Overtime Rules (1 Viewer)

[Islander]

The problem with the current OT rules is that the team that wins the coin toss before OT has a much greater chance of winning the game. So you introduce a luck element that should not be there. I thought after the Colts-Chargers playoff game the league would change the rule, but not so. I guess it will have to happen in the SB some day before it's changed.

I understand if the NFL does not want to adopt the college football format.

But what about an alternative where each team has about 50% chance of winning? That means whether you win the coin toss or not, it does not make a big difference. You pick your favored option and maybe it makes a difference of 49% chance of winning vs 51% chance of winning or so.

For example, the rule could be that instead of having a kickoff, you just start with the ball on your 20 yard line. I don't know what the probability of winning for each team would be in such scenario, but I am sure it could be estimated. If a team starting with the ball at their 20 has significantly more than 50% chance of winning, then just make the rule such that you start at your 15.

Then the team that wins the coin toss decides whether they want to start at their 15 with the ball or play defense and hope to stop the opponent at their 15 and take over after a punt at midfield. Either way it's probably close to 50/50.

I just don't like to see any coin-toss related luck to play an important role in some NFL games if it can be avoided.

Comments on my humble proposal?

 

[Big 'N Tasty]

The problem with the current OT rules is that the team that wins the coin toss before OT has a much greater chance of winning the game. So you introduce a luck element that should not be there. I thought after the Colts-Chargers playoff game the league would change the rule, but not so. I guess it will have to happen in the SB some day before it's changed. I understand if the NFL does not want to adopt the college football format. But what about an alternative where each team has about 50% chance of winning? That means whether you win the coin toss or not, it does not make a big difference. You pick your favored option and maybe it makes a difference of 49% chance of winning vs 51% chance of winning or so. For example, the rule could be that instead of having a kickoff, you just start with the ball on your 20 yard line. I don't know what the probability of winning for each team would be in such scenario, but I am sure it could be estimated. If a team starting with the ball at their 20 has significantly more than 50% chance of winning, then just make the rule such that you start at your 15. Then the team that wins the coin toss decides whether they want to start at their 15 with the ball or play defense and hope to stop the opponent at their 15 and take over after a punt at midfield. Either way it's probably close to 50/50.I just don't like to see any coin-toss related luck to play an important role in some NFL games if it can be avoided. Comments on my humble proposal?

Before regulation kickoff of any game, is there a 50/50 chance of either team winning? No, so why do we have to have a 50/50 chance of either team winning in OT?

 

[David Yudkin]

The problem with the current OT rules is that the team that wins the coin toss before OT has a much greater chance of winning the game.

I believe the last stats I saw was that the team winning the coin toss lost more than they won overall . . . or at the very least only scored on a small fraction of the time (like 30%) on their first drive. However, when that team does drive and win on the only possession of OT everyone goes nuts because of it.

 

[nittanylion]

Count me in the minority who LOVES the NCAA Overtime Format.

I think it's a shame that the NFL is hesitant to adopt this. Any serious Fantasy Player loves the idea of any format that generates more stats.

I'd be amenable to a format where the Teams play a full quarter of football, fwiw.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The problem with the current OT rules is that the team that wins the coin toss before OT has a much greater chance of winning the game.

I believe the last stats I saw was that the team winning the coin toss lost more than they won overall . . . or at the very least only scored on a small fraction of the time (like 30%) on their first drive. However, when that team does drive and win on the only possession of OT everyone goes nuts because of it.

Not anymore. Since the NFL moved the kickoff back from the 35 to the 30, and FG kickers have become much more accurate, this is no longer the case. The receiving team will, on average, have the ball at the 27 and have a kicker that will make five out of every six kicks. That's much different than having the ball at the 22 and a kicker that will make three out of every four kicks.There's no doubt that the team receiving the ball in OT has a nice edge. I'm all for moving the kickoff ahead from the 30 to the 35 for OT only, and also for narrowing the goal posts. This would: 1) make FGs less likely in general (a good thing); 2) still have O, D and ST in OT; and 3) have the coin toss loser have pretty close to a 50% chance of winning in OT.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The problem with the current OT rules is that the team that wins the coin toss before OT has a much greater chance of winning the game.

I believe the last stats I saw was that the team winning the coin toss lost more than they won overall . . . or at the very least only scored on a small fraction of the time (like 30%) on their first drive. However, when that team does drive and win on the only possession of OT everyone goes nuts because of it.

It looks like since 1994 (when kickoffs were moved back to the 30), the team winning the coin toss in OT wins the game 60% of the time.I don't know about the reliability of these sites, but it seems that pretty much every site is claiming the same number.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/10/ho...flip-in-ot.html

http://www.sportsbubbler.com/DisplayTopic.aspx?topicID=3011

 

[David Yudkin]

The problem with the current OT rules is that the team that wins the coin toss before OT has a much greater chance of winning the game.

I believe the last stats I saw was that the team winning the coin toss lost more than they won overall . . . or at the very least only scored on a small fraction of the time (like 30%) on their first drive. However, when that team does drive and win on the only possession of OT everyone goes nuts because of it.

Not anymore. Since the NFL moved the kickoff back from the 35 to the 30, and FG kickers have become much more accurate, this is no longer the case. The receiving team will, on average, have the ball at the 27 and have a kicker that will make five out of every six kicks. That's much different than having the ball at the 22 and a kicker that will make three out of every four kicks.There's no doubt that the team receiving the ball in OT has a nice edge. I'm all for moving the kickoff ahead from the 30 to the 35 for OT only, and also for narrowing the goal posts. This would: 1) make FGs less likely in general (a good thing); 2) still have O, D and ST in OT; and 3) have the coin toss loser have pretty close to a 50% chance of winning in OT.

For those that missed it, I'm on record for playing overtime with normal rules but play a full period, no sudden death, game ends as a tie if it's still tied.With teams getting roughly 5 yards of better starting field position and as you said a 10% increase in FG accuracy, I wonder if that is enough on its own to dramatically change the percentage of winning with the ball to start OT. While kickers made 85% of their kicks last year, I wonder how well they did at longer range kicks (say 40 to 50 yards). I'm too lazy to look it up, but I doubt their accuracy overall was 85% at that range . . .

 

[David Yudkin]

The problem with the current OT rules is that the team that wins the coin toss before OT has a much greater chance of winning the game.

I believe the last stats I saw was that the team winning the coin toss lost more than they won overall . . . or at the very least only scored on a small fraction of the time (like 30%) on their first drive. However, when that team does drive and win on the only possession of OT everyone goes nuts because of it.

It looks like since 1994 (when kickoffs were moved back to the 30), the team winning the coin toss in OT wins the game 60% of the time.I don't know about the reliability of these sites, but it seems that pretty much every site is claiming the same number.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/10/ho...flip-in-ot.html

http://www.sportsbubbler.com/DisplayTopic.aspx?topicID=3011

I guess the set of stats that I had didn't factor out the change from the 35 to the 30, as the numbers must have been overall OT stats the winning % was like 52%.

 

[BLOX]

The way I look at it is these guys are athletes.

Syracuse had to go 6OTs to win. Miami had to go 3OTs.

Sure there's a risk of injury, but when is there not.

No ties, just add an additional 10 or 12 minute quarter. At the end who's ahead wins. If there's a tie, keep going.

Doesn't take away from offense, defense or special teams. Argument would be that the team would be much more tired or whatever for the next game, but if you want to avoid that you should have won the game in regulation.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

from a recent blog post by Milwaukee sportswriter Tom Silverstein:

Some interesting numbers about OT games

By Tom Silverstein of the Journal Sentinel

Mar. 18, 2009

The NFL's competition committee had its annual meeting recently in Naples, Fla. and one of the big topics of discussion was sudden death overtime.

There are teams who feel that the current format punishes teams that lose the coin flip before the start of overtime. Since it's first team to score, it's logical that the team that wins the coin flip has a better shot at winning the game.

Those in favor of the sudden death format say that defense is equally as important as offense, so if you're the better team your defense should be able to stop the opponent's offense if you lose the coin flip.

There isn't enough dispute with the current system, so the committee will not be proposing a change to the format at the owners meetings in Dana Point, Calif., next week. But it did release some numbers on overtime that were interesting.

For instance:

Since 1974, when sudden death was introduced, there have been 432 overtime games in the regular season.

The percent of overtime games in which both teams had at least one possession is 69.9.

The percent of times the team which won the toss drove for the winning score on its first possession was 30.1.

Overall, teams that won the overtime toss - regardless of whether they scored on their first possession or not -- have won the game 53.7% of the time. In 2008, the percentage was 66.7.

Overall, teams that lost the toss won the game 42.4% of the time. In 2008, that number was 26.7%

Games have ended in ties 17 times or 3.9% of the time.

The average length of the game-winning field goal in overtime in 2008 was 37 yards.

Players overwhelmingly were against changing the rules, which is the main reason a proposal to change it won't make it to the owners next week.

The competition committee also plans to propose that anytime a quarterback loses the ball during a passing motion it is reviewable by instant replay. Currently, if the officials rule that it was a forward pass and the whistle blows, the play is dead and not reviewable.

As many people remember, that's what happened at the end of the Denver-San Diego game. Referee Ed Hochuli ruled that Jay Cutler's arm was in motion when he lost the ball. Replays showed that it was clearly a fumble, but San Diego could not challenge the call.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/41457412.html

 

[Adebisi]

I'm fine with the way it is now, but admit that it's definitely not perfect.

How about once it goes to OT, the first team to be up by 4 wins the game?

Two field goals, or a touchdown, while holding the other team scoreless would do it, or a touchdown versus another team's field goal would do it. If you can do any of these things, I think you deserve to win.

ETA: No game clock in OT; 1 or zero timeouts per side.

 

[DropKick]

I prefer the existing rules. However, I could see the team winning the toss opting to start at their own 20 or defending and letting the other team take the ball. A team would have to drive about 50 yards for a long attempt.

Any option with a potentially looooong game will never fly. The season is already a war of attrition.

Narrow goal posts is interesting. Or they could widen the hash marks and create the potential for a more difficult angle.

I doubt they'll modify the rules per the below quote. The relevant issue is the whistle blowing and the players reaction to it. The only solution is for the officials to hold up on the whistle.

"The competition committee also plans to propose that anytime a quarterback loses the ball during a passing motion it is reviewable by instant replay. Currently, if the officials rule that it was a forward pass and the whistle blows, the play is dead and not reviewable.

As many people remember, that's what happened at the end of the Denver-San Diego game. Referee Ed Hochuli ruled that Jay Cutler's arm was in motion when he lost the ball. Replays showed that it was clearly a fumble, but San Diego could not challenge the call."

 

[Adebisi]

Narrow goal posts is interesting. Or they could widen the hash marks and create the potential for a more difficult angle.

These are both ridiculous and unreasonable soluiions.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

I like the college option, but it's a little gimmicky.

Just go with 1 extra quarter of play.

If it's a tie after 5 quarters, then it's a tie.

 

[Bri]

60-40 with the coin toss "deciding it" is as close as they'll get to 50/50.

On the radio the other day they said the notion that the ref will flip the coin to heads is 70-something % accurate in last X years.(Sorry didn't hear it clearly, I'd guess 74 and last ten)

The point was that if you don't fix the coin flip(which can't be fixed) this stuff won't matter. It puts alot in perspective.

Two suggestions I liked:

NFL should threaten to just end games in ties and watch everyone be OK with current system.

No FGs in overtime.(Really like this one)

 

[Bandit]

I can't remember where I heard this idea, but the OT idea I like the best is to simply continue the game where it left off at the end of the 4th quarter. Instead of being like the end the 2nd quarter, the end of the 4th quarter would the same as the end of the 1st or 3rd quarter--a TV timeout, switch directions and keep playing, with the first team that scores winning.

 

[zed2283]

Count me in the minority who LOVES the NCAA Overtime Format.I think it's a shame that the NFL is hesitant to adopt this. Any serious Fantasy Player loves the idea of any format that generates more stats.I'd be amenable to a format where the Teams play a full quarter of football, fwiw.

REAL football is not the same as FANTASY football. And it would be a shame if REAL football adopted this stupid format.

 

[Bri]

I can't remember where I heard this idea, but the OT idea I like the best is to simply continue the game where it left off at the end of the 4th quarter. Instead of being like the end the 2nd quarter, the end of the 4th quarter would the same as the end of the 1st or 3rd quarter--a TV timeout, switch directions and keep playing, with the first team that scores winning.

that would remove the urgency of the "two minute drill"

 

[DropKick]

Narrow goal posts is interesting. Or they could widen the hash marks and create the potential for a more difficult angle.

These are both ridiculous and unreasonable soluiions.

Are we just cranky today? No one quantified the reduction in goal posts. Although it seems radical, baseball has raised/lowered the pitching mound and introduced the DH, among other things. I'm sure these were considered extreme changes by many at the time.College uses wider hash marks. The NFL kick is almost always dead-on. Not sure this qualifies as ridiculous or unreasonable.