View topic - NFL Overtime Rule Changes?

[Steel Holiday Profile]

I think the league should do something about the way football games finish should regulation end in a tie. My proposal is that the first team to 6pts wins. At least this way games aren't decided by the field goal team until after both sides have had the ball. Under this scenario it would force a team to score a TD if they wanted to win without ever allowing their opponent a chance. Much more strategy, as well as defense gets incorporated in this plan. Assuming that no team scores 6, the team that has the most points at the end of the extra period wins. So, Cincinnati would still have received credit for their victory over Cleveland, assuming that the franchise really did make his kick .

I think it is stupid for teams who suck in the red zone to be able to win in OT just because they )1. Win the coin toss )2. Kick a field goal. Does anyone have any other proposals?

[rick723 Profile]

I don't. Defence gets a pay check too

[Lake37 Profile]

I like your suggestion, though I think there may be some other factors you would have to figure out (which I can't think of right now). But it would make the overtime much more interesting. One reason why I think it wouldn't get passed though is b/c it would very often lead to at least another 1/2 quarter of football and owners/players already complain about the risk of more injuries (which is why there will not be 18 week regular season).

[KreidersRage Profile]

I don't. Defence gets a pay check too

Yeah, the defense gets paid, but who do the current set of rules all favor? The offense. The NFL has spent the past 5 years fine-tuning the rules to give the offense the best advantage possible. You can't blatantly favor one side of the ball, then end the game when the side you're so obviously favoring scores on their first drive. It just doesn't make sense.

That'd be like the MLB allowing aluminum bats, enforcing smaller strike zones, then deciding all extra innings games should be won by the team that scores the first run.

The "First to 6" solution has been suggested quite a few times over the past year, and I definitely agree that it's much better than what's being used now. Hell, just about anything is better than what's being used now.

[Pump-N-Iron Profile]

Two comments on this thread.

1. The League has stated multiple times that they have no intention of changing the OT rules. They are well aware that 80% of the time, the team winning the coin toss will win without letting the other team touch the ball. They want teams to win in regulation to avoid OT entirely. If you stop and think about it for a second, the logic is very sound. They don't want a prolonged OT for several reasons (Injuries, TV broadcast issues, etc.). So, if you don't want your W or L to be decided by a coin toss, win it in Regulation when you have the chance, instead of pussing out and kicking the FG to tie.

2. I agree that there will not be an 18 game regular season. I have a strong feeling that the idea of an 18 game regular season exists only as a bargaining chip to get the Rookie Salary cap/pay schedule from the Player's union.

[Steelhope Profile]

6 pts. in OT to win......i like it.

[SteelTank Profile]

Maybe a better proposal is "simply" this:
If, in the first posession of OT, the team that has the ball scores, the other team must score more points with their possesion. If the first team with the ball goes for two points after a TD and gets it the game is over because the other team can't outscore them.

If the team with the ball first in OT does not score then it's sudden death as usual. The first posession is the only time the rule applies, otherwise its just sudden death.

This at least gives the team that plays defense first a shot if they give up a FG or TD, but they need to do a little better for that chance.

Thoughts.

[Pump-N-Iron Profile]

This at least gives the team that plays defense first a shot if they give up a FG or TD

Then they should have played better defense, won the coin toss, or better yet, won the game in regulation. I am a firm believer that there is nothing wrong with the current OT format. I personally hate the college format with a passion. Games do not need to drag on forever. First team to score, wins. It was never meant to be fair. It was meant to encourage teams NOT to go to OT.

[rick723 Profile]

I don't. Defence gets a pay check too

Yeah, the defense gets paid, but who do the current set of rules all favor? The offense. The NFL has spent the past 5 years fine-tuning the rules to give the offense the best advantage possible. You can't blatantly favor one side of the ball, then end the game when the side you're so obviously favoring scores on their first drive. It just doesn't make sense.

That'd be like the MLB allowing aluminum bats, enforcing smaller strike zones, then deciding all extra innings games should be won by the team that scores the first run.

The "First to 6" solution has been suggested quite a few times over the past year, and I definitely agree that it's much better than what's being used now. Hell, just about anything is better than what's being used now.

And if the defence gets a safety?
You extend the games like that you get more players hurt. What if Ben gets knocked out for the year or good because we only scored 3 when we got the ball 1st? Leave it alone

[ChumChurum Profile]

OT is nearly meaningless. Like one user above wrote, 80% of the time coin toss winner wins.

How about valuing field goals at 2 pts instead of the current value of 3 pts?

This creates less of an incentive to kick and more of an incentive to go for it on the 4th.

Does anyone have any statistics on changes in game outcomes if number of points given for various scoring plays (touchdown, field goal, "extra point", safety) is changed.

[[Of course, changing points changes the incentive structure.]]

[StillDodger Profile]

I think the first team to score FOUR points or more in OT should be awarded the win. This means a safety and a FG would win it. Or even two safeties. (I know, that will never happen.) Makes the "D" more relevant.

If the 15-min OT ends before either team scores four, the team leading will be declared the winner. If it's tied at the end of OT (scoreless, trading FGs, or trading safeties), the game ends in a tie.

If it's the playoffs, and tied at the end of OT, then the next OT is sudden death. Even if the first OT was scoreless.

Note that any TD is still sudden death. So it's still possible for a team to lose in OT without a possession. But then again, if a team allows a TD in OT, it should lose, regardless of the circumstances. Even if it's a KO return at the start of OT.

[Steel Holiday Profile]

This will now be in play.

From a traditional stand point it goes against the grain. Looking at it from how the game and sports in general are viewed today, I do think it makes sense to give each side an opportunity. Unless... there is a TOUCHDOWN!

[SojuMaster Profile]

Over the past decade, there were 158 OT games, including playoff games. There were 2 ties, and there was 1 game in which the coin flip winner chose to defend a side of the field rather than choosing to receive. (They lost.)
In 96 of the 158 OTs, or 61%, the coin flip winner won the game.
In 58 of the 158 OTs, or 37%, the coin flip winner won on their first possession while the loser never touched the ball. This includes 2 of the last 3 OT games in the playoffs.
(Source: advancednflstats.com)

I personally love this website because of the ability to really do some in-depth research that does give an edge on fantasy football. Brian Burke does write some very impressive articles on this site.

The 2nd stat shows that the team that lost the coin toss actually touched the ball 73% of the time. The 1st stat though is very disturbing and shows the true edge in winning the coin toss.

I personally do not like the 1st to 6 rule because you still will have a significant amount of the teams winning without having to defend. Albeit less than 37% because the FG will be ruled out but any proposal that prevents a team from having a possession is still not going to be fair.

I personally like 2 different proposals:
(A) You play a complete overtime period. I know people are going to state that you are putting an unfair amount of playing time on players and will increase the chance of injury. (Of course, why even play OT then) Based on the last 10 years, only 6% of the games ever went to OT and that additional 1 period of play will increase playtime by 1.5%. Still this is not the fairest of proposals because the team that wins the toss will eventually have more chances to score. If injury is still an issue, you can cut the OT period to 10 minutes but the downside is that it starts to become like the NHL's joke of an OT.

(B) (Borrowing the idea from college): You maintain a 15 minute clock for the OT period and you do have kick-offs. Both teams get an equal number of possessions to score. Obviously a pick-6 will count as a possession. If the time runs out before the 2nd team gets the equalizing possession, the period is extended until the 2nd team gets their last possession.

[Fire Arians Profile]

don't change it. as if goodell didn't change this game enough already

[Steel Holiday Profile]

I personally do not like the 1st to 6 rule because you still will have a significant amount of the teams winning without having to defend. Albeit less than 37% because the FG will be ruled out but any proposal that prevents a team from having a possession is still not going to be fair.

Keeping the sudden death aspect to the rules I think is important. Sudden death is makes for great drama, and has always been one of the unique positives about deciding an NFL game in extra time.

The first to reach 6pts could eventually get voted in, but that could take an extra 30-40 minutes real time... all the icing the kicker . Not convenient for regularly scheduled Sunday television.

Here's my proposal for the regular season: Each team deserves one possession in the extra period provided no touchdown is scored, and no one gives up a safety. From there it is FG sudden death again...send in the team toe. If a team doesn't score a FG on the first possession, then they can lose to a FG should they give one up. The original kicking team must score a TD, assuming they give up a FG.

Here's my proposal for the playoffs: First to 6. It remains sudden death. Safety ends the game. Points from a previous overtime period carry over to another extra period.

[Pump-N-Iron Profile]

I am a firm believer that there is nothing wrong with the current OT format. I personally hate the college format with a passion. Games do not need to drag on forever. First team to score wins. It was never meant to be fair. It was meant to encourage teams NOT to go to OT.

I stand by my original opinion. (Apologies for quoting my own post)

[Jeemie Profile]

Here's my proposal for the regular season: Each team deserves one possession in the extra period provided no touchdown is scored, and no one gives up a safety. From there it is FG sudden death again...send in the team toe. If a team doesn't score a FG on the first possession, then they can lose to a FG should they give one up. The original kicking team must score a TD, assuming they give up a FG.

Here's my proposal for the playoffs: First to 6. It remains sudden death. Safety ends the game. Points from a previous overtime period carry over to another extra period.

You guys all realize that the first proposal here is what they've adopted for this year's playoffs? From this thread, since no one brought it up, I was wondering if you've forgotten about that change.

Personally I like first to 6. But what I'd really like to make is one simple change that would perhaps alter strategy and lead to more teams trying to win in regulation instead of playing for a tie.

And that is- there's only one coin toss...at the beginning of the game.

Whoever wins that coin toss also is the one who gets the choice at the start of overtime.

That way- before you even get to an OT, you know who's going to get the ball to start it.

[Coke Oven Profile]

I think that when the overtime period begins, they should start a period of online donations to the nfl or online purchasing of the products that are being advertised during the game, and track those that are doing the giving. And then whichever team's fans come across with the most green, that team should win the game.

That's what I think.

[Steel Holiday Profile]

Jeemie- The coin flip idea seems like another reasonable part of an overtime fix.

Would the team be required to select for both kickoffs at the same time? ex. If a team defers to the second half then they take the risk of not getting the ball in OT.

Coke- Are you so sure that isn't what's happn'n anyway?

[Coke Oven Profile]

Can't be sure. What I am sure of though is that too much money eventually corrupts any organization.