An Idea for NFL Overtime

[HedleyLamarr]

No too crazy, its simple

One team gets it

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

I don't get it.

How does this scenario solve anything, in terms of equal fairness? How does Team A getting two possessions to Team B's one any different than Team A getting one possession to Team B's none?

[jamdawg1]

I have the solution to improve the NFL Overtime Rule.

It would still be Sudden Death/first team to score wins as it is now, but with a simple rule change:

FIELD GOAL ATTEMPTS WOULD BE PROHIBITED. TEAMS MUST SCORE WITH A TOUCHDOWN.

If it's 4th and 1 on the other team's 25, YOU CANNOT BRING OUT THE FIELD GOAL UNIT! You have to at least go for the first down.

This would increase the chances of both teams getting the ball by either turnover on downs or punt.

[McCall]

No too crazy, its simple

One team gets it

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

I don't get it.

How does this scenario solve anything, in terms of equal fairness? How does Team A getting two possessions to Team B's one any different than Team A getting one possession to Team B's none?

Do you seriously not see the difference? By this plan, each team gets at least one possession, aswear with the current plan, only one team is guaranteed possession and the other team may not get any shot. THAT's the difference. With this plan, each team gets a shot, guaranteed.

[HedleyLamarr]

No too crazy, its simple

One team gets it

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

I don't get it.

How does this scenario solve anything, in terms of equal fairness? How does Team A getting two possessions to Team B's one any different than Team A getting one possession to Team B's none?

Do you seriously not see the difference? By this plan, each team gets at least one possession, aswear with the current plan, only one team is guaranteed possession and the other team may not get any shot. THAT's the difference. With this plan, each team gets a shot, guaranteed.

But one team isn't guarenteed a second possession. It just contradicts that whole "equal opportunity" argument that you're going for. You complain that the current version is unfair, then propose an overtime format where one team would still get more possessions than the other.

If you want equal opportunities for each team, then each team must get an equal amount of possessions, just like the college version does. Otherwise, go with the sudden death version that the NFL currently uses.

[slightly shotgunned]

No too crazy, its simple

One team gets it

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

I don't get it.

How does this scenario solve anything, in terms of equal fairness? How does Team A getting two possessions to Team B's one any different than Team A getting one possession to Team B's none?

Do you seriously not see the difference? By this plan, each team gets at least one possession, aswear with the current plan, only one team is guaranteed possession and the other team may not get any shot. THAT's the difference. With this plan, each team gets a shot, guaranteed.

no team is ever guaranteed anything in football. the kicking team could always pull an onside kick, or force a fumble or something.

[McCall]

No too crazy, its simple

One team gets it

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

I don't get it.

How does this scenario solve anything, in terms of equal fairness? How does Team A getting two possessions to Team B's one any different than Team A getting one possession to Team B's none?

Do you seriously not see the difference? By this plan, each team gets at least one possession, aswear with the current plan, only one team is guaranteed possession and the other team may not get any shot. THAT's the difference. With this plan, each team gets a shot, guaranteed.

But one team isn't guarenteed a second possession. It just contradicts that whole "equal opportunity" argument that you're going for. You complain that the current version is unfair, then propose an overtime format where one team would still get more possessions than the other.

If you want equal opportunities for each team, then each team must get an equal amount of possessions, just like the college version does. Otherwise, go with the sudden death version that the NFL currently uses.

We're arguing at least ONE possession. The college format gives equal possession, and yeah, I'd like to see that in the NFL, but at least this plan does give each team at least one possession, then sudden death.

Yes, there is in fact a difference.

[Epiphanic]

But it's a miniscule difference. There's no point in going halfway with it. It's like having ties after one overtime period, another stupid NFL rule.

If the NFL isn't going to guarantee equal possessions in overtime, then there's no point in changing it because it will be just as unfair.

[tBBP]

Anyone watch rugby? Ever see how they put the ball on the field and players from both teams lock arms and whatnot, then the teams drive against each other until one of the players retrieves the ball (and then runs somewhere with it)? I'd like to see something like that--a more competitive means of determining possession in overtime rather than something as trivial as a coin flip. Makes sense on one level--are football and rugby not connected? (One did evolve from the other, I believe.) And...that method of determining possession isn't all that different than a fumble recovery on the field. (And how many times have you seen players dogpile on each other trying to recover a loose ball?)

Some might argue that this method may be too "violent"...I say it leans more towards the "essence" of football, anyway--which includes *GASP* brute physicality. Besides, if the rugby players can do all they do with not a single pad on their bodies and practically drawers for uniform shorts, why can't padded-and-helmeted players?

Added to all this...it would at least provide/add some more "fan" excitement.

(In fact, I'll go so far as to add this: if a player can manage to recover the ball and squirm out of the pile and run somewhere with the ball, he should, by [instituted] rule, be able to do so until an opposing player tackles him or, if he evades all opposing players, scores a touchdown. There'd be your ballgame right there. Would the league office ever sign off on something like this? Hell no...but it'd be something to see if the league ever did.)

[ericjjyy]

No too crazy, its simple

One team gets it

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

I don't get it.

How does this scenario solve anything, in terms of equal fairness? How does Team A getting two possessions to Team B's one any different than Team A getting one possession to Team B's none?

Do you seriously not see the difference? By this plan, each team gets at least one possession, aswear with the current plan, only one team is guaranteed possession and the other team may not get any shot. THAT's the difference. With this plan, each team gets a shot, guaranteed.

But one team isn't guarenteed a second possession. It just contradicts that whole "equal opportunity" argument that you're going for. You complain that the current version is unfair, then propose an overtime format where one team would still get more possessions than the other.

If you want equal opportunities for each team, then each team must get an equal amount of possessions, just like the college version does. Otherwise, go with the sudden death version that the NFL currently uses.

I liked the original idea because that way both teams get different advantages. The team that gets the second possession gets to know exactly what they need to win; they know if the other team didn't score all they need is a field goal and they can just try to get into field goal range without risking it and trying to get a touchdown. The first team gets the advantage you said; they get to go first in the sudden death part if it goes that far, so it's like they won the coin toss. So it works out for both teams.

However, I like the idea of needing to get four points to win a game. This way the game isn't just going to the other teams forty and kicking a field goal and thus shortening the field by forty yards, but its actually trying to score a touchdown.

So why not both? We could start out with each team getting one possession and the other one also getting a guarenteed possession. THen we go to sudden death, but you have to get four points. That's the most fair way that wouldn't have a game going on for an hour more that I can think of. Best of both worlds, especially because I think the advantage in the first part is too much for the team that starts sudden death

[Epiphanic]

Why is the game going on for an hour or more such a bad thing?

If it's a war of attrition and the starters can't play more than, say, 5 quarters, that's what the benchies are for right? It's not like they don't have 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th string guys right? And if a team loses in OT because their bench wasn't deep enough, that's a whole lot more sporting than losing because they didn't get a chance to respond.

If the motivation to not play a potentially endless game is that big, then teams will go for the win either at the end of the game, or early in overtime.

Going to sudden death after X guaranteed possessions sucks just as hard as sudden death right off the bat. Have equal possessions or play as many extra periods (don't have to be 15 minutes) until there is a winner.

[slightly shotgunned]

Why is the game going on for an hour or more such a bad thing?

If it's a war of attrition and the starters can't play more than, say, 5 quarters, that's what the benchies are for right? It's not like they don't have 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th string guys right? And if a team loses in OT because their bench wasn't deep enough, that's a whole lot more sporting than losing because they didn't get a chance to respond.

If the motivation to not play a potentially endless game is that big, then teams will go for the win either at the end of the game, or early in overtime.

Going to sudden death after X guaranteed possessions sucks just as hard as sudden death right off the bat. Have equal possessions or play as many extra periods (don't have to be 15 minutes) until there is a winner.

My argument is that they DO get a chance to respond. With good, solid defense. That's the part of college football's system Idislike because I feel that when you guarantee offensive possessions, you diminish the importance of your defense and you get away from the essence of the game.

NO team is guaranteed an offensive possession at ANY time during regulation. One team could score and recover onside kicks all game long and still be within the rules. That has about a snowball's chance in hell of happening, but the point remains the same. Why guarantee something you're not guaranteed to have in the first place? That doesn't make sense to me.

The only thing I would do to the NFL overtime is take away the field goal, especially with some kickers being able to hit from 50+ yards with more consistency. Other than that, sudden death is about the only time where the focus is put entirely on defense and I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm kind of a defensive minded fan. Defense wins championships and all those other chalkboard messages.

I still believe that if the Colts had won on a single drive, we wouldn't even be having this debate...

[Epiphanic]

NO team is guaranteed an offensive possession at ANY time during regulation. One team could score and recover onside kicks all game long and still be within the rules. That has about a snowball's chance in hell of happening, but the point remains the same. Why guarantee something you're not guaranteed to have in the first place? That doesn't make sense to me.

That's the best argument I've seen to keep it the way it is. The counter argument is that barring a moronic flub on the coin toss, each team is guaranteed at least one possession in regulation, the beginning of each half. Furthermore, would the essence of the game be fulfilled to a greater degree in a period in which each team is able to exhibit all facets of football (offense, defense, special teams) in the overtime period?

If the offense has about a 50/50 chance of scoring, then sudden death is fair as no team has an advantage. However, what if we have a hypothetical game between two teams that have prolific offenses and horrible defenses, to the point where each team is guaranteed to score a touchdown. Is sudden death overtime still fair?

You also may be right that we wouldn't be having this debate had the Colts won, but I'd still think it's just as stupid.

[slightly shotgunned]

NO team is guaranteed an offensive possession at ANY time during regulation. One team could score and recover onside kicks all game long and still be within the rules. That has about a snowball's chance in hell of happening, but the point remains the same. Why guarantee something you're not guaranteed to have in the first place? That doesn't make sense to me.

That's the best argument I've seen to keep it the way it is. The counter argument is that barring a moronic flub on the coin toss, each team is guaranteed at least one possession in regulation, the beginning of each half. Furthermore, would the essence of the game be fulfilled to a greater degree in a period in which each team is able to exhibit all facets of football (offense, defense, special teams) in the overtime period?

If the offense has about a 50/50 chance of scoring, then sudden death is fair as no team has an advantage. However, what if we have a hypothetical game between two teams that have prolific offenses and horrible defenses, to the point where each team is guaranteed to score a touchdown. Is sudden death overtime still fair?

You also may be right that we wouldn't be having this debate had the Colts won, but I'd still think it's just as stupid.

One team kicks and recovers an onside kick every time they kick. No possession for the other team. Highly unlikely but, no guaranteed possessions. EVER.

As to the essence of the game, luck is a part of the essence of football. "miracle plays," bad calls and the like all factor into the game. So if you lose a coin toss, that's just too bad. Instead of conceding the game right away, step up and be the player you're paid to be.

As far as teams that have bad defenses, the only "fair" way to do an overtime where both team is guaranteed a possession is to have both teams start at the same point and be given the same amount of time and/or plays to score the same amount of points. Should Team A fail to score and then Team B does, Team A would receive another possession to try and match Team B's score in the same amount of time and/or plays from the same position on the field. It's not the first to score, it's the first to score MORE in the same amount of time and/or plays. I mean, if Team A starts from their own 20 and Team B starts from Team A's 10, that's not fair right?

If you believe that equal possessions in overtime is the most fair, why not argue that whoever had the ball the LEAST at the end of regulation should win because clearly they are the better team and the other team was just getting lucky all game?

Bottom line is, the amount of possessions one team gets over another team, in regulation or overtime, are going to be unfair. It's a part of the game, as much as an obvious pass interference call being missed by an official that was standing right there, or a phantom roughing the passer call. You can either suck up the calls (or coin toss) and elevate your game, or you can allow those things to beat you.

[HedleyLamarr]

Why is the game going on for an hour or more such a bad thing?

If it's a war of attrition and the starters can't play more than, say, 5 quarters, that's what the benchies are for right? It's not like they don't have 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th string guys right? And if a team loses in OT because their bench wasn't deep enough, that's a whole lot more sporting than losing because they didn't get a chance to respond.

If the motivation to not play a potentially endless game is that big, then teams will go for the win either at the end of the game, or early in overtime.

Going to sudden death after X guaranteed possessions sucks just as hard as sudden death right off the bat. Have equal possessions or play as many extra periods (don't have to be 15 minutes) until there is a winner.

My argument is that they DO get a chance to respond. With good, solid defense. That's the part of college football's system Idislike because I feel that when you guarantee offensive possessions, you diminish the importance of your defense and you get away from the essence of the game.

NO team is guaranteed an offensive possession at ANY time during regulation. One team could score and recover onside kicks all game long and still be within the rules. That has about a snowball's chance in hell of happening, but the point remains the same. Why guarantee something you're not guaranteed to have in the first place? That doesn't make sense to me.

The only thing I would do to the NFL overtime is take away the field goal, especially with some kickers being able to hit from 50+ yards with more consistency. Other than that, sudden death is about the only time where the focus is put entirely on defense and I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm kind of a defensive minded fan. Defense wins championships and all those other chalkboard messages.

I still believe that if the Colts had won on a single drive, we wouldn't even be having this debate...

Aside from the bolded part, I've agreed with your entire overtime stance. And you finally learned to type like an adult....now that's "change" I can believe in!

If an NFL team is able to win a game 2-0 or 3-0 in regulation, why are they suddenly required to score a minimum of 4 points to win a game that needs overtime?

To answer the question about why play just one overtime, the answer is simple: the NFL wants to maintain top-quality of play. As we see in college multi-overtime games, the quality of play tends to go down as the overtime minutes go up. For the same reason the NFL is somewhat gun-shy to expanding the season by two games, it's purely from the entertainment standpoint that the NFL doesn't want extended games and extended seasons. How exciting were the last 5 minutes of the Eagles-Bengals tied game earlier this season?

The NFL has already made a move that discourages long FG attempts without fear of any consequence should they miss.....by making the ensuing line of scrimmage from the spot of the kick. It has affected the decision-making of coaches because of that 7-yard distance. Instead of getting to attempt a 52-yard FG, it makes the coach decide to go for the first down, pooch-punt, or risk the other team getting the ball on their own 42-yard line if they miss the field goal instead of their 35.

[BBTV]

Howabout if the game is tied when the game clock hits zero, they just shut it off and let the game go until the next score. If a team is driving, they keep the ball. No kickoff, no rushing to beat the clock, it's just play until the next score.

[Epiphanic]

To answer the question about why play just one overtime, the answer is simple: the NFL wants to maintain top-quality of play.

If the NFL is concerned about overextending their players and maintaining the quality of play, then just call it a tie at the end of regulation.

Of course, that doesn't solve this problem because someone has to win in the post-season.

[slightly shotgunned]

Aside from the bolded part, I've agreed with your entire overtime stance. And you finally learned to type like an adult....now that's "change" I can believe in!

wow....

i would rather you completely ignore everything i have to say than only listen when you feel i'm worthy of your attention. we are nobody to each other so dude, you and everyone else that feels the way you do about correct english on a message board and uses elitist, aureate bull to try and get anyone who doesn't buy in to feel as though their opinion is somehow less important because they believe in the freedom to type however they n' want to. besides, as many people here have proven again and again; not everyone who uses proper english has anything important to say.

thanks to this unnecessary, pompous comment i will never type "correctly" on these boards again. using my creative license granted me by this great nation, i will revert to typing in the same manner that i speak. softly, with emphasis coming only the words I want you to pay attention to.

[slightly shotgunned]

...clarification.

that attack was not meant solely for hedly, nor was it inspired from that particular comment.

when i first joined these boards, nobody seemed to be on the grammar nazi bandwagon as the only two people that had ever said anything to me about it did so after (i assume) they ran out of points to make during a pretty heated debate. any other time i've ever posted, the way i've done so has been largely ingored by the majority of members here.

there are a few, though, who have taken their own beliefs to such fanatical levels that they feel the need to impose their wills on others by trying to diminish relevent opinions by attacking the "flaws" in the way opinions are presented, not the opinions themselves. unless i'm mistaken, this isn't a class, i'm not writing an essay, nobody on here is recieving a grade for anything they post, and i'm not looking to launch a career in sportswriting using my posts as part of my resume.

until recently in the concepts board, anytime BIGBAD posted something i've had to skim the next four posts because they were irrelevant attacks on his use of capital letters. and usually, they were comments from people he wasn't talking to. so my previous post was to all of them as well as to hedly. they probably won't see it here, but whatever.

[Shmee]

Failure to type in the manner used by most of the educated world makes you look uneducated.

I don't think you are uneducated. But, I also think if you want people to take you seriously, you're better off typing like an adult. It's not difficult to hit the shift key any time you're starting a sentence or using the word "I". It makes your ideas and arguments easier to understand for those of us who read them.

Have a lovely day.

---

It's been a while since I posted anything about it, but the more I think about it, the less and less I think guaranteed possessions could even be a good idea at all. So much of football is time management. I think a great deal of strategy goes out the window when you no longer require that coaches manage the clock well. Why change that when going into overtime?

[nwtrailtrekker]

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.

thus brings the end to any game winning two minute drives and field goals in the NFL (as long as the game is tied).

dont like it.

sorry.

not a bad idea in theory, but think about all the unforgettable moments that will never happen.