Overtime Rules - Keep As Is? (1 Viewer)

[Grigs Allmoon]

a coin toss should not have that big of an impact on the outcome of the game. 

 

[Jayded]

I haven’t read the thread, but I’ll throw out an idea I kicked around with friends earlier this week. 

Keep overtime as-is with the current rules. The opportunity exists for the team that doesn’t start with the ball to get a shot as long as they don’t surrender a TD. 

One exception - No coin toss. Visitor starts with the option to receive or kick. 

Why? Home team had 60 minutes of home field advantage and couldn’t put it away. Forget the coin toss and let the visitor pick offense or defense first. Now tell me how the Chiefs play the end of the game since the know the Bills get first decision in OT if it’s tied. 

 

[SoBeDad]

I haven’t read the thread, but I’ll throw out an idea I kicked around with friends earlier this week. 

Keep overtime as-is with the current rules. The opportunity exists for the team that doesn’t start with the ball to get a shot as long as they don’t surrender a TD. 

One exception - No coin toss. Visitor starts with the option to receive or kick. 

Why? Home team had 60 minutes of home field advantage and couldn’t put it away. Forget the coin toss and let the visitor pick offense or defense first. Now tell me how the Chiefs play the end of the game since the know the Bills get first decision in OT if it’s tied. 

The Chiefs only had 13 seconds left from their own 25. They had 2 plays which got them to the BUF 31 for the tying FG. The Chiefs wouldn't have played it differently under your proposed rules. However, those rules would make teams more likely to go for a TD at the end of regulation in some scenarios. It does away with coin toss randomness but penalizes the team that played better in the regular season. I don't think it'll fly.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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?

 

If you believe in "Vegas" / the efficiency of betting markets / wisdom of the crowd / etc., the Chiefs live moneyline odds went from 2.00 (after regulation, but before the OT coin toss) to about 1.50 after they won the coin flip, i.e. the market priced them with a ~65% chance of winning the game as soon as they won the toss.  

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

 

If you believe in "Vegas" / the efficiency of betting markets / wisdom of the crowd / etc., the Chiefs live moneyline odds went from 2.00 (after regulation, but before the OT coin toss) to about 1.50 after they won the coin flip, i.e. the market priced them with a ~65% chance of winning the game as soon as they won the toss.  

That kind of swing should be the result of an opening play 18-yard pass down the seam.   Not a coin flip.

 

[Gally]

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.

Reading this thread it seems many people are not fine with one team getting an extra possession.  That was the crux of the biggest argument in here.  KC got the ball and Buffalo did not. 

Also, it is impossible for someone to get 2 extra possessions over the other team in OT.

 

[Anarchy99]

Reading this thread it seems many people are not fine with one team getting an extra possession.  That was the crux of the biggest argument in here.  KC got the ball and Buffalo did not. 

Also, it is impossible for someone to get 2 extra possessions over the other team in OT.

This situation came up with the Chiefs and Bills. The final possession for KC in regulation was their +1 possession. Then they got the ball back to start OT, which was their +2 possession. That's why people have been saying that a team could end up having two extra possessions.

 

[Gally]

This situation came up with the Chiefs and Bills. The final possession for KC in regulation was their +1 possession. Then they got the ball back to start OT, which was their +2 possession. That's why people have been saying that a team could end up having two extra possessions.

what happens in regulation is irrelevant.  Every game has this disparity.  It's not uncommon and I have never heard anybody argue this was unfair in some way.  It's just the way the game goes.  

All the issues I have read was about Buffalo not getting the ball in OT.  Nothing to do with KC having an extra possession in regulation.  

 

[Jayded]

The Chiefs only had 13 seconds left from their own 25. They had 2 plays which got them to the BUF 31 for the tying FG. The Chiefs wouldn't have played it differently under your proposed rules. However, those rules would make teams more likely to go for a TD at the end of regulation in some scenarios. It does away with coin toss randomness but penalizes the team that played better in the regular season. I don't think it'll fly.

Yeah I should have said more than just the final 13 seconds in consideration for the Chiefs if they knew that was coming. 

If we want to remove some randomness, I didn’t think it fair to give the option to the home team since they already had 60 minutes of advantage. I look at it less as a penalty and more you already had your advantage and now the visitor has the upper hand having held on against the home field advantage for the preceding 60 mins. 

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I haven’t read the thread, but I’ll throw out an idea I kicked around with friends earlier this week. 

Keep overtime as-is with the current rules. The opportunity exists for the team that doesn’t start with the ball to get a shot as long as they don’t surrender a TD. 

One exception - No coin toss. Visitor starts with the option to receive or kick. 

Why? Home team had 60 minutes of home field advantage and couldn’t put it away. Forget the coin toss and let the visitor pick offense or defense first. Now tell me how the Chiefs play the end of the game since the know the Bills get first decision in OT if it’s tied. 

Funny, I've discussed the same scenario except the home team gets the option. Home field advantage, and everyone knows what it is before the game. 

I think they can eliminate the coin toss altogether and just give the home team the option, whether it's the start of the game or OT. 

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

The idea I've had for many years is instead of a traditional sudden death, or the current "unless the receiving team scores a TD" is to just make the rule that you have to have the lead and the ball to end the game.

I do get the safety argument, and we don't want players playing an extra 20 minutes of football, but for the playoffs, at least, I'd rather be fair.

This seems like a fair idea. 

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Funny, I've discussed the same scenario except the home team gets the option. Home field advantage, and everyone knows what it is before the game. 

I think they can eliminate the coin toss altogether and just give the home team the option, whether it's the start of the game or OT. 

I would prefer either "no coin flip and the home team gets option", or "no coin flip and the visiting team gets option" over the current system.

 

[renesauz]

No major changes needed. Statistics PROVE the system fair as is. Team winning the toss wins in the 50% range now.

Buffalo didnt lose because of a coin toss. THIRTEEN SECONDS FROM THE 25!?

No way that game should have ever seen OT

 

[Jayded]

Funny, I've discussed the same scenario except the home team gets the option. Home field advantage, and everyone knows what it is before the game. 

I think they can eliminate the coin toss altogether and just give the home team the option, whether it's the start of the game or OT. 

Home team advantage is too much doubling down on their advantage IMO. If you want a more "fair" option but also with no chance-like selection that a coin toss is, you tell both teams that in the event of a tie that the home team still has the home field advantage as the location hasn't changed, but they've also used that for the preceding 60 minutes. Since the home team couldn't close it out, now the visitor gets a more even advantage since they still have to battle the home team and crowd.

Heck, give the home team the initial advantage with no coin toss to start the game is also fine in this scenario. You know going in unless you are a defense-first led team that the home team will likely want the ball first in the second half. Then if you still get to OT, give the visitor the selection since the home team effectively blew their advantages up until that point.

 

[SoBeDad]

No major changes needed. Statistics PROVE the system fair as is. Team winning the toss wins in the 50% range now.

Buffalo didnt lose because of a coin toss. THIRTEEN SECONDS FROM THE 25!?

No way that game should have ever seen OT

The TV announcers called a better defense than Frazier. No way should Kelce get a free release not once, but twice at key moments.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Buffalo didnt lose because of a coin toss. THIRTEEN SECONDS FROM THE 25!?

No way that game should have ever seen OT

That's 100% beside the point, but whatever...

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

No major changes needed. Statistics PROVE the system fair as is. Team winning the toss wins in the 50% range now.

Does anyone have a way to cite any of these statistics? In this very thread I've seen claims of anywhere from 50% to 90% that the team that wins the OT coin toss wins the game.

 

[Anarchy99]

Does anyone have a way to cite any of these statistics? In this very thread I've seen claims of anywhere from 50% to 90% that the team that wins the OT coin toss wins the game.

IIRC, the team that wins the coin toss wins at a rate of 56% in the regular season. Since the latest first drive wins with a TD rule, the team that won the coin toss has won 10 of 11 games. I think the winning team scored a first drive TD in 7 of those. 

 

[DropKick]

I haven’t read the thread, but I’ll throw out an idea I kicked around with friends earlier this week. 

Keep overtime as-is with the current rules. The opportunity exists for the team that doesn’t start with the ball to get a shot as long as they don’t surrender a TD. 

One exception - No coin toss. Visitor starts with the option to receive or kick. 

Why? Home team had 60 minutes of home field advantage and couldn’t put it away. Forget the coin toss and let the visitor pick offense or defense first. Now tell me how the Chiefs play the end of the game since the know the Bills get first decision in OT if it’s tied. 

Disagree with this premise.  Neither team could win in regulation.  At least a coin toss is random.

I have zero issue with OT rules.  Bills defense lost the game for them... twice.

And I don't mean to dump on the Bills.  That was a fantastic game.

 

[Jayded]

Disagree with this premise.  Neither team could win in regulation.  At least a coin toss is random.

I have zero issue with OT rules.  Bills defense lost the game for them... twice.

And I don't mean to dump on the Bills.  That was a fantastic game.

The home team had the advantage already is the main point. In the NFL I believe that has equated to 2-2.5 point advantage from recollection. So yes, the home team effectively blew an advantage in regulation. Make them squirm for the OT outcome forthcoming. 

What I dislike most about the coin toss is end of regulation can far too often have coaches sitting on it and playing for a tie to go to OT. Make them rue it in some fashion to largely discourage OT. Forget the OT rules momentarily and find a way to strongly encourage games to end in regulation. 

 

[Catbird]

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.  

First, it retains the excitement of the last few moments of regulation. Then, each team gets a possession in overtime. That doesn't happen now. Unless the first team scores a TD and 2 point conversion, the second team can win or lose on its possession. At that point teams and fans are likely pretty tired. The teams have each had a possession and whoever then scores wins. Much fairer if each team gets a possession than if only 1 does?

 

[Gally]

First, it retains the excitement of the last few moments of regulation. Then, each team gets a possession in overtime. That doesn't happen now. Unless the first team scores a TD and 2 point conversion, the second team can win or lose on its possession. At that point teams and fans are likely pretty tired. The teams have each had a possession and whoever then scores wins. Much fairer if each team gets a possession than if only 1 does?

So wouldn't giving each team two possessions be even that much more fair?  Or Three or X possessions.  You can't argue it being unfair that a team gets more possessions than the other and then just postpone that one possession and have it now be magically fair.  The premise of the unfairness is the same.  One team got possession in OT more times than the other.  

 

[Catbird]

To me, having the guarantee of 1 possession each means both teams had the chance to win (except in the rare circumstance that the other  team scores a TD and then successfully goes for 2 - in which either can at least be tied and go forward). With no numbers to rely on, I would guess that at least one team will typically score in about 2/3 of all overtimes. If so, I imagine over half of overtimes will be decided in the first 2 possessions.

To me, all of those games will have been decided more fairly than if only 1 team had the ball. How far you drag out the number of equal possessions is a balance of fairness and length of time spent. I am satisfied that if both teams had the ball in overtime and after those possessions the next score wins, both teams had a fair enough chance. As I mentioned before, the second team has an advantage if both teams possess once, in knowing what they need to do to tie or win. The first team is pressured to score a TD because if they don't, the other team may and win. If the first possessing team scores 3, the second team knows they can win with any TD or still tie with a kick. That helps balance out the advantage of being the first team to have 2 possessions. For all these reasons I think it is significantly more fair to give each team a guaranteed possession than to have the current rule.

But I totally get your point that if total possessions is the only way to make it fair they should have no game end except upon equal possessions - I just think it would take too long, be cumbersome and a first possession each is a sufficient equalizer.

 

[renesauz]

To me, having the guarantee of 1 possession each means both teams had the chance to win (except in the rare circumstance that the other  team scores a TD and then successfully goes for 2 - in which either can at least be tied and go forward). With no numbers to rely on, I would guess that at least one team will typically score in about 2/3 of all overtimes. If so, I imagine over half of overtimes will be decided in the first 2 possessions.

To me, all of those games will have been decided more fairly than if only 1 team had the ball. How far you drag out the number of equal possessions is a balance of fairness and length of time spent. I am satisfied that if both teams had the ball in overtime and after those possessions the next score wins, both teams had a fair enough chance. As I mentioned before, the second team has an advantage if both teams possess once, in knowing what they need to do to tie or win. The first team is pressured to score a TD because if they don't, the other team may and win. If the first possessing team scores 3, the second team knows they can win with any TD or still tie with a kick. That helps balance out the advantage of being the first team to have 2 possessions. For all these reasons I think it is significantly more fair to give each team a guaranteed possession than to have the current rule.

But I totally get your point that if total possessions is the only way to make it fair they should have no game end except upon equal possessions - I just think it would take too long, be cumbersome and a first possession each is a sufficient equalizer.

They just had 60 MINUTES  as an equalizer. There is no end to this line of thinking.

I was 100% on board with the change from sudden death to the current system where a FG on the first possession of OT doesn't end things. People wanted to see Buffalo with the ball again....I get it...but changing rules that work based on arguments that have NO LOGICAL ENDPOINT is silly. The current OT works, and works well. The NFL has plenty of far more broken fine popints to argue about (like that stupid fumble through the endzone is a touchback, but you keep it if it goes out at the 6 inch line...NOWHERE else on the field does the other team get the ball without actually, you know....GETTING THE BALL!)

 

[Stinkin Ref]

They just had 60 MINUTES  as an equalizer. There is no end to this line of thinking.

I was 100% on board with the change from sudden death to the current system where a FG on the first possession of OT doesn't end things. People wanted to see Buffalo with the ball again....I get it...but changing rules that work based on arguments that have NO LOGICAL ENDPOINT is silly. The current OT works, and works well. The NFL has plenty of far more broken fine popints to argue about (like that stupid fumble through the endzone is a touchback, but you keep it if it goes out at the 6 inch line...NOWHERE else on the field does the other team get the ball without actually, you know....GETTING THE BALL!)

the end zone is a totally different animal....I don’t know why people have such a hard time understanding that....

 

[ekbeats]

Go the college football route.  It's exciting and fair.  It really isn't that hard.

 

[Catbird]

So, flip a coin and winner wins - fairest of all?

 

[renesauz]

the end zone is a totally different animal....I don’t know why people have such a hard time understanding that....

WHY is the end zone a different animal? Possession rules should differ because a ball crosses out at the 1 yard line as opposed to crossing out at the -1 yard line......that's just dumb IMHO

 

[renesauz]

Go the college football route.  It's exciting and fair.  It really isn't that hard.

college rules are awful...and would be disastrous for fantasy. A Rb goes from 1 TD to 4 with OT. AWFUL inflated scores all the time.

DEFENSE is a big part of football....why does every rule change have to make it harder for the defense???

 

[ekbeats]

college rules are awful...and would be disastrous for fantasy. A Rb goes from 1 TD to 4 with OT. AWFUL inflated scores all the time.

DEFENSE is a big part of football....why does every rule change have to make it harder for the defense???

I agree it would screw up fantasy. Of course you could always exclude fantasy points in OT.

 

[SoBeDad]

OMG

The team that lost the toss made a defensive stop and can win the game with a FG.

Thats how its done, Bills fans. You make a stop and give yourself a chance.

Look how the rules favor Bengals now, lets change them since Chiefs fans might be bummed now.

Exactly. I thinks it's time for a new poll.

 

[DropKick]

So, flip a coin and winner wins - fairest of all?

Are we having a "dumb answer" contest?

 

[wlwiles]

This thread become awfully silent. You mean after a game like that, we have so much silence?

Trying to change the rules cuz your team loses is bad sportsmanship, period. Period. Period. 

This game is proof anyone who wanted to change the rules last week are people who should never have their opinion considered for even where to take your dog to take a #2.

We would have missed out on that great ending if people went to college rules. 

Tell us how you really feel...

The thread is silent because OT this week worked how the "change the rules" side want - each team had to play offense and defense.  Cincy defense stopped KC, then they scored.  Doesn't mean that all of a sudden there's no gripe with the rules.  

We've had 8 pages now of two groups going around in circles. One group says "fine as is, if you want the ball then stop the other team or take it away", and the other group says "each team should have to play O and D, bc a TD on the first drive means half the players in the game never step foot on the field in OT".   Both groups are satisfied today, but for different reasons.  Doesn't change anyone's mind on whether the rule should be tweaked or not though. 

 

[Sam Quentin]

Go the college football route.  It's exciting and fair.  It really isn't that hard.

It’s not really football…

It’s like settling a baseball game with a HR derby or a basketball game with a game of H.O.R.S.E. 

 

[Stinkin Ref]

WHY is the end zone a different animal? Possession rules should differ because a ball crosses out at the 1 yard line as opposed to crossing out at the -1 yard line......that's just dumb IMHO

lot of things are different when they happen in the end zone....touchbacks, getting tackled in there, getting  a holding penalty in there, intentional grounding while in there, etc....the fumble through and out of the end zone is just another one....basis for a lot of it has to do with if its not ruled on the way it is now, there would be more reason to intentionally fumble the ball forward into and out of the end zone...as you head to the pylon, you would literally have zero reason not to protect the ball and try to "go for it" even if it meant you lost control on purpose...and the ref would have to wonder if you did it on purpose at all, cause thats a different ruling (return to spot of fumble, etc) ....they have made some rules about fumbling forward (intentionally) ever since we had the holy roller, etc....if you "fumble" the ball through the end zone there has to be a penalty/consequence of some sort....you can't just keep doing it over and over and keep getting it back at the one inch line or something....but again we are talking into and then out of the end zone, not just into the end zone...

 

[Tanner9919]

why can't they just play a 5th quarter, and then a 6th if necessary. 

I dont get the each team gets 1 possession unless the first team to have the ball scores a TD..

Just play a full 15 min quarter , and if need be, another one..why does everyone act like they have a turkey in the oven and have to get back home before it's burnt and dry? just play on.baseball goes to infinite innings till we have a winner right? why can't you do that with football.same with basketball you get OTs until someone wins it.

the mandatory possession nonsense is comical.

but, teams should do more in the 60 mins of regulation to win games, just sayin..lol

 

[Stinkin Ref]

why can't they just play a 5th quarter, and then a 6th if necessary. 

I dont get the each team gets 1 possession unless the first team to have the ball scores a TD..

Just play a full 15 min quarter , and if need be, another one..why does everyone act like they have a turkey in the oven and have to get back home before it's burnt and dry? just play on.baseball goes to infinite innings till we have a winner right? why can't you do that with football.same with basketball you get OTs until someone wins it.

the mandatory possession nonsense is comical.

but, teams should do more in the 60 mins of regulation to win games, just sayin..lol

Injuries/ safety....more game time means more injuries...the NFL and then players union don’t want more time for injuries...they already shortened it from 15 to 10 because of this...(and players don’t get paid OT)...

 

[titusbramble]

I'd be fine with eliminating OT from the regular season and then just having additional 15 minute quarters played in full in the playoffs. Then again I'm from Europe so don't care if a game ends in a tie

 

[Gally]

I'd be fine with eliminating OT from the regular season and then just having additional 15 minute quarters played in full in the playoffs. Then again I'm from Europe so don't care if a game ends in a tie

Lotta sister kissing in Europe?  hahahahah

 

[wlwiles]

Injuries/ safety....more game time means more injuries...the NFL and then players union don’t want more time for injuries...they already shortened it from 15 to 10 because of this...(and players don’t get paid OT)...

My gut reaction to this is.......baloney.  If they were so worried about player safety they wouldn't have added a 17th game this season. 

But, I realize there's likely a higher risk of injury if you're playing a 5th quarter at the end of a game, vs. a fresh quarter on a different week.  

Still though, do away with OT completely in the regular season, and play a full quarter (or two) if needed in the playoffs.  Just being the playoffs means only 14/32 teams would ever potentially play any OT at all.  

 

[Stinkin Ref]

My gut reaction to this is.......baloney.  If they were so worried about player safety they wouldn't have added a 17th game this season. 

But, I realize there's likely a higher risk of injury if you're playing a 5th quarter at the end of a game, vs. a fresh quarter on a different week.  

Still though, do away with OT completely in the regular season, and play a full quarter (or two) if needed in the playoffs.  Just being the playoffs means only 14/32 teams would ever potentially play any OT at all.  

can feel however we want to about it, but that is the reason it went from 15 to 10...

personally I hate ties in the regular season....and I think if you don't have OT you will see a lot more of them....not sure this year how many games went to OT.....but imagine it was a good amount....imagine if all of those were ties....I realize some of the games may have ended differently if they knew there was no OT, but not sure...that would be a lot of ties to sift through and then we start talking about going deeper down the rabbit hole of "tiebreakers" when it comes to playoffs.....I prefer to keep that as clean as possible...

 

[Anarchy99]

can feel however we want to about it, but that is the reason it went from 15 to 10...

personally I hate ties in the regular season....and I think if you don't have OT you will see a lot more of them....not sure this year how many games went to OT.....but imagine it was a good amount....imagine if all of those were ties....I realize some of the games may have ended differently if they knew there was no OT, but not sure...that would be a lot of ties to sift through and then we start talking about going deeper down the rabbit hole of "tiebreakers" when it comes to playoffs.....I prefer to keep that as clean as possible...

I checked this year's result, and 20 games went to OT. Hard to project if teams would play differently knowing that a tie would be the conclusion to the game vs. going to OT. Looking back at years before there was overtime, there were 9 ties in 182 games in 1970. The season now has a total of 272 games (50% more games). I agree that the number of ties should there no longer be OT would likely be onerous and the league would not entertain dumping overtime altogether.

 

[DropKick]

My gut reaction to this is.......baloney.  If they were so worried about player safety they wouldn't have added a 17th game this season. 

I really think you're underestimating how these guys feel after playing NFL football for 60 minutes.

 

[Anarchy99]

New rule for both teams to get a possession in OT passed for post season games only. 

 

[Stinkin Ref]

hope it is what I said above....each team gets a possession and then if still tied it goes to sudden death...

 

[Gally]

hope it is what I said above....each team gets a possession and then if still tied it goes to sudden death...

I still don't understand how that is different.  Still has the opportunity for one team to get the ball more than the other.  Isn't that argument with the rules from last year?  This doesn't change that. 

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I still don't understand how that is different.  Still has the opportunity for one team to get the ball more than the other.  Isn't that argument with the rules from last year?  This doesn't change that. 

nope....if it is still tied after each team gets a possession you go to sudden death....the team that has the ball second will know what they need to do....FG...TD+1... or TD+2....if the team that gets the ball first scores a TD+1....the second team knows they have to get a TD+2 or might lose on next possession....

the second team has their chance to one up the other team unless they both go for two and succeed...then at that point it becomes sudden death and so be it....you have to stop them the second time...

it actually puts some heat on the first team with the ball, because they know if they don't get a TD and a 2 point conversion, the other team can one up them....

 

[Gally]

nope....if it is still tied after each team gets a possession you go to sudden death....the team that has the ball second will know what they need to do....FG...TD+1... or TD+2....if the team that gets the ball first scores a TD+1....the second team knows they have to get a TD+2 or might lose on next possession....

the second team has their chance to one up the other team unless they both go for two and succeed...then at that point it becomes sudden death and so be it....you have to stop them the second time...

it actually puts some heat on the first team with the ball, because they know if they don't get a TD and a 2 point conversion, the other team can one up them....

I get what you are saying but the biggest complaint from most people has been that one team gets the ball more than other.  The nuance of going for two or not or kicking a FG or not really isn't what most complained about.  This does nothing to change that complaint.  It is just postponing the inevitable.  

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I get what you are saying but the biggest complaint from most people has been that one team gets the ball more than other.  The nuance of going for two or not or kicking a FG or not really isn't what most complained about.  This does nothing to change that complaint.  It is just postponing the inevitable.  

there is nothing in regulation that guarantees each team having the same amount of possessions....

but I can see why in OT they should at least have one....

if the team that loses the coin toss can't stop the other team from scoring on two possessions....then that is just the breaks of losing the toss....and too bad your defense couldn't get a stop...(heck the 85 Bears might have chosen to kick in OT so their offense could get better field position)....

the problem is the NFL just can't keep going and going like many other sports....at some point the "fairness" would have to take a back seat as far as possessions go....

and I do think there is some merit in the statement that the NFL has kind of created this monster with all the rules favoring the offense and the way the game is officiated...and the way drives are extended with automatic first downs and what not....if it wasn't so slanted towards the offense in todays game, we might not be having this discussion....

 

[Gally]

there is nothing in regulation that guarantees each team having the same amount of possessions....

but I can see why in OT they should at least have one....

if the team that loses the coin toss can't stop the other team from scoring on two possessions....then that is just the breaks of losing the toss....and too bad your defense couldn't get a stop...(heck the 85 Bears might have chosen to kick in OT so their offense could get better field position)....

the problem is the NFL just can't keep going and going like many other sports....at some point the "fairness" would have to take a back seat as far as possessions go....

and I do think there is some merit in the statement that the NFL has kind of created this monster with all the rules favoring the offense and the way the game is officiated...and the way drives are extended with automatic first downs and what not....if it wasn't so slanted towards the offense in todays game, we might not be having this discussion....

I am not one of the people complaining about the current rules.  I think they are fine.  I just don't think giving each team one possession solves or changes anything than what it is now.  It is just extending the inevitable of people complaining that one team got the ball more than the other.  

I would want it just to remain as is.  Although I don't have an issue with going a set time (10 minutes) either.  I just think this change does really nothing meaningful in the grand scheme of things.