Overtime

[Swampdog]

The much maligned NFL "sudden death" overtime system is under fire again. Last week the Chargers took the ball first in OT, drove down the field, scored, and won the game. The criticism comes from the school of thought that the other team, the Colts in this case, never had a chance in OT.

Is this unfair? In college, as I'm sure most here already know, each team has an equal chance to score, and they play as many overtime "periods" as is required to break the tie. That seems to be more "fair", but is that the best OT system?

This OT "problem" is discussed every year. Does anyone have an idea on how the NFL could improve the OT process? We have all heard the suggestions, many of which are unrealistic (like playing a full period, 15 minutes), and will never be adopted. Personally, I dont really like the NCAA OT method. It just doesnt seem to be real football to me, if that makes any sense.

The one idea that I heard that makes some sense to me is to keep the sudden death format, but give the receiving team the ball at the 10 yard line. No kickoff. This would eliminate the possibility of a long return that would likely result in a fairly easy FG try. The 10 yard starting point would certainly make it more difficult for the receiving team to score on the first possession.

So....is the current system bad? Is there no real reason to change ? If so, what would be a better overtime system?

[filihok]

I-recently-joined the NFL Overtime policy needs to be revamped camp.

According to Advanced NFL Stats.com:

60% of OT NFL games are won by the team that wins the coin toss
50% of those times the coin toss loser never touches the ball

Especially in the playoffs, that's WAY TOO MUCH emphasis on a coin flip.

I'd rather see the other team get a chance to match.
Team A wins the coin-flip. Scores a FG
Team B gets a chance. They Drive for a TD, they win. They don't score and they lose. They score a field goal and...I'm not sure.

Either Team A gets a chance to score and if they do-game over
or Team A gets a chance to score and if they do, Team B gets another chance to match

If Team B should score a safety on Team A's possession. Team B wins.

I agree that the college system is takes away a lot of 'football'. Notably special teams (punt and kickoff teams). That's why I don't like that system

[gRYFYN1]

Yea the college overtime system is putrid. The NFL playoff system is not great, I think the only other option is to just not make it sudden death -- but then you are taking the chance of 3 or 4 overtime games. You can't put "ifs" in the system .. you can't say "if this team scores then" or "if that team gets a FG" or "if the two guys sneeze at the same time you can't kick an extra point" -- Sudden death or timed --- take your pick.

[filihok]

Yea the college overtime system is putrid. The NFL playoff system is not great, I think the only other option is to just not make it sudden death -- but then you are taking the chance of 3 or 4 overtime games. You can't put "ifs" in the system .. you can't say "if this team scores then" or "if that team gets a FG" or "if the two guys sneeze at the same time you can't kick an extra point" -- Sudden death or timed --- take your pick.

It's sudden-death (with a chance to match). The 'if' only comes in because different scenarios can play out.

[RickD]

I like the OT system the NFL has. Winners move on losers cry about how unfair the system is.

[justanewguy]

I like the 10-yard line, no kickoff idea, but it would heavily favor the team playing defense.

The problem right now is, overtime comes down largely to special teams. Two plays can essentially win the game: a good kickoff return, and a successful field goal try.

The strategy of football also changes too much in overtime. Playing for a field goal only really throws things out of whack, and makes overtime anticlimatic.

The college version of overtime definitely doesn't feel like football, but it might be the best way to do things. Just don't count stats in the overtime.

I'd be in favor of a full overtime period, but as pointed out, it's unrealistic, and you'd have games that end up with multiple overtimes, most likely.

[etothep]

The only way the college overtime will be adopted by the NFL is if the teams start at midfield instead of the 25.

Personally, I agree with RickD. I don't think there would be as much buzz had Peyton won the coin toss & scored on his first drive, but a lot of writers are scared about an NFL playoff w/o Peyton or Brady

[filihok]

I don't think there would be as much buzz had Peyton won the coin toss & scored on his first drive

This maybe true, but it's a bad rule

[Wassit3]

personally I favor having the two tied teams cheerleading squads mud wrestle each other to determine the winner...ok fine I will give a serious reply. Personally I like the current sysem just fine.

[kenny1234]

I didn't realize that it was as close as 60-40. That isn't too bad. I'd be happy to see 15-minute quarters played until someone won - but I also like playoff hockey with multiple overtimes. Maybe the current system in the regular season and timed overtime in the playoffs - though I am also happy with the current system. Indy had their chances all game long - since they didn't play well enough to win in regulation, I don't feel bad for them as the victim of bad luck. Also, play some defense.

[dickay]

I-recently-joined the NFL Overtime policy needs to be revamped camp.

According to Advanced NFL Stats.com:

60% of OT NFL games are won by the team that wins the coin toss
50% of those times the coin toss loser never touches the ball

Especially in the playoffs, that's WAY TOO MUCH emphasis on a coin flip.

Stats are funny...i heard yesterday on WFAN that the person who wins the coin toss does not win on the first drive 80% of the time. They got those from the NFL but could not verify how lengthy the study was. Anyhow, googles a wonderful thing and the USA Today posted some stats earlier this year;

As it is, however, fewer than half the teams that win the toss win on the first possession — about 40% historically and closer to 30% last season. And 20 of last season's 26 overtime games saw both teams have at least one possession, compared with 16 of 25 in 2002.

Just three of the 20 overtime postseason games since 1958 were won on the first possession, including one during the playoffs for the 2002 season.

After the league's eight-person competition committee delivered an 8-0 decision against making changes, the revived proposal was defeated 25-7 by owners in Palm Beach, Fla., at the annual league meetings — with 10 fewer votes in support of a rule change compared to the previous year's tally.

Save for a dramatic surge in one-possession winners, changes in the near future aren't likely.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2004-...s-nfl-ot_x.htm

[dickay]

I didn't realize that it was as close as 60-40. That isn't too bad. I'd be happy to see 15-minute quarters played until someone won - but I also like playoff hockey with multiple overtimes. Maybe the current system in the regular season and timed overtime in the playoffs - though I am also happy with the current system. Indy had their chances all game long - since they didn't play well enough to win in regulation, I don't feel bad for them as the victim of bad luck. Also, play some defense.

The complaints I heard on this is that the NFL doesn't necessary 'like' overtime games. They don't mind them, but prefer them to be short for these reasons;

1. Networks want to get to the next game (local ones that is) or their primetime scheduled programs.

2. There is serious concern for injury. As it is, you can often see a marketable change in performance in the fourth quarter during alot of games as fatigue sets in. Mandating a full additional quarter adds to that fatigue and potential for injury.

Now.......i'm not saying I fully buy both of those reasons, though I think there is some truth to them. All in all, I just dont' think its broken based upon the stats i've seen.

[kenny1234]

I agree with both reasons during the regular season - and I don't think it would make sense then. During the playoffs, the TV networks don't tend to broadcast back-to-back games (they usually use two networks each day, I think), and as to fatigue - if it happens once every couple of years in the playoffs, then we get to see which teams are in better shape.

[Swampdog]

It's alleged that if the receiving team starts at its own 15 yard line, the chances of either team scoring first is about 50-50. That seems about right. What I like about that rule (or starting at the 10) is that the team that wins the coin toss would have a difficult decision to make.

Now, every team winning the coin flip opts to take the ball (well, almost every team) and the first chance to score. In college, the team opts to go on defense first, so they have the advantage of watching to see how much the other team scores. If there was a mandatory 10-15 yardline starting point, surely a coach would consider the odds of being stopped short of a first down and having to punt from deep in their own territory, presumably giving the other team the ball around midfield. If the game was a defensive struggle, coaches would undoubtably opt to give the ball to their opponents offense first, expecting their own defense to stop them.

Anyway, I like the "sealed bid" option now, only because its so...weird.

[dps]

Personally, I'd like to see them continue to play full extra 15 minute quarters in the playoffs until one team is up at the end of a quarter, but I understand why they won't do that. I do think the current system is a bit unfair, and wouldn't mind them going to a system similar to what the NCAA uses, but with each team starting possessions on their own 20 or thereabouts.

In the regular season, IMO there shouldn't even be any overtime--just let it end in a tie after 4 quarters. And definately there shouldn't be any overtime in the preason.