NFL overtime rule

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Since I'm on a roll with my whine today .....

Isn't it about time to do away with the NFL's overtime rule?

The 11-5 Pats (who didn't make the playoffs) lost a shoot-out in OT to the Jets without ever getting an offensive possesion.

The 8-8 Chargers (who might host the AFC championship game in their stadium) won a home playoff game in OT against the 12-4 Colts. The Colts had their 9 game winning streak snapped in OT without ever having a single possession.

In other words, the outcome of a coin toss played a huge roll in deciding the outcome of two VERY important games.

Each time should get one offensive possession in OT...after which, the game becomes sudden death .. and the team who scored first gets the kickoff first again.

The reason the team who scores 1st is awarded with the ball to start the sudden death version .. is because they were limited to not playing risky football on 4th down with the ball in their own territory ... while the team who is behind on the scoreboard is going to always go for it on 4th down in their one guarenteed offensive possession.

[King Glorious]

I think the NFL overtime is the stupidest thing in sports, much more ridiculous than the BCS. I believe I read before that the team that gets the ball first wins something like 70% of the time. That's totally unfair. I'd go with something like the college rules. I'd have them start on the 50 and each team gets a possession. Back and forth until there is a winner. After each team has had two possessions, no field goals allowed.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

The college rules are a little lame.

I say give each team a possession ... obviously the team who gets the first possession last has a slight unfair edge if the other team scored. Because they are going to go for it on every 4th down until they can match score. They also have a slim chance at winning on a defensive TD.

However, that inital edge the team who starts on defense gets is offsetted by the game reverting to old sudden death OT rules ... which greatly favors the team that gets the ball first.

It would also make for fascinating strategy.

Think back to the Pats VS Jets shootout. Say the Jets kick a field goal on their first OT possession.

Now say the Pats have the ball 4th and 1 at the Jets 5 yard line behind 3 in OT.

Do they:

A.) kick the field goal to tie knowing the game reverts to old OT rules where they are 70% to lose and might not see the ball again.

or

B.) Go for the first down and try to win the game right there...knowing you also lose the game if you don't get the 1st down.

[Danzig]

i also think the OT rules need some tinkering-not surprised that the team who gets the coin toss wins 2/3 of the time. you shouldn't win a game based on the coin flip.

[Bigsmc]

Total no. of overtime games (1974–2003) 365
Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %)

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html

[dalakhani]

I like Mitch Albom's take on sports reporters this morning regarding this subject. Why dont they simply take the "sudden death" part out of the equation? Let them play a whole quarter and whoever has the lead at the end of the quarter wins. If no one has the lead, let them play another quarter.

Whats wrong with doing it that way?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

Total no. of overtime games (1974–2003) 365
Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %)

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html

I'm going to bring this back and side with ateam and horseofcourse.

There is absolutely nothing that should be changed about overtime. If you lose the toss, make them go three and out or force a turnover. If a team gets the ball first, drives right over the defense and scores, they deserve to win.

The only thing they should change about overtime is informing all of the players, especially QB's, that the game CAN end in a tie.

[timmgirvan]

I agree the rule needs to be changed...teams have advanced too far to be
denied an equal chance to score. College rules seem equitable.

[MaTH716]

I personally don't think that there's anything wrong with overtime and should be left alone. It was a hot topic on the radio last week after Peyton Manning never touched the ball in OT. I get the feeling that if it was the other way around no one would be complaining. I forgot the stats they mentioned, but there wasn't a huge advantage to the team getting the ball first (statistically speaking). The one point that made sense was that since the kickers have gotten better and they moved the kickoff point back ten yards. It incresed runbacks and field position. It seems that teams pick up 2 first downs and they are in FG range. To counteract that, in OT the team that gets the ball first would just start at the 20 and then normal rules would be in effect. Otherwise, I would just rather leave them alone. Defense is a huge part of the game. If you lose the toss, make a play. It's not like defenses can't score.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

I like taking the kickoff away in overtime. Never thought of that one.
And defenses can score. That's why I never objected much to the current OT rules.

You don't need to take it away, just let teams kick off from the 40 in OT and you get the same result with more excitement. You could just boot the kickoff into the endzone or you could try and kick it high to the 10 and pin then inside the 20.