How would you change the overtime rules?

[steveo395]

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.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by steveo395

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.

[44ever]

Originally Posted by GMScud

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?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

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

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 44ever

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.

[44ever]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

Yes I see that. I just didn't give it enough thought. I can see that as a good option as well.

[GTripp0012]

I wouldn't just change the rules for the sake of changing the rules, but there are improvements that can be made here.

I mean, I feel no sympathy for any coach who loses a coin toss and complains about it, because the 2 pt conversion rule gives you the option of avoiding overtime. But the issue here doesn't seem to be that a lot of coaches are complaining (read: BCS), the issue is that we can probably make the game more fair (or at least the coin toss less significant) with minimal effort.

[MrIcon]

I think
- 10 minutes, (None of that SUDDEN DEATH B.S.)
- Three timeouts per team
- Official challenges only
- If it goes into a 2nd overtime period Offense should play defense and defense should play offense, just to make the QB play LB. j/k
- Really though- If the game is not decided after the first OT then they should go into Sudden death, to get the game over with.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by steveo395

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.

Best idea so far, tell Rodger.

[djnemo65]

You hear a lot of people complaining about this recently, having an emotional, visceral reaction to Payton Manning "not even getting the ball" in the Chargers/Colts game. We need to find a way to give both offenses the ball, the argument goes. OK, let's ignore the fact that, as First correctly pointed out, the winner of the coin toss only goes on to win the game 53 percent of the time, which is not a statistically significant discrepancy. Let's ignore the fact that Payton had ample opportunities in regulation to win the game, and failed to make critical conversions and launch sustained scoring drives for the billionth time in the playoffs. And let’s ignore how silly it is to separate Payton from his defense, which buckled in overtime, as if they are not part of the same team. Let's take these complaints at face value.

It’s easy to criticize the current system but I have yet to hear a viable way of improving it. Every proposed fix offers to introduce more problems than the current system already has, imperfect as it may be. The college system is a joke - when you take field position and 2/3 of special teams out of football it's no longer football, we can agree on that right? - so that's out. Many suggest giving the second team a chance to match the first when the first team’s offense scores on their first possession, but this is a terrible idea and here’s why.　　Right now there is a small advantage for the team that wins the toss. Not statistically huge but it exists. This is evinced by the fact that the team that wins the coin toss always elects to receive the ball. In a system in which each team is guaranteed one possession you would see that flip, as teams would see a much greater advantage to going second. By electing to kick you would have the massive advantage of knowing whether you need a fieldgoal or TD to win, something that completely changes offensive strategy, and something which the first offense would not know. Big advantage. Moreover, by winning the toss you would effectively be letting your defense off the hook, while the other team’s defense still has the pressure of having to be perfect. Your defense goes out and gets scored on, you still have a chance to win. But if they make a big turnover or stop to get the ball in good field position, the other team gets no similar reprieve. So that 53/47 split you see now would be skewed way more unevenly…but hey, at least you would get to see Payton go out and get sacked one more time on third down

This ain’t beerpong, there’s no matching. Man up as a team and win the game. Recognize that, as a defense, if you can force a three and out you are going to give your offense good enough field position to win. I don’ t know when making 3 or 4 firstdowns and successfully converting a field goal became a given in the NFL, seems likes it’s kind of hard to me.

[MrIcon]

The only problem I see is if another Ed Hoculli incident comes out and bites a team in the butt in overtime.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

In a system in which each team is guaranteed one possession you would see that flip, as teams would see a much greater advantage to going second. By electing to kick you would have the massive advantage of knowing whether you need a fieldgoal or TD to win, something that completely changes offensive strategy, and something which the first offense would not know. Big advantage.

I still think most teams would choose to receive though because if one possession for each team can't decide it, it becomes sudden death, but now they have the ball.

I tend to like this idea simply because it takes a lot of the meaning out of the coin toss, which is the only real problem. Because let's face it: the overtime rules are very, very fair before the coin toss occurs. It's just that the toss decides a fair amount of games, a few more than we would like in overtime. It's not an omnipresent issue obviously, but if we can de-emphasize the coin toss in OT, I'm all for a change.

[irish]

The NFL OT is perfect just the way it is, very exciting with the game on the line on every play. From what I have read the team that wins the toss wins about 50% of the time so winning the toss isnt the huge advantage its made out to be.

[MrIcon]

By the way, the Colts lost because of penalties on defense.

[Skinny Tee]

I have no problem with the current format.

If any team is bitter about going into overtime they should look at themselves first as to the reason why they're there. You don't like it then score more points.

It's kinda like the Steelers at the Skins game this year. There were tons of PIT fans waving the terrible towel. They were everywhere and it made me sick to sit at FedEx and see that but if the Skins dominated the game then every black & gold ass would have been sitting quiet in their seat.

If you're not good on both sides of the ball then you probably aren't that great of an all around team deserving of a Super Bowl or a hard earned overtime victory.