Ties in the NFL

[OnWis97]

My biggest issue is with how your fate is partially dependant on a coin flip.

That issue is brought up a lot, but if a team loses the OT coin toss, maybe they shoud D-up and stop their opponenet. It is weird how a team that has played good defense all day just turns to crap once OT starts.

The NFL OT may not be perfect, but it is better than college OT. I can' stand it when a game is 14-14 at the end of regulation, but the final score is 45-43.

What's more important, how inflated the final scores are or having a fair way of deciding?

I like the college way much better.

A lot of people say that the college way "is not football" because 25 yards is not a drive. This is true. It changes the game. But at least both teams have an essentially equal chance. In the current OT system, the coin flip is too important. You know it's a problem when the captains jump up and down and get very excited because they win a coin flip.

Some of the other ideas have some merit--have to score six points--play the entire 15 minutes, etc. The advantage would still be to the recieving team, but the advangatge would not be as great.

The NFL overtime is never going to change, unless a superbowl or high-profile playoff game is decided by the coin-flip winner winning on a FG on its first drive...

--------------------

One more thing--a few years ago, the NFL moved the kickoffs from the 35 to the 30 so there could be more kickoff returns and better field position. This increased the OT advantage for the coin flip winner. I think they should have continuned to kick from the 35 for OT.

[Jigga]

Excellent points by defenders and detractors alike. If the NFL, does adopt the NCAA rule, they'd have to put the ball at the 45 or 50, IMHO. College kickers lining up for a 42 yard field goal are scared to death. NFL kickers barely break a sweat at that distance. Gotta at least make the offense EARN the win. Go three and out if you want to, there've only been 2 or 3 made field goals of over 60 yards.

[OMMF]

Anyone who likes the NHL shootout has to be behind the idea of a quarterback challenge for a tie in the NFL. Team sport, single player outcome, right?

[Sterling84]

I don't mind games ending in ties. What I can't stand is going to OT, winning a coin toss, getting 3 first downs and kicking a field goal for the win. What I would like to see is a system where if you get the ball first and score, the other team gets a shot to come back. So for example, the team that gets the ball first and kicks a field goal, the other team gets the ball back and if they kick a field goal, the game keeps going, if they score a touchdown, they win & if they get stopped, they lose.

I disagree. If it were as easy as three first downs followed by a FG then why haven't either team just did that in regulation?

1) Defense is part of the game. Some would argue that it needs to be similar to baseball or college football. Everyone gets an at bat in extra innings right? Thats only cause you have to bat to score in baseball. In football you can score on D. You can score anytime. So just stop the offense and get the ball back. Starting each possession from the redzone in a shootout type format makes it seem like the defense has no say in the outcome, no power to win the game, which isn't true.

2) Any football game that is tied after regulation deserves to be lost anyway. Yes. I'm serious. You show me an overtime NFL game, and I'll show you a game that one, probably both, teams had a chance to win many times over. To get to overtime you've already missed a FG, blown a lead.....something. Because you just don't see terrifically played, back and forth, flawless 35-35 football games. Any coach preparing his team for OT realizes he either got lucky to catch up and force the extra period, or should have ground the clock and put the game away long ago and is kicking himself. Both teams should be thanking their lucky stars for a chance to man-up and steal a victory. There is no excuse for not doing so on defense if that is what you are forced to play first.

NFL overtime is perfect as is.

[BCBoy]

Ties don't bother me, but as someone in this thread has already said, seeing a 14-14 game going into overtime and ending up 45-43 irratates people, including myself. Maybe to prevent so much scoring in a shoot-out system is to make teams start on their own 40 or 45 yard line, then they at least need to earn 2 to 4 first downs just to get into FG range, and then decide from their if they want to play for a TD or FG. If after two chances each both teams are tied, the teams both need to try for TD instead of FG's.

[jkrdevil]

I don't mind games ending in ties. What I can't stand is going to OT, winning a coin toss, getting 3 first downs and kicking a field goal for the win. What I would like to see is a system where if you get the ball first and score, the other team gets a shot to come back. So for example, the team that gets the ball first and kicks a field goal, the other team gets the ball back and if they kick a field goal, the game keeps going, if they score a touchdown, they win & if they get stopped, they lose.

I disagree. If it were as easy as three first downs followed by a FG then why haven't either team just did that in regulation?

1) Defense is part of the game. Some would argue that it needs to be similar to baseball or college football. Everyone gets an at bat in extra innings right? Thats only cause you have to bat to score in baseball. In football you can score on D. You can score anytime. So just stop the offense and get the ball back. Starting each possession from the redzone in a shootout type format makes it seem like the defense has no say in the outcome, no power to win the game, which isn't true.

2) Any football game that is tied after regulation deserves to be lost anyway. Yes. I'm serious. You show me an overtime NFL game, and I'll show you a game that one, probably both, teams had a chance to win many times over. To get to overtime you've already missed a FG, blown a lead.....something. Because you just don't see terrifically played, back and forth, flawless 35-35 football games. Any coach preparing his team for OT realizes he either got lucky to catch up and force the extra period, or should have ground the clock and put the game away long ago and is kicking himself. Both teams should be thanking their lucky stars for a chance to man-up and steal a victory. There is no excuse for not doing so on defense if that is what you are forced to play first.

NFL overtime is perfect as is.

Absolutly agree. If your defense can't stop the other team you don't deserve to win.

[nwtrailtrekker]

Does anyone agree with me that the NFL should adopt overtime rules like the NCAA?

no, while it seems like the my team the hawks get screwed on every coin flip, its still a good challenge.

[See Red]

I don't mind games ending in ties. What I can't stand is going to OT, winning a coin toss, getting 3 first downs and kicking a field goal for the win. What I would like to see is a system where if you get the ball first and score, the other team gets a shot to come back. So for example, the team that gets the ball first and kicks a field goal, the other team gets the ball back and if they kick a field goal, the game keeps going, if they score a touchdown, they win & if they get stopped, they lose.

I disagree. If it were as easy as three first downs followed by a FG then why haven't either team just did that in regulation?

1) Defense is part of the game. Some would argue that it needs to be similar to baseball or college football. Everyone gets an at bat in extra innings right? Thats only cause you have to bat to score in baseball. In football you can score on D. You can score anytime. So just stop the offense and get the ball back. Starting each possession from the redzone in a shootout type format makes it seem like the defense has no say in the outcome, no power to win the game, which isn't true.

2) Any football game that is tied after regulation deserves to be lost anyway. Yes. I'm serious. You show me an overtime NFL game, and I'll show you a game that one, probably both, teams had a chance to win many times over. To get to overtime you've already missed a FG, blown a lead.....something. Because you just don't see terrifically played, back and forth, flawless 35-35 football games. Any coach preparing his team for OT realizes he either got lucky to catch up and force the extra period, or should have ground the clock and put the game away long ago and is kicking himself. Both teams should be thanking their lucky stars for a chance to man-up and steal a victory. There is no excuse for not doing so on defense if that is what you are forced to play first.

NFL overtime is perfect as is.

Absolutly agree. If your defense can't stop the other team you don't deserve to win.

But what about teams that aren't built around defense? That puts them at a huge disadvantage just because of their style of play.

[OMMF]

Does anyone agree with me that the NFL should adopt overtime rules like the NCAA?

no, while it seems like the my team the hawks get screwed on every coin flip, its still a good challenge.

Hasselbeck was the culprit one year, not the coin:

But after a hard fought battle throughout regulation, it was Seattle quarterback Matt Hasselbeck proclaiming over the official?s open microphone after winning the coin toss in overtime, ?We?ll take the ball and we?re going to score!?

The Seahawks avoided a lot of the problems that plagued them on the road to take this game into the extra period, but their playoff bubble burst when Packers cornerback Al Harris slipped in front of a sideline pass by Hasselbeck and took the interception 52 yards for the game-winning score.

[Broken Record]

Great discussion. The NCAA overtime rules are exciting, but it's really just a test of red zone efficiency.

I agree with others who have said the coin toss is unfair in the NFL's sudden death scenario.

I'd like to see the NFL just tack on 10 minutes of regulation to a tie game and see who the winner is after that. If it's still a tie, just leave it a tie (of course unless it is a post season game). I often wonder if sudden death came about because networks didn't want to delay Andy Rooney and 60 Minutes

[Sterling84]

Just to further clarify here.

There could be an amazing baseball game...a classic pitchers duel. Two aces each striking out double digits and allowing only 2 hits. Scoreless after nine we are required to play extra innings to see which stud falters first. That's an extreme example, but you get my point. While defense is still a team effort in baseball, a pitcher CAN make it so that nobody else even matters if his stuff is on that day.

The same can be said in hockey. A hot goalie, or a pair of hot goalies can close the door and create the scenario where three periods just aren't enough.

In basketball, just the nature of the scoring system and the "expected" nature of points every trip down the court leads to inevitable ties.

Football is different. Football ties are ugly. They are mistake filled. They are clinics in wasted opportunities, flawed strategies and prevent defenses gone awry.

They deserve to be lost, and therefore must be ended quickly. Teams should be embarrassed to be in overtime and do all they can to muster some effort and end the contest.

Not to mention the fact that the chance for injury goes up exponentially the longer the game goes. It's more critical the game end, than engage in some back and forth offensive exhibition so that everyone got to touch the ball the same amount of times.

Defenders can just go up and take the ball away from the offense you know. It's not easy, but it's legal. I hate it when people gripe about.....well, we never even got the ball.

[Sec19Row53]

Since 1974, when overtime was instituted in the NFL, there have been 16 games that have ended in ties (that's in a span of 32 seasons as of next weekend). In only 2 seasons have there been as many as 2 ties (1986 and 1997). There have been 3 ties in the last 15 seasons.

It's so small on my list of things to care about that I can't see it with a microscope.

[pcgd]

Just to further clarify here.

There could be an amazing baseball game...a classic pitchers duel. Two aces each striking out double digits and allowing only 2 hits. Scoreless after nine we are required to play extra innings to see which stud falters first. That's an extreme example, but you get my point. While defense is still a team effort in baseball, a pitcher CAN make it so that nobody else even matters if his stuff is on that day.

The same can be said in hockey. A hot goalie, or a pair of hot goalies can close the door and create the scenario where three periods just aren't enough.

In basketball, just the nature of the scoring system and the "expected" nature of points every trip down the court leads to inevitable ties.

Football is different. Football ties are ugly. They are mistake filled. They are clinics in wasted opportunities, flawed strategies and prevent defenses gone awry.

They deserve to be lost, and therefore must be ended quickly. Teams should be embarrassed to be in overtime and do all they can to muster some effort and end the contest.

Not to mention the fact that the chance for injury goes up exponentially the longer the game goes. It's more critical the game end, than engage in some back and forth offensive exhibition so that everyone got to touch the ball the same amount of times.

Defenders can just go up and take the ball away from the offense you know. It's not easy, but it's legal. I hate it when people gripe about.....well, we never even got the ball.

I think football is different. Different in the fact that a mistake free game is impossible. If it was, every play would be a touchdown because everyone blocked their man to the fullest extent. (I'm exaggerating of course)

Because of that, you should expect that every team is going to turn the ball over, miss a field goal, fumble, go 3 and out, etc.

I personally like the college approach to overtime. Scores don't matter, its the win. Who cares if a 10-10 game turns into a 45 point game in 5 "overtimes." The important stat is the Win. Defense is very important in the college overtime. If you can restrict the team to a 3 and out, that 42 yard field goal isn't easy. Add to that the defense has given the offense a chance to win the game instead of putting pressure on them to have to score a TD.

However, how many wins does Chicago have in OT this century off defense?

2005: 1 Overtime game; Result: INT for Touchdown vs. Detroit

2004: 1 Overtime game; Result: Safety vs. Tennessee

2003: 0 Overtime games

2002: 3 Overtime games; All ended with field goals, One had detroit win the flip and give the ball to chicago

2001: 2 Overtime games; Both decided by INT for Touchdowns by Mike Brown

So in the last 5 years, the Bears have been in 7 overtime games. 4 have been decided by their defense.

If the NFL were to go to the College OT, I agree that both teams should start further back. I like the idea of the 50 yard line. You'd have to at least move 5 yards to attempt a near NFL record field goal.