Overtime in the NFL

[4and12to12and4]

This subject was talked a bit in the World Cup thread in the romper room, and I thought it would be a good thread. Do you think the OT rules in the NFL are fine, and if not, what would you suggest the NFL do for it's overtime games?

I personally like the college rules better, giving each team at least one shot at offense.

[Tony Oday]

NFL rules are fine but each team should get a chance to score. Kickoff then both teams get the chance to score no sudden death.

OR hehe

Field Goal kicks :) start at the 10 and keep moving back! :)

[BigDmoney]

I love this topic. College rules are so much better than pro rules here. I can't stand the fact that two teams kill each other for over 2 hours and leave it all on the field and the overtime is decided almost always by a damn kicker. It's anti-climactic and a boring compared to the competing possesions that college implemented. Kickers are fine to determine the outcome at the end of games with 3 seconds on the clock, but when the game ends i want to see the offenses and defenses determine the game.

[MadtownPacker]

I love this topic. College rules are so much better than pro rules here. I can't stand the fact that two teams kill each other for over 2 hours and leave it all on the field and the overtime is decided almost always by a damn kicker. It's anti-climactic and a boring compared to the competing possesions that college implemented. Kickers are fine to determine the outcome at the end of games with 3 seconds on the clock, but when the game ends i want to see the offenses and defenses determine the game.100% agree. Me and a buddy where talking about this yesterday in regard to the World Cup final and how it came down to penalties kicks or whatever they are called. Bottom lin eis both teams where given a fair shot at winning the game which the NFL does not. The college rules are cool and make the OT much more interesting instead of just the OT coin toss which for the most part decides the game.

The only thing I dont like about the NCAA style is that they get the ball so close to the endzone. I think it should be played like regulation with kickoffs.

[Harlan Huckleby]

NFL sudden death is really bad. Play 10 minute periods until somebody wins. Or hell, I'd rather have games end in a tie! It is more fair than sudden death.

[Fosco33]

I think a vast majority of fans would like to see changes to the OT format but the competition committee and owners see it differently.

Here's an article from USA Today before the '04-'05 season....

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2004-08-29-10-changes-nfl-ot_x.htm
Overtime rule unique to NFL
By Skip Wood, USA TODAY
The moniker is as uniquely NFL as it is politically incorrect: Sudden-death overtime. For many fans, though, as well as a handful of decision-makers in the NFL — including, a couple of years ago, Commissioner Paul Tagliabue — it's a bit too sudden.

That's because, of course, both teams don't necessarily get a chance to score. Correctly call the coin flip, take the ball first and score, game over.

And for yet another season, there is no sudden life for any chance of even tweaking a methodology that began in 1941 for the playoffs, was expanded in 1974 to include regular-season affairs and, during that span, produced a drumroll-worthy NFL classic for the ages, "The Greatest Game Ever Played."

Sure, if the New York Giants hadn't gone three-and-out on their first possession, the Baltimore Colts might never have received their turn to drive 80 yards behind Johnny Unitas and win on a run from the 1 by Alan Ameche.

As it is, however, fewer than half the teams that win the toss win on the first possession — about 40% historically and closer to 30% last season. And 20 of last season's 26 overtime games saw both teams have at least one possession, compared with 16 of 25 in 2002.

Just three of the 20 overtime postseason games since 1958 were won on the first possession, including one during the playoffs for the 2002 season. The Tennessee Titans won without the Pittsburgh Steelers offense returning to the field. That's a big reason Pittsburgh coach Bill Cowher has been a proponent of tilting the system toward equity, and he recently pointed to February's Super Bowl.


That game, one of the best Super Bowls, included 37 fourth-quarter points (61 after the game was tied 0-0 with three minutes left in the first half) and seven lead changes before the New England Patriots won 32-29 on a 41-yard field goal with four seconds left.

It was a classic duel of "top this!" Yet it also was one that could have been affected by the mere flip of a coin.

"I was really hoping for overtime," Cowher said. "I think that would have been interesting to see how much that may have prompted our overtime rules that we have in place right now. Someday it will change. I predict that."

This season's attempt indicates otherwise.

After the league's eight-person competition committee delivered an 8-0 decision against making changes, the revived proposal was defeated 25-7 by owners in Palm Beach, Fla., at the annual league meetings — with 10 fewer votes in support of a rule change compared to the previous year's tally.

Save for a dramatic surge in one-possession winners, changes in the near future aren't likely.

After all, as Tagliabue said more than a year ago after a closer look at the numbers showed no such trend, "There's a lot of excitement."

That's why they call it sudden-death overtime.

"People do like in our league that it is true sudden-death," says Atlanta Falcons general manager Rich McKay, co-chairman with Tennessee coach Jeff Fisher of the competition committee. "One play can end the game, and that's unique to our league."

[BigDmoney]

But almost every game ends in friggin kicker ending the game. My point is that let the men that battled the whole game to put their team in position to win determine the final outcome, not a 145 pound soccer wimp.

[Partial]

I just think the college system is much more fair.

[Fosco33]

BigD/Partial/etc.-

I'm in the agreement of the fans. I like the suggestion of treating it like college but having kickoffs/etc. If both teams don't score, kickoff again. If teams both get a field goal/TD on the first 3 tries, then make them go for 2pt convos.

I wonder why the owners/competition committee is so against changing this rule...

[wist43]

Sorry fella's... I'm old school - Sudden Death. Hate the college format.

[Rastak]

Sorry fella's... I'm old school - Sudden Death. Hate the college format.


Old school is a plain old tie. That's how it was when I grew up.

[Zool]

College rules are better IMO. If your D sucks but you have a stellar offense, then you lose the coin toss....game.

[CaliforniaCheez]

If you can't handle sudden death then get job done during regulation play.
The teams did not play well enough to win the game in regulation and neither team warrants any special consideration. Sudden Death is sudden death.

The coin flip is as fair as it gets!!

The stakes are higher on every play and there is none of this nambie pambie wimpy take forever to be fair junk that just runs up scoring stats in college football.

By God you play to win the game.

I hope you don't think there should be extra innings, 500 NBA timeouts a game, the Super Bowl should be the best 4 of 7 games, or other gutless concepts.

I sure as heck don't want to miss the first quarter of a great west coast game because stupid east coast teams are horsing around with some politically correct indecision to a game.

Real men can handle the current rules just fine win or lose.
They don't whine and demand a recount.
They don't play for participation trophies.

[Fosco33]

[quote="CaliforniaCheez"]I sure as heck don't want to miss the first quarter of a great west coast game because stupid east coast teams are horsing around with some politically correct indecision to a game. [quote]

It's time to get NFL Sunday Ticket. This will be my third year - it's changed football from the best thing about the Fall to the best thing about the whole Year. :smile:

[Willard]

Considering how TV revenue drives today's NFL I am shocked they haven't gone back to the days when a tie game after 4 quarters ended in a tie. That format, although anticlimatic for a fan, is by far the most TV friendly (regarding scheduling).

It wouldn't shock me if this change was made in the future. It is all about the money (TV revenue). The committee doesn't give a packerrats' ass what the fans want to see.

[MadtownPacker]

It's time to get NFL Sunday Ticket. This will be my third year - it's changed football from the best thing about the Fall to the best thing about the whole Year. :smile:Hell yeah its the shit. Youcant beat it and if you playy FF you need to have it. In fact becuase of Sunday Ticket I was able to see the last game that ended in a OT tie, falcons@steelers. It sucked.

[Fosco33]

It's time to get NFL Sunday Ticket. This will be my third year - it's changed football from the best thing about the Fall to the best thing about the whole Year. :smile:Hell yeah its the shit. Youcant beat it and if you playy FF you need to have it. In fact becuase of Sunday Ticket I was able to see the last game that ended in a OT tie, falcons@steelers. It sucked.

Word.

Better yet, pay another 5 bucks and get a second channel receiver w/ TiVO. OR even crazier, get another TiVO on a second TV and literally watch 100% of your favorite 8 teams every week. :mrgreen:

No, I don't do that yet. Just watch the Pack on one and flip on the second receiver to watch another great game or the redzone channel.

[woodbuck27]

'I love this topic. College rules are so much better than pro rules here. I can't stand the fact that two teams kill each other for over 2 hours and leave it all on the field and the overtime is decided almost always by a damn kicker." BigDmoney


Yup . Noway should the outcome of that match-up basicly come down to the result of a coin toss in the first OT decision scenario.

Both sides should first play one whole additional quarter, and then another total quarter till the game is decided by the score, at the end of the quarter. A tie moves the game into another full quarter.

It seems to be all about the media these days and it should be all about the fans.

If my team loses a coin toss and must kick first in OT, and they get that FG in their first series on "O" and win . . . that is . . . just PLAIN WRONG !

[HarveyWallbangers]

NFL rules are fine but each team should get a chance to score. Kickoff then both teams get the chance to score no sudden death.

I agree with this. Each team should get the ball once.

I don't like the college rules. I don't like when a sport changes their rules for OT. Keep it the same, but mandate that each team gets the ball, so the luck of the coin toss is not a huge issue.

[BigDmoney]

NFL rules are fine but each team should get a chance to score. Kickoff then both teams get the chance to score no sudden death.

I agree with this. Each team should get the ball once.

I don't like the college rules. I don't like when a sport changes their rules for OT. Keep it the same, but mandate that each team gets the ball, so the luck of the coin toss is not a huge issue.

That's basically what the college rules are doing. The great thing is that there also is strategy on whether to kick a FG or go for the endzone. BOTH teams play offense no matter what and BOTH teams play defense. It's a short field so punts are taken out and. These evertmes usually don't take that much time.

[HarveyWallbangers]

That's basically what the college rules are doing. The great thing is that there also is strategy on whether to kick a FG or go for the endzone. BOTH teams play offense no matter what and BOTH teams play defense. It's a short field so punts are taken out and. These evertmes usually don't take that much time.

I don't like it for 2 reasons: 1) that's not how they play the game in regulation. They don't line up the ball for you at the 25 yard line, 2) it makes who has the better kicker too important. The way it is now, a team has to drive down the field just to get into range for a 50 yard FG. With the college rules, even if you don't gain any yards, you are kicking a 42 yard FG.

[CyclonePackFan]

The coin flip is as fair as it gets

Tell that to Jerome Bettis. Who else remembers Steelers-Lions, Thanksgiving Day, 1998? Bettis calls "tails", the ref thinks he says 'heads'. Flip comes out tails, Lions "win" the toss, get to receive, drive down, and kick a FG. Game over.

Isolated incident, granted, but the point remains.

There are several reasons why I consider the NCAA superior to the NFL. Playing for the love, not for money is one. OT is another. Sudden Death needs to go. Like many posters have asserted, it doesn't need to be the same system as instituted in the NCAA (and in High School, for that matter). Each team kicks off, if that's what floats your boat. Coin flip is still in play. Getting to go on D first is worth just as much or more than receiving in the current system. Hell, the game can still even be decided by one play. One INT return, and it's game over. IF both teams get a shot on O, there's no reason to punt. You could see 4th down attempts 4 or 5 times on a drive. Tell me that when your team needs to convert on 4th and long, it's not exciting.

Hell, if you don't want kickoffs, we can handle that too. How about this. Start on the 40, just outside FG range. If it's a tie after both teams have a posession, move back to the 50, the 40, the 30, and so on. (this I'm NOT in favor of, but just throwing it out there)

[b bulldog]

College rules are good although the O stats get overly inflated.

[No Mo Moss]

NFL sudden death is really bad. Play 10 minute periods until somebody wins. Or hell, I'd rather have games end in a tie! It is more fair than sudden death.

I agree with that. In soccer it works. If you don't deserve to win you shouldn't.


That being said if we must have over time it should be a hybrid of the college version. I propose one possesion each. If you don't turn a 4th down into points or a 1st then you have to kick off from the regular spot. Each team gets a turn. You keep going until someone wins.

[BigDmoney]

That's basically what the college rules are doing. The great thing is that there also is strategy on whether to kick a FG or go for the endzone. BOTH teams play offense no matter what and BOTH teams play defense. It's a short field so punts are taken out and. These evertmes usually don't take that much time.

I don't like it for 2 reasons: 1) that's not how they play the game in regulation. They don't line up the ball for you at the 25 yard line, 2) it makes who has the better kicker too important. The way it is now, a team has to drive down the field just to get into range for a 50 yard FG. With the college rules, even if you don't gain any yards, you are kicking a 42 yard FG.

I would say that the way it is now makes the better kicker more important. A TD is what wins in the college overtime, not a FG.

[Fosco33]

I would say that the way it is now makes the better kicker more important. A TD is what wins in the college overtime, not a FG.

Huh???

Team A gets the ball and fails to reach a 1st down and misses the FG.

Team B gets the ball and kicks a FG and WINS the game.

Care to clarify?

[Merlin]

I think the overtime rules in the NFL are fine. It is a supported fact that the coin toss does not determine the winner. If you don't believe me go re-read the article. Giving each team an equal possession is crap. What happens when Al Harris returns an interception for a TD then? We get the ball on offense? Can the defense then score under a college style OT? What will teams like the Bears do? I mean if you force them to have one offensive possession, that may lose the game for them!

[BigDmoney]

I would say that the way it is now makes the better kicker more important. A TD is what wins in the college overtime, not a FG.

Huh???

Team A gets the ball and fails to reach a 1st down and misses the FG.

Team B gets the ball and kicks a FG and WINS the game.

Care to clarify?

What i mean is that 99% of all NFL overtimes are decided by a FG so thus the kickers are the ones determining the outcome. College rules are such that the winning team almost always scores a td, and if a fg is kicked, teh attempt is rarely outside of 40 yards. A big reason college adompted this rules is to take away most of the influence kickers have. When NFL teams get inside the 35 or so yard line in overtime, they become so conservative so as not to commit a turnover that long FG attempts are the norm.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This sounds like conjecture. What are the stats on this?

The point is that the offense has to do something in the NFL. They normally have to drive the field to get into FG range. In college, a team wouldn't have to do anything offensively to win a game--except have a better FG kicker. I suspect a lot of OTs in college go FG, FG, FG, FG, FG, TD.

[4and12to12and4]

Well, I personally hate the NFL rules, where one team wins the coin toss and can score without the other team having a chance to do the same and even the playing field. However, I think they should change the college rule by starting the ball at your own 30 or 40 yard line and actually earn the score. If neither team scores at that spot, redo the same thing from the 50, etc. until it is decided. That way, even if two teams that aren't very good on offense are playing, the game won't go on forever, because eventually each team will be starting closer and closer to the oppositions goal. This just seems more fair, because at least it evens out both teams chance to win, rather than one team winning due to a lucky flip of the coin.

Even if the stats say that less than 40% of teams actually score on that first possession, who cares? Does that give reason to just continue keeping a system that is obviously not fair? By that thinking, they should get rid of instant replay considering that MOST of the challenges AREN"T overturned. The percentages of the instant replays aren't important, what's important is that it at least gives each team more "fair play". If a couple Superbowls ended in OT and the "lucky" team who receives the ball first wins, this rule would be scrutinized by every sportswriter and radio personality in the country. So, I guess what I'm saying is, regardless of what the NFL heads think of the past outcomes, it doesn't change the fact that it is simply an unfair system which rewards a team for getting lucky on a coin toss. I hate it, and hope that the guys who have voted it down will reconsider until it gets changed.

[4and12to12and4]

To add to my post just above, if who gets the ball first doesn't really matter based on percentages, then why do they have the rule set up that whoever starts on offense in the fisrt half, the other team gets it in the second half. I mean, if it doesn't really matter, they could just say that the home team gets it both halves, or something like that. The NFL, by it's own rules, admits that it matters. So, why then, does it suddenly not matter in OT?

Maybe the new Commish will have this on his agenda. But I doubt it.

[MJZiggy]

To add to my post just above, if who gets the ball first doesn't really matter based on percentages, then why do they have the rule set up that whoever starts on offense in the fisrt half, the other team gets it in the second half. I mean, if it doesn't really matter, they could just say that the home team gets it both halves, or something like that. The NFL, by it's own rules, admits that it matters. So, why then, does it suddenly not matter in OT?

But according to NFL rules, the team that wins the toss doesn't automatically get the ball. They get their choice of the ball or the end zone they want to defend. They usually choose the ball, but they have the option of defending a goal if the sun or wind's in a bad way or they know it will be later in the game. In overtime, they also don't get the ball automatically--remember Matt's line? "We want the ball 'cause we're gonna score!" That worked out well for him.

[4and12to12and4]

To add to my post just above, if who gets the ball first doesn't really matter based on percentages, then why do they have the rule set up that whoever starts on offense in the fisrt half, the other team gets it in the second half. I mean, if it doesn't really matter, they could just say that the home team gets it both halves, or something like that. The NFL, by it's own rules, admits that it matters. So, why then, does it suddenly not matter in OT?

But according to NFL rules, the team that wins the toss doesn't automatically get the ball. They get their choice of the ball or the end zone they want to defend. They usually choose the ball, but they have the option of defending a goal if the sun or wind's in a bad way or they know it will be later in the game. In overtime, they also don't get the ball automatically--remember Matt's line? "We want the ball 'cause we're gonna score!" That worked out well for him.

The point is however, that whoever takes the ball in the first half DOESN'T get it in the second, which is the NFL admitting that it matters.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The point is however, that whoever takes the ball in the first half DOESN'T get it in the second, which is the NFL admitting that it matters.

Actually, they could. That's her point. One team could choose to receive in the first half, and the other team could choose to defend an end zone in the second half. A team could, in fact, receive the ball first in both halfs. It rarely happens because if you defend an end zone in one quarter, the next quarter is the opposite--which negates the advantage.

The NFL rules on the coin toss:

Coin Toss

1. The toss of coin will take place within three minutes of kickoff in center of field. The toss will be called by the visiting captain before the coin is flipped. The winner may choose one of two privileges and the loser gets the other:

(a) Receive or kick

(b) Goal his team will defend

2. Immediately prior to the start of the second half, the captains of both teams must inform the officials of their respective choices. The loser of the original coin toss gets first choice.

[Bretsky]

Where are the fact busters ? What % of teams drive for the winning score right off the coin flip ?

If memory serves me right it's somewhere below 40%. But that % will sway my view as to how good it is working.

B

[CyclonePackFan]

Where are the fact busters ? What % of teams drive for the winning score right off the coin flip ?

If memory serves me right it's somewhere below 40%. But that % will sway my view as to how good it is working.

B

As of 2004, you are correct (most recent stats I can find). historically, 40% of first drives end in a score in NFL overtime. In 2003, it was around 30%.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2004-08-29-10-changes-nfl-ot_x.htm

HOWEVER, this was before the NFL got offensive-happy and started calling pass interferecne all the time. I'm curious as to how the percentage has changed since the rule tightening.

[4and12to12and4]

Once again, regardless of whether its 40%, 30%, or 10%, the bottom line is, common sense tells us it still is an unfair way to resolve a game. To make my point, I used the challenge rule to back my position. Most of the challenge calls are NOT overturned. Probably much less than 40%. So, does that mean that the NFL should get rid of instant replay based on the fact of the low percentage of times it changes the outcome of a play? It is still crucial, even if only one play per year gets overturned. Because that one play helps that team change it's fate in that one game. So, in turn, even if ONE team a year scores on that first possession, that is ONE game that, IMO, was decided unfairly, because the other team didn't get their fair chance to score. This is why I feel that regardless of how low the percentage is, it is a moot point, because the OT rule, by nature, doesn't even the playing field. Whether or not a team scores at a high percantage or not means nothing to me. They still are given the OPPORTUNITY to score in an unfair setting. So, given that, the NFL should change it's OT rules.

[Fosco33]

To add to my post just above, if who gets the ball first doesn't really matter based on percentages, then why do they have the rule set up that whoever starts on offense in the fisrt half, the other team gets it in the second half. I mean, if it doesn't really matter, they could just say that the home team gets it both halves, or something like that. The NFL, by it's own rules, admits that it matters. So, why then, does it suddenly not matter in OT?

But according to NFL rules, the team that wins the toss doesn't automatically get the ball. They get their choice of the ball or the end zone they want to defend. They usually choose the ball, but they have the option of defending a goal if the sun or wind's in a bad way or they know it will be later in the game. In overtime, they also don't get the ball automatically--remember Matt's line? "We want the ball 'cause we're gonna score!" That worked out well for him.

Remember the Bears deferred to defense and lost on the first possession a few years ago - can't recall who they played but it was a big deal.

The more I read these posts and search for info I'm changing my stance on OT in the NFL.

We always want to change things when we feel our team 'gets robbed' - recall the instant replay debacle from the 49ers playoff loss (the day TO said he was born as a superstar despite an obvious fumble).

The NFL owners and coaches don't want to change the rules - until a really big game is affected (mainly the Superbowl) - nothing will change. When the Steelers lost in OT on a first possession Cowher called for changes - when they showed up to discuss this w/ the competition committee people were unexpectedly silent.

With sudden death, teams are striving in the 4th quarter to win - at any cost. The risk of losing in OT on a first possession forces this. Regardless, you have to play strong D in OT if you want a shot to win. The historic stats I posted on the previous page show that it works. The fluke season back in '02 is not the catalyst of change.

Lengthening the game could cause additional injuries and inflated scores/records. Keep the rule the same and get the job done before it becomes an issue.

[4and12to12and4]

To add to my post just above, if who gets the ball first doesn't really matter based on percentages, then why do they have the rule set up that whoever starts on offense in the fisrt half, the other team gets it in the second half. I mean, if it doesn't really matter, they could just say that the home team gets it both halves, or something like that. The NFL, by it's own rules, admits that it matters. So, why then, does it suddenly not matter in OT?

But according to NFL rules, the team that wins the toss doesn't automatically get the ball. They get their choice of the ball or the end zone they want to defend. They usually choose the ball, but they have the option of defending a goal if the sun or wind's in a bad way or they know it will be later in the game. In overtime, they also don't get the ball automatically--remember Matt's line? "We want the ball 'cause we're gonna score!" That worked out well for him.

Remember the Bears deferred to defense and lost on the first possession a few years ago - can't recall who they played but it was a big deal.

The more I read these posts and search for info I'm changing my stance on OT in the NFL.

We always want to change things when we feel our team 'gets robbed' - recall the instant replay debacle from the 49ers playoff loss (the day TO said he was born as a superstar despite an obvious fumble).

The NFL owners and coaches don't want to change the rules - until a really big game is affected (mainly the Superbowl) - nothing will change. When the Steelers lost in OT on a first possession Cowher called for changes - when they showed up to discuss this w/ the competition committee people were unexpectedly silent.

With sudden death, teams are striving in the 4th quarter to win - at any cost. The risk of losing in OT on a first possession forces this. Regardless, you have to play strong D in OT if you want a shot to win. The historic stats I posted on the previous page show that it works. The fluke season back in '02 is not the catalyst of change.

Lengthening the game could cause additional injuries and inflated scores/records. Keep the rule the same and get the job done before it becomes an issue.


Ziggy, you have used past games to help decide your decision on this issue-- why does it even matter what history of OT decisions show us?

Common sense tells us, no matter what sport it is, that each team deserves at least A CHANCE. It seems so simple, give each team a sporting chance to equal what your opponent has done. That, to me, is why the system is so unfair and ridiculous. I mean, my god, give each team a sporting chance to score. Regardless of stats, the NFL needs to come to grip with the fact that in the current system, the team who gets the ball first, whether they score or not, has the potential for an unfair advantage. It doesn't take a genius to see this. Come on, fans, if you see things in the light of giving each team a sporting chance, we need to see a system where each team can huddle up and try to equal what their opponent has done. Why is this even debatable. (that spelling seems erroneous to me :oops: ) Anyknock, come on, is anyone in my camp here, for the love of knock knock, it is SO simple, one team wins a friggin' coin toss, gets to run the ball to maybe the 32 yard line (big deal) and can win. It sucks. Period. I don't care if only one team out of 50 wins, that one team won in an unfair way. You HAVE TO let each team have a shot. Jeez. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this. I friggin' hate the OT rules, and I will never change my mind because it is obviously unfair. I don't know how else I can spell it out. If those who choose to respond in advocasy of the current system, tell me how on earth you can think that the system is even remotely fair, not based on previous outcomes, but rather, based on common sense. That's all I'm asking. Good night and good luck. :mrgreen:

[MJZiggy]

4and12, I wasn't arguing that the OT rule is as it should be. I was pointing out that the teams don't necessarily switch, rather they get a choice of what they want. Personally, I think that in OT Team A should kick off from the 20 and if they don't score, punt, but if they do score, kick off from the 20 and give the offense the same drive that they got. If they score, repeat process until someone has possession but it is no longer a tie.


*and as a side note, you had debatable spelled just fine.

[4and12to12and4]

4and12, I wasn't arguing that the OT rule is as it should be. I was pointing out that the teams don't necessarily switch, rather they get a choice of what they want. Personally, I think that in OT Team A should kick off from the 20 and if they don't score, punt, but if they do score, kick off from the 20 and give the offense the same drive that they got. If they score, repeat process until someone has possession but it is no longer a tie.


*and as a side note, you had debatable spelled just fine.

Now this I can agree with Zig, at least it gives a fair chance for either team. Although I'd rather see the kicking team out of it, like the college rules implement, at least what you suggest, it gives each team a fair shot.

[MJZiggy]

Actually, I'd like to leave the kicking team in. They are a part of the game as well and if Team B kicks a FG and Team A gets a TD, Team A still wins. I would end up in a kicking shootout no more than regulation time because they still have to return the kickoff and drive into FG range. If they can't do that, then game over. What do we do if they both go 3-and-out? Then is it sudden death as they've both had an opportunity to handle the ball?

[4and12to12and4]

I can agree with that. What your suggesting is a complete simulation of a regular game, yet giving each team a fair chance. Which is what I'd like to see. The only difference from my suggestion and your's is that special teams has less to do with the outcome based on original starting point. I quess, your suggestion keeps the game more like the way the game is designed, that is, starting position based on where the special teams end up placing the ball. I just think that at the stage of the game where both teams are exhausted, the special teams should be taken out the scenario as much as possible and let the true position specialists play it out. That way, a tired defensive special teams unit doesn't give away 50+ yards to determine the outcome, rather than an offensive unit having to EARN it's points. Either way, at least each team has a fair chance.

I like the way you think, Ziggy, it seems as though we both agree that Team A and Team B should have, at that stage of the war, earned it's right to score without bias of Heads or Tails!!


As far as both teams going 3andout, an earlier post of mine suggested that each team would drive by drive get the ball ten yards closer to the oppositions goal to eventually resolve the game. But, one way or the other, your viewpiont or mine, at least both teams should DEFINITELY have the opportunity to handle the ball on offense!!

[BooHoo]

I don't like the current system. I like the idea of both teams getting a chance to score. Either kick off to both teams or go the college route.

Alternative method: Only allow both teams to hand the ball off to the 140 pound soccer wimps (as one posted) from the 5 yard line. See if he can score after four attempts.

[4and12to12and4]

I don't like the current system. I like the idea of both teams getting a chance to score. Either kick off to both teams or go the college route.

Alternative method: Only allow both teams to hand the ball off to the 140 pound soccer wimps (as one posted) from the 5 yard line. See if he can score after four attempts.

As hilarious as that sounds, that would be awesome to watch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Heck, we might even see a headbutt or two. :mrgreen:

[Fosco33]

I like some of those ideas but will go back to one statement I made....

The fact that you might not get the ball in OT forces teams to play aggressive defense in the 4th (to get the ball back) or make big plays on offense (to tie the game or take the lead).

Teams MAY 'play for the tie' knowing they have OT to sort it out. Watching the World Cup made me pissed when teams were obviously playing for more time (resting, etc.).

I'll stand by the current rules but am not opposed to minor changes if we see continual increases in teams winning on the first possession for like 5 years.

[Rastak]

I don't like the current system. I like the idea of both teams getting a chance to score. Either kick off to both teams or go the college route.

Alternative method: Only allow both teams to hand the ball off to the 140 pound soccer wimps (as one posted) from the 5 yard line. See if he can score after four attempts.

As hilarious as that sounds, that would be awesome to watch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Heck, we might even see a headbutt or two. :mrgreen:


Maybe you could hand it off to a rugby player who is man enough not to need armor.....it's a thought....

[NewsBruin]

I feel kind of wussy for this, but I don't want to see either systems' OTs changed.

In the NFL, it's not unfair to give one team the kickoff and another team the receipt. As the article on page 1 of this thread said, 60% of the time last year, the kickoff team wins. On top of that, only 6 out of 26 times was an OT game won on one possession (I'm not sure if that went only to the offense; a play like Al Harris' interception and TD of Hasselbeck's 1st-down pass would have counted under that stat).

If a coach solely were playing the 2005 odds, he would kick the ball away and win 6 of 10 OT games.

In the 32-year history of NFL overtime (source link (http://www.jaguars.com/Story/5200.asp)), the team that wins the coin toss wins 52.9 percent of the time. However, that includes coaches who win the flip, choose defense, and win. You know what? Were I a coach, and the weather were severe, I might call endzone and let the opposing coach have the pressure of offense/defense.

To say that a team has a disadvantatage for playing defense seems to me like saying defense is not an equal aspect of football. The odds of a team managing a score on the first OT possession are small (like 23% in 2005, 28.6% historically, and 14% in playoffs).

Arguing for equal consideration doesn't seem to be fair, in that if Team A gets the ball first and scores, it has to kick off to Team B. But if Team A doesn't score, it has to punt to Team B (who probably receives it closer than the spot where Team A got its kickoff) and doesn't get a "make-up" chance if Team B's offense scores. So, Team B has to fail twice, while Team A only gets to fail once.

But if you make it so that Team B has to kick off to Team A when it scores, then it's weighted against Team B, because Team A got the ball on offense first and did nothing with it. Team B has to fail twice, while Team A has to fail three times.

The only way to make that system absolutely "fair" is to rule that no matter where a team loses possession, it has to kick off to the opposing team, unless the defense converts the turnover to a touchdown on the same play. But then, that gives an unfair "sudden-death" advantage to the defense. It never ends. And speaking of neverending, imagine a football game where one team has to win by going end-to-end on one possession after playing 60 minutes of football. If you want to be extra-fair, the scoring team has to follow up by shutting out the opposition on the next series.

Sudden death looks very good by comparison.

I like the NCAA OT's "shootout" aspect, and the constant tension it keeps (no slogging to get into scoring range; one breakout away from a TD, one turnover away from defeat), but it eliminates kickoffs and punts, which are as legit a part of football as offense and defense.

I like that a field goal is a fourth-down concession play (better than a turnover, but loser to a touchdown) or a first/second down victory play (if a team shut out the offense). I like that after two back-and-forths, the extra point is no longer an option.

I think that college football can handle the "half-court" image of its overtime. The NFL just wouldn't feel right if it played OT on a 50-yard field. At the same time, as NFL players are bigger, older, more evenly matched, and have longer seasons than their NCAA counterparts, a full-field alternating OT would risk more injuries and tire out fans' attention if the teams got stuck between the 40-yard lines.

I can offer little justification than my "gut" feeling, but each system fits its players and fanbase fine. I would not want to change them.

[swede]

Factual information is always welcome here, News Bruin. This isn't CBS news.

To throw another monkey wrench into the discussion, I will say that dropping the OT completely for the regular season wouldn't bother me at all. Allowing for ties, as in days of yore, would change the dynamics of the end game slightly. The uncomfortable lack of resolution would be interesting, as in a song that drops off on an unresolved chord. Deliciously agonizing. How frustrating to kiss one of your NFC North sisters! That third digit in your record might ultimately save or kill your playoff hopes.

9-5-2 would trump 9-6-1 wouldn't it?

Correct me if my childhood memories are wrong, but in the olden days OT was allowed in playoff and championship games only and took the form of additional quarters of play until a winner was decided.

I could live with that. I don't care for sudden death in regular season football games.

However, being shot by a jealous husband when I am 86 might be a satisfactory sudden death.

[4and12to12and4]

However, being shot by a jealous husband when I am 86 might be a satisfactory sudden death.

Poetically spoken, and funny as hell!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[CaliforniaCheez]

I think the majority want a whimpier NFL.

There are serious flaws with how the NCAA decides football games yet y'all want some PC fairness thing.

Shoot outs like soccer are artificial and are unlike the real game.

The NFL overtime is the most exciting.
It is much like playoff hockey in that the first score is the deciding score.

A real game should be decided in a real way.

I just don't see why you whine about a team having to kick off just as they do at the begining of each half?

[Creepy]

Lets not allow ties to determine division champs. A 9-6-2 equals a 10-6 record when calculating ties, a 9-6-1 leaves somebodey with a 9.5-6.5 record. The NFL should never count something as a half a game. That is why they brought the sudden death in. Too many games were being tied at the end of regulation andteams were playing to tie rather than win. It shuld also be noted that at one time ties did not count at all inthe standinigs only wins and losses. The Packers were lissted as the #2 team in the NFL West with a 11-2-1 record while the Bears won the Division with a 11-1-2 record. Sudden death in 1963 may havbe had GB and Chicago play in a play-off for the Western crown. It could have been 7 NFL championships instead of 6, with GB winning three in a row 61-63 & 65-67.

Can't go back to the old system, the current system has it's flaws, but if you want tomake it more interesting, then make it harder for kcikers. In OT make the crossbar on FGs half as wide. Now do you kick a 39 yard FG, or do you punt and play defense. Thisis a better answer rather than extendingthe game and hour or more.

[cpk1994]

I think the overtime rules in the NFL are fine. It is a supported fact that the coin toss does not determine the winner. If you don't believe me go re-read the article. Giving each team an equal possession is crap. What happens when Al Harris returns an interception for a TD then? We get the ball on offense? Can the defense then score under a college style OT? What will teams like the Bears do? I mean if you force them to have one offensive possession, that may lose the game for them!

To explain the Al Harris scenario is very simple actually. When Al intercepts the ball that begins the packers posession. Then the fact that he scored a TD ends the game. Both teams had posession(Packers- Al's interception, opponent - everything before) and the game is no longer tied which mneans the Pack wins. Very easy solution. Same if the team that recieves the kickoff fumbles then the kicking team returns the fumble for a TD.

[BigDmoney]

I would just like to say for the record that I would have no problem with taking the kickers out of the game completely. I hate kickers....I mean I REALLY REALLY hate them. Ok, I'm settled down now. I play in two leagues over here in Minneapolis. If you score a TD, the extra points are played normal style from the 5ys line for 1 pt or the 10yd line for 2. Kickoffs would be the only part of the game I would miss, but it would be well woth getting those 1-bar facemasked a-holes out. I mean I REALLY hate them.....any kickers here excluded of course.

[Fosco33]

I would just like to say for the record that I would have no problem with taking the kickers out of the game completely. I hate kickers....I mean I REALLY REALLY hate them. Ok, I'm settled down now. I play in two leagues over here in Minneapolis. If you score a TD, the extra points are played normal style from the 5ys line for 1 pt or the 10yd line for 2. Kickoffs would be the only part of the game I would miss, but it would be well woth getting those 1-bar facemasked a-holes out. I mean I REALLY hate them.....any kickers here excluded of course.

While I don't disagree, can you imagine the ridicule we'd get from the world calling it 'football' when we never kick the dam thing? Then it wouldn't make any sense - we'd have to say it's called football b/c its almost 1' (11'' to be exact)- which they'd also question seeing as they use meters....

Any what else could it be called? Let's look at the other sports for help.

Baseball - simple - you run on bases
Basketball - again simple - you shoot at the basket

So, possible choices would have to be Endzone ball (something you aim for) or Yardball (something you run on - alternative would be Downball - as it you aim to get another set of downs).

Prolate spheroid ball just doesn't have that catchy ring.

Keep the kickers. Tell the soccer fans to lay off.

[BigDmoney]

how bout potsmokingrumdrinkingmenthatcanrunfastandjumphigha ndtrhowfarball?

[Tarlam!]

What Swede said, and what HH and Ras also sorta said.

Take out OT completely during the regular season.

Soccer also learned that awarding 2 points for a win, and 1 point for a draw led to a lot of draws. In today's Soccer comps, 3 points are awarde for a win, and tying teams get 1 point each.

Thus, teams are inclidned to go for a win, because you need 3 ties to equal a win.

Even thoúgh most of you here find that a boring game, there is a lesson to be learned by the NFL here.

If you are going to play OT, then, it should be forbidden for a team to attempt a field goal on their first OT possession.

[woodbuck27]

[quote="MJZiggy"]4and12, I wasn't arguing that the OT rule is as it should be. I was pointing out that the teams don't necessarily switch, rather they get a choice of what they want. Personally, I think that in OT Team A should kick off from the 20 and if they don't score, punt, but if they do score, kick off from the 20 and give the offense the same drive that they got. If they score, repeat process until someone has possession but it is no longer a tie.


Yes Ziggy a change in format similiar to the College game - should be adoprted. Coin toss to see who wants the ball first OK, but by no means end a game that took 4 quarters, without allowing the team that defended on that first OT series, to at least do as well or counter.

Give more to the fans.

Maybe - go to an approach of two ten minute halves even? First points to score wins - isn't fair - as the coin toss then is huge.

The coin toss comes down to pure luck - not skill.

NFL Football, is not about pure luck.