NFL Must Change OT Rules Starting Now

[sschind]

In my day we didn't have pansy *** overtimes, the winner won when the opponent had a bloody stump, and we LIKED it, we LOVED it!!

And candy bars cost a nickle and computers were as big as a house yada yada yada.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Since the NFL instituted its new overtime rules, there have been 87 overtime games. Five have been ties, and the team to get the ball first has won 45 of the remaining 82. That’s 54.8 percent, meaning simply winning the coin toss makes a team 9.6 percent more likely to win.

I've read about 3 "fixes" to OT, any of which I feel are better alternatives to the current NFL format.

1. No sudden death. 10-15 min. additional quarter. Regular season, only 1 played, games can end tied.

2. Sudden death once each team has possessed the ball once on offense.

3. Add 15 minutes to the clock and continue the 4th quarter exactly at the point it is at. (no coin flip, no kickoff) Sudden death. This would create some interesting strategy towards the end of games tied near the end of the 4th quarter.

For those saying this is a knee jerk reaction to this year's SB, you might want to read a few articles, this has been an ongoing debate. Games like yesterday and the 2 straight Playoff OT losses the Packers suffered, when one teams QB never even sees the field in OT, just bring the debate back up. For me, as long as a coin flip has as much influence as it currently does on the outcome of a game, I will keep debating for change.

 

[adambr2]

Since the NFL instituted its new overtime rules, there have been 87 overtime games. Five have been ties, and the team to get the ball first has won 45 of the remaining 82. That’s 54.8 percent, meaning simply winning the coin toss makes a team 9.6 percent more likely to win.

I've read about 3 "fixes" to OT, any of which I feel are better alternatives to the current NFL format.

1. No sudden death. 10-15 additional quarter. Regular season, one 1 played, games can end tied.

2. Sudden death once each team has possessed the ball once on offense.

3. Add 15 minutes to the clock and continue the 4th quarter exactly at the point it is at. (no coin flip, no kickoff) Sudden death. This would create some interesting strategy towards the end of games tied near the end of the 4th quarter.

For those saying this is a knee jerk reaction to this year's SB, you might want to read a few articles, this has been an ongoing debate. Games like yesterday and the 2 straight Playoff OT losses the Packers suffered, when one teams QB never even sees the field in OT, just bring the debate back up. For me, as long as a coin flip has as much influence as it currently does on the outcome of a game, I will keep debating for change.

1. I highlighted what I think would be the major problems with this one on the last post of the previous page of this thread. To sum it up, ties will become much more commonplace, likely more exhaustion and injuries over the course of a season.

2. So Team A receives in OT, goes down and score a TD. Team B receives, goes down and scores a TD. Now in sudden death, Team A calmly goes 40 yards down field and kicks a FG to win it. How is that any better than now?

3. I kind of like it better than 1 and 2, (though you wouldn't need to reset the game clock to 15:00, there would be no need for a game clock at all.) I doubt I'd pick it over what we have now, though. And since there's no extension of the first half, there would definitely be some complaints about what is essentially just extending the second half. Part of the enjoyment of ends of close games is the race against the clock and time management late in the 4th, not sure that something as extreme as essentially removing that from the equation is the answer.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If you're advocating for both teams to get a possession on offense first because that's 'equal', that's not equal at all. The first team can't risk a 4th down or red zone risk taking them out of FG range. The second team knows exactly what it needs. They can play it cautious, play for a FG, play for 4 downs instead of 3 if needed, everything dependent on whatever the first team does. Tremendous advantage to get the ball second in OT if you give both teams an offensive possession no matter what.

Actually the team getting the ball first in overtime can risk going for it on fourth down or take a risk in the red zone as well. The coaching staff has to decide that based on a risk and reward evaluation.

I'm saying if u build an incomplete team to the point where losing a coin flip nullifies your chances of winning the game then too freaking bad. Make a play or you don't deserve it. That your own fault for not fielding a D capable of getting a single stop in crunch time

The problem being that if the team getting the ball first doesn't score to start overtime they get a second chance on defense although their offense failed. In my opinion that results in the coin toss being a decisive factor as one team receives a chance to mess up once while the other doesn't.

Yes, it is not fair that the team that wins the coin toss gets the ball and a chance to score the winning touchdown with the other teams offense not having a chance at all. However, unlike, for example, baseball, the defense has many opportunities to score as well; stripping the ball, interception, fumble recovery, etc. Having the ball does not always guarantee a score.

While it's true a defense is able to put up points as wellthose plays only accounted for 5.5% of the scores this season.

Add 15 minutes to the clock and continue the 4th quarter exactly at the point it is at. (no coin flip, no kickoff) Sudden death. This would create some interesting strategy towards the end of games tied near the end of the 4th quarter.

I really like this version.

 

[adambr2]

Actually the team getting the ball first in overtime can risk going for it on fourth down or take a risk in the red zone as well.

With the typical coach in the NFL erring on the side of conservatism, I don't see this often happening. My point is, if it's 4th and 2 at the 50, Team A has a very difficult decision. Team B, having followed Team A, knows exactly what they need and has no decision to make. Same applies in the red zone for team B, knowing exactly what they need to play for.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

With the typical coach in the NFL erring on the side of conservatism, I don't see this often happening. My point is, if it's 4th and 2 at the 50, Team A has a very difficult decision. Team B, having followed Team A, knows exactly what they need and has no decision to make. Same applies in the red zone for team B, knowing exactly what they need to play for.

What are you talking about? If one team errs on the side of caution because they feel it's too risky and kicks it away and the next team comes up and has that same situation, how is it any less risky for them? If they go for it and fail, Team A has it back with good position.

This is a bunch of hogwash you're trying to promote here.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

The problem being that if the team getting the ball first doesn't score to start overtime they get a second chance on defense although their offense failed. In my opinion that results in the coin toss being a decisive factor as one team receives a chance to mess up once while the other doesn't.

Ding Ding Ding !!!! We got a winner here.

 

[Half Empty]

In my day we didn't have pansy *** overtimes, the winner won when the opponent had a bloody stump, and we LIKED it, we LOVED it!!

Don't quite follow, maybe too early in the day. If you don't have overtime, in the context of this thread, you don't have a winner, regardless of who is bleeding. Are you, perhaps, putting the emphasis on the pansy part, meaning the solution is sudden death OT?

 

[Ceodore]

What are you talking about? If one team errs on the side of caution because they feel it's too risky and kicks it away and the next team comes up and has that same situation, how is it any less risky for them? If they go for it and fail, Team A has it back with good position.

This is a bunch of hogwash you're trying to promote here.

What?

Say the team that gets the ball first is 4th and 15 at their own 35. They're nuts if they go for it, therefore they punt away.

Now let's say a team in a different game gets the ball second, but they're down by 7. Same 4th and 15 at the their own 35. Their is literally no risk for the second team to go for it, because they're losing and if they don't get it, they lose anyway. Whereas the first team has to punt because they still have the risk of the loss by going for it and failing. Therefore the second team essentially has an extra down advantage because they know they have to keep going for it on 4th down in order to tie the game.

 

[adambr2]

What are you talking about? If one team errs on the side of caution because they feel it's too risky and kicks it away and the next team comes up and has that same situation, how is it any less risky for them? If they go for it and fail, Team A has it back with good position.

This is a bunch of hogwash you're trying to promote here.

Are you actually serious? Why do you think that college teams choose to play defense first every single time? It's a tremendous advantage to know exactly what you need by possessing the ball second in your proposed rule.

I'm all for being open minded about rule changes but it's tough to have that discussion with someone that just denies anything contrary and gets mad when people present evidence that doesn't support his point.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

What?

Say the team that gets the ball first is 4th and 15 at their own 35. They're nuts if they go for it, therefore they punt away.

Now let's say a team in a different game gets the ball second, but they're down by 7. Same 4th and 15 at the their own 35. Their is literally no risk for the second team to go for it, because they're losing and if they don't get it, they lose anyway. Whereas the first team has to punt because they still have the risk of the loss by going for it and failing. Therefore the second team essentially has an extra down advantage because they know they have to keep going for it on 4th down in order to tie the game.

Ummm yeah that is the way it always is when someone is down by 7 late in games, what's wrong with that?

Are you actually serious? Why do you think that college teams choose to play defense first every single time? It's a tremendous advantage to know exactly what you need by possessing the ball second in your proposed rule.

I'm all for being open minded about rule changes but it's tough to have that discussion with someone that just denies anything contrary and gets mad when people present evidence that doesn't support his point.

I'm not mad, I'm telling it like it is. There's always a risk to going for it on 4th. I mean of course if one team scores first in an OT possession and the next team's faced with a 4th down they're going to go for it, they already would under the current rules if they were down by a FG and out of range, hell they might even forego it if they're in range and the coach decides to go all out for the TD. But I don't see what the problem with that is.

And I don't see what the problem is to someone choosing to play D first, but I still wish people would quit bringing up college rules when they have nothing to do with anything considering there's no kickoffs in their OTs and teams start in automatic scoring range.

 

[Ceodore]

Ummm yeah that is the way it always is when someone is down by 7 late in games, what's wrong with that?

Your point was that both teams in overtime have the same situational risk which isn't true at all. Not saying it doesn't occur in regulation. But to say a play is just as risky for the second team with the ball as the first in overtime just isn't true when the second team has their hand forced.

 

[Pkrjones]

There's always a risk to going for it on 4th. I mean of course if one team scores first in an OT possession and the next team's faced with a 4th down they're going to go for it, they already would under the current rules if they were down by a FG and out of range, hell they might even forego it if they're in range and the coach decides to go all out for the TD.

If leveling the playing field is the ultimate goal then why not eliminate punting in overtime? Mandatory "going for it on 4th down". 1st team has an advantage of putting pressure on team 2 by scoring first, but they also have the disadvantage of team 2 topping whatever points they put on the board. I would think coin toss winner would defer 99% of the time unless their D is winded... then you'd want as much rest as possible.

 

[adambr2]

Your point was that both teams in overtime have the same situational risk which isn't true at all. Not saying it doesn't occur in regulation. But to say a play is just as risky for the second team with the ball as the first in overtime just isn't true when the second team has their hand forced.

Exactly. If both teams are allowed to possess, the first team has a tremendous risk on 4th and 2 from the 50. If they don't get it, the other team is 15 yards from FG range. But they don't have the knowledge of whether or not they will ever get the ball back if they punt.

The same team down 3 or 7 in that situation risks nothing whether it is 4th or 2 or 4th and 20. They simply convert or lose. But they have the advantage of knowing what they need to do.

The college rules, though they are very different, are still relevant when proposing an NFL overtime of both teams automatically possessing, since it puts both teams in a similar situation. The last time I looked it up the team defending first won about 55% of the time which is evidence of the advantage.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

3. Add 15 minutes to the clock and continue the 4th quarter exactly at the point it is at. (no coin flip, no kickoff) Sudden death. This would create some interesting strategy towards the end of games tied near the end of the 4th quarter.

I really like this version.

I would definitely favor this one over the current system as well. Under the current OT rules, it really feels like an unnecessary "reboot" of a game, that doesn't need to be stopped and restarted with a coin flip. This reboot also places too much importance on the luck of a coin flip, something which neither team has "earned" along the way.

Extend the time of the 4th quarter and just let the game play out as is, until one team has more points on the board than the other. I also like the fact that with this system, the team that ties it up on a last second touchdown or field goal, has to kickoff to the team they just scored against. Not score, win a coin flip and get the ball right back.

Imagine what happens in a tied game and a team receives a punt at their own 5 with 1:30 left on the clock in regulation. Sorry, you won't be kneeling down to "reboot" the game and start fresh in overtime.

 

[mongoosev]

I would definitely favor this one over the current system as well. Under the current OT rules, it really feels like an unnecessary "reboot" of a game, that doesn't need to be stopped and restarted with a coin flip. This reboot also places too much importance on the luck of a coin flip, something which neither team has "earned" along the way.

Extend the time of the 4th quarter and just let the game play out as is, until one team has more points on the board than the other. I also like the fact that with this system, the team that ties it up on a last second touchdown or field goal, has to kickoff to the team they just scored against. Not score, win a coin flip and get the ball right back.

Imagine what happens in a tied game and a team receives a punt at their own 5 with 1:30 left on the clock in regulation. Sorry, you won't be kneeling down to "reboot" the game and start fresh in overtime.

I like that as well. the excitement just carries over into OT with 15 minutes added without any distractions.

Only thing is IF they continue to tie then how long does this process work? Are they only allowed a certain number of OT's? I think two would be enough until they call a tie? another problem is IF they did go into the second OT and one of the teams' outscores the other do they just play until the time ends?

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

If leveling the playing field is the ultimate goal then why not eliminate punting in overtime? Mandatory "going for it on 4th down". 1st team has an advantage of putting pressure on team 2 by scoring first, but they also have the disadvantage of team 2 topping whatever points they put on the board. I would think coin toss winner would defer 99% of the time unless their D is winded... then you'd want as much rest as possible.

I'd say why not? I already said I'd get rid of extra points, and I don't see what's wrong with getting rid of punts in OT. Some coaches punt too much already so yes, make it more exciting.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Exactly. If both teams are allowed to possess, the first team has a tremendous risk on 4th and 2 from the 50. If they don't get it, the other team is 15 yards from FG range. But they don't have the knowledge of whether or not they will ever get the ball back if they punt.

The same team down 3 or 7 in that situation risks nothing whether it is 4th or 2 or 4th and 20. They simply convert or lose. But they have the advantage of knowing what they need to do.

The college rules, though they are very different, are still relevant when proposing an NFL overtime of both teams automatically possessing, since it puts both teams in a similar situation. The last time I looked it up the team defending first won about 55% of the time which is evidence of the advantage.

How many times does it bear repeating you could have this situation in the current system? A team that gets the ball first in OT doesn't know whether they'll get the ball back if they kick the FG if they're in range because the FG has no sudden death now.

See, none of the current scenarios you just brought up have any effect on what I am proposing. Sure, most teams probably won't elect to play defense upon winning the toss right now under the current system unless they got the legion of boom or a unit they feel confident will hold the opposition to a FG, but you damn well better believe that trailing by 3 they'll go for it on 4th and long. Whereas right now the team opening it up has to risk whether or not they should kick the FG and hope their defense can hold em out of the endzone.

 

[Mondio]

none of these make it better, they just make it different. why just extend the period as if nothing changes? why not extend the first half too? why does the team with the ball last get to benefit from not having to worry about running out of time at the end of the game. That is ridiculous if you ask me

 

[Half Empty]

My head hurts, I've got to stop trying to follow this.

 

[swhitset]

none of these make it better, they just make it different. why just extend the period as if nothing changes? why not extend the first half too? why does the team with the ball last get to benefit from not having to worry about running out of time at the end of the game. That is ridiculous if you ask me

it took me a minute to follow that... but I agree that is a pretty big flaw in that scenario.

 

[KevinR]

Replace the coin toss with a jump ball.......the way they start basketball games. Or.....give each team at least on posession in OT.

 

[Quientus]

2x10 minutes of overtime ... with No timeouts, No FG allowed - only TDs or punting

Coaches still get 2 challenges but at the cost of a lost Down if they get it wrong, possibly resulting in only having 3 downs instead of 4 on a subsequent possession.

If the score is still tied after the 2x10 it goes to special teams;

Each team starts kicking starting from the 20 moving 10 yd further away on each subsequent try ... untill a winner is found ...

 

[mongoosev]

2x10 minutes of overtime ... with No timeouts, No FG allowed - only TDs or punting

Coaches still get 2 challenges but at the cost of a lost Down if they get it wrong, possibly resulting in only having 3 downs instead of 4 on a subsequent possession.

If the score is still tied after the 2x10 it goes to special teams;

Each team starts kicking starting from the 20 moving 10 yd further away on each subsequent try ... untill a winner is found ...

that is too much! like a whole knew league they are playing in.

wait a minute...you're just kidding right? I just read the last part and reminds me of a soccer shoot out. lol

 

[mongoosev]

And candy bars cost a nickle and computers were as big as a house yada yada yada.

remember phones back then? all you needed was a string and two cups. so many things these young turds take for granted these days!