you on most of this. I don't necessarily need to have both teams on offense in OT. I just despise the scenario where a team can score as time runs out, get lucky on a coin flip, and get the ball on back-to-back possessions to win the game.

This is why I like the "Turn off the clock, and go to instant sudden-death when the 4th quarter expires" idea.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

What IF....keep OT rules as they currently are...except for the coin flip determining possessions. Have whichever team that possessed the ball at the end of regulation, kickoff to begin overtime. If a team scores a last second FG or TD in regulation, then they would be kicking off first in overtime. If a team decided to take a knee or run out the clock in regulation to send the game into overtime...then they would be relegated to kicking off to begin overtime.

Maybe that would give "some" urgency & extra incentive for the team with the ball to at least attempt to end the game in regulation with a score, instead of taking a knee - knowing that they would have to kickoff and play defense first.

That's even worse than a coin toss. The team driving to score could basically orchestrate a way to get the ball first in OT.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

1. continue the game from point of interruption (clock hitting zeros)...."OT" starts with wherever you were at possession, down and distance....

2. whatever the team that has the ball does....(FG, TD, punt, turnover) ....the other team must match or "exceed" it on their next possession...this happens until one team does not match or "exceeds" the other

3. the team that is on defense at the start of this "OT" gets at least one offensive possession....this is the only stipulation....they are not guaranteed any more than this one possession..

example 1:

KC ties the game with 30 seconds left and kicks to BUF

BUF runs one play and regulation hits 0:00....and it is 2nd and 5

OT start with BUF in possession 2nd and 5...they go on to kick a FG

BUF now kicks to KC....KC must now either A.) get a FG to tie and extend the game....or B.) get a TD to win....

if they get A.) a FG....now whoever scores next wins (sudden death)....KC had their one possession, they are not guaranteed another one

If BUF scored a TD on that first possession.....KC would have to score a TD or lose...

example 2:

same as above but BUF punts....game basically becomes sudden death at this point...

KC can now win with a FG or TD

if KC punts back to BUF......game becomes sudden death and next team to score wins....

(it's really not that hard, and both teams get both their offense and their defense on the field in OT)

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

To be fair, we're talking about a juggernaut offense edition of OT where both teams are scoring at will throughout regulation.

But that's the direction the league is heading, and has been for quite a few years now. It's only going to get worse and worse - the current OT rules favoring the team with the ball first.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

2. whatever the team that has the ball does....(FG, TD, punt, turnover) ....the other team must match or "exceed" it on their next possession...this happens until one team does not match or "exceeds" the other

Why? Why does the other team need to have another possession?

In the current system, the coin flip makes it so that a team could be +2 in possessions after halftime. If you eliminate the stoppage at the end of the 4th, and the coin flip, you take that down to a max of +1. You can't do better than that (without some really weird rules to ensure the total number of possessions is the same for a game). That is ideal. Team A scores to tie the game. It's Team B's turn to do what they can do... A volley of your turn, my turn, just like the normal flow of the game.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Why? Why does the other team need to have another possession?

In the current system, the coin flip makes it so that a team could be +2 in possessions after halftime. If you eliminate the stoppage at the end of the 4th, and the coin flip, you take that down to a max of +1. You can't do better than that (without some really weird rules to ensure the total number of possessions is the same for a game). That is ideal. Team A scores to tie the game. It's Team B's turn to do what they can do... A volley of your turn, my turn, just like the normal flow of the game.

trying to appease the masses that think both teams offenses need to touch the ball after regulation goes to 0:00....which I can actually get on board with....there is no game clock in OT, just play clocks....no coin flip nothing....the only stipulation in my idea is that the team that starts OT on defensive is guaranteed one offensive possession....they may get 3 or 4 but they are only guaranteed that one...

eta: at some point one team is going to quit playing "match game" and go for the dub....(there would really only be the first possessions of "match game" after that it is sudden death)....in fact it will happen very quickly because if the team on defense to start the OT doesn't exceed what the other team does on their first possession.....they can lose to just a FG on the other teams next possession...

 

[zed2283]

Two coaches going back and forth bickering for starting position in increments of 5 yards.    Hokey?  Fair enough.

Coin flip.   Losing team spots the ball.   Other team chooses to take offense or defense.   First score wins.   For me, that's not hokey.   That's much more cut and dry than the current system.   

Current system, my wife asks me what happens in OT?  I say it's, "it's too complicated to explain".   However, if we can have a fair and equitable version of first score wins, I can once again say, "First score wins". 

With all due respect to your wife, how complicated is "if one teams scores a TD the game is over, otherwise they both get at least one possession to see who scores first?"

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

With all due respect to your wife, how complicated is "if one teams scores a TD the game is over, otherwise they both get at least one possession to see who scores first?"

That's probably why she's now my ex-wife, but this isn't a sufficient explanation of the current overtime rule.

 

[BoltNlava]

Last team to have the ball was destined to win (KC/Buff). Leave OT the way it is. Both defenses were tired and worn out. It ended because it had to. Other games with other teams may have the back and forth you are looking for but this one was destined to have a knife thrust in and end it.

As epic the ending was. 

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

But that's the direction the league is heading, and has been for quite a few years now. It's only going to get worse and worse - the current OT rules favoring the team with the ball first.

For context, this is why I believe that any first score solution, where one team places the ball and the other team chooses offense or defense, should also give the spotting team the option to increase the initial distance to gain as something longer than 1st & 10 from the farthest point out.

For instance, I think it's likely that both the Chiefs and Bills would have gladly given their offense the ball from their own 5 yard line with a 1st & 10 in a first score wins version of OT.    If McDermott has the ability to spot the ball at the offense's own 5 yard-line on a 1st & 20 or a 1st & 25, now Reid has a difficult decision to either give the ball to Mahomes from that spot and distance or make Allen do it.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Last team to have the ball was destined to win (KC/Buff).

Agreed. So why should KC get to have the ball last/twice?

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

Last team to have the ball was destined to win (KC/Buff). Leave OT the way it is. Both defenses were tired and worn out. It ended because it had to. Other games with other teams may have the back and forth you are looking for but this one was destined to have a knife thrust in and end it.

As epic the ending was. 

Aren't these two statements an endorsement of having the game decided by a coin flip?

Not that I think it was an automatic for KC or that it was 100% certainty Allen would have prevailed if Bills win the toss.

 

[BoltNlava]

Agreed. So why should KC get to have the ball last/twice?

They won an arbitrary event. One that evened the playing field so to speak. The coin toss. It was up to the Gods of Football at that point. The Gods favored KC and and the rest you know.

 

[Gally]

eta: at some point one team is going to quit playing "match game" and go for the dub....(there would really only be the first possessions of "match game" after that it is sudden death)....in fact it will happen very quickly because if the team on defense to start the OT doesn't exceed what the other team does on their first possession.....they can lose to just a FG on the other teams next possession...

So how is this any better than the current?  It's the same "issue" just postponed one possession each.  The same situation that is being complained about can happen.  Eventually one team will have the offensive possession once more time than the other team.  If you are complaining about the current rules and don't complain about this you are being somewhat hypocritical.  

 

[Stinkin Ref]

So how is this any better than the current?  It's the same "issue" just postponed one possession each.  The same situation that is being complained about can happen.  Eventually one team will have the offensive possession once more time than the other team.  If you are complaining about the current rules and don't complain about this you are being somewhat hypocritical.  

it guarantees both teams get to touch the ball on offense...in the "OT"

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Coin flip.   Losing team spots the ball.   Other team chooses to take offense or defense.   First score wins. 

I like this, or some variation of it.  Love anything that would add some more strategy / gamemanship to it.  

Any analytics folks have a sense for where you'd have to spot the ball for the decision to play offense or defense to be a proverbial coin flip?  i.e. we know that on average drives start at the 25, and that the team that receives the kickoff in OT wins 60% of the time.*  If they started at the 15 instead would that drop the winning percentage to 50%?  Would it have to move back to the 10?  The 5? 

If you figure out where that line is (if it exists), then you could even eliminate the coach bidding / spotting the ball part.  Just start OT by spotting the ball at the 15/10/5/whatever and flip a coin.  Coin toss winner can take offense or defense.  

* - numbers made up for illustration purposes.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

So how is this any better than the current?  It's the same "issue" just postponed one possession each.  The same situation that is being complained about can happen.  Eventually one team will have the offensive possession once more time than the other team.  If you are complaining about the current rules and don't complain about this you are being somewhat hypocritical.  

in my scenario...

if BUF punts in OT....KC can go score to win

If BUF scores anything...KC has to match it or exceed it on the following possession...if they match, BUF gets the ball back and if they score again, they win, KC doesn't get another crack....so if BUF scored a FG first KC would want to score a TD, not a FG, but could kick a FG, but then have to stop BUF at all costs from scoring on the ensuing possession because at that point it is sudden death...

if BUF scores anything....and KC exceeds it....KC wins...

 

[Rustoleum]

Apologies if this has been covered, but I just came in for the last page or so.

IMO:

Home field should count. Home team picks. No coin flip. Sudden death. Don’t like it? Too bad, should’ve won more regular season games. Regular season counts too, after all.

Crazy hot take: After two possessions, you lose a man on defense every drive until somebody scores.

 

[Gally]

in my scenario...

if BUF punts in OT....KC can go score to win

If BUF scores anything...KC has to match it or exceed it on the following possession...if they match, BUF gets the ball back and if they score again, they win, KC doesn't get another crack....so if BUF scored a FG first KC would want to score a TD, not a FG, but could kick a FG, but then have to stop BUF at all costs from scoring on the ensuing possession because at that point it is sudden death...

if BUF scores anything....and KC exceeds it....KC wins...

I just don't see this as anything appreciably different than the current rules.  It still lends itself to one team getting an "extra" possession..........which seems to be what most people complain about.

I think the rules are fine as is and that this doesn't solve the perceived unfairness that happens now.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I like this, or some variation of it.  Love anything that would add some more strategy / gamemanship to it.  

Any analytics folks have a sense for where you'd have to spot the ball for the decision to play offense or defense to be a proverbial coin flip?  i.e. we know that on average drives start at the 25, and that the team that receives the kickoff in OT wins 60% of the time.*  If they started at the 15 instead would that drop the winning percentage to 50%?  Would it have to move back to the 10?  The 5? 

If you figure out where that line is (if it exists), then you could even eliminate the coach bidding / spotting the ball part.  Just start OT by spotting the ball at the 15/10/5/whatever and flip a coin.  Coin toss winner can take offense or defense.  

* - numbers made up for illustration purposes.

https://pressboxonline.com/2022/01/25/will-ravens-hc-john-harbaughs-spot-and-choose-overtime-idea-get-another-look/#:~:text=In%20those%2011%20games%2C%20the,according%20to%20the%20NFL's%20data.

Some more insight into spot and choose.   Some key stats from the article:

• Since the new OT rule, the team winning the coin toss in the regular season has prevailed 53% of the time
  
• Since the new OT rule, the team winning the coin toss in the playoffs is 10-1.   Seven of those are TDs on the opening drive
  

The larger sample size of regular season results would say that the current system is fair enough.   However, 10-1 with 7-of-11 opening drive td conversion is pretty glaring for the playoffs, even with limited sample size.

Personally, I don't like the idea of a standardized spot.   That 50-50 "sweet spot" should be determined by the collective competence of the offensive and defensive units involved, and the HC's ability to leverage that if they're obligated to spot the ball.   

My guess is for the average NFL regular season game, where a field goal now wins the game outright, the chosen spot is usually somewhere between the 10 and 20-yard line.  When you have two prolific offenses like Chiefs-Bills slugging it out in a playoff game, I think both of those teams gladly take the ball from their 5, the 2, or whatever the farthest spot is allowed.     I'm a broken parrot, but this is why distance to gain should be included in the equation if you're spotting from the farthest distance. 

 

[daveR]

Just curious what the point of "starting at your own 40" would be? College has them start only 25 yards from the goal line, meaning teams start out in FG range to encourage teams getting points on the board.

What happens with teams starting at their own 40? If the team with the ball has a sack and a holding penalty and goes back to their own 20 yard line, what happens next? Do they go for it on 4th and 30 (I would assume yes)? I guess what I'm asking is, for Team #2, do they automatically get the ball at their own 40 yard line no matter what to start their possession? With fixed starting positions, even if the defense did really well and forced a turnover, they would go back to their own 40 to start their possession, right? Why would you want the offense to have to drive 30 yards just to get into scoring position?

To be honest, I didn't think it through.  I don't like starting so close to the goal line in college ball, so I pushed it back.  It might be interesting to play it out, including punting.  (unless the first offense scores which would necessitate the second team getting a possession.) IDK... 

 

[Anarchy99]

https://pressboxonline.com/2022/01/25/will-ravens-hc-john-harbaughs-spot-and-choose-overtime-idea-get-another-look/#:~:text=In%20those%2011%20games%2C%20the,according%20to%20the%20NFL's%20data.

Some more insight into spot and choose.   Some key stats from the article:

• Since the new OT rule, the team winning the coin toss in the regular season has prevailed 53% of the time
  
• Since the new OT rule, the team winning the coin toss in the playoffs is 10-1.   Seven of those are TDs on the opening drive
  

The larger sample size of regular season results would say that the current system is fair enough.   However, 10-1 with 7-of-11 opening drive td conversion is pretty glaring for the playoffs, even with limited sample size.

Personally, I don't like the idea of a standardized spot.   That 50-50 "sweet spot" should be determined by the collective competence of the offensive and defensive units involved, and the HC's ability to leverage that if they're obligated to spot the ball.   

My guess is for the average NFL regular season game, where a field goal now wins the game outright, the chosen spot is usually somewhere between the 10 and 20-yard line.  When you have two prolific offenses like Chiefs-Bills slugging it out in a playoff game, I think both of those teams gladly take the ball from their 5, the 2, or whatever the farthest spot is allowed.     I'm a broken parrot, but this is why distance to gain should be included in the equation if you're spotting from the farthest distance. 

If we flipped a coin and 10 out of 11 times it came up heads, should we consider the probability of the flip being heads to 90%? Should we change the rules of coin toss that 2 out of every 5 times it’s heads we call it tails to make it more even?

All of the OT playoff results are a small sample size with the likelihood of the results getting much closer to even over time. Essentially, the argument has become that OT isn’t always fair and we don’t like the results so we need to change the rules. 

As I already said, I really don’t like the pick the spot and first down distance. Nothing about that resembles traditional football. To me, that’s similar to starting extra innings with a runner on second base. I don’t like that either. 

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

They won an arbitrary event. One that evened the playing field so to speak. The coin toss. It was up to the Gods of Football at that point. The Gods favored KC and and the rest you know.

(Sorry. I don't believe in gods.)

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

If we flipped a coin and 10 out of 11 times it came up heads, should we consider the probability of the flip being heads to 90%? Should we change the rules of coin toss that 2 out of every 5 times it’s heads we call it tails to make it more even?

If that 10-of-11 outcome becomes 15-of-20, 21-of-30, 28-of-40, 34-of-50.... at some point, we would have  statistically significant evidence that suggests that it most definitely matters who wins the coin flip.  That the outcome of the game is no longer a 50-50 (or 54-46 home/away) regardless of who won the coin flip, and that the team that won the coin flip gained a statistically significant advantage, by virtue of a coin flip.   As one might suspect, the significance of a coin flip becomes more crucial as we pit quality NFL playoff teams against each other that are more likely to have strong offenses.   Eleven playoff games isn't statistically significant, but it's getting there.   If you're suggesting that the coin toss had no impact on those games, I would encourage you to flip a coin 11 times and see how many sets of eleven it takes you to get Heads (or even Heads/Tails) 10 or 11 times.    You will get a 10-1 split eventually, but you might be surprised how long it takes you.

I'm not suggesting that the playoff team that wins the toss in the current format will continue to win at a 90.9% clip, but they will win at a rate that's far greater than 50-50 for my personal taste.   

To put it another way, did anyone think the Chiefs were anything less than a 65/35 or even 70/30 at the point that they won the toss?   Would they feel much differently about the Bills' chances if they won the toss?    Even with a perfect storm of the very best offenses that you can find, a coin toss should not have that big of an impact on the outcome of the game.   The performance of the NFL teams should swing that win probability in a format that starts out much closer to a true 50-50, after the coin has been tossed.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

I just don't see this as anything appreciably different than the current rules.  It still lends itself to one team getting an "extra" possession...

One extra possession is fine. That is a natural part of the game. It's a your-turn/my-turn rotation all through the game. The problem is when it gets to the end of the 4th quarter it switches to "Well, maybe it should be your turn, but we're going to flip a coin, and maybe it will be their turn - again." That means someone potentially gets 2 extra possessions.