NFL Must Change OT Rules Starting Now

[Deleted member 6794]

Less than 20% of offensive possessions end in an offensive TD. I'd say it's hardly the flip of the coin that determines the outcome.

and again, so you give teams each a possession. It's still tied, now what? you'll always be left with what we have. unless it just so happens the 2nd team scores a TD instead of a FG, but for the rest of the times, the team that got the ball first, is going to get the ball next and score and the game will be done. and you're still left with the other team getting less possessions.

The coin toss in overtime doesn't determine the winner but it sure affects the outcome out the game.

As I've mentioned before I would be in favor of both teams getting the same amount of possessions in overtime eliminating sudden death.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Less than 20% of offensive possessions end in an offensive TD. I'd say it's hardly the flip of the coin that determines the outcome. even this last game. Atlanta had time and time again to put the pats away or stop an offensive score. They didn't.

and again, so you give teams each a possession. It's still tied, now what? you'll always be left with what we have. unless it just so happens the 2nd team scores a TD instead of a FG, but for the rest of the times, the team that got the ball first, is going to get the ball next and score and the game will be done. and you're still left with the other team getting less possessions.

They've played for 60, determine the winner and go home happy or sad. no matter how you slice it, a coin flip does not determine the winner, the game of football does. haven't heard a single "solution" that makes anything more equitable or "better" just different. New scenarios and new problems to try and fix. how about we define a catch instead and quit making games longer and longer and do something important?

Just curious is that just for a game in general, or OT first possessions? I'm sure that stat is real, but I'm just curious about it.

As I mentioned, while this wouldn't necessarily stop that, I'm wanting to see an elimination of extra points and have teams go for 2 in OT, because I'd venture to say it seems that's a lot harder to do even for good teams than kicking an extra point. And see that key there in the other team getting less possession is exactly why Ryder's argument is shot. You can have unequal possessions, but I just feel things have a way of playing out better if you get rid of sudden death. Also, who's to say if that second team that scored the game-tying TD or FG feels unconfident in their defense that they won't try an onside kick?

Personally I'm for seeing more coaches play not to go to OT in general such as pulling things like going for 2 when trailing by 7 late in games like Jack Del Rio, or instead of kicking FGs to tie it shooting for a deep ball to the endzone even on 4th down.

But like I also said, I'm even open to keeping sudden death like it is if that coin toss is gotten rid of. Maybe I was a bit to brash in saying it guarantees an offensive TD to be scored first, but as has been argued I think it is too big a factor and the battle for who gets possession should not have to be determined by someone flipping and potentially ******** up the coin toss. I know it sounds funny but I really think the idea of either a neutral onside kick or a jump ball kind of thing should be explored. Yeah, the pileup could get ugly, but at least then players actually will be practicing that kind of thing and getting ready to do it when overtime comes, and there'll be a real battle for the ball.

 

[Mondio]

Just a game in general. I do t have access to to all the stats. Just found average possessions per game and how many Rushing and passing Tds averaged per game and did some fuzzy math and called it a day

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

That's fair enough.

And here's another thing to think about, change the rules to OT enough and pretty soon coaches and players might start viewing it as a bad thing. I honestly think it'd make for a better game to see them start changing their strategy to be more gutsy and pull things like going for 2 and forgoing FGs for TD pass attempts.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Personally, I don't see why you need to start changing the rules (no punts, fg's, XP's, etc), just because you are in OT. I want to see a game end in OT, the way it can end in regulation, standard rules of football. However, I would like to see the OT period not be influenced by the mere flip of a coin and the distinct possibility that one team's offense never steps onto the field.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Personally, I don't see why you need to start changing the rules (no punts, fg's, XP's, etc), just because you are in OT. I want to see a game end in OT, the way it can end in regulation, standard rules of football. However, I would like to see the OT period not be influenced by the mere flip of a coin and the distinct possibility that one team's offense never steps onto the field.

I suppose it's rather more my bias to liking the possibility of risk taking amping up as opposed to the practicality of it all in regards to going for 2 and all. The last post I referred to was maybe a solution for the players if they didn't want to go into another whole 15 minutes (or less) of having to go all out, they could avoid that by avoiding ties in the 4th quarter by going for 2 and going for hail maries into the end zone even if they're in FG range. Course I suppose Brett Favre was guilty enough of that already and it backfired often on him, but I still think as a coach you could throw in play calls like that to catch the defense off guard.

Avoiding or getting around rule changes isn't necessarily new, aka the way that Bellichek decided not to let kickoffs going out of the endzone affect FP by kicking them up really high and pinning returners deep when they had to return it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I suppose it's rather more my bias to liking the possibility of risk taking amping up as opposed to the practicality of it all in regards to going for 2 and all. The last post I referred to was maybe a solution for the players if they didn't want to go into another whole 15 minutes (or less) of having to go all out, they could avoid that by avoiding ties in the 4th quarter by going for 2 and going for hail maries into the end zone even if they're in FG range. Course I suppose Brett Favre was guilty enough of that already and it backfired often on him, but I still think as a coach you could throw in play calls like that to catch the defense off guard.

Avoiding or getting around rule changes isn't necessarily new, aka the way that Bellichek decided not to let kickoffs going out of the endzone affect FP by kicking them up really high and pinning returners deep when they had to return it.

How would you feel if your rule changes for OT just took place for the final 5 minutes of the 4th quarter? To me, its changing the game too much. I think that is what I hate the most about the OT format that they use in College games. Feels more like red zone drills, then it does football.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

How would you feel if your rule changes for OT just took place for the final 5 minutes of the 4th quarter? To me, its changing the game too much. I think that is what I hate the most about the OT format that they use in College games. Feels more like red zone drills, then it does football.

Like I said, I don't like college style OT and don't want this league to go into any of that nonsense. And some of these suggestions/eliminations were just raw ideas thrown out there. I don't really want to deviate away from the way football should be played, but you just get a feeling that should they fix this sudden death problem, there might be some compromises along the way and ... well knowing our unpredictable buffoon commissioner, god knows what they might be.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

By the way here's another thing .... I'm open to thinking about that 5th quarter style OT, but I think in order to go that route the current CBA has to be torn up and a brand new one that triples the current offseason conditioning workouts on the players be brought in, or maybe even quadruples it. And that's because the reason concussions and multiple injuries are happening is that players are not getting conditioned period during the offseason so they get injured more often now due to bad workouts. Get rid of this CBA and really put the workout load on the players so they come into the season able to play 6 quarters worth of football if they had to.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I still don't really fully understand this argument/fear that some have of an OT of say a 10 minute 5th quarter, is going to wear guys completely out or set up a high risk of injuries. First, how many games in 2016 required OT? 1 per week? Second. what is the average length of time that those lasted? I know tw0 lasted 15 minutes, since they ended in a tie. Finally, what are the stats supporting more injuries will occur in overtime?

Now if you told me that Networks didn't want the potential for longer overtime games because it messes with their schedules, I would be more apt to believe that. Kind of like the Bengals-Redskins game in London this year, when FOX stopped the National broadcast 3:17 into OT.

 

[Adrien]

I still don't really fully understand this argument/fear that some have of an OT of say a 10 minute 5th quarter, is going to wear guys completely out or set up a high risk of injuries. First, how many games in 2016 required OT? 1 per week? Second. what is the average length of time that those lasted? I know tw0 lasted 15 minutes, since they ended in a tie. Finally, what are the stats supporting more injuries will occur in overtime?

Now if you told me that Networks didn't want the potential for longer overtime games because it messes with their schedules, I would be more apt to believe that. Kind of like the Bengals-Redskins game in London this year, when FOX stopped the National broadcast 3:17 into OT.

I agree with you we saw the same problem happened to the Falcons in the Super Bowl.

I have two possible solutions to resolve this problem:
1) Add a fifth period of however long the NFL chooses (5min, 10min, 15min)
2) Give each team one possession, and if the score is still tied after that possession then go into sudden death.

What do you guys think?

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

I still don't really fully understand this argument/fear that some have of an OT of say a 10 minute 5th quarter, is going to wear guys completely out or set up a high risk of injuries. First, how many games in 2016 required OT? 1 per week? Second. what is the average length of time that those lasted? I know tw0 lasted 15 minutes, since they ended in a tie. Finally, what are the stats supporting more injuries will occur in overtime?

Well, as usual I'll leave that up to Captain W to discuss. I think it's more that injuries in general have increased since the CBA was redone into the **** that we have today, so therefore if you add longer games that they aren't conditioned for, it's likely assumed that those are going to take an even bigger toll on them, and what with in some cases having to turn around and play on a Thursday night, or even from Monday night to Sunday, those things might be taken into account. Now, I don't have any stats off-hand that correlate injuries to longer games, but seems like ex-football commentators talk about the more likelihood of injuries all the time as a game wears on and players' bodies tire out.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And that's because the reason concussions and multiple injuries are happening is that players are not getting conditioned period during the offseason so they get injured more often now due to bad workouts.

While it's possible other injuries happen more often because of bad conditioning I'm absolutely convinced less offseason workouts don't lead to an increased number of concussions.

I still don't really fully understand this argument/fear that some have of an OT of say a 10 minute 5th quarter, is going to wear guys completely out or set up a high risk of injuries. First, how many games in 2016 required OT? 1 per week? Second. what is the average length of time that those lasted? I know tw0 lasted 15 minutes, since they ended in a tie. Finally, what are the stats supporting more injuries will occur in overtime?

There were 13 overtime games during the 2016 regular season which took an average of 9 minutes and 56 seconds to decide. Unfortunately I have no information about injuries occurring during those periods.

BTW only three of those 13 games were decided by the team getting the ball first scoring a touchdown.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

While it's possible other injuries happen more often because of bad conditioning I'm absolutely convinced less offseason workouts don't lead to an increased number of concussions.



There were 13 overtime games during the 2016 regular season which took an average of 9 minutes and 56 seconds to decide. Unfortunately I have no information about injuries occurring during those periods.

BTW only three of those 13 games were decided by the team getting the ball first scoring a touchdown.

Thanks Captain. Good information, even less OT games than I thought and the average time of completion greater than I thought. Enough information for me to stick with my idea of, let OT games be played out for a 10 minute quarter (non sudden death) in the regular season, it ends with a winner or tied. In the playoffs, if the game is tied after the 5th, switch ends, add 10 minutes to the clock and keep playing sudden death. For those fans that like the excitement that the end of the 4th quarter can involve, this format allows for the same to end OT's.

The 3 out of 13 games decided by the team who wins a coin toss, gets the ball first and scores to win, is totally relevant enough to me and probably those 3 teams that lost, to change the current format.

 

[sschind]

Thanks Captain. Good information, even less OT games than I thought and the average time of completion greater than I thought. Enough information for me to stick with my idea of, let OT games be played out for a 10 minute quarter (non sudden death) in the regular season, it ends with a winner or tied. In the playoffs, if the game is tied after the 5th, switch ends, add 10 minutes to the clock and keep playing sudden death. For those fans that like the excitement that the end of the 4th quarter can involve, this format allows for the same to end OT's.

The 3 out of 13 games decided by the team who wins a coin toss, gets the ball first and scores to win, is totally relevant to me and probably those 3 teams that lost, to change the current format.

Just out of curiosity if the team winning the toss went on a 10 minute drive and kicked a FG to win the game would you be OK with that?

I'm only asking because it seems that no matter what anyone proposes someone will find some downside to it.

My personal opinion is that each team should get a minimum of 1 possession. Coin toss, team A wins it scores a TD they can choose to go for 1 or 2. Team B gets the kickoff and may have the advantage of knowing exactly what they need but IMO its a small advantage. If they score TD they can go for the win with 2 or the tie with 1. If they get the tie team A gets the KO and its the first to score from there on out. If team A scores again I do not see the need to give team B an equal possession. Team B had the chance to go for the win and chose to play for another tie. Each teams offense had a chance to score and each teams defense had a chance to stop the other teams offense. I don't see how you can make it any more fair than that.

If we believe that the second possession has an advantage we have to assume that the team winning the toss would always decide to kick off first. I know in college it may be a big deal to go second because teams start in scoring position. Its not so in the NFL. Teams still have to drive a ways to score even a FG. I just don't think its that big of a deal.

I'll also add that I would be perfectly fine with ties at the end of regulation without an OT period. You had 60 minutes to decide who is the better team why should you have extra time. I wonder how many of those 13 OT games would have actually ended in a tie if the coaches knew there was no OT. I'm guessing at least a few coaches would have gone for the win instead of the tie and playing for OT.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Just out of curiosity if the team winning the toss went on a 10 minute drive and kicked a FG to win the game would you be OK with that?

I'm only asking because it seems that no matter what anyone proposes someone will find some downside to it.

My personal opinion is that each team should get a minimum of 1 possession. Coin toss, team A wins it scores a TD they can choose to go for 1 or 2. Team B gets the kickoff and may have the advantage of knowing exactly what they need but IMO its a small advantage. If they score TD they can go for the win with 2 or the tie with 1. If they get the tie team A gets the KO and its the first to score from there on out. If team A scores again I do not see the need to give team B an equal possession. Team B had the chance to go for the win and chose to play for another tie. Each teams offense had a chance to score and each teams defense had a chance to stop the other teams offense. I don't see how you can make it any more fair than that.

If we believe that the second possession has an advantage we have to assume that the team winning the toss would always decide to kick off first. I know in college it may be a big deal to go second because teams start in scoring position. Its not so in the NFL. Teams still have to drive a ways to score even a FG. I just don't think its that big of a deal.

I'll also add that I would be perfectly fine with ties at the end of regulation without an OT period. You had 60 minutes to decide who is the better team why should you have extra time. I wonder how many of those 13 OT games would have actually ended in a tie if the coaches knew there was no OT. I'm guessing at least a few coaches would have gone for the win instead of the tie and playing for OT.

I guess I would be curious how often a 10 minute drive has happened in the NFL, especially with the defense being able to use timeouts. If it happened once in 100 OT games, it would still be better than the current format. Winning TD's on opening drives happened 3 out of 13 OT games last year.

I think a way to even out the coin flip a bit, would be by giving the winner the choice of starting with the ball on their own 15 or giving it to their opponents on their 15. I really would like to see the coin flip taken out of any new system, since unlike the opening coin flip, its advantage (receiving or kicking off decision) is never recouped by the team losing the toss in OT.

As far as throwing up your hands at the end of 60 minutes and saying "a tie is a tie", I doubt many fans would be to happy with that. While a tie is better than a loss, its probably right up there with kissing your sister. LOL

Another idea I have been kicking around in my head. Kind of combines college and pro. Give each team 5 minutes with the ball on offense, starting on their own 20. Treat it like the last 5 minutes of the 4th quarter with clock stoppages and reviews. 1 timeout/team. The big question is who starts on offense? I would let the visiting team decide that, since the home team already seems to have the advantage of home field the entire game.

 

[sschind]

I guess I would be curious how often a 10 minute drive has happened in the NFL, especially with the defense being able to use timeouts. If it happened once in 100 OT games, it would still be better than the current format. Winning TD's on opening drives happened 3 out of 13 OT games last year.

I think a way to even out the coin flip a bit, would be by giving the winner the choice of starting with the ball on their own 15 or giving it to their opponents on their 15. I really would like to see the coin flip taken out of any new system, since unlike the opening coin flip, its advantage (receiving or kicking off decision) is never recouped by the team losing the toss in OT.

As far as throwing up your hands at the end of 60 minutes and saying "a tie is a tie", I doubt many fans would be to happy with that. While a tie is better than a loss, its probably right up there with kissing your sister. LOL

Another idea I have been kicking around in my head. Kind of combines college and pro. Give each team 5 minutes with the ball on offense, starting on their own 20. Treat it like the last 5 minutes of the 4th quarter with clock stoppages and reviews. 1 timeout/team. The big question is who starts on offense? I would let the visiting team decide that, since the home team already seems to have the advantage of home field the entire game.

I know on the 10 minute drive thing, I just threw it out there because I believe in one of your posts you said (5,10,15 minutes.) and a 5 minute drive is not out of the ordinary. EDIT, that was someone else, not you, I'm sorry.

I also know fans will not want to go back to the tie I'm just giving my opinion.

Like I said, so far it seems that any new ideas, including my own, that are proposed will have others coming up with negatives.

Why not take away the receiving or kicking off advantage. If you win the toss you receive, no choice. Your main objection is the coin toss as you see that the winner of the toss has a distinct advantage. 3 out of 13 won on a 1st possession TD is significant to you. If we give the other team a chance no matter what happens wouldn't that take away the advantage of winning the toss and scoring a TD, especially if you have to receive and don't get the advantage of knowing what you need to win.

IMO there is no 100% fair way to do it. The best way is to simply not have an OT and let games end in a tie but that is not possible in the post season and to most people it is not desirable in the regular season. Someone will always has the advantage, at least in someone's mind.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Just out of curiosity if the team winning the toss went on a 10 minute drive and kicked a FG to win the game would you be OK with that?

I'm only asking because it seems that no matter what anyone proposes someone will find some downside to it.

My personal opinion is that each team should get a minimum of 1 possession. Coin toss, team A wins it scores a TD they can choose to go for 1 or 2. Team B gets the kickoff and may have the advantage of knowing exactly what they need but IMO its a small advantage. If they score TD they can go for the win with 2 or the tie with 1. If they get the tie team A gets the KO and its the first to score from there on out. If team A scores again I do not see the need to give team B an equal possession. Team B had the chance to go for the win and chose to play for another tie. Each teams offense had a chance to score and each teams defense had a chance to stop the other teams offense. I don't see how you can make it any more fair than that.

If we believe that the second possession has an advantage we have to assume that the team winning the toss would always decide to kick off first. I know in college it may be a big deal to go second because teams start in scoring position. Its not so in the NFL. Teams still have to drive a ways to score even a FG. I just don't think its that big of a deal.

I'll also add that I would be perfectly fine with ties at the end of regulation without an OT period. You had 60 minutes to decide who is the better team why should you have extra time. I wonder how many of those 13 OT games would have actually ended in a tie if the coaches knew there was no OT. I'm guessing at least a few coaches would have gone for the win instead of the tie and playing for OT.

While it's possible to consume 10 minutes off a clock in a drive, it's still very rare even for good offenses. Hell I'd venture to guess if it was more common than it is, we'd actually see less OTs because someone would either kill the clock down 10 mins in the 4th quarter, or hold onto that ball long enough to wait to break a tie with a last second FG. I mean, I'm not saying it wouldn't ever happen in OT, but just considering it's usually far easier said than done, I can't see it becoming a regularity even if it became a strategy.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

My personal opinion is that each team should get a minimum of 1 possession. Coin toss, team A wins it scores a TD they can choose to go for 1 or 2. Team B gets the kickoff and may have the advantage of knowing exactly what they need but IMO its a small advantage. If they score TD they can go for the win with 2 or the tie with 1. If they get the tie team A gets the KO and its the first to score from there on out. If team A scores again I do not see the need to give team B an equal possession. Team B had the chance to go for the win and chose to play for another tie. Each teams offense had a chance to score and each teams defense had a chance to stop the other teams offense. I don't see how you can make it any more fair than that.

I truly like your suggestion.

I guess I would be curious how often a 10 minute drive has happened in the NFL, especially with the defense being able to use timeouts. If it happened once in 100 OT games, it would still be better than the current format. Winning TD's on opening drives happened 3 out of 13 OT games last year.

This season four out of 5,641 drives last at leasted 10 minutes. Since the NFL implemented the new overtime rule in 2012 it has never happened in 216 drives in overtime.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This season four out of 5,641 drives last at leasted 10 minutes. Since the NFL implemented the new overtime rule in 2012 it has never happened in 216 drives in overtime.

Thanks Captain. 4 out of 5,641 are odds I could live with and it would probably be even less if the defense has 2 timeouts and the clock is being managed similar to the last 5 minutes of regulation. Which would almost assure at least one possession by each team in OT. Sschinds idea isn't a bad one either.

 

[sschind]

This season four out of 5,641 drives last at leasted 10 minutes. Since the NFL implemented the new overtime rule in 2012 it has never happened in 216 drives in overtime.

It may have been asked and answered previously and its really none of my business but just what do you do for a living that gives you time to find all these stats and where on earth do you find them. I'm just curious because not only do you have the stats anyone asks for you seem to have them at your fingertips. I'm thinking head statistician for the NFL or something like that. Either that or unemployed truck driver with a T1 line and some serious hacker skills.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It may have been asked and answered previously and its really none of my business but just what do you do for a living that gives you time to find all these stats and where on earth do you find them. I'm just curious because not only do you have the stats anyone asks for you seem to have them at your fingertips. I'm thinking head statistician for the NFL or something like that. Either that or unemployed truck driver with a T1 line and some serious hacker skills.

I'm actually a software developer but there's no hacking skills necessary to find all of these stats. Pro Football Reference's play index is a powerful tool which allows you to find numbers like that in a heartbeat.

 

[red4tribe]

Each team should get the same number of possessions in overtime. You keep sudden death since a defensive touchdown would end the game. It just blows my mind that so many people think it's okay that one team can touch the ball and the other can't. It would be like the away team in baseball hitting a home run in the top of the tenth and the game being over, no baseball fan in their right mind would consider that fair. It isn't fair in football either.

 

[Mondio]

It is nothing like baseball, not in the slightest. Unless of course you just want to line up each time from the 25 and each team gets 10-12 offensive possessions. No special teams and just play. and then if it's tied you end up with the same scenario we have now, how do you end it? sudden death? that's unfair make them play till one comes out on top, regardless of how long it takes?

Having played baseball and football, I can tell you, extra innings in baseball can not even begin to be compared to overtime in football. The energy exerted in one series dwarfs that of the energy exerted in an entire baseball game except a pitcher and none of them go the whole game so they don't even count.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It may have been asked and answered previously and its really none of my business but just what do you do for a living that gives you time to find all these stats and where on earth do you find them. I'm just curious because not only do you have the stats anyone asks for you seem to have them at your fingertips. I'm thinking head statistician for the NFL or something like that. Either that or unemployed truck driver with a T1 line and some serious hacker skills.

I only know this about CaptainWimm

You must be logged in to see this image or video!