An Idea for NFL Overtime

[HedleyLamarr]

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.

I don't know which image is more disgusting: imagining Crystol Bustos running around the bases, or Mac sporting a boner while he's watching Bustos run around the bases. Yeah, I saw the exclusion part, but you gotta take the ugly with the good.....

Are teams guarenteed equal possessions in regulation time? Nope.

Folks are saying that both teams don't get a chance.....yet propose sudden death after each team gets a possession. Is it any more fair for a team to get two possessions over the others' one than it is for one team to get possession over the others' none? That's still giving one team one more offensive possession than the other, which is what you're arguing against in the first place.

Is it fair that the home team doesn't get a chance to call "heads" or "tails" on a coin flip? Hell, the visiting team gets to call the coin toss twice to the home team's none.

[Mac the Knife]

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.

I'm not 'proud' of the scenario I thought of, but I disagree - I think ultimately fans would feel short-changed by that kind of outcome. But maybe that's just me.

[Mac the Knife]

I don't know which image is more disgusting: imagining Crystol Bustos running around the bases, or Mac sporting a boner while he's watching Bustos run around the bases. Yeah, I saw the exclusion part, but you gotta take the ugly with the good.....

The fact that you can actually name a women's softball player tells me you pay far more attention to it than I do... I was thinking more along the lines of:

I don't know their names... but that's just fine with me.

[HedleyLamarr]

It was one of the few live Olympic events on at like 3am in the morning.....

[The_Admiral]

Oh, and by the way, winning the Super Bowl on an overtime kickoff return would be epic. So under a matching possessions system, since offense and defense never came into play, just special teams, would that mean the other team would have to return a kickoff of its own just to keep the game alive? I need to think these things through a little better. Maybe a flow chart.

[BBTV]

Oh, and by the way, winning the Super Bowl on an overtime kickoff return would be epic. So under a matching possessions system, since offense and defense never came into play, just special teams, would that mean the other team would have to return a kickoff of its own just to keep the game alive? I need to think these things through a little better. Maybe a flow chart.

If so, imagine how fun that "redemption" return would be to watch? It'd be like Cal-Stanford with all the laterals and other shenanigans.

[Epiphanic]

Folks are saying that both teams don't get a chance.....yet propose sudden death after each team gets a possession. Is it any more fair for a team to get two possessions over the others' one than it is for one team to get possession over the others' none? That's still giving one team one more offensive possession than the other, which is what you're arguing against in the first place.

Is it fair that the home team doesn't get a chance to call "heads" or "tails" on a coin flip? Hell, the visiting team gets to call the coin toss twice to the home team's none.

I'd like to see equal possessions regardless of how many possessions it takes. So if it takes 5 possessions each to differentiate the score, so be it.

As far as the visiting team getting to call the flip all the time, unless the flip is taped earlier and the captains read the spoilers on NFLcoinflip.com, it's still 50-50 so there's no bias towards one team or another.

[zoneranger]

Bring out the Old Paper Football...

First overtime: First team to kick 10 in a row takes the trophy.

Second overtime:Kicker drinks two six packs, then first player to kick two in a row wins.

[Epiphanic]

That's a great action shot.

[Magnus]

Second overtime:Kicker drinks two six packs, then first player to kick two in a row wins.

That sounds awesome. Let's do that now in the NFL.

[See Red]

Why play Overtime? Why don't we decide the winner of the game by the kind of ranking system that works so well in other sports? The media could get a vote, as could coaches throughout the league, and there could be a complex system that takes yards, first downs, turnovers, market size, and the starting QB's marketability into account, resulting in a number that gives an indisputable, and completely uncontroversial winner.

[wdm1219inpenna]

I've read over all 5 pages of the posts on this topic so far, and I wish to chime in.

First, after reading what you all had to say and propose, I am inclined to change my position about overtime. Many seem to be staunch defenders of the system as it is right now, sudden death. It is the simplest form, and it has been used since 1958 (1974 in regular season if memory serves).

While it does leave a somewhat sour taste in my mouth when one team scores on the first posession, it is indeed true that the defense is part of the whole team, and needs to step up. I can definitely understand the argument favoring both teams having at least 1 posession in overtime as well.

Previously I too wanted both sides to have at least 1 posession, but after reading all of these posts, I am inclined to now say that the system is alright the way it is. Many of the proposals given seem a bit too complicated. This system keeps it simple.

My idea for a fair overtime would be to have your coin flip, team A kicks to team B as usual. The difference for me would be this however, the team receiving the ball would get it with the clock starting at 0:00 and counting up. If they scored a field goal in 3:21, then team B would kick off to team A, and then team A would have 3:21 to score a field goal to tie, or score a touchdown to win. The trouble with this idea, at least for me, having a mental block, is how to handle turnovers. If team A is at the opponents 20 yard line, and they run one more play and fumble, then the whole "beat the clock" idea is out the window it would seem.

The notion of both teams having the ball once and the game ending in a tie again, and then making it sudden death doesn't work for me either. Then the team who has the ball twice to the team having it only once argument would ensue.

The most reasonable alternative was the idea of having to score touchdowns, taking field goals out of the equation altogether. My question with that idea is, what happens if the quarterback is sacked in the end zone? Would that be a safety? Would that end the game? Would that be worth nothing? According to the 2008 NFL Record & Fact Book, 2 overtime games ended on a safety. What would you do then?

It seems that with all of these ideas, no matter how good they are, or "out of the box" they are, there's always going to be the "what if"s creeping up all the time. The NCAA fans want a playoff. Some say 4 teams, some say 8. If that happened, people would complain about the bowl games getting fouled up, or others would say "Why was so and so team left out of the field of 8?", and then some others would say "it should be 16", etc. Where does it end? It doesn't. You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can never please all of the people ever.

The current sudden death used in the NFL does provide some drama, even if it is as simple as who will win the coin flip. And again, statistically, it seems about as even as it is going to get. The special teams and defensive units are every bit as much of the TEAM as the offense. And any alteration of the ot rules would cause an uproar. Imagine if they changed the rule to equal posessions, or something else for 2009 season. How outraged would Colt fans be by that? There's always going to be dissatisfaction and/or dissent, but it seems like the NFL overtime rules are what they are, and what they have been since that fateful game a half century ago, and I don't see the rules changing for it anytime soon.

[BBTV]

Why play Overtime? Why don't we decide the winner of the game by the kind of ranking system that works so well in other sports? The media could get a vote, as could coaches throughout the league, and there could be a complex system that takes yards, first downs, turnovers, market size, and the starting QB's marketability into account, resulting in a number that gives an indisputable, and completely uncontroversial winner.

Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter....

[NoHoJoe]

Here is a good idea for NFL overtime that is long overdue...Like the NBA, Have a 15 minute period, and the team with the higher score at the end of the OT period will win the game. It's as simple as that!

[BCBoy]

I'd adopt the same rules as the NCAA overtime, except each team has to start from their own 20 or 30 yard line.

[NJTank]

No too crazy, its simple

One team gets it

Then the other, and then from there its sudden death.

[illwauk]

They SHOULD do this...

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.

But I could live with this...

One team gets it

Then the other, and then from there its sudden death.

But if not either one of those, they need to just do this...

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.

[The_Admiral]

Yeah, 1 makes the most sense, by far, but it's not manly enough.

[Epiphanic]

What does that even mean? "Not manly enough"? Perhaps they should have a duel at the 50-yard line with a coin flip determining who gets to shoot first? Men shooting other men with hand held firearms! Now that's manly!

Just a thought extending on my 3rd option. Obviously if you just call ties at the end of regulation, something needs to be done with ties in the playoffs (someone needs to advance). Borrowing from hockey/soccer, a FG shootout with each shot going progressively farther and farther away. Or a one-ups-manship type system. Coinflip determines who goes first. Team A makes a field goal from 34 yards. Team B must now make a field goal from 35+ yards to have a chance at winning. If he makes it, then Team A has kick from even farther! So on and so forth.

[slightly shotgunned]

I've read over all 5 pages of the posts on this topic so far, and I wish to chime in.

First, after reading what you all had to say and propose, I am inclined to change my position about overtime. Many seem to be staunch defenders of the system as it is right now, sudden death. It is the simplest form, and it has been used since 1958 (1974 in regular season if memory serves).

While it does leave a somewhat sour taste in my mouth when one team scores on the first posession, it is indeed true that the defense is part of the whole team, and needs to step up. I can definitely understand the argument favoring both teams having at least 1 posession in overtime as well.

Previously I too wanted both sides to have at least 1 posession, but after reading all of these posts, I am inclined to now say that the system is alright the way it is. Many of the proposals given seem a bit too complicated. This system keeps it simple.

My idea for a fair overtime would be to have your coin flip, team A kicks to team B as usual. The difference for me would be this however, the team receiving the ball would get it with the clock starting at 0:00 and counting up. If they scored a field goal in 3:21, then team B would kick off to team A, and then team A would have 3:21 to score a field goal to tie, or score a touchdown to win. The trouble with this idea, at least for me, having a mental block, is how to handle turnovers. If team A is at the opponents 20 yard line, and they run one more play and fumble, then the whole "beat the clock" idea is out the window it would seem.

The notion of both teams having the ball once and the game ending in a tie again, and then making it sudden death doesn't work for me either. Then the team who has the ball twice to the team having it only once argument would ensue.

The most reasonable alternative was the idea of having to score touchdowns, taking field goals out of the equation altogether. My question with that idea is, what happens if the quarterback is sacked in the end zone? Would that be a safety? Would that end the game? Would that be worth nothing? According to the 2008 NFL Record & Fact Book, 2 overtime games ended on a safety. What would you do then?

It seems that with all of these ideas, no matter how good they are, or "out of the box" they are, there's always going to be the "what if"s creeping up all the time. The NCAA fans want a playoff. Some say 4 teams, some say 8. If that happened, people would complain about the bowl games getting fouled up, or others would say "Why was so and so team left out of the field of 8?", and then some others would say "it should be 16", etc. Where does it end? It doesn't. You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can never please all of the people ever.

The current sudden death used in the NFL does provide some drama, even if it is as simple as who will win the coin flip. And again, statistically, it seems about as even as it is going to get. The special teams and defensive units are every bit as much of the TEAM as the offense. And any alteration of the ot rules would cause an uproar. Imagine if they changed the rule to equal posessions, or something else for 2009 season. How outraged would Colt fans be by that? There's always going to be dissatisfaction and/or dissent, but it seems like the NFL overtime rules are what they are, and what they have been since that fateful game a half century ago, and I don't see the rules changing for it anytime soon.

my answer to that would be, the game would end and the defensive team wins.

it'd be the same as if a fumble or an interception were returned for a touchdown. if the defensive team scores, their offense doesn't need to. Since a safety occurs in the endzone, it is treated as a defensive touchdown since the defense doesn't kick field goals. now, since it's happened only twice in 50 years and a helluvalotta overtime games, i don't think it's something we'll have to worry about until the Lions are in that situation in an overtime game and Orvlosky is the QB.