CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Sports › NFL Overtime Rules: the Debate Continues
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NFL Overtime Rules: the Debate Continues

post #1 of 55
3/28/07 at 1:13pm
Thread Starter 
I know we've bandied this about before, with some folks hating the college football system, and others hating the NFL system...but as the NFL enters into its annual rules debate I had an idea that I thought might be workable, and I wanted to bounce it off the CHUD community:

Here's my idea: Before the game, after the initial coin flip, the team that wins the coinflip now has a third option. They can:

a. Take the ball;
b. Choose which side of the field they want;
c. Choose to have the ball to begin overtime, if overtime is needed (current overtime rules would remain unchanged).

Whichever option they choose, the other team gets the benefit of the remaining two options. I.e., if they choose to take the ball (which I believe is the choice 95+% of the time) the other team chooses their side of the field and would have first dibs on the ball in overtime.

It is clear that the NFL will never, ever go to a system in which each team is guaranteed one possession in OT due to television constraints, so at least this way we can make having the ball first in OT carry with it a potential penalty during the first sixty minutes of the game (unless the team plays in a dome, in which case choosing one side of the field doesn't matter....but no system is perfect).

Thoughts?
Reply
post #2 of 55
3/28/07 at 1:35pm
I don't quite get why they can't just let the teams play another quarter of football. I guess the networks don't want games running that long but the odds are an overtime NFL game will get better ratings then whatever else is going to air.

Regarding coin tosses, I'd like to see those eliminated outright. That was one cool aspect to the XFL. Instead of a coin toss they'd put the ball in the middle of the field. Have a player from each team line up like 10 yards from the ball. Then it was a sprint to grab the ball. Whoever got the ball would dictate who kicks off first.
Reply
post #3 of 55
3/28/07 at 1:39pm
Why would TV constraints prohibit a one possession per team format? The minute they hit overtime, there's the potential for 15 more minutes of game time, which could be 30 to 45 minutes in real time. I would think the networks would like overtimes to be shorter so that any 1:00pm games that went to OT would end sooner and get those audiences over to the marquee 4:00pm matchups and wrap up any 4:00pm matchups so that the prime time lineup would be less affected.

A great point I read somewhere was why worry about OT during the season? What's wrong with ties?
Reply
post #4 of 55
3/28/07 at 1:39pm
i don't think having a third option makes sense. No one in their right mind would even choose OT possession as an option. plus, then how do you decide field direction? If the winner chooses OT possession, then the loser picks "RECEIVE" and then what? The ref decides where the teams start on the field?

the amount of games that go into OT is so small that it's not even worth changing the rules. Of course, I'm also the guy that thought the MLB all-star game that ended in a tie was a good thing. but what the hell do i know?
Reply
post #5 of 55
3/28/07 at 1:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti
Regarding coin tosses, I'd like to see those eliminated outright. That was one cool aspect to the XFL. Instead of a coin toss they'd put the ball in the middle of the field. Have a player from each team line up like 10 yards from the ball. Then it was a sprint to grab the ball. Whoever got the ball would dictate who kicks off first.
The NFL would never risk having a player get hurt before the game even started.
Reply
post #6 of 55
3/28/07 at 1:48pm
It would be part of the game. Skill should be used to decide who gets to make choices like kicking off, especially in overtime.
Reply
post #7 of 55
3/28/07 at 1:49pm
Why not just make it simple and give the home team the choice? Everyone would get eight chances to decide each season.
Reply
post #8 of 55
3/28/07 at 1:54pm
Home teams have enough advantages. Get the lazy ass punters involved. Have them do a punt for distance. Farthest punt gets to decide posession.
Reply
post #9 of 55
3/28/07 at 1:54pm
I'd flip it, Richard. Road team gets the ball first in OT. Makes up for the "disadvantage". Teams can't complain...they are the road team half the time.
Reply
post #10 of 55
3/28/07 at 1:58pm
How about a combo of the NFL and College? Give each team the ball on the 35, and if neither team scores, or if both teams score the same, then turn it into sudden death. The team that won the OT toss gets the kickoff, as in OT now. So both teams get the ball at least once.
Reply
post #11 of 55
3/28/07 at 2:03pm
Thread Starter 
Re: the "field direction" question, it is a one out of three choice: the other team would then get the other two options.

I can definitely see teams choosing the OT options. When? When they have a strong defensive team and are more likely to choose the field position option if they win the initial coin toss. But, even if the OT option is chosen rarely, it at least provides for some sort of penalty during the first 60 minutes of the game. The current system basically gives an enormous windfall to whichever team wins the OT coin flip.

Would I rather see an extra quarter played, or both teams having one possession? Absolutely. Sadly, I am convinced that will never, ever happen in the regular season. The owners have said as much (though I am too lazy right now to do the research).
Reply
post #12 of 55
3/28/07 at 2:23pm
It's fine the way it is. College OT is more exciting, but that's not an option for the pros (of course, they said that about the 2 point conversion, too).
Reply
post #13 of 55
3/28/07 at 2:35pm
I agree with you on that GFC -- I love college OT, but wouldn't want to see it in the pros.

I think it should be as it is now, with 2 exceptions:

1) Eliminate the 15-minute time limit. Ties suck.

2) If the team with first possession scores, it has to kickoff to the other team. Should that team fail to tie or take the lead on its possession , the game ends.
Reply
post #14 of 55
3/28/07 at 2:44pm
I got to agree - I like watching the college system IN COLLEGE. I can't see it working in the pros.

Two things I read here that I like.

Eliminate the 15 minute OT time limit. Granted, it happens very little. But if it's gonna be sudden death - make it sudden death - not sudden death till time runs out than it's not sudden death.

Also, I love the punters or kickers getting involved. I was thinking more of a "prove it" for kickers. Kicker A says he can kick a field goal (from a tee) from 25 yards, then kicker B comes in at 30, etc. Eventually one kicker says prove it. If he makes it, that team gets the ball - if he misses, the other team.
Reply
post #15 of 55
3/28/07 at 2:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Wehman

Also, I love the punters or kickers getting involved. I was thinking more of a "prove it" for kickers. Kicker A says he can kick a field goal (from a tee) from 25 yards, then kicker B comes in at 30, etc. Eventually one kicker says prove it. If he makes it, that team gets the ball - if he misses, the other team.
Would this be the entire overtime or just when someone chose to kick a field goal in OT?
Reply
post #16 of 55
3/28/07 at 2:46pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe LeFors

2) If the team with first possession scores, it has to kickoff to the other team. Should that team fail to tie or take the lead on its possession , the game ends.
Everyone wants this. We will never get it.
Reply
post #17 of 55
3/28/07 at 2:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcassady
Would this be the entire overtime or just when someone chose to kick a field goal in OT?
No, this would be how you decide who gets the ball in OT. After that, it plays just like it does now. It simply replaces the coin flip (same as the punter idea above).

I know it's silly, but it beats the coin flip - putting at least some skill into it. I should mention, I kinda like the XFL way, but as said above that will never happen.
Reply
post #18 of 55
3/28/07 at 2:48pm
I am also in the camp of it being fine the way it is. You aren't going to please everyone no matter how you decide to do it. I think sudden death is the best way to go.
Reply
post #19 of 55
3/28/07 at 2:49pm
No one wants that. It's crazy. It's the same thing as the college system only full-field. Players would die.
Reply
post #20 of 55
3/28/07 at 3:01pm
I really don't like the coin flip, but on the other hand you get 60 minutes to win. If your defense can't hold up its end in OT then too bad.

But moving the kickoff to the 35 yard line to start OT (which would cause more touchbacks) isn't the worst thing ever.
Reply
post #21 of 55
3/28/07 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti
Regarding coin tosses, I'd like to see those eliminated outright. That was one cool aspect to the XFL. Instead of a coin toss they'd put the ball in the middle of the field. Have a player from each team line up like 10 yards from the ball. Then it was a sprint to grab the ball. Whoever got the ball would dictate who kicks off first.
My money would be on whatever team signs He Hate Me. He would be the only player on the Very Special Teams.

Am I the only guy who doesn't mind the NFL's sudden death overtime rule?
Reply
post #22 of 55
3/28/07 at 3:07pm
Sudden death wouldn't bother me if the game could only end on a touchdown or safety. It's just so lame to see these teams get all conservative in overtime, get to about the 25 yard line, send out the kicker and call it a day. I don't blame the teams, I'd do the same under the current system.
Reply
post #23 of 55
3/28/07 at 3:11pm
Do you know how many ties that would give us? There aren't that many TDs scored.
Reply
post #24 of 55
3/28/07 at 3:21pm
That's because there are no risks taken in overtime. Why would anyone attempt to get in the end zone? Throw any pass once you're at the 25 yard line and if it's picked off you're going to be seen as a fool for the following week.
Reply
post #25 of 55
3/28/07 at 3:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonvoight's car
Am I the only guy who doesn't mind the NFL's sudden death overtime rule?
There no real "solution" that I find substantially better than the current system. Yes, the year someone wins the Super Bowl on a first possession field goal in overtime people will lose it, but still, its fine the way it is.

(Now if you want to fix a broken system just look at the National Championship situation in Div I College Football...)
Reply
post #26 of 55
3/28/07 at 3:38pm
I've also thought simply giving each team a minimum of one possession in OT was the perfect solution. After each team has had the ball once, it then becomes sudden death. No whining about the coin-flip winning team getting the advantage (which they don't according to statistics), no whining about one team not getting the ball, etc.
Reply
post #27 of 55
3/28/07 at 3:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti
That's because there are no risks taken in overtime. Why would anyone attempt to get in the end zone? Throw any pass once you're at the 25 yard line and if it's picked off you're going to be seen as a fool for the following week.
TDs are just not scored that often in regulation. Force a TD during a 6-6 OT game between the Raiders and the Lions? Yikes. They'd still be playing.
Reply
post #28 of 55
3/28/07 at 3:59pm
That's fine. I don't like ties but I'd rather see two teams go for broke over a quarter than limply leave it up to the kickers.

I'd trade a rare Raiders-Lions type situation for all the overtime games with teams who can put a decent touchdown drive together. I'm confident there'd be way more of those.
Reply
post #29 of 55
3/28/07 at 4:03pm
I think you're speaking to a larger issue - one which I am completely baffled by - of people hating the kicking game. You'll even hear players openly lament kickers as if they aren't part of their team (though you'll not hear this after a game won by a kicker). So what if games are decided on a field goal? It's a part of the regular game. What's the difference between settling for a field goal in overtime and doing so at the end of regulation? Should only TDs be allowed from the 4th quarter on?
Reply
post #30 of 55
3/28/07 at 4:06pm
I have no problem with the kicking game. It's a vital aspect to the game. Field goals at the end of regulation with the clock ticking down are very exciting. But it's stupid to make the kicking game the end all be all once a game goes into overtime.
Reply
post #31 of 55
3/28/07 at 4:18pm
Why is it stupid in overtime and not in regulation? 'Sudden death' just means that basically every play in OT is a last second attempt.
Reply
post #32 of 55
3/28/07 at 4:28pm
Because in regulation a field goal is plan B. In overtime teams change their game plans and make a field goal the priority and end up causing the game to be too conservative. I generally find it more exciting when teams shoot for the end zone than when they kick field goals.
Reply
post #33 of 55
3/28/07 at 4:29pm
I've read that a couple of coaches have suggested a 7 and half minute overtime quarter that's played to completion. That way you're not playing a full extra quarter, odds are both teams will get a possession, and going for the field goal first chance isn't as obvious a strategy.
Reply
post #34 of 55
3/28/07 at 4:30pm
That's not true. Late in any close game, a team in field goal range rarely takes any chances to score a TD. See: Cowboys/Seahawks in this past playoffs
Reply
post #35 of 55
3/28/07 at 4:33pm
But if you get down in field goal range and there's still 5 or 6 minutes left to play and you know the other team is getting the ball, 7 points looks a lot more comforting than 3. You'll still go for 3 on fourth down, but you're not going to see three kneeldowns and a kick, not when you're kicking off again.
Reply
post #36 of 55
3/28/07 at 4:35pm
You will in the last minute of a game, though. Again, it's Sudden Death, not a full quarter. It's basically an extension of the last minute of the game.
Reply
post #37 of 55
3/28/07 at 4:36pm
Yeah, I think that's right -- nearly every coach is going to take the points in that scenario.
Reply
post #38 of 55
3/28/07 at 4:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
You will in the last minute of a game, though. Again, it's Sudden Death, not a full quarter. It's basically an extension of the last minute of the game.
That'll happen in the last minute of regulation too though.

The point is they're talking about making it not Sudden Death. It's not sudden if both teams get a possession. Still take the break and toss the coin, but play a shorter quarter (like basketball does). And if you're defense is bad enough to allow a 7:30 minute drive to lose the game, well, so be it, but most likely each team would get at least one possession. Both sides of the ball would have a chance of determining the outcome as opposed to a coin toss and a kickoff return.
Reply
post #39 of 55
3/28/07 at 4:51pm
Both sides do have a chance. First off, there's 60 minutes played before that where both sides do as they need to. Secondly, I don't have the stats, but it's actually less than half of all OT games that are decided on the first series. Usually you do get a chance, and if you're willing to say "if your defense can't stop them, than too bad", why can't you say that about the current setup?
Reply
post #40 of 55
3/28/07 at 5:03pm
Well, my stats are certainly off.
Reply
post #41 of 55
3/28/07 at 5:04pm
NFL overtime is exciting. One play can end it. There was nothing better in 2001(think that was the year) than seeing Owens get leveled while catching the ball then Mike Brown take that ball into the end zone. Or the Bears beating the Titans on a safety. It happens.

It's not college where it has to be fair. These guys are professionals. If you want the ball, stop the other team or take it.
Reply
post #42 of 55
3/28/07 at 5:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guttenberg Fan Club
Both sides do have a chance. First off, there's 60 minutes played before that where both sides do as they need to. Secondly, I don't have the stats, but it's actually less than half of all OT games that are decided on the first series. Usually you do get a chance, and if you're willing to say "if your defense can't stop them, than too bad", why can't you say that about the current setup?
I agree with the "they have 60 minutes" thing. Although, your OT stats are wrong. The reason for the 35-yard kickoff discussion is that 58% of first possesion teams win in OT.

From NFL.com
Quote:
Support for change grew largely from statistics that showed in recent years teams that win the overtime coin toss usually win the game. And a push to alter the rule seemed to gain momentum after 10 of a record 25 overtime games last season were won on the first possession and 58 percent by the team that won the coin toss at the start of OT.
Edit: Troy N beat me to it (and my stats are from last season - hence the 4% difference)
Reply
post #43 of 55
3/28/07 at 5:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy n
You are obviously a Bears fan and therefore very lonely and a little bit of a douchebag.
Fixed
Reply
post #44 of 55
3/28/07 at 5:16pm
Quote:
Support for change grew largely from statistics that showed in recent years teams that win the overtime coin toss usually win the game. And a push to alter the rule seemed to gain momentum after 10 of a record 25 overtime games last season were won on the first possession and 58 percent by the team that won the coin toss at the start of OT.
I don't see the problem. Just because there is a fluke year doesn't mean you change the system. 60% of the time, in a fluke year, each team got a posession.
Reply
post #45 of 55
3/28/07 at 5:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy n
You're obviously a Lions fan.
Actually I'm just a miserable Browns fan (whose team is just about as bad as the Lions) so I take my anger out on any person who is a fan of a winning team - which is almost all of you...
Reply
post #46 of 55
3/28/07 at 5:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Wehman
I agree with the "they have 60 minutes" thing. Although, your OT stats are wrong. The reason for the 35-yard kickoff discussion is that 58% of first possesion teams win in OT.

From NFL.com
That article is from 2003. But your a Browns fan which explains everything.
Reply
post #47 of 55
3/28/07 at 5:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Wehman
Actually I'm just a miserable Browns fan
Don't worry, Brady Quinn is on the way.
another Tank
Can't believe the yahoo mock draft has the bears taking another Tank in rd 2.
Reply
post #48 of 55
3/28/07 at 5:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jcassady
That article is from 2003. But your a Browns fan which explains everything.
Ha! I just proved my point. How sad is that? Anyway - it stills proves some sort of point. Basically that they have been arguing over this for oh, so long. See, it's almost genius!
Reply
post #49 of 55
3/28/07 at 5:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anyawatchin Angel
Don't worry, Brady Quinn is on the way.
I hope not. I'll take Thomas or Peterson - but most Browns fans treat rookie QB's like your uncle who once commented how nice you look in shorts. It just feels wrong.
Reply
post #50 of 55
3/28/07 at 6:29pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy n
Buck up because Quinn or no Quinn...the Browns are going to surprise some people this year.
If they manage to go 5 and 11, I will be surprised. Which might be a good thing. Draft Quinn, start him all year, tell him to not worry about results, go 3 and 13, and get some more draft picks. Striving for mediocrity is dumb. Indy did it the right way with Peyton.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Sports › NFL Overtime Rules: the Debate Continues