An Idea for NFL Overtime

[BBTV]

Why is there so much vehement outrage against guaranteed possessions?

Why are you for the pussification of the NFL?

Football is a man's game. Sudden death is a man's way of settling a football game tied after regulation. It's what makes football (and hockey) overtime games so exciting. Any one play can determine the game's result.

If you want guarenteed possessions, go watch girls softball.

Masculinity issues, anyone?

It's not about manliness, it's about fairness. If you absolutely want sudden death, a fairer way to determine possession would be something equivalent to hockey's faceoff or basketball's jump ball. Don't ask me what that would be--but something that at least involved a football skill would already be an infinitely better option than a coin toss. At least then, possession would be somewhat earned.

I believe the XFL had such a thing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFL#Opening_scramble

[Milo Meningocele]

Why is there so much vehement outrage against guaranteed possessions?

Why are you for the pussification of the NFL?

Football is a man's game. Sudden death is a man's way of settling a football game tied after regulation. It's what makes football (and hockey) overtime games so exciting. Any one play can determine the game's result.

If you want guarenteed possessions, go watch girls softball.

Masculinity issues, anyone?

It's not about manliness, it's about fairness. If you absolutely want sudden death, a fairer way to determine possession would be something equivalent to hockey's faceoff or basketball's jump ball. Don't ask me what that would be--but something that at least involved a football skill would already be an infinitely better option than a coin toss. At least then, possession would be somewhat earned.

I believe the XFL had such a thing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFL#Opening_scramble

Yeah, that was the first thing I thought of. I didn't mention it, because the NFL is above borrowing from the XFL's rulebook. Some modification of that wouldn't be a terrible idea, though.

[BlueSky]

Funny thing is that a few teams like the old Ravens and their dominating defense might find it an advantage to lose the toss.

[BBTV]

Funny thing is that a few teams like the old Ravens and their dominating defense might find it an advantage to lose the toss.

I used to think that way back when the Eagles had Buddy Ryan's defense (#1 in all three categories) but then I wised up. It is NEVER an advantage to lose the toss. All it takes is for your special teams to allow the kick to be run back, and your 'dominating' defense doesn't even see the field. Even if it does, all it takes is one fluky play to set your opponent up for a field goal.

[slightly shotgunned]

Here's a fun scenario that just popped into my head that'd have football fans screaming virtually everywhere but those of the team that were to win.

Steelers and Giants in Super Bowl XLIII. Game ends regulation tied at 24-24. The Steelers win the toss and elect to receive. The Giants kickoff, whereupon the Steelers run the kickoff back for a touchdown. Game over, 30-24. The Giants offensive, nor defensive units take the field. The Steelers offensive, nor defensive units take the field. A kick return decides the championship.

You can argue the merits of the current OT system all you like, but that'd be the death of sudden death.

while you bring up a good point, you're forgetting that special teams is still a part of football. therefore, if a team allows a kickoff to be run back for a touchdown then too bad for them, them's the breaks, sorry, see you, and goodbye. sudden death in the nfl isn't necessarily about offense vs. defense, it's ALL of team a vs. ALL of team b. that includes the kickoff and return teams. yes, neither offense nor defense takes the field in your scenario, but that doesn't change my argument. The team that loses the coin toss MUST play solid d (including kickoff coverage), the team that wins the coin toss MUST play solid o (including kickoff returning). one team doesn't do that, they lose.

[hormone]

People keep mentioning fairness...why not play on a neutral field? It's not fair to have home field advantage. Play in a dome! It's not fair to have the wind at your back. Make Manning be the qb for both teams. It's not fair the Colts only get him. The facts are: someone will have some kind of advantage and most importantly, there is only going to be one winner and 31 other unhappy teams/fans.

[Magnus]

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

... Never thought that was possible...

...hockey players play more than one game a week, sometimes back-to-back, within 24 hours of each other.

They take just as much physical punishment, and the game isn't stopped every 5 seconds.

The NFL is weaker than the NHL.

Dangerous territory to go into man.

Though I don't disagree that the NHL is a physical game, and the schedual takes it's toll, get the feeling that you're saying the NFL's players have all sorts of time to sit around and lick their wounds, which is obviously not true.

Last time I checked these guys are working in the field house all week prepairing for the game coming up. Plus, all you have to do is look at stats about injuries in the NFL to prove that this game takes it's toll on the players just as much as the NHL.

NFL football and NHL hockey are 1 and 1a in my books, so i'm not going to say one is better than the other but I really think that your comment is solely an opinion and has very little to do with facts.

I think it's pretty obvious that what I said is pure opinion.

It's not like there are scientifically proven studies saying one sport definitively takes more of a toll on its athletes over the course of a season than another.

More to the point of this topic, I think that each team should be allowed one possession on offense in overtime.

[BB61]

The problem with sudden death is that you're shortening the field. If you get the ball from your own 10, you really only have 60 yards to gain instead of 90. Yeah, you still have to make the field goal, but you're essentially shortening the field even if you're putting the offense back against the wall.

Besides, if you think sudden death is great in football, imagine using it for baseball. Yup.

Anyway, I'm a proponent of the "First to four" overtime. If it's still tied, then sudden death.

[Gary]

The problem with sudden death is that you're shortening the field. If you get the ball from your own 10, you really only have 60 yards to gain instead of 90. Yeah, you still have to make the field goal, but you're essentially shortening the field even if you're putting the offense back against the wall.

Besides, if you think sudden death is great in football, imagine using it for baseball. Yup.

Anyway, I'm a proponent of the "First to four" overtime. If it's still tied, then sudden death.

See i'm not too sure on the "First to four" overtime. I would play another quarter shorten the time to 6 minutes, play the quarter and if we still don't have a score than we go sudden death no time on the field, no timeouts. You get 20 seconds to get a play off, first one to score wins.

So many ideas about overtime in the NFL. If the NFL does go with something different you know there will still be that one guy to complain about overtime

[Luigi74]

The problem with sudden death is that you're shortening the field. If you get the ball from your own 10, you really only have 60 yards to gain instead of 90. Yeah, you still have to make the field goal, but you're essentially shortening the field even if you're putting the offense back against the wall.

Besides, if you think sudden death is great in football, imagine using it for baseball. Yup.

Anyway, I'm a proponent of the "First to four" overtime. If it's still tied, then sudden death.

See i'm not too sure on the "First to four" overtime. I would play another quarter shorten the time to 6 minutes, play the quarter and if we still don't have a score than we go sudden death no time on the field, no timeouts. You get 20 seconds to get a play off, first one to score wins.

So many ideas about overtime in the NFL. If the NFL does go with something different you know there will still be that one guy to complain about overtime

I always wanted a shorter quarter OT, have it be 7 minutes and 30 seconds, and both teams get 3 time outs.

[McCall]

People keep mentioning fairness...why not play on a neutral field? It's not fair to have home field advantage. Play in a dome! It's not fair to have the wind at your back. Make Manning be the qb for both teams. It's not fair the Colts only get him. The facts are: someone will have some kind of advantage and most importantly, there is only going to be one winner and 31 other unhappy teams/fans.

That makes absolutely no sense.

[ProvidenceRI]

Is this for the playoffs only?

I don't like the current system.

They should keep playing full length quarters until somebody is ahead.

[McCall]

The problem with sudden death is that you're shortening the field. If you get the ball from your own 10, you really only have 60 yards to gain instead of 90. Yeah, you still have to make the field goal, but you're essentially shortening the field even if you're putting the offense back against the wall.

Besides, if you think sudden death is great in football, imagine using it for baseball. Yup.

Anyway, I'm a proponent of the "First to four" overtime. If it's still tied, then sudden death.

See i'm not too sure on the "First to four" overtime. I would play another quarter shorten the time to 6 minutes, play the quarter and if we still don't have a score than we go sudden death no time on the field, no timeouts. You get 20 seconds to get a play off, first one to score wins.

So many ideas about overtime in the NFL. If the NFL does go with something different you know there will still be that one guy to complain about overtime

I always wanted a shorter quarter OT, have it be 7 minutes and 30 seconds, and both teams get 3 time outs.

If you're gonna go half a quarter, why give them the time-out total of a whole quarter? I'd say only one or two time outs.

While I still believe a form of the College OT would be best, I really believe the best compromise is:

One possession for each team, then sudden death if neither or both score. And in College they have to go for 2 starting in the 3rd OT, so I say, in the NFL, when it goes to sudden death (after each has had possession), no field goals. I'd say they'd have to go for 2 instead of kicking a PAT, but it's sudden death so there would be no need for either, once a touchdown is scored, it's over.

And probably have a time limit during regular season. But instead of a whole 15 minute quarter, maybe 7 or 8 minutes. If still tied after that, then it's a tie. In the playoffs, they go until someone scores. No need, really, for a time limit since there can't be any ties in the playoffs anyway.

[BaltimoreFan]

You don't want your team to lose in OT, play friggen defense. Stop the prevent crap, blitz, hit hard and stop the other team. Very simple.

Yep. There it is, you solved football.

I don't think any of us are trying to absolve poor defensive play. The truth of the matter is just that an offense =/= a defense. Yes, a defense CAN score, but it's not designed with scoring as the primary intent. That's gravy. They're designed to stop the offense. The offense's purpose is to score, with field position being a concession. It's not like hockey or basketball; they're two different corps of players with very specialized roles. To keep an entire phase off the field seems like some pretty grievous inequity. "Well dey shunt leddem score den!" Well, no, of course they shouldn't, but in case they do, they should have an opportunity for their other side of the ball to save their asses, you know, like they do in almost every scenario. Would you end a ballgame in the top of the 10th? Shoulda pitched better.

Why is there so much vehement outrage against guaranteed possessions? Would this throw your fantasy stats out of whack? Do you have so much reverence for the National Football League that nothing they're not doing could be worth a damn? It's just so suspicious that a system as controversial as NFL overtime is getting so much hardline support here.

...when you say that one team should have a chance to put their offense on the field regardless of how their defense performs, that is exactly what you're trying to do and that's what i have a problem with. actually i would make one change to the OT rule. Eliminate the field goal. you must get into the endzone to win.

This would at least be a vast improvement to the current system. A fine suggestion, better than first to score 4 points.

Yea, I actually think the elmination of the FG in OT would be the best improvement. I don't like that each team doesn't get a chance. But what I really hate is to see the defense stop the offense, but lose because of a field goal (in OT, I don't have a problem with it in regulation). That's the real thing that bothers me about it. It especially hard to watch when teams play for the field goal. It's not real football IMO. I could live with sudden death if field goals were eliminated.

[WJMorris3]

You don't want your team to lose in OT, play friggen defense. Stop the prevent crap, blitz, hit hard and stop the other team. Very simple.

Yep. There it is, you solved football.

I don't think any of us are trying to absolve poor defensive play. The truth of the matter is just that an offense =/= a defense. Yes, a defense CAN score, but it's not designed with scoring as the primary intent. That's gravy. They're designed to stop the offense. The offense's purpose is to score, with field position being a concession. It's not like hockey or basketball; they're two different corps of players with very specialized roles. To keep an entire phase off the field seems like some pretty grievous inequity. "Well dey shunt leddem score den!" Well, no, of course they shouldn't, but in case they do, they should have an opportunity for their other side of the ball to save their asses, you know, like they do in almost every scenario. Would you end a ballgame in the top of the 10th? Shoulda pitched better.

Why is there so much vehement outrage against guaranteed possessions? Would this throw your fantasy stats out of whack? Do you have so much reverence for the National Football League that nothing they're not doing could be worth a damn? It's just so suspicious that a system as controversial as NFL overtime is getting so much hardline support here.

...when you say that one team should have a chance to put their offense on the field regardless of how their defense performs, that is exactly what you're trying to do and that's what i have a problem with. actually i would make one change to the OT rule. Eliminate the field goal. you must get into the endzone to win.

This would at least be a vast improvement to the current system. A fine suggestion, better than first to score 4 points.

Yea, I actually think the elmination of the FG in OT would be the best improvement. I don't like that each team doesn't get a chance. But what I really hate is to see the defense stop the offense, but lose because of a field goal (in OT, I don't have a problem with it in regulation). That's the real thing that bothers me about it. It especially hard to watch when teams play for the field goal. It's not real football IMO. I could live with sudden death if field goals were eliminated.

I'd argue that the first to four still trumps. Yes, a field goal's still legal, and two of them can win the game.

[The_Admiral]

It's not about manliness, it's about fairness. If you absolutely want sudden death, a fairer way to determine possession would be something equivalent to hockey's faceoff or basketball's jump ball. Don't ask me what that would be--but something that at least involved a football skill would already be an infinitely better option than a coin toss. At least then, possession would be somewhat earned.

XFL! Footrace to the ball!

EDIT! Someone beat me to it!

[Mac the Knife]

If you want guarenteed possessions, go watch girls softball.

As someone who actually does watch women's softball, let me say that I'm far more entertained by it than the NFL. Mostly when the ladies (excluding the really fat chicks) are chugging around the bases and forget to wear their sports bras, but still, it's more entertaining to me.

[Mac the Knife]

Here's a fun scenario that just popped into my head that'd have football fans screaming virtually everywhere but those of the team that were to win.

Steelers and Giants in Super Bowl XLIII. Game ends regulation tied at 24-24. The Steelers win the toss and elect to receive. The Giants kickoff, whereupon the Steelers run the kickoff back for a touchdown. Game over, 30-24. The Giants offensive, nor defensive units take the field. The Steelers offensive, nor defensive units take the field. A kick return decides the championship.

You can argue the merits of the current OT system all you like, but that'd be the death of sudden death.

while you bring up a good point, you're forgetting that special teams is still a part of football. therefore, if a team allows a kickoff to be run back for a touchdown then too bad for them, them's the breaks, sorry, see you, and goodbye. sudden death in the nfl isn't necessarily about offense vs. defense, it's ALL of team a vs. ALL of team b. that includes the kickoff and return teams. yes, neither offense nor defense takes the field in your scenario, but that doesn't change my argument. The team that loses the coin toss MUST play solid d (including kickoff coverage), the team that wins the coin toss MUST play solid o (including kickoff returning). one team doesn't do that, they lose.

Yeah, but do you think, for one minute, that the scenario I described wouldn't be the death knell for sudden death overtime? Fans'd be outraged, valid complaint or not.

[Shmee]

Yeah, but do you think, for one minute, that the scenario I described wouldn't be the death knell for sudden death overtime? Fans'd be outraged, valid complaint or not.

Actually, as much as I think you're proud of your fantasy scenario, I disagree. I think more people would talk about it as the greatest Super Bowl finish of all time than would be outraged. People are usually upset because the Super Bowl is often a very one-sided contest. Last year's game was an exception, but I think if the game were to go to overtime and end in the manner you describe, the sheer awesomeness of such an event occurring would overshadow any complaints that people may have.

The guy who runs the ball back would become a bona fide superstar after just one play. He'd be a walking endorsement machine... pretty good for a backup cornerback. To win the Super Bowl... on the amazing improbability of a kick return... on the first play of overtime... would go down as the best Super Bowl ever. Not the worst. Coaches would cite it as the reason that every player has to play his very hardest on every single play (even and especially special teams) of every single game. Never give an inch, ever.

Besides, this will never happen anyway. The Steelers wouldn't have a snowball's chance against the Giants.

[The_Admiral]

If you want guarenteed possessions, go watch girls softball.

Couldn't I just watch...men's...baseball? All things being equal, I'd rather watch baseball than football anyway, so maybe that's the root of this.