NFL overtime rule

The Indomitable DrugS · #1 01-11-2009, 12:02 PM

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 · #2 01-11-2009, 12:10 PM

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.

timmgirvan · #3 01-11-2009, 12:12 PM

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 · #4 01-11-2009, 12:16 PM

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.

The Indomitable DrugS · #5 01-11-2009, 12:16 PM

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 · #6 01-11-2009, 01:30 PM

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 · #7 01-11-2009, 01:37 PM

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 · #8 01-11-2009, 04:29 PM

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?

ateamstupid · #9 01-11-2009, 04:34 PM

Cry me a river. If your defense can't get a stop, you lose. This "everybody gets a chance" bullshit is absurd. This isn't Little League. Get a stop or go home. The shitty Pats couldn't stop old man Favre on 3rd & 15 and the Colts committed THREE asinine penalties that screwed them over. I'm supposed to feel sorry for these two teams.

You think the Eagles would've lost today if they'd lost a coin toss in overtime? I don't, because they have a competent defense.

joeydb · #10 01-11-2009, 04:35 PM

No overtime game should come down to a coin toss. Each team should be given one possession in the overtime. After that -- sudden death.

Just like college rules. They used to say the same things about the two point conversion, with regard to not adopting it for the pros. I think most would agree that the two point conversion has added depth to the game.

AeWingnut · #11 01-11-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Cry me a river. If your defense can't get a stop, you lose. This "everybody gets a chance" bullshit is absurd. This isn't Little League. Get a stop or go home. The shitty Pats couldn't stop old man Favre on 3rd & 15 and the Colts committed THREE asinine penalties that screwed them over. I'm supposed to feel sorry for these two teams.

You think the Eagles would've lost today if they'd lost a coin toss in overtime? I don't, because they have a competent defense.

wow, we agree on something

sorry

ateamstupid · #12 01-11-2009, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeydb

No overtime game should come down to a coin toss. Each team should be given one possession in the overtime. After that -- sudden death.

Just like college rules. They used to say the same things about the two point conversion, with regard to not adopting it for the pros. I think most would agree that the two point conversion has added depth to the game.

It doesn't come down to a coin toss. It comes down to whether or not your defense can get a clutch stop. Saying that it comes down to a coin toss is completely letting defenses off the hook for failing.

MaTH716 · #13 01-11-2009, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeydb

No overtime game should come down to a coin toss. Each team should be given one possession in the overtime. After that -- sudden death.
Just like college rules. They used to say the same things about the two point conversion, with regard to not adopting it for the pros. I think most would agree that the two point conversion has added depth to the game.

So if they both score, it's goes back to a coin flip? Then it's the same thing as regular OT now. That makes no sense. There is nothing wrong with the system they have now.
And as far as Joey Eagles competent defense quote before, it wasn't the Giants D that lost them that game today.,

ateamstupid · #14 01-11-2009, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

So if they both score, it's goes back to a coin flip? Then it's the same thing as regular OT now. That makes no sense. There is nothing wrong with the system they have now.
And as far as Joey Eagles competent defense quote before, it wasn't the Giants D that lost them that game today.,

I didn't say it was.. It's just that the Eagles are playing the best defense in the league now, including the Ravens.

kenny p · #15 01-12-2009, 07:52 AM

Don't change a thing. If you can't get it done in 60 mins. then too bad if you lose in OT. It's the shills like Jim Nance who are pushing for this. TV has already pretty much ruined sports, don't let them ruin it more. KP

Danzig · #16 01-12-2009, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenny p

Don't change a thing. If you can't get it done in 60 mins. then too bad if you lose in OT. It's the shills like Jim Nance who are pushing for this. TV has already pretty much ruined sports, don't let them ruin it more. KP

altho i don't care for all the commercial breaks, i still think football is better viewed on t.v. than live-replay and camera angles, etc, so you never miss a thing...

now hockey on the other hand....best viewed live.

herkhorse · #17 01-12-2009, 08:03 AM

instead of the coin toss, how about a little rugby style scrum to see who gets the ball

MaTH716 · #18 01-12-2009, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by herkhorse

instead of the coin toss, how about a little rugby style scrum to see who gets the ball

Do you remeber how the XFL decided who gets the ball?

herkhorse · #19 01-12-2009, 09:17 AM

no, but I know it was something better than a coin toss

herkhorse · #20 01-12-2009, 09:23 AM

In addition to these rules changes, the XFL also announced that no game will end in a tie due to its "can you top this" overtime. Each team will get four downs to score from the opponent's 20 yard line. However, if team A scores a touchdown in less that four downs, team B only gets that many downs to respond.