How would you change the overtime rules?

I heard on one show that its like 53 to 47 % that the team who wins the coin toss wins the game. That did not factor in the team punting away then getting the ball back and scoring on their second drive so that even makes it closer. I don't think its that big of a deal but I could see them allowing both teams a chance with the ball then its who ever scores next.

I like the rules just the way they are. Football isn't all about offense, if you want to win play good defense and special teams. The college rules work for college, the NFL is the pro league...pros got to play like pros. No shortcuts, head starts, do-overs, or taking turns.

^True enough, I just hate OT ending on a long FG try.

All I know is that Donovan McNabb is really glad that the Colts/Chargers game didn't end in a tie.

Why would that matter because they are AFC and McNabb is in the NFC?

I wouldn't. I'm sick of people saying that if you win the coin flip that you automatically win? That's not true, the team that loses the flip has to play defense and if they stop them, then they get their chance on offense. I've seen teams lose the flip and win in OT as much as teams winning the the coin toss. This system has been in place forever why change it now? It seems like this will be know as an era of WHINERS!!

I think both teams should be guaranteed at least one possession. If the defense can hold a team to a field goal, that is still stopping them, and the offense has a chance to at least tie it with a field goal or win it with a touchdown. If both teams end up getting a touchdown, then neither defense was good enough to stop the offense, so it is fair.

If the game is a shootout, then probably whoever wins the toss will win the game, so the other team should have a chance to come back. If the other teams defense makes a play and stops them, it is over.

If it is still tied after one possession each, then the game should then be sudden death.

This will also stop teams for just playing for a field goal once they get in range, by just running the ball over and over.

I think both teams should be guaranteed at least one possession. If the defense can hold a team to a field goal, that is still stopping them, and the offense has a chance to at least tie it with a field goal or win it with a touchdown. If both teams end up getting a touchdown, then neither defense was good enough to stop the offense, so it is fair.

If the game is a shootout, then probably whoever wins the toss will win the game, so the other team should have a chance to come back. If the other teams defense makes a play and stops them, it is over.

If it is still tied after one possession each, then the game should then be sudden death.

This will also stop teams for just playing for a field goal once they get in range, by just running the ball over and over.

Huh. That's an interesting suggestion. I could live with that. Plus it would still lend significance to the coin toss, because if it's tied after one possession each, the team that won the toss gets the ball at the start of sudden death anyway.

Huh. That's an interesting suggestion. I could live with that. Plus it would still lend significance to the coin toss, because if it's tied after one possession each, the team that won the toss gets the ball at the start of sudden death anyway.

GMS. Couldnt that still hypothetically give one of the teams only one shot? If so how is this a improvement over the current system?

All I know is that Donovan McNabb is really glad that the Colts/Chargers game didn't end in a tie.

Well played sir, well played

GMS. Wouldn't that still give one of the teams only one shot? If so how is this a improvement over the current system?
What he is saying is that both teams get the ball in over time if then its still tied it goes to who ever scores next. The only real change in this is that it garanties that both them get the ball.