New Overtime Rules in Vote....

I love it, and I wasn't even a person who really wanted a change. This seems much more balanced.

I love it, but i dont think it will get passed because people are reluctant of change

What's it say?

I love it as well. Certainly an improvement over the current OT.

I think that's a pretty solid change.

As long as it doesn't effect playoff games I guess it's alright.

Personally I like the way it's been since before I was born.

"Nappy Roots wrote:

What's it say?

basically if the 1st team scores a TD the game ends. if the first team kicks a field goal....the other team gets a chance to match it with a fg....or win with a TD.....if the team doesnt kick a FG or a TD they lose. if they tie with a FG....it now becomes sudden death.

i love it btw

"SICK wrote:

basically if the 1st team scores a TD the game ends. if the first team kicks a field goal....the other team gets a chance to match it with a fg....or win with a TD.....if the team doesnt kick a FG or a TD they lose. if they tie with a FG....it now becomes sudden death.

i love it btw

It would make me enjoy a game going to OT. Creates strategy in everything, from the coin toss or weather or not you kick a field goal. It would make Overtime so much more entertaining.

Yeah, I like it.

I think this rule have high chance of being voted in this year, if not then next year.

"R&R Express wrote:

I love it as well. Certainly an improvement over the current OT.

That certainly would not be hard to do. This system just plain inhales forcefully!!!!!

I like it, will make the overtime more interesting.

Personally I don't think it goes far enough.

I love the college system and wish the NFL would use that system for every game (except preseason).

I really don't see the cons of just playing a full OT quarter.

"High Definition wrote:

I really don't see the cons of just playing a full OT quarter.

I think a lot of teams would go conservative if that were the arrangement.

Removes some of that sense of urgency if you've got another 15 minutes to go. As a fan, I love that (even though I hate it at that very moment :lol:).

And there's also the question of length of games themselves (hours).

Also, I can't see the NFLPA agreeing to a full quarter. I would think a rule change of that scale would have to involve them and ownership. CBA/contracts might have to be adjusted, etc.

But with your idea in mind -- and you being a basketball guy -- what would you think of a 7-minute overtime?

"High Definition wrote:

I really don't see the cons of just playing a full OT quarter.

I guess the only problem would be other programs that are suppose to be on after the game will be pushed back even longer

"Jt0323 wrote:

I guess the only problem would be other programs that are suppose to be on after the game will be pushed back even longer

Good point.

Old people gotta have their Morty Schaffer and Andy Rooney. :lol:

I like the current system, never really understood the argument for both the teams having to have a possession, if you can't play defense you lose. I guess with the college system around people have started to think the NFL one is broken but I have never thought its broken. I've been watching football for over 30 years and for about 25 of them no one cried about the overtime system, ties are rare and if you can't play defense you lose sounds pretty fair.

"Muck wrote:

Personally I don't think it goes far enough.

I love the college system and wish the NFL would use that system for every game (except preseason).

I totally agree but only if they ignored the statistics. It would create some funky numbers and make a mockery of the record book.

"finfansince72 wrote:

I like the current system, never really understood the argument for both the teams having to have a possession, if you can't play defense you lose. I guess with the college system around people have started to think the NFL one is broken but I have never thought its broken. I've been watching football for over 30 years and for about 25 of them no one cried about the overtime system, ties are rare and if you can't play defense you lose sounds pretty fair.

I agree with you. I don't understand the notion that the current system isn't fair. What? You're team has to play with only 10 guys if you lose the toss? That would be unfair. Man Up, Go out and play defense and get a stop. Quit whinning. I don't have time for whinning.

Lol this is exactly what Bill Simmons proposed. Its both fair, and encourages teams to go for it.

"Tin Indian wrote:

I agree with you. I don't understand the notion that the current system isn't fair. What? You're team has to play with only 10 guys if you lose the toss? That would be unfair. Man Up, Go out and play defense and get a stop. Quit whinning. I don't have time for whinning.

I agree as well, if you can't defeat the other team in 60 minutes of play, and your defense and/or special teams can't hold the opponent from scoring immediately, then yes of course your team can lose without touching the ball in overtime. Go out there and outplay the opponent over 60 minutes to win the game! Then in overtime outplay them on defense if you lose the coin toss, that's why your players earn millions of dollars, to make big plays when it matters most. I would rather see more ties than rules like full 15 minutes of overtime. Take the Bengals/Browns overtime game earlier this year... came very close to ending in a tie after 14+ minutes of OT because at the end neither team played well enough to deserve to win!

However... of all the suggestions for modified overtime rules, this proposal sounds like it would be a nice little compromise between the 'sudden death' and 'both teams get the ball' arguments. Adds new levels of strategy while still encouraging teams to go "all out" and get/stop the score at the end of the game. But in a close game, teams should do everything they can in the 4th quarter to get the win, instead of counting on overtime, and these set of rules moves more in the direction of playing conservative in an effort to win in OT... win the game in 60 minutes! 'Balancing' the overtime rules diminishes the significance of regulation and the 4th quarter. In my mind it's fine for a playoff game to be decided in OT without both teams getting a possession. The Vikings this year had the chance to kick a game-winning field goal against NO, but they turned the ball over with an interception and blew it! The Colts last year had the entire 15 minutes of the 4th quarter of their playoff game vs SD to win the game, but they were out-played by the better team that day and they didn't score a single point!

All the overtime talk takes reminds me of Matt Hasselbeck in 2004 they won the toss and "We want the ball we will score."

Al Harris jumped the route and game over :lol:

I don't think there's any need to change for what, 5,6 games a year? and I can only remember the Arizona, Green Bay game this year of a playoff game going to OT in recent history.