What OT system should the NFL use?

[molson]

This was a hot topic 4-5 years ago when the the NFL rules committee entertained a lot of different options. At the end of the day, they went with the status quo, which seems more ingrained than ever.

This obviously comes up in FOFC game-day football threads, but I wanted to see what the forum thought as a whole.

[st.cronin]

I would like to see them play a full quarter, if its still tied after that, its a tie.

[Logan]

I would either want sudden death (as is) or like st.c said, a full quarter where the final score at the end is the final score. Obviously polar opposites, but that's how I feel.

[Huckleberry]

College system but get the ball at your own 40.

[Surtt]

they should kick field goals.
Start at the 45 and move back 5 yards until someone misses.

[ThunderingHERD]

I don't have a problem with the current system. The only significant change I wouldn't be opposed to would be giving the other team a possession if there is a score on the first drive.

[molson]

I like the first to six points idea that was apparently the most considered alternative the last time the NFL seriously considered this.

You still have the sudden death element, but no more OT games won with a good kick return, 25 offensive yards, and then a long FG. It would also lead to some interesting coaching decisions.

[bulletsponge]

I don't have a problem with the current system. The only significant change I wouldn't be opposed to would be giving the other team a possession if there is a score on the first drive.

that would give a big atvantage to the kicking team. as it is right now the team that recieves first wins 49% of the time.

i say keep it the same. these blowhards on tv that recomend both team getting the ball once seem to forget that both teams had a whole 60 min to determine the outcome and have had pleanty of chances to win, OT is just extra time to see who can score next to win, its not an extra game at the end.

if there is a change then i say an extra quater, no stupid gimicks like college ot (whored football) or both teams getting the ball once ( kicking teams getting huge advantage with defensive stops or TO) with a short field

[molson]

that would give a big atvantage to the kicking team. as it is right now the team that recieves first wins 49% of the time.



I wonder how often the team on defense first in college OT wins. Because even though the game doesn't necessarily end after one "inning", that seems like a bigger advantage than winning the coin toss in an NFL overtime.

[sterlingice]

that would give a big atvantage to the kicking team. as it is right now the team that recieves first wins 49% of the time.

i say keep it the same. these blowhards on tv that recomend both team getting the ball once seem to forget that both teams had a whole 60 min to determine the outcome and have had pleanty of chances to win, OT is just extra time to see who can score next to win, its not an extra game at the end.

if there is a change then i say an extra quater, no stupid gimicks like college ot (whored football) or both teams getting the ball once ( kicking teams getting huge advantage with defensive stops or TO) with a short field

I don't think those stats are right (the 49%). I'd kindof like to see a source. According to this, albeit not airtight source, they claim over 60%- http://blog.washingtonpost.com/nflinsider/2007/03/overtime_issue_unresolved.html

As to "forgetting that both teams had 60 mins to determine the outcome"- that's an awful reason. Sure, it's great fodder for talk shows. There's always some luminary like Jim Rome who is from that school of false accountability with statements like "X Team had tons of chances to win so they can't blame the OT system". But when you're handing a team who guesses right on a coin flip a 30%+ advantage (60 vs 40 = 33%), that's not at all fair and we shouldn't just scrap trying to be fair because it's in OT.

SI

[ThunderingHERD]

that would give a big atvantage to the kicking team. as it is right now the team that recieves first wins 49% of the time.

i say keep it the same. these blowhards on tv that recomend both team getting the ball once seem to forget that both teams had a whole 60 min to determine the outcome and have had pleanty of chances to win, OT is just extra time to see who can score next to win, its not an extra game at the end.

if there is a change then i say an extra quater, no stupid gimicks like college ot (whored football) or both teams getting the ball once ( kicking teams getting huge advantage with defensive stops or TO) with a short field

I agree, and that's the argument that I would always make (the odds part, that is). I've heard the 49% number as well, but I've also heard that it was outdated and that things have shifted with the newer kickoff rules. If it is still around 50%, though, I don't think they should make any changes.

[CraigSca]

I hate the college system because of the hyper-inflated scores. That being said, I would not mind a system based on the current college one, but only counted the last round of scoring. For instance, if each team scored 4 TDs each on their first four possessions, and on the 5th possesion one team scored a FG while the other team was held scoreless, you would only add 3 to the first team's score. Instead of a 21-21 tie ending in 52-49, you'd have 24-21. I just hate how overtime scores skew offensive and defensive points per game.

[Warhammer]

I go with either the current system, or go to a complete quarter for overtime.

EDIT: I'd rather see a tie rather than going to the college system or anything close to it.

[Mustang]

I'd rather see 1 full quarter or at least one possession. Sure, for the typical NFL game where the score is say in the 21-21 range, sudden death is adequate. Unfortunately, you can have the situations where the game is a track meet or a defensive struggle and then the coin flip is just too luck based to give one team or the other advantage in a sudden death format.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I like the idea of a Score + 1 possession.

After a team scores either a FG or TD they kick off. They can kick any way they want to, as an onside kick would result in an instant win (but of course, not recovering it results in a much shorter field.)

The team now down in OT must beat the previous score, (or tie it if the other team went for and got a 2-pt conversion.)

If you are down by 3, you need to get in the end zone.

Down by 6, TD + Extra Point.

Down by 7, TD + 2-Pt Conversion.

A turnover on the drive after the score is an instant win.

The only way to win in OT by a FG is if you are trailing by 2.

In most OT's that last drive would be one of the most intense moments in football. You get four downs to keep the drive going and get into the end zone. Then, if they got seven you must get into the end zone AGAIN.

[sabotai]

The 49% stat was true when the teams kicked off from the 35 yard line. Since they moved them back, it has increased. Not sure what exactly it is now, but the team getting the ball first wins more than 50% of the time.

I've always thought that a team needs to play special teams and defense to win. If someone got a good kick off return in OT, good for them. If the kicking team's defense couldn't keep them out of FG range, tough shit.

But I do like the idea of the first team to get to 6 points wins. Seems like that's something that would make everyone happy. No more just getting in FG range to kick the FG to win on the opening drive, but if they get the TD, game over. I would think most people would agree that if a team gives up a TD on the opening drive, they don't deserve to win the game.

[Greyroofoo]

I like any system as long as there isn't the possibility of a "tie".

I'm glad hockey got away from it.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I like any system as long as there isn't the possibility of a "tie".

I'm glad hockey got away from it.

You actually like an OT that can take a hard fought 10-10 defensive battle and turn it into 49-48?

[Atocep]

I hate the college system because of the hyper-inflated scores. That being said, I would not mind a system based on the current college one, but only counted the last round of scoring. For instance, if each team scored 4 TDs each on their first four possessions, and on the 5th possesion one team scored a FG while the other team was held scoreless, you would only add 3 to the first team's score. Instead of a 21-21 tie ending in 52-49, you'd have 24-21. I just hate how overtime scores skew offensive and defensive points per game.

I agree here.

I would do something like both teams starting at their own 40 and no stats accumulated during OT. Just the deciding score added at the end.

[14ers]

I would like to see them play a full quarterWhy is this simple idea so hard for people to understand?


Hell, even the creator of this thread did not even consider just simply playing 15:00 more minutes of football a possibility. It works in other sports, so why not football?

[Greyroofoo]

You actually like an OT that can take a hard fought 10-10 defensive battle and turn it into 49-48?

I like it better than sitting through a game for 4 hours and then realizing there is no winner.

[clintl]

Why is this simple idea so hard for people to understand?


Hell, even the creator of this thread did not even consider just simply playing 15:00 more minutes of football a possibility. It works in other sports, so why not football?

I believe that the reason they didn't choose this method in the first place is to reduce the risk of OT injuries. Although I used to think it was unfair not to guarantee each team at least one possession, the results on the field over the 20 years or so suggest that the current system works pretty well, and I don't see any compelling reason to change it.

[molson]

Hell, even the creator of this thread did not even consider just simply playing 15:00 more minutes of football a possibility. It works in other sports, so why not football?

That was a glaring omission on my part.

But IMO, A quarter of football is a long time, and you're guaranteeing a lot of meaningless extra minutes. That's potentially a big disadvantage to teams the following week, and it can also screw with TV schedules. (The NFL likes their games to fit as closely into 3 hours blocks as possible, as not to interfere with the following game, or FOX/CBS Prime Time programming).

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I like it better than sitting through a game for 4 hours and then realizing there is no winner.

Is there always a winner and a loser in life?

In boxing there are draws... Should we make two men then go back into the ring for "sudden death?" Or considering how college does it, maybe change the rules of the fight to either decide it by alternating one minute rounds with a fighter on the ropes? Other sports throw the entire game out the window in determining a winner, so perhaps a thumb war would be appropriate to determine a championship?

[sabotai]

Hell, even the creator of this thread did not even consider just simply playing 15:00 more minutes of football a possibility. It works in other sports, so why not football?

But that's not what they do in other sports. In baseball, they play one inning over and over until there is a winner, but an inning is about 1/9th of time of the normal game. In other sports (with timed periods), they play abbriviated periods. Basketball doesn't play a full 12 minute quarter for OT, hockey doesn't play a full 20 minute period.

Something that would be more like how other sports do it qould be to play a 5 minute OT. If it's still tie ofter that, play another 5 minute OT. Repeat until there is a winner at the end of a 5 minute period.

[molson]

Something that would be more like how other sports do it qould be to play a 5 minute OT. If it's still tie ofter that, play another 5 minute OT. Repeat until there is a winner at the end of a 5 minute period.

And 5 minutes isn't really much different than sudden death.

My poll choices were based on the alternatives the NFL was considering when this came up (plus the college system w/o stats). To my knowledge, a full overtime period has never been considered, largely for TV reasons.

[DougW]

Sudden death, with the home team being guaranteed last at-bats. Can only kick on 4th down - no exceptions.

After 15 minutes - call it a tie.

[Big Fo]

I would also like to see a full quarter. Even the college football overtime rules, which I don't like, are far better than the current NFL rules. The team winning the coin toss wins the game over 60% of the time, it's a complete joke.

[SirFozzie]

Full quarter, but both teams guaranteed at least one possession.. (if first team scores, other team has to at least match it), then sudden death.

One system I came up, that would never fly with is the auction system. One possession, one drive.

Both teams bid on from how far away they can score the TD. The team that bids the furthest away has to score the TD to win. If they fail, the other team wins.

[molson]

Both teams bid on from how far away they can score the TD. The team that bids the furthest away has to score the TD to win. If they fail, the other team wins.

I love it - and wish the XFL was still around, they'd probably do this.

[sabotai]

And 5 minutes isn't really much different than sudden death.

My poll choices were based on the alternatives the NFL was considering when this came up (plus the college system w/o stats). To my knowledge, a full overtime period has never been considered, largely for TV reasons.

Right, a team that drives to kick the FG could eat up all or most of that 5 minutes. And a full quarter won't work because a lot of the times, your audience won't get to see the end of the game because the network would have to switch to a new game. It's one thing to stay with a game for sudden death, it's another to stay for what could end up being nearly an hour of real time, and at the very least 30 minutes. TV networks will never go for that, and neither will the NFL.

[cthomer5000]

Tie game. If 60 minutes wasn't enough to decide it, it's a tie.

Then I'd go sudden death but at least 1 posession each in the playoffs.

[MartinD]

So what is the big deal about 'there must be a winner in every game'? The only games where a winner is absolutely necessary are playoff games... (Mind you, could you imagine how complicated the tiebreakers could be if a tied game was a realistic possibility?)

That said, I would like to see both teams given at least one possession in overtime (with sudden death after each team had a possession) - this system was used in NFL Europe a few years back, and seemed to work fairly well.

Martin

[MIJB#19]

Just eliminate overtime for the regular season.

For playoff games, add a full 2 x 5 minutes overtime. It's shorter than the current overtime, yet still allows both teams to receive a kickoff. If the score remains tied after that add another 2x5 mins.

[MJ4H]

As much as I hate ties, I actually prefer them to most silly overtime rules. Thankfully, draws seem like they would happen less often in american football than in soccer. Just go with the system that most sports use: 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw.

[st.cronin]

As much as I hate ties, I actually prefer them to most silly overtime rules. Thankfully, draws seem like they would happen less often in american football than in soccer. Just go with the system that most sports use: 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw.

This is actually my official answer as well.

[Suburban Rhythm]

I like the idea of a Score + 1 possession.

After a team scores either a FG or TD they kick off. They can kick any way they want to, as an onside kick would result in an instant win (but of course, not recovering it results in a much shorter field.)

The team now down in OT must beat the previous score, (or tie it if the other team went for and got a 2-pt conversion.)

If you are down by 3, you need to get in the end zone.

Down by 6, TD + Extra Point.

Down by 7, TD + 2-Pt Conversion.

A turnover on the drive after the score is an instant win.

The only way to win in OT by a FG is if you are trailing by 2.

In most OT's that last drive would be one of the most intense moments in football. You get four downs to keep the drive going and get into the end zone. Then, if they got seven you must get into the end zone AGAIN.

What about down by 8 -- first team scores TD and 2 pt coversion? The 2nd team can not outscore them, so is that automatic win for first team?

Also, trailing by 2...would that even be an option? Team with the ball first would need to score a safety vs. the defensive team, unless I am not thinking clearly. I guess if Team 1 drives the field, throws an int in the endzone, Team 2 player attempts to run it one, reaches the field of play, runs BACK into the endzone, giving team 1 2 pts, then team 2 gets their possesion (that is hard to even write...can't imagine reading it!)

That's why the NFL should come up with their own shootout type method. FG kicking contest? Long bomb contest?

[st.cronin]

Why not just have a shootout? Roll out a hockey rink, put skates on the players, each team picks a goalie, and have a hockey shootout. Or a home run derby. Or a slam-dunk contest.

[Abe Sargent]

Cheerleader Hotness Contest!

[General Mike]

Either no OT or a full 15 minute period.

[Raiders Army]

Three words: Ok-la-homa.

Make the coaches run this drill behind their best offensive/defensive lineman. Each coach gets to carry the ball. Best out of 3.

[Raiders Army]

Oh, and I'd put my money on Jack Del Rio. Keep choppin' wood.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

What about down by 8 -- first team scores TD and 2 pt coversion? The 2nd team can not outscore them, so is that automatic win for first team?

If you score a TD first you are up by 6. You still can either kick or go for the conversion, but going for it means that if you do not get the 2 and an extra point wins the game for the opponent. Basically, only Marty Morhinweg would go for two there.

Also, trailing by 2...would that even be an option? Team with the ball first would need to score a safety vs. the defensive team, unless I am not thinking clearly. I guess if Team 1 drives the field, throws an int in the endzone, Team 2 player attempts to run it one, reaches the field of play, runs BACK into the endzone, giving team 1 2 pts, then team 2 gets their possesion (that is hard to even write...can't imagine reading it!)
The idea for being down by 2 came from a recent college game where a blocked kick was returned for a 2-pt score. Thinking about it now, that might be a dead ball in the NFL (but it shouldn't!) Of course with the rule being that after a safety the team that scored gets the next posession, a safety would win the game.

That's why the NFL should come up with their own shootout type method. FG kicking contest? Long bomb contest?
Madden? Strip poker? Ferret races?

[EagleFan]

Go college type but start from mid field, that way you need to gain some yards before even being close enough for a field goal. For all those worried about the "final score", do like in hockey shootouts, keep that score apart from the final and just give the winning point to the team that wins. Also institute the 2 point conversion rule after 2 "overtimes" as in college. Stats also wouldn't count, again like in the hockey shootout.

After seeing the Boise State / Nevada finish I am not quite sure why we wouldn't want to see an exciting end to a game instead of just declaring a tie.

Although... there isn't always a winner or loser in life, oh wait a minute... this is a freaking game, not life...

[larrymcg421]

I like each team getting possession after a normal kickoff. The team that scores the most points on their possession is the winner. If neither team scores, then whoever gained the most yards on their drive is the winner. (It can be reported by giving the winning team 1 pt.)

If there are ties, then keep going, but that will happen much less often from normal kickoffs.

[Karlifornia]

College system, except stats don't count, and you start from midfield.

[Suburban Rhythm]

The idea for being down by 2 came from a recent college game where a blocked kick was returned for a 2-pt score. Thinking about it now, that might be a dead ball in the NFL (but it shouldn't!) Of course with the rule being that after a safety the team that scored gets the next posession, a safety would win the game.

You are forgetting, the team who just scored the safety could fumble the free kick, kicking team recovers, and scores to win.


Madden? Strip poker? Ferret races?

Ferrett races would be silly. Trout races...now we are on to something.