An Idea for NFL Overtime

[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.

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.

A lot of people discuss this every week. It just so happens this thread was started because of the game the other night (which I missed). And there HAS to be an overtime procedure in place. What would you have them do? If it happens to be tied (after both teams tried and tried to score again) at the end of regulation, just wing it? Make up the overtime rules as they go along because it's not something they should have been worrying about?

[crashcarson15]

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.

Or do it like the arena way, each team gets one possesion (probably from between the 35 and 50) and if they are still tied, have the team that just scored (or failed to) kick off, and then it's sudden death if a winner isn't decided in the matching possessions.

[Shmee]

A lot of people discuss this every week. It just so happens this thread was started because of the game the other night (which I missed). And there HAS to be an overtime procedure in place. What would you have them do? If it happens to be tied (after both teams tried and tried to score again) at the end of regulation, just wing it? Make up the overtime rules as they go along because it's not something they should have been worrying about?

Nope. I love the system as it is right now.

[The_Admiral]

It just doesn't seem like this is a system conducive to loving. Take the Saints-Bears game. Interference penalty, field goal, Bears win. What's to love?

[Shmee]

It just doesn't seem like this is a system conducive to loving. Take the Saints-Bears game. Interference penalty, field goal, Bears win. What's to love?

I'm actually in favor of overtime being an undesirable place to find one's self. Play to win, all the time, every time. If neither team can manage to do it in the prescribed sixty minutes, then I'm fine with sudden death.

[JQK]

The current overtime system is fine. It's not perfect but it's the best one out there.

The only other system that is viable is the college system, and that's much worse than what the NFL has now.

[BlueSky]

It just doesn't seem like this is a system conducive to loving. Take the Saints-Bears game. Sketchy, ticky-tack interference penalty, field goal, Bears win. What's to love?

Forgive a slight bit of editing.

[The_Admiral]

It's a good edit, and that ties in with my post above about the NFL's overcalling of interference penalties, which brings us right back to why you can't decide an overtime game with only one offense.

I'm actually in favor of overtime being an undesirable place to find one's self. Play to win, all the time, every time. If neither team can manage to do it in the prescribed sixty minutes, then I'm fine with sudden death.

I think it should be undesirable as well. I don't think it's ever desirable to play more than 60 minutes of football, but I don't think matching possessions would make the opening defensive corps slack, by any means. They might play harder. Interception return, game's over, since both teams were technically on offense. Turnover on the matching possession ends the game. Make everyone play to win, but let the offense (and other team's defense) play to win, too.

[SteveR]

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.

And it removes special teams completely from the equation. All three facets are part of the game -- they all need to be part of overtime.

[McCall]

The current overtime system isn't fine. It's not perfect but and it's the best worst one out there.

The only other system that is viable is the college system, and that's much worse better than what the NFL has now.

FTFY

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.

And it removes special teams completely from the equation. All three facets are part of the game -- they all need to be part of overtime.

No, it potentially gives each team's special teams, offense and defense a chance. As the NFL way stands now, one team may ONLY get to play defense while the other team gets a chance for both offense and special teams. And I know you can intercept or recover a fumble and return it for a TD, but essentially, the OFFENSE it what scores the points, not the defense. So how's it fair that only one team may get that shot?

And stop with the "You have 60 minutes to win it" because that'd be fine if there was only one team playing. But, lo and behold, there are TWO teams playing, both with the intention to win. Kind of throws a possible roadblock into that whole "We only need regulation to win" thing. Sometimes, both teams end up with the same amount of points. Ya know, I think that may be why they created overtime. Hmm. Never realized that.

[Shmee]

Agree, to disagree, champ. Don't take it personally.

You obviously think the current system is horrible. I think it's perfect.

[hormone]

I'll use my hockey analogy again. We win the faceoff, skate down, shoot, score. You were NEVER on offense. You NEVER had a chance, but you should get a powerplay or penalty shot because you deserve your chance, right??

[McCall]

I'll use my hockey analogy again. We win the faceoff, skate down, shoot, score. You were NEVER on offense. You NEVER had a chance, but you should get a powerplay or penalty shot because you deserve your chance, right??

Yeah, but who got possession was determined equally and during the game. The NFL flips a coin. Yes it's equal chance, but it's a frickin coin flip. With the NHL you have to actually play the game to try and get that initial possession. Not really the same thing.

... Actually kinda makes the NFL look weaker when compared to the NHL...

... Never thought that was possible...

[SteveR]

I don't like college because it puts the d in a bad situation.

And it removes special teams completely from the equation. All three facets are part of the game -- they all need to be part of overtime.

No, it potentially gives each team's special teams, offense and defense a chance. As the NFL way stands now, one team may ONLY get to play defense while the other team gets a chance for both offense and special teams.

Ummm ... one team gets ST and defense, the other gets ST and offense. So, that's 2 out of 3 for each and it's just wrong to think offense matters that much more than the other two segments of the game.

I think I actually agree that there's a better way to do it -- like kicking off to the other team and giving it one chance to match or beat what the flip-winning team did on the first possession of OT -- but I'm still OK with the way it is now.

The defense is just as capable of making a stop as the offense is of scoring.

[BaltimoreFan]

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.

I do agree that I think that NCAA system would probably be the best. But I'd say start the possessions at the 50 yard line. That way a team has to work just to get a field goal (in the NCAA they are almost given one if they can't score a TD on the first possession). Since the NFL has a higher talent level it shouldn't be a "shootout" like in the NCAA. I imagine it would finish "faster" in the NFL. I just don't like the fact that one team doesn't get to touch the ball in the current system. It doesn't seem fair and also is kind of lame to watch.

[LEWJ]

Just go with the NCAA's overtime system and all is well. That would be my resolution.

I can't stand the "sudden death" overtime. If they just got rid of the sudden death aspect of it, it wouldn't be half bad. The idea that a coin toss determines who gets ball is bad enough, but when a team doesn't get a chance after the other team scores it's kinda unfair. I mean maybe the NFL did "sudden death" overtime to emphasize defense, but I don't agree with it.

The only thing I'd change about the NCAA overtime is to add a kickoff instead of starting at the 25 yd. line (or whatever it is).

[quantum]

All too often, NCAA OT games go from close, low scoring affairs to some ridiculous, arena-league inflated slugfest. I hate the college system. I also have an issue with the NFL system in that rules favor the offense.

I would favor either one possession each, then sudden death;

or

The team that receives first can end the game with a TD on first possession. If that first possession ends in a FG, a sudden death victory is forfeited and a kick off to the opposition is awarded.

[Epiphanic]

All too often, NCAA OT games go from close, low scoring affairs to some ridiculous, arena-league inflated slugfest. I hate the college system. I also have an issue with the NFL system in that rules favor the offense.

The simple solution is that instead of adding the full points for each score, they just add 1 point to whoever wins.

Personally, the "score inflation" isn't that big of a deal.

[See Red]

As long as the NFL keeps putting rules in place to benefit offenses, the current system doesn't work. Having games, especially playoff games, decided by a coin toss doesn't work, in my opinion, especially when the league's making it easier for offenses.

My problem with the Colts game isn't so much that they lost and that their offense never touched the field. The Colts stopped the Chargers -- on 3rd and 9, when Ken Jennings had great coverage on Chris Chambers. My problem with the Colts game has everything to do with the fact that their loss was the direct result of a bull rule put in place to make it harder on defenses (and yeah, I know that that rule is a result of Bill Polian).

[Shmee]

To those saying the NFL is showing increasing bias in favor of its offenses, consider some of the rule changes that were instituted this season:

1. One player on the defense is now allowed to have a radio receiver in his helmet, putting the offense and defense on equal footing.
   
2. The NFL has eliminated the force-out rule. Receivers must now come down with both feet on the ground inbounds, regardless of whether or not they were forced out of bounds.
   
3. Incidental facemasking penalties have been eliminated. Intentional facemasks will still be called as 15-yard penalties, but incidental contact with the facemask will no longer be called as a penalty.
   
4. Muffed snaps that are not touched by the quarterback can now be recovered by the defense, instead of a false start being called.
   
5. Not a new rule, but the NFL has told its officials to pay strict attention to, and call 15-yard penalties, on offensive facemasking violations, especially by runners and receivers attempting to fight off attempted tackles.
   

Sounds to me like the NFL is working to make things more balanced, not "make it easier for offenses."