An Idea for NFL Overtime

[jkrdevil]

After the Colts-Chargers game the debate over the NFL has been re-ignited. The major aspect against it is the importance of the coin flip. That got me thinking. Personally I like sudden death and don't not want to see something like the college system be out into place. Defense is important part of football and for the most part that system disregards that in my opinion. However I though of something to take care of the coin flip problem that is real simple.

My is that overtime would just pick up where the 4th quarter left off. It would remain first team to score but instead of a coin flip determining possession it would be treated like a change between the 3rd and 4th quarter. Teams would switch sides of the field, the team that had possession at the end of the 4th quarter keeps possession of the ball with the same spot, down, and distance.

For example Team A is playing Team B. Team B ties the game with about 20 seconds left in the 4th. They then kick off to team A who runs it back to the 27. Team A on first down runs for 3 yards. The clock then runs down to the tend of the 4th. The team would then switch sides of the field, and overtime would begin with Team A having the ball on 2 and 7 at their own 30 yard line. It's sudden death from that point first to score wins.

This gets rid of the luck factor of the coin toss. Possession is determined by the circumstances off the game, which I think is fair. It preserves the sudden death aspect of OT. It also gets rid of teams kneeling down at the end of the 4th to get to overtime as they would be wasting a down.

[JQK]

Don't like it. I love the NFL's overtime system.

I believe it is only like, 50-52% of teams who win the coin toss go down the field and score on their first possesion.

PLUS, the other team has a defense. I think everyone is so offensive-centric, they think if one team can't get their offense on the field, it's an automatic loss.

Ask the Seahawks how that worked out in Green Bay a few years ago.

The NFL overtime is fine, and is much better than college's infantile overtime rules.

[slightly shotgunned]

besides, what happens when team a has the ball on team b's 8 yard line when time expires to end the fourth? in overtime there is one play run. team a kicks a field goal. game over.

the NFL's overtime system is great, no changes need to be or should be made.

[BBTV]

Don't like it, because it takes away the drama of the two-minute drill at the end of a tie game.

I think the NCAA system is awesome, but if the NFL were to adopt it I'd start the posessions from the 30 or 35 yard line.

[Epiphanic]

I don't like it either, but because it's sudden death. I think the NFL should do one of three things regarding ties at the end of regulation:

1.) Play it like a regular quarter except that there's no game clock. Both teams get an equal number of possessions to exceed their opponent. Example: Colts kickoff to the Chargers. If they score, they kickoff to the Colts as they would during regulation. The Colts then have one drive to at least match the Chargers. If they match, they kickoff to the Chargers and so forth.

2.) Same as above, except there is a 15-minute (or whatever length chosen) limit for a given overtime. If, at the end of the overtime period, the score is still tied, the team that kicked off at the beginning of the previous overtime will receive at the beginning of the current overtime period. Play continues until there is a winner.

3.) Suck it up and just have ties at the end of the regulation. If you're gonna go through the effort of overtime to determine a winner, then play 'til there is a winner.

[Mac the Knife]

I hate sudden death.

My suggestion? Play a full, fifth 15-minute period, with each team having two time outs. Play the full 15 minutes, no matter who scores when. No team in NFL history has been able to chew up an entire quarter off the clock on one drive, so the issue of one team not getting the ball is alleviated. Plus let's say Team A scores a touchdown on their opening drive - do they go for 1 or 2? Then if Team B scores a touchdown as the OT period expires - do they go for a tie, or a win?

Where sudden death has an element of strategy to it, this type of system would as well.

[BucsBoy02]

I dont have a problem with the way they do overtime right now. But if they did change I'd like to see Them just play a 5th quarter, same rules as a normal quarter.

[JQK]

I hate sudden death.

My suggestion? Play a full, fifth 15-minute period, with each team having two time outs. Play the full 15 minutes, no matter who scores when. No team in NFL history has been able to chew up an entire quarter off the clock on one drive, so the issue of one team not getting the ball is alleviated. Plus let's say Team A scores a touchdown on their opening drive - do they go for 1 or 2? Then if Team B scores a touchdown as the OT period expires - do they go for a tie, or a win?

Where sudden death has an element of strategy to it, this type of system would as well.

What happenes if, at the end of this fifth quarter, the teams are still tied? Do you play a whole other quarter? Do you then go to sudden death? I think you're asking too much from these players.

[Shmee]

Most teams punt more than they score anyway, right? So it's not even *expected* that a team will score on the first drive of overtime. That's why defense is so important.

Yes, you're lucky if you get the ball first in overtime, but if you really want to win so badly and you want everything to be fair, do it in regulation! You have sixty minutes to score more points than your opponent. Go out there and do it. If you can't do the job, you shouldn't be whining about what happens after those sixty minutes are up.

[WJMorris3]

How about a proposal where the first team to score four points in OT wins?

[The_Admiral]

I think everyone is so offensive-centric, they think if one team can't get their offense on the field, it's an automatic loss.

You know why fans are offensive-centric? Because NFL officiating is increasingly offensive-centric. By 2009, a defensive back won't be able to look at a wide receiver and say "grrrrr!" without getting flagged for interference. The NFL is trying to effect an offense-based brand of football, and so a lot of people, myself included, have reservations about the current sudden death overtime format. While I think matching possessions is the only way to go, I'd put kickoffs in there as well, so that special teams can play a part instead of starting just 25 yards out, which is lame and prob not real football.

[BBTV]

How about a proposal where the first team to score four points in OT wins?

Why does it seem like most are against some variation of the NCAA system? I think it's the most fair, and every bit as exciting as sudden death - maybe even moreso.

[Cujo]

The standards in the NFL will never allow for a college-style overtime, where it's more like an NHL shootout than actual football. Most fans (like myself) would probably reject that idea as well. If the NFL were to ever change the rules to overtime, it would be to play out all 15 minutes so it guarantees that both teams will touch the ball, and if the teams were still tied at the end of that period, it would be declared a tie game.

Really, if I had things my way, I would do sudden death with no time-limit at all.

[BBTV]

The standards in the NFL will never allow for a college-style overtime, where it's more like an NHL shootout than actual football. Most fans (like myself) would probably reject that idea as well. If the NFL were to ever change the rules to overtime, it would be to play out all 15 minutes so it guarantees that both teams will touch the ball, and if the teams were still tied at the end of that period, it would be declared a tie game.

Really, if I had things my way, I would do sudden death with no time-limit at all.

Why do you think it's like the shootout? It's not like they're just alternating field goal attempts, or endzone passes.

I think if they adopted the college rule but backed the teams up, it would be more about gaining yards and first downs (to set up a FG or TD), which is the essence of the game. I really don't see it like the shootout at all.

[McCall]

Most teams punt more than they score anyway, right? So it's not even *expected* that a team will score on the first drive of overtime. That's why defense is so important.

Yes, you're lucky if you get the ball first in overtime, but if you really want to win so badly and you want everything to be fair, do it in regulation! You have sixty minutes to score more points than your opponent. Go out there and do it. If you can't do the job, you shouldn't be whining about what happens after those sixty minutes are up.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard on the subject. "If you want to win, do it in regulation"? That's what BOTH teams are trying to do, but sometimes it ends up with an equal score and, THUS, the point of overtime.

How about a proposal where the first team to score four points in OT wins?

Why does it seem like most are against some variation of the NCAA system? I think it's the most fair, and every bit as exciting as sudden death - maybe even moreso.

I am completely in favor of the NCAA overtime. As my Dad repeatedly points out, it seems the NFL is against scoring touchdowns, and is in more favor of kicking field goals and running out the time on the clock. And grant it, by constantly kicking field goals or punting, it actually allows otherwise puny little white guys the chance to play football, but it's so frickin' boring. Who actually wants to see a game that is pretty much just kicking back and forth? That's why College Football is so far superior to the NFL. I agree with BBTV, though I say take them back farther than the 35, maybe all the way to the 50. If they're pros, they should be able to score from back there. Plus, they shouldn't start in a spot where their kicker can automatically make it. At the 35, yeah it's a 5-yarder, but some kickers these days consistently hit from beyond 50. Starting them in a spot well out of field goal range forces them to actually run plays.

[Mac the Knife]

I hate sudden death.

My suggestion? Play a full, fifth 15-minute period, with each team having two time outs. Play the full 15 minutes, no matter who scores when. No team in NFL history has been able to chew up an entire quarter off the clock on one drive, so the issue of one team not getting the ball is alleviated. Plus let's say Team A scores a touchdown on their opening drive - do they go for 1 or 2? Then if Team B scores a touchdown as the OT period expires - do they go for a tie, or a win?

Where sudden death has an element of strategy to it, this type of system would as well.

What happenes if, at the end of this fifth quarter, the teams are still tied? Do you play a whole other quarter? Do you then go to sudden death? I think you're asking too much from these players.

Same as what happens now - it's a tie game. This way the fans get something extra for the price of their ticket, plus the players and coaches have an incentive to win the game in regulation (You could hear it in the huddle during the final minutes now... "You don't want to be humpin' out here for another 15 minutes, do ya?")

[BlueSky]

Since we're throwing out ideas, what about sudden death but with possession determined by some factor from regulation? Like the team with the most first downs for example, or most total yards, etc. That method would reward superior play in regulation.

Or...

One possession for each team. If it's still tied then it goes to sudden death with first possession determined by coin toss.

[McCall]

One possession for each team. If it's still tied then it goes to sudden death with first possession determined by coin toss.

That wouldn't be a bad compromise. At least each team gets one shot. And then, first one to score after each team has had their oppurtunity.

[Shmee]

Most teams punt more than they score anyway, right? So it's not even *expected* that a team will score on the first drive of overtime. That's why defense is so important.

Yes, you're lucky if you get the ball first in overtime, but if you really want to win so badly and you want everything to be fair, do it in regulation! You have sixty minutes to score more points than your opponent. Go out there and do it. If you can't do the job, you shouldn't be whining about what happens after those sixty minutes are up.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard on the subject. "If you want to win, do it in regulation"? That's what BOTH teams are trying to do, but sometimes it ends up with an equal score and, THUS, the point of overtime.

Yes, I understand this, thank you. I just think that the way overtime is set up should be the last thing that any football player or coach should be worried about. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if the Colts had been able to run out the clock.

People are pissed because Peyton Manning (the Lord, righteous be his name) didn't get to touch the ball in overtime. But you know, if he hadn't gotten his ass sacked on the two-yard line while his team was running out the clock, the Colts would have moved on in the playoffs. The Chargers' defense did their job. On the next possession, the Colts' defense didn't do its job. And in overtime, they failed again.

The Chargers showed that a good defense can get the ball back for its offense. It shouldn't matter who gets the ball first if your team really deserves to win.

[hormone]

Here's my idea for NFL overtime...leave it the same. How many drives end in points to begin the game or the half. You pay your defense and coverage teams millions of dollars. Have a good kickoff, play some d, get the ball back and win it yourself. I don't like college because it puts the d in a bad situation. Look at the Sun bowl. 3-0. If it was 3-3, neither team got to the endzone, but would have the chance to score TDs in OT. Hockey seems to do fine with sudden death. If you score in OT, they don't give you a powerplay or penalty shot because "you didn't get a chance" Like I said, man up and play a game. If you can't stop them, you don't deserve it.