This is something that caught my attention and I wanted to share it with you. Let me know what you think of it. http://www.thephinsider.com/2010/2/11/1304889/should-the-nfl-change-its-overtime#storyjump
Not always happy with the outcome but if one team hasn't won in 4 quarters first to score on the coin toss is ok with me.
No they shouldn't. I'm sick and tired of people crying about it every year too. Teams have defenses too, and their job is to stop the offense from scoring. It's fine the way it is.
The league already has a tool that would eliminate most overtimes, but coaches choose not to use it often enough: the two-point conversion attempt. Coaches don't use it except in a few situations. By doing so, they willfully subject themselves to the possibility that a coin flip might play a role in the outcome. That is their choice. I have no patience for the wining about the overtime rule, especially by coaches that always go for one after a touchdown because it's the safe thing to do. Peter King is another one that pounds the table after the coin-toss winner marches 30 yards to kick a field goal, but I don't remember him ever calling the losing coach to task for always going for 1 during regulation. Going for two wouldn't always avoid ties after regulation, but it would elimiate most of them, and it would give teams more ontrol over the outcome. Hate the coin? Go for 2 in regulation.
They should change it plain and simple. At the very least, take the kicking game out of the equation. No kick offs. Place ball on 20, first team to score a touchdown wins.
Hell's ya they should change it. One way or another each team needs to have the ball and both defenses need to see the field.
I think that the current OT rules are fine. Like josephreese said, 2-point conversions are an option if you choose not to send games into overtime. I hate the fact that teams transform into the New England Patriots and go into field goal mode but, hey, you can play defense. One of the reasons I became sort of a fan of the Saints this season, was the fact that in the Redskins game that went into overtime they wanted to score a TD to win the game. They were well into FG range but just ket driving. Didn't get it, but they tried. Some could say it was stupid football strategy but I thought it was gutsy.
This is partly why I don't care too much for the college rules. The game consists of offense, defense, and special teams. Special teams play a large part in determining the outcome of a game. I just don't think that it should be taken out of the equation.
Yes its their job, but your telling me that a team that put all that work in during training and all the hours they put in, and how much every game means to them should get a loss because a tired defense can't stop an offense from getting to their 40???? No. They only way I could see this argument is if they take kickers out of overtime. Now if a defense can't stop them from marching 80 yards for a score you deserve to lose. But not because you tired defense gave up 40 yards but stopped them.
What about this...once the clock reaches 00:00 the game continues until someone scores. When the first/third quarter ends they don't kick the ball off to start the 2nd or 4th quarters. Overtime could work like that, just continue the game and it would still be sudden death minus the coin toss. but I do agree with the article's author that college overtime wouldn't work in the NFL.
That's fine then, don't take special teams out. Offense is apart of the game to, so why don't both teams get an offensive possession. Like someone already said, make it 8 minute overtime, whoever is winning after the 8 is winner. If tied, then u have a sudden death.
This is something that I think would have the most legs. It basically means that each team will have a chance to possess the ball (unless one team dominates the entire 8-minutes in time of possession -- which would be very rare). This has always been the biggest gripe on the current rules. And the timing is short enough such that it doesn't drag the game out too much longer.
The current rules don't eliminate one team's offense by rule. There's always be a chance for both teams to have the ball. That's why I would be against it. But, I like the 8-min OT and then sudden-death idea. IMO, it's the best alternative to what we have currently.
also if one team scores with say 3 minutes left....the other team scores a TD.....do they kick the extra point? or go for 2 and win it? it adds more to the equation and makes it more entertaining for the fan. honestly watching a dolphins game seems to fly bye. iam always like "damn its the 4th qtr already?!?!" so its not like it'd get boring or something....who wouldnt wanna see more football?!?!
But then you potentially eliminate the team from trying to win the game in regulation, which in many cases, does decide the outcome.
No I don't think it should be changed. The "tired defense" in overtime is bunk. The offenses have got to be just as tired. It's passed normal playing time and this is a fight for your life. Either put up the points on offense or stop them if you're on defense. If you're outmatched you've had 60 minutes to do something about it beforehand and didn't anyway.
Changing overtime rules will cause more problems. Suppose we change rules to make sure each team drive at least once in overtime. The first team scores 3 or 7 points. Now second team know extactly what they need to do to win, thats big advantage to 2nd team. Any mentioned rule changes in overtime will cause more problems. There is one rule change I believe will cause no problems.... Have each team taking turns kick field goals from 40 or 50 yards on same side so both kickers facing same wind, 2 or 3 kicks. Highest score wins otherwise its tie.
IMO that's exactly why it would be a good rule change. It would force the first team to try and drive for 6 rather than getting into FG range and kicking a FG on an early down.
Guys the rule was changed for TV, something that originally was thought never to happen in the NFL as set up in the original rules concerning TV and how our game was played. See TV black out rule! Some bleeding heart TV boss said you want our money then stop messing with our schedule so it was changed to what we now have and my guess is that it won't ever get changed again. It's not fair but fair never gets an equal handshake once one moves into the REAL world.
Bill Simmons actually has a good one. If you get the ball and get a TD, game over. If you get a FG, opposing team has 1 chance to match or top. If they score a FG, standard sudden death applies. IMO I like putting the onus on teams to punch it in rather than getting a FG kicker to boot one.
I always thought sudden death was pretty lame. Each team should have the ball at least once. Suden death is just a way to get the game over with quicker. Their needs to be a better way than deciding agame by a coin toss. Actually, the system the NCAA uses is pretty good.
The Titans game this year is a perfect example of why the OT needs to be changed. Miami had come back, and they were hot. A BS call put the Titans into FG range. Game over.
Here are some stats that I found: The source presents a very interesting point. The percentage where the team that wins the coin toss and then win the games on the first possession went up after the NFL moved the kickoff back 5-yards. As I recall, the NFL did this to create more exciting games and less touchbacks. But, this obviously puts the receiving team at a greater advantage in the overtime period as they're likely be in a better position to drive for a field goal as well. It very well could be that a very simple modification would be to move it back to the 35-yd line for kickoffs in OT. Then you're "statistically" back to close to 50% win percentage for the team winning the coin toss, historically.
The stats are interesting but still doesn't decide a true winner if both teams do not get a chance with the ball. Sudden death, IMO, should only occur once each team has the ball. Both teams earned the right to play in overtime, so therefore, both should have an equal chance of winning it.
But the stats show it's less likely for the winner of the coin toss to win the game on the first possession. Almost 50/50. My favorite idea, as I stated earlier, is still the use of an 8-min OT period, non-sudden death. And if still tied, then go to sudden-death (possibly for an additional 8-min period). Or maybe just modify the current rule that instead of a full quarter of sudden death; split it into two 7.5 min quarters (or eighths ) where the first session is not sudden death and the second session is, but the second session is only required should the game still be tied after the first.
if they keep it sudden death......(which they will) it would be interesting if they didnt allow FGs but thats not fair cause its part of the game. but sudden death isnt part of the game either until overtime. so i dont see why things couldnt be tweeked. if you wanna win in OT....you win by 6. thats it.
Both teams should have an OPPORTUNITY to possess the ball with no special rules. Once both teams have either been kicked off to or punted to or have gotten a turnover the condition is satisfied. If you fumble the punt or kickoff or even fail to gain possession of an onside kick, the condition is still satisfied. It's not rocket science. Whoever is in the lead or takes the lead once the condition is met wins. My simple solution to an NCAA playoff upon request. ;-)
IMO, it doesn't matter if they're more likely or less likely to win. Stats only provide for a likely scenario. The only [complete] fair way is for each team to have an opportunity with the ball. I think that brparkway said it best above.
If it aint broke, don't fix it. I think the team that wins the toss wins the game just a little over 50% of the time by scoring on their first opportunity.
Take FGs out of overtime and nobody could really complain. Just make it sudden death but it's the first team to actually get a touchdown. Don't change anything else outside of taking FGs away. A defense may be tired but they should still be able to prevent a TD. And if the other team drives for a TD it won't feel cheap.
Someone brought this up to Roger Goodell at his PC during Super Bowl week and I actually thought it was a decent idea, though Goodell basically said they wouldn't do that. Plus, I don't think it would really work because there would be a lot more ties and I don't think the NFL wants that. Like I said, it works the way it is and the percentages posted above indicate it. It's not unbalanced. It works. Leave it alone.
Not really. What the stats I posted showed was that since the inception, the odds around around 50%. But, since 1994 when the league moved the kickoff back 5-yds to the 30-yd line, the odds are much higher that the receiving team will score on its first possession.
Does winning in OT with a FG make it any cheaper than winning with a FG in regulation or a fG to send it to OT?
I wouldn't mind seeing them just treat OT as an added quarter rather than a new 15 minute game. In other words if the game runs out of time in regulation and the score is tied you simply allow the teams a short break and then continue where you left off. If team A had the ball on their own 45 and it was 3rd and 5. that's where they pick up. Wouldnt add any time and it would eliminate the whole kick off kick a field goal fiasco.
