Overtime in the NFL

[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.

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), 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!!

[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.