Owners, players resist change to OT (1 Viewer)

[Klimtology]

By John Clayton

ESPN.com

Archive

Wednesday's revelation that the NFL isn't changing its overtime rules shouldn't come as a surprise.

Change is difficult in the NFL. It took years of campaigning by Lamar Hunt before the two-point conversion was added. Traditionalists were resistant to instant replay and fought its acceptance for years. And then the league went as far as voting out replay officiating, forcing supporters to scramble to get it back into the game.

While there might be a time when owners, coaches and players will embrace minor modifications to the overtime rule, there is no sentiment now to go to a two-possession overtime. The fear of injuries and concerns about ties influence the NFL's reluctance to embrace a change that many fans are pushing for. Fans don't want games decided by a coin toss, and last season 46.7 percent of overtime games were decided on the possession after the coin toss.

Yet the two-possession concept flatlined in surveys of coaches and general managers. It failed in discussions with key players on advisory committees, as the players were worried about injuries. More than anything, though, players and coaches just don't think the overtime rule is broken.

You can almost hear a collective sigh of irritation among a large segment of fans. The overtime debate grows more passionate, and those who support change grow angrier. Many want two possessions, some want the college overtime rule, and I'm sure many consider the competition committee's no-change position an outrage.

In the end, though, fans have to recognize that the NFL game isn't broken. The current overtime system was created to minimize the chances of ties and, since the rule was implemented in 1974, the NFL has had only 17 ties in 432 overtime games (3.9 percent).

Continued...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=3995944

 

[Chase Stuart]

Compared to other sports leagues, I think the NFL has been very open to change. They realign the divisions or change the playoff structure dramatically every five or so years. They always tinker with the schedule format. They make significant rule changes frequently.

The biggest problem with OT is I don't know if there will ever be a consensus. If you asked 32 owners should we change OT, you might get 25 yays but you might get 25 different plans. This is the same thing with college football's ranking of a national champion. Everyone knows it isn't very good, but there's not even close to a majority that agree on what the change should be.

The NFL will get this right eventually, though. It might take awhile, and it might take an OT that bothers people in the SB, but it will happen. Personally, I'd be just as happy with games ending as ties after regulation than the current OT. And while I think the current OT isn't very smart, I don't think it's terrible, either.

 

[puckalicious]

Compared to other sports leagues, I think the NFL has been very open to change. They realign the divisions or change the playoff structure dramatically every five or so years. They always tinker with the schedule format. They make significant rule changes frequently.

The biggest problem with OT is I don't know if there will ever be a consensus. If you asked 32 owners should we change OT, you might get 25 yays but you might get 25 different plans. This is the same thing with college football's ranking of a national champion. Everyone knows it isn't very good, but there's not even close to a majority that agree on what the change should be.

The NFL will get this right eventually, though. It might take awhile, and it might take an OT that bothers people in the SB, but it will happen. Personally, I'd be just as happy with games ending as ties after regulation than the current OT. And while I think the current OT isn't very smart, I don't think it's terrible, either.

It seems like the key takeaway here is that the NFL doesn't see anything wrong with OT, therefore it doesn't seem likely the NFL even understands there is something to 'right'.I agree that OT isn't even needed in the regular season.

 

[Christo]

Compared to other sports leagues, I think the NFL has been very open to change. They realign the divisions or change the playoff structure dramatically every five or so years. They always tinker with the schedule format. They make significant rule changes frequently.

The biggest problem with OT is I don't know if there will ever be a consensus. If you asked 32 owners should we change OT, you might get 25 yays but you might get 25 different plans. This is the same thing with college football's ranking of a national champion. Everyone knows it isn't very good, but there's not even close to a majority that agree on what the change should be.

The NFL will get this right eventually, though. It might take awhile, and it might take an OT that bothers people in the SB, but it will happen. Personally, I'd be just as happy with games ending as ties after regulation than the current OT. And while I think the current OT isn't very smart, I don't think it's terrible, either.

It seems like the key takeaway here is that the NFL doesn't see anything wrong with OT, therefore it doesn't seem likely the NFL even understands there is something to 'right'.I agree that OT isn't even needed in the regular season.

 

[Toads]

I caught this bye-line and figured it must be dealing with the upcoming Labor Wars with talk of an uncapped year and a Lock Out looming for 2011.

That's the challenge, that's the news. A bit of a ho-hum to see that it had to do with OT considerations.

Looks like it's time to start a Labor related thread....that's gonna be where the action is.

 

[Boston]

In many ways it's the luck of the coin-flip that bothers many as it's totally random as to who gets the first possession and the advantage. It wouldn't bother me one bit if they replaced the coin-flip with something that had a little more substance. Something like whoever was leading at half-time or who had more first downs or who gave up less total yardage or some other thing that had to do with the actual game. It would add a little more intrigue and (and possibly strategy in certain cases) than the pure luck of the coin-flip.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

If they would move the kick off in overtime up to the 40 or even the 45 yard line that would make things fair. The recieving team would nearly always have to start from their 20, and the kicking team would occassionally be tempted to try on onsides kick. It would definately negate some of theadvantage to recieving the kick. I'd also like to see overtime go back to the old hash marks as this would make field goals a little more difficult. It would be like watching the football I grew up with, except for the position of the goal posts. It's retro, its fairer, and its football.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

In many ways it's the luck of the coin-flip that bothers many as it's totally random as to who gets the first possession and the advantage. It wouldn't bother me one bit if they replaced the coin-flip with something that had a little more substance. Something like whoever was leading at half-time or who had more first downs or who gave up less total yardage or some other thing that had to do with the actual game. It would add a little more intrigue and (and possibly strategy in certain cases) than the pure luck of the coin-flip.

I could get on board with this. Although the selection of any one stat to decide OT possession would probably be viewed as arbitrary. Granted, a coin flip is about as arbitrary as it gets, but at least it's always a 50-50 proposition.

 

[Chase Stuart]

In many ways it's the luck of the coin-flip that bothers many as it's totally random as to who gets the first possession and the advantage. It wouldn't bother me one bit if they replaced the coin-flip with something that had a little more substance. Something like whoever was leading at half-time or who had more first downs or who gave up less total yardage or some other thing that had to do with the actual game. It would add a little more intrigue and (and possibly strategy in certain cases) than the pure luck of the coin-flip.

I could get on board with this. Although the selection of any one stat to decide OT possession would probably be viewed as arbitrary. Granted, a coin flip is about as arbitrary as it gets, but at least it's always a 50-50 proposition.

You might like the Last Clear Chance proposal:

1. Eliminate the coin flip at the start of overtime. The team with the “last clear chance” to avoid overtime must kick off to start the overtime period.

2. If either team has scored in the final five (5) minutes of regulation, and regulation ends in a tie, then the last team to score in regulation was the team with the “last clear chance”, unless that team scored the maximum number of points possible on that possession-8 points (resulting from a touchdown and 2-point conversion). In the event the last team to score did score 8 points on the final scoring drive, then the other team kicks off to start overtime.

3. If neither team scored in the final five (5) minutes of regulation, and regulation ends in a tie, then the last team to punt the football was the team with the “last clear chance”, and must kickoff to start overtime.

This should make the end of regulation more exciting and decrease the number of games that actually go into overtime, two good things.

 

[cdwood]

I'm on board with a previous poster who said he didn't mind if regular season games went into OT. I can understand why some fans might not like the arbitrary nature of a coin flip to determine who gets to decide first possession. My solution would be to get rid of the coin flip and let the home team decide if they want the ball first, kick off, or take an end of field. I have no qualms about it giving the home team an advantage, I'm sure most fans like the home field advantage. In fact, I think they can even get rid of the coin toss to start the game and let the home team decide if they want the ball first or defer to the 2nd half.

I'm also on board with the first team to score wins, even if you don't have first possession your team can still win the game by trying an onside kick, or your team defense can force a turnover. If I were the Ravens head coach in the past few seasons, if I'd won the coin toss, I'd probably have my defence on the field first rather than my offense.

Christopher

 

[Sarnoff]

Definitely should move the kickoff line at least. Just too easy to mosey up the field and kick the winning FG.

 

[cdwood]

Definitely should move the kickoff line at least. Just too easy to mosey up the field and kick the winning FG.

I disagree. I don't think there should be any 'special' rules for overtime. To me, overtime is just the continuation of regular time. I see nothing wrong with a team moseying up the field and kicking the winning field goal. The point of overtime is to decide a winner of the game, if a defense can't stop a team from doing that, then perhaps they shouldn't win.One thing that really irks me is an early game that goes to overtime and it drags on forever. I'd like to see a quick ending so that I can go on to watching the later game.Christopher

 

[Christo]

Definitely should move the kickoff line at least. Just too easy to mosey up the field and kick the winning FG.

I disagree. I don't think there should be any 'special' rules for overtime. To me, overtime is just the continuation of regular time. I see nothing wrong with a team moseying up the field and kicking the winning field goal. The point of overtime is to decide a winner of the game, if a defense can't stop a team from doing that, then perhaps they shouldn't win.

But it's not "just" a continuation of regulation time. And there is a special rule--the first team to score wins. You talk about defenses, but why should the offense that's on the field at the end of regulation have the opportunity for a "do-over" of its last drive based solely upon a coin flip?Maybe they should look at it more like a continuation of regulation. If the score's tied at 0:00, the teams just switch ends and play an additional 15:00. If the score's still tied after the OT, it's a tie.

One thing that really irks me is an early game that goes to overtime and it drags on forever. I'd like to see a quick ending so that I can go on to watching the later game.Christopher

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Rooney For OT Change

NFL Meetings: Rooneys would push for change in overtime rule

Sunday, March 22, 2009

By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The Steelers avoided a potential embarrassment to the NFL when Ben Roethlisberger threw a touchdown pass to Santonio Holmes with 35 seconds left to beat Arizona, 27-23, in Super Bowl XLIII. Now, they'd like to head off another one.

Art and Dan Rooney would like to change the overtime rule.

"We'd like to see each team get one possession,'' said Steelers president Art Rooney II. "Not make it anything that has to be a dramatic change but really just have each team get one possession before we have to get into our sudden-death situation."

In the NFL, the first team to score in overtime wins -- by safety, field goal or touchdown. If the receiving team returns the overtime kickoff back all the way, the game is over.

No Super Bowl has ever been decided in overtime, but few have come as close as the Steelers and Cardinals on Feb. 1 in Tampa. Had Holmes not had both toes in bounds to make his memorable 6-yard touchdown reception, the Steelers would have had one more play before they would have attempted a short field goal to send the game into overtime.

And that would have set up a real possibility that the game would end without one team ever having a chance to touch the ball on offense. NFL statistics show that the team that won the coin toss in overtime in 2008 games won 43.4 percent of the time on the first possession, and 63.3 percent of the overtime games.

Said Rich McKay, the league competition committee co-chairman about those statistics, "They are troubling to me personally in the sense that I would like to see a game that you would think was 'more balanced.'''

Yet, McKay and Ray Anderson, the NFL executive executive vice president of football operations, said they've found no sentiment in talks with management, the players and their union to change the rules.

The Rooneys have a different opinion and while the topic is not on the agenda for the NFL meetings that open today near Los Angeles, the two Steelers officials would like to talk about a change in overtime.

And their recent Super Bowl experience hit home for them.

"It sure did,'' Art Rooney said. "You think about it, that was a great game. If we don't score the touchdown and kick the field goal and go into overtime, maybe you kick off to them and they hit one pass to Larry Fitzgerald and kick a field goal, it's over.

"To me it shouldn't be that way. We should at least get one shot at it, particularly in a game like that. It's something we were in favor of when it came up a couple of years ago and thought maybe there was a chance."

It was on the agenda two years ago at the NFL spring meetings and went nowhere. While Rooney would like to see the change in every game, he'd settle for a change just for the playoffs, the way Major League Baseball last year unilaterally instituted a rule that there would be no rain-shortened games in the World Series.

Art Rooney also is concerned that some proposed new "safety" rules might make the game more difficult to officiate. He's particularly interested in the so-called Hines Ward Rule proposal that would not allow a player to throw a "blind-side" block to the head of a defender.

"In general you want to see player safety,'' Rooney said, "but when it comes down to how are they going to officiate these individual plays it does make us nervous.

"All of these little points of emphasis. Does it make the game harder to officiate? So that's something we keep getting concerned with, how they're going to officiate those rules. The helmet-to-helmet contact thing, that's usually not that difficult to officiate that, you can see that. But not when you start to say it's a blind-side block, what does that mean?

"So you start to get into these things, how are they going to officiate it? We're not really for a real dramatic change on those kinds of things."

 

[Liquid Tension]

Compared to other sports leagues, I think the NFL has been very open to change. They realign the divisions or change the playoff structure dramatically every five or so years. They always tinker with the schedule format. They make significant rule changes frequently.

The biggest problem with OT is I don't know if there will ever be a consensus. If you asked 32 owners should we change OT, you might get 25 yays but you might get 25 different plans. This is the same thing with college football's ranking of a national champion. Everyone knows it isn't very good, but there's not even close to a majority that agree on what the change should be.

The NFL will get this right eventually, though. It might take awhile, and it might take an OT that bothers people in the SB, but it will happen. Personally, I'd be just as happy with games ending as ties after regulation than the current OT. And while I think the current OT isn't very smart, I don't think it's terrible, either.

It seems like the key takeaway here is that the NFL doesn't see anything wrong with OT, therefore it doesn't seem likely the NFL even understands there is something to 'right'.I agree that OT isn't even needed in the regular season.

Wow, a few of us agree that the regular season shouldn't even have OT! I am fine with the way they do it now. A coin toss is very fair so I have no issue with it and more than half the game is special teams and defense so get the job done (and you might even have the wind at your back!I think what college does is an absolute joke. I also think giving two possessions is more of an advantage to the team going 2nd, so leave it the way it is.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Definitely should move the kickoff line at least. Just too easy to mosey up the field and kick the winning FG.

I disagree. I don't think there should be any 'special' rules for overtime. To me, overtime is just the continuation of regular time. I see nothing wrong with a team moseying up the field and kicking the winning field goal. The point of overtime is to decide a winner of the game, if a defense can't stop a team from doing that, then perhaps they shouldn't win.One thing that really irks me is an early game that goes to overtime and it drags on forever. I'd like to see a quick ending so that I can go on to watching the later game.Christopher

One could view the current regulation time rules as 'special rules' as they were installed to aid offense. They are not the original rules, nor the most longstanding.

 

[gianmarco]

Simple solution to the current OT without a "major change".

1. Coin toss

2. Winner of coin toss chooses yard line to kick off.

3. Loser of coin toss chooses whether to kick or receive based on chosen yard line.

 

[Futeki]

I am fine with the regular season games ending in a tie. I suspect the owners would be more open to an expanded overtime if it only applied to the playoffs.

However, why don't they just continue where they left off at the end of the fourth quarter if there is a tie? No need for a kickoff or coin flip. It isn't a new "half", but a continuation of the second half anyways.

That seems so simple perhaps I am missing something.

 

[gianmarco]

I am fine with the regular season games ending in a tie. I suspect the owners would be more open to an expanded overtime if it only applied to the playoffs.However, why don't they just continue where they left off at the end of the fourth quarter if there is a tie? No need for a kickoff or coin flip. It isn't a new "half", but a continuation of the second half anyways.That seems so simple perhaps I am missing something.

Because you lose all of the end of game things you see that make lots of finishes exciting -- last second FG's. 3 seconds left in the game, score is tied, and you're on the 38. Kick the last second FG for the win or send it into OT? If you just get to continue where you left off, there's no reason to attempt that. Just continue driving and get into FG range without regard to the clock or time management. If the opposing team scores and ties the game with 2 min left, you're not hurrying up to get down the field. You're just taking your time to get into good range. That will never happen.

 

[Big Kahuna]

Definitely should move the kickoff line at least. Just too easy to mosey up the field and kick the winning FG.

I disagree. I don't think there should be any 'special' rules for overtime. To me, overtime is just the continuation of regular time. I see nothing wrong with a team moseying up the field and kicking the winning field goal. The point of overtime is to decide a winner of the game, if a defense can't stop a team from doing that, then perhaps they shouldn't win.One thing that really irks me is an early game that goes to overtime and it drags on forever. I'd like to see a quick ending so that I can go on to watching the later game.Christopher

Couldn't agree more, if the defense can't stop them, they don't deserve to win. Nothing wrong with the current system. It's moving the kickoff back that has skewed the statistics in favor of the team winning the coin toss.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Compared to other sports leagues, I think the NFL has been very open to change. They realign the divisions or change the playoff structure dramatically every five or so years. They always tinker with the schedule format. They make significant rule changes frequently.

The biggest problem with OT is I don't know if there will ever be a consensus. If you asked 32 owners should we change OT, you might get 25 yays but you might get 25 different plans. This is the same thing with college football's ranking of a national champion. Everyone knows it isn't very good, but there's not even close to a majority that agree on what the change should be.

The NFL will get this right eventually, though. It might take awhile, and it might take an OT that bothers people in the SB, but it will happen. Personally, I'd be just as happy with games ending as ties after regulation than the current OT. And while I think the current OT isn't very smart, I don't think it's terrible, either.

It seems like the key takeaway here is that the NFL doesn't see anything wrong with OT, therefore it doesn't seem likely the NFL even understands there is something to 'right'.I agree that OT isn't even needed in the regular season.

Wow, a few of us agree that the regular season shouldn't even have OT! I am fine with the way they do it now. A coin toss is very fair so I have no issue with it and more than half the game is special teams and defense so get the job done (and you might even have the wind at your back!I think what college does is an absolute joke. I also think giving two possessions is more of an advantage to the team going 2nd, so leave it the way it is.

A coin toss is fair in the sense that each team has a 50/50 chance of winning. But that doesn't make it fair in the important sense. If we did a coin toss before OT and the winner of the coin toss won the game, each team would have a 50/50 chance of winning but that wouldn't mean it was fair.

 

[cstu]

Compared to other sports leagues, I think the NFL has been very open to change. They realign the divisions or change the playoff structure dramatically every five or so years. They always tinker with the schedule format. They make significant rule changes frequently.

The biggest problem with OT is I don't know if there will ever be a consensus. If you asked 32 owners should we change OT, you might get 25 yays but you might get 25 different plans. This is the same thing with college football's ranking of a national champion. Everyone knows it isn't very good, but there's not even close to a majority that agree on what the change should be.

The NFL will get this right eventually, though. It might take awhile, and it might take an OT that bothers people in the SB, but it will happen. Personally, I'd be just as happy with games ending as ties after regulation than the current OT. And while I think the current OT isn't very smart, I don't think it's terrible, either.

It seems like the key takeaway here is that the NFL doesn't see anything wrong with OT, therefore it doesn't seem likely the NFL even understands there is something to 'right'.I agree that OT isn't even needed in the regular season.

Wow, a few of us agree that the regular season shouldn't even have OT! I am fine with the way they do it now. A coin toss is very fair so I have no issue with it and more than half the game is special teams and defense so get the job done (and you might even have the wind at your back!I think what college does is an absolute joke. I also think giving two possessions is more of an advantage to the team going 2nd, so leave it the way it is.

I'm ok with a single OT, but they really need to change the rules allowing multiple OT's...

 

[Futeki]

I am fine with the regular season games ending in a tie. I suspect the owners would be more open to an expanded overtime if it only applied to the playoffs.However, why don't they just continue where they left off at the end of the fourth quarter if there is a tie? No need for a kickoff or coin flip. It isn't a new "half", but a continuation of the second half anyways.That seems so simple perhaps I am missing something.

Because you lose all of the end of game things you see that make lots of finishes exciting -- last second FG's. 3 seconds left in the game, score is tied, and you're on the 38. Kick the last second FG for the win or send it into OT? If you just get to continue where you left off, there's no reason to attempt that. Just continue driving and get into FG range without regard to the clock or time management. If the opposing team scores and ties the game with 2 min left, you're not hurrying up to get down the field. You're just taking your time to get into good range. That will never happen.

Perhaps. However, I still think it would be very exciting. One team knows that if they don't get it done, the other team can. The team with the ball can't simply wing it around in desperation and figure the other team won't have a chance to come back within regulation because they won't have time. Plust, if a teams scores with time on the clock, they would have to decide whether to tie it up and risk the other team driving the field (even if only a few seconds left) or going for the definite win. It would still be very exciting. There would be tons of strategy. The only difference is the game wouldn't change drastically as it does now at the end of games.

 

[Moldy Potato]

Best proposal I have heard: first team to score 6 points.

That way, a FG won't win it for you, but it's still worth something. Also, you can still win the game on the first possession, you just need a TD.

Sounds fair to me.

 

[DropKick]

In many ways it's the luck of the coin-flip that bothers many as it's totally random as to who gets the first possession and the advantage. It wouldn't bother me one bit if they replaced the coin-flip with something that had a little more substance. Something like whoever was leading at half-time or who had more first downs or who gave up less total yardage or some other thing that had to do with the actual game. It would add a little more intrigue and (and possibly strategy in certain cases) than the pure luck of the coin-flip.

I could get on board with this. Although the selection of any one stat to decide OT possession would probably be viewed as arbitrary. Granted, a coin flip is about as arbitrary as it gets, but at least it's always a 50-50 proposition.

You might like the Last Clear Chance proposal:

1. Eliminate the coin flip at the start of overtime. The team with the “last clear chance” to avoid overtime must kick off to start the overtime period.

2. If either team has scored in the final five (5) minutes of regulation, and regulation ends in a tie, then the last team to score in regulation was the team with the “last clear chance”, unless that team scored the maximum number of points possible on that possession-8 points (resulting from a touchdown and 2-point conversion). In the event the last team to score did score 8 points on the final scoring drive, then the other team kicks off to start overtime.

3. If neither team scored in the final five (5) minutes of regulation, and regulation ends in a tie, then the last team to punt the football was the team with the “last clear chance”, and must kickoff to start overtime.

This should make the end of regulation more exciting and decrease the number of games that actually go into overtime, two good things.

What a horribly over-engineered and clumsy approach to solve something trivial... I could just see the enjoyment of a close game ruined as Madden struggles to explain the nuances of that rule to the public...

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think the OT rules are just fine. If the other team gets the ball first and scores to win the game, that is your fault for not playing better special teams or/and defense.

 

[BBRULE]

I think the OT rules are just fine. If the other team gets the ball first and scores to win the game, that is your fault for not playing better special teams or/and defense.

 

[cdwood]

Definitely should move the kickoff line at least. Just too easy to mosey up the field and kick the winning FG.

I disagree. I don't think there should be any 'special' rules for overtime. To me, overtime is just the continuation of regular time. I see nothing wrong with a team moseying up the field and kicking the winning field goal. The point of overtime is to decide a winner of the game, if a defense can't stop a team from doing that, then perhaps they shouldn't win.

But it's not "just" a continuation of regulation time. And there is a special rule--the first team to score wins. You talk about defenses, but why should the offense that's on the field at the end of regulation have the opportunity for a "do-over" of its last drive based solely upon a coin flip?Maybe they should look at it more like a continuation of regulation. If the score's tied at 0:00, the teams just switch ends and play an additional 15:00. If the score's still tied after the OT, it's a tie.

One thing that really irks me is an early game that goes to overtime and it drags on forever. I'd like to see a quick ending so that I can go on to watching the later game.Christopher

The offense getting a "do-over" isn't necessarily always the case. If Team A has just scored to tie the game but there is still time on the clock and Team A kicks off to Team B, it could be the case that Team B just takes a knee to kill the clock to go to overtime rather than risk a turnover. Who do you want to have the ball first, the team that scored to tie the game or the team that took a knee to kill the clock? My position is to get rid of the coin flip and just let the home team decide if they want the ball first or kickoff.Christopher

 

[cdwood]

Best proposal I have heard: first team to score 6 points.

That way, a FG won't win it for you, but it's still worth something. Also, you can still win the game on the first possession, you just need a TD.

Sounds fair to me.

I like that idea if there must be a change made. But one thing that worries me is that a 10-10 game thats going to overtime might not have 6 pts scored between the two teams before another 15 minutes is played. In that case, its been a waste of time because no winner has been decided. In my opinion, the rules surrounding overtime should be in place to have a winner decided quickly, watching players who are gassed after 3 hrs of football is not a quality product.Christopher

 

[FreeBaGeL]

They're all probably just worried that they'd have to learn new rules when some of them (*cough* Mcnabb *cough*) are still trying to figure out the old ones.

Really though, the biggest change needed for overtime is that the stats compiled in overtime shouldn't count in fantasy football.

Signed: a guy who lost his championship game this year in overtime of the Monday night game.

 

[Christo]

Definitely should move the kickoff line at least. Just too easy to mosey up the field and kick the winning FG.

I disagree. I don't think there should be any 'special' rules for overtime. To me, overtime is just the continuation of regular time. I see nothing wrong with a team moseying up the field and kicking the winning field goal. The point of overtime is to decide a winner of the game, if a defense can't stop a team from doing that, then perhaps they shouldn't win.

But it's not "just" a continuation of regulation time. And there is a special rule--the first team to score wins. You talk about defenses, but why should the offense that's on the field at the end of regulation have the opportunity for a "do-over" of its last drive based solely upon a coin flip?Maybe they should look at it more like a continuation of regulation. If the score's tied at 0:00, the teams just switch ends and play an additional 15:00. If the score's still tied after the OT, it's a tie.

One thing that really irks me is an early game that goes to overtime and it drags on forever. I'd like to see a quick ending so that I can go on to watching the later game.Christopher

The offense getting a "do-over" isn't necessarily always the case.

I didn't say it was.