Is OT in the playoffs still broken?

[Big Turk]

While it's nice they addressed the fact that each team is now guaranteed at least one possession, that still leaves the situation of is it really fair that if both teams are the same after the first possession then the team with the 3rd possession can win it with no ability to respond for the other?

 

I'd say no.

 

I'm not sure why the NFL doesn't just go to the college OT format. It clearly is the most fair, as both teams are guaranteed the same number of possessions, and it comes down to which team scores more points on the same number of possessions, not which team has the ball for the 3rd possession of the game is still tied after the first 2.

 

The NFL still has it wrong even with their "fix" in the playoffs IMO. 

 

Perhaps that is why Shanahan took the ball first? Never thought of this possibility but if both teams scored TDs or FGs or had to punt, then the team with the 3rd possession only needs a FG to win the game.

Edited February 13 by Big Turk

[Bob Jones]

Or how about a 10 minute ( or even shorter) OT period? Whoever is ahead at the end wins.

[Billl]

It's fine the way it is.  The team who gets the ball second had the advantage of knowing what they need to do.  The team that goes first has the advantage of winning in sudden death if it gets to a third possession.  

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

I'd prefer college with some tweaks.  Start from the 30.  No field goals, no extra points.  Coin toss just picks who goes first and what end zone - both go in the same direction.  

 

It's still football, you can still get 1st downs.  If you don't score, the other team still needs to go into the end zone to win.  Plus with 2 point conversions you get an additional layer of drama.  FG's and XP's are just... ways to string it out imo.  

[Buffalo_Stampede]

12 minutes ago, Billl said:

It's fine the way it is.  The team who gets the ball second had the advantage of knowing what they need to do.  The team that goes first has the advantage of winning in sudden death if it gets to a third possession.  

Whats your strategy if you get a TD on the 1st possession? I think I’m going for 2. I wouldn’t play for a 3rd possession. I’m going for 2. 

[st pete gogolak]

I always thought soccer was weird in not having sudden death when teams go into overtime (sometimes they do - a golden goal, sometimes they don’t).  A team gives up a goal and then has a chance to tie or win and it goes to more overtime or penalty kicks (which is an awful way to end a match).  Maybe that would be the “fairest” way to go in NFL playoffs - 15 minute overtime.  If the game is tied at that point, then moves to sudden death.

[The Jokeman]

32 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

Or how about a 10 minute ( or even shorter) OT period? Whoever is ahead at the end wins.

I admit I didn't realize that it was a forever ending clock aka let's say KC doesn't get the TD to win it at the end and time expires they still keep playing. As I didn't know a 2nd OT quarter would begin, I thought it was 2nd team gets to score with rest of time left to tie or go ahead otherwise they lose. 

Edited February 13 by The Jokeman

[boyst]

go crazy with it. 10 men on the field. no punting. no field goals inside the red zone allowed. defense can't touch mahomes.

[T master]

I'm not sure that they have fixed it completely . I think if they played another (what ever the time limit) quarter of play which would be OT and who ever is leading at the end of the full amount of time would be the winner & if still tied go into a "Sudden death OT" meaning that who ever scores first wins hence sudden death .

 

Just a thought but then again i am just a fan .

[Billl]

19 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Whats your strategy if you get a TD on the 1st possession? I think I’m going for 2. I wouldn’t play for a 3rd possession. I’m going for 2. 

I'd go for two if I'm the second team, one if I'm the first team.  If I'm the first team, I want the ability to win with a FG, so I'm hoping for a third possession.

Edited February 13 by Billl

[May Day 10]

Id say some form of the college OT is great

 

Start from the 50.  

 

This version isnt too bad though

[BillMafia716ix]

I never thought it was broken to begin with. I’m old school. If your team gives up a TD in OT, Your team should lose the game. All this both teams need a chance is elementary. Defense is part of the game

Edited February 13 by BillMafia716ix

[Warcodered]

With the FGs I don't really care if the 3rd possession wins it, if you get the ball after the first team kicks a FG and all you manage is a FG yourself you've had your opportunity in OT with the current rules. 

 

With TDs yeah they basically let the same problem of the second team not getting a chance to answer get pushed down the line to the 3rd possession. Would make more sense to increase the difficulty by requiring 2pt conversions as it goes on or something but still give both teams a chance to answer.

[Boatdrinks]

30 minutes ago, BillMafia716ix said:

I never thought it was broken to begin with. I’m old school. If your team gives up a TD in OT, Your team should lose the game. All this both teams need a chance is elementary. Defense is part of the game

Defense is part of the game, but most of the rules have been changed to heavily favor offense. That just has to be a consideration with todays game. It’s just not old school anymore. 

[Simon]

It's fine just as it is; the only thing I'd change is to just turn off the clock.

The college OT is too artificial.

[Sundo91]

I wish they would simply play another full quarter.

[wppete]

I’d like to see the NCAA playoff rules for the  NFL playoffs. They are perfect and a lot of fun to watch. 

[sullim4]

2 hours ago, Sundo91 said:

I wish they would simply play another full quarter.

 

This I think is the right solution.

 

Play 15 minute quarters, each team gets 2 timeouts, include a 2 minute warning, and whoever is winning at the end of the quarter is the winner.  If it's still tied, add on another quarter and 2 timeouts.  Every 2 quarters of overtime gets a halftime break.  This amount of time almost guarantees one possession each and also forces teams to employ strategies around eating the clock.

 

The current system is overly complex for no good reason.  I wish they'd do the same thing with the 10 minute overtime periods in the regular season.

[schoolhouserock]

I enjoy the college OT rules.

[TheFunPolice]

it's perfect the way it is now 

 

All elements of the game matter. Plus, KC had 4th down on their drive. It wasn't "easy" for them to just march down the field. 

[Alphadawg7]

5 hours ago, Billl said:

It's fine the way it is.  The team who gets the ball second had the advantage of knowing what they need to do.  The team that goes first has the advantage of winning in sudden death if it gets to a third possession.  

 

But there is the issue...they are not equal advantages.  That is the point people are making on college vs pros.  

 

The OT rule is improved now, but college system is still the single only true equal opportunity structure.  

[The Red King]

I actually like this version.  There are arguements to both sides.

 

Be careful not to look at this through the lens of one game.  Not every post-season OT game is going to have Mahomes.  There are a lot of different tactics depending on the teams.

[Mango]

They game is so physical I don't need a regular season change. If the league wants to increase the importance of kickers since taking it away they could go to a "kickoff" for the regular season. Start at 35 yards in 5 yard increments until you get to 55, then 2 yards at a time. Again, this is regular season only. I don't love the idea, but it is certainly an option if they don't want tie's and want to limit OT wear and tear. 

But for the playoffs the college rules would be my preference. Followed closely by adding another a full quarter rather than possessions.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Yes.

 

No way should any game be predicated on a coin toss.  It's palpable to open the game because there's 4 quarters.

 

A new game should not begin and then flip to sudden death after 2 matching scores...

 

...Especially with a 2pt play possibly involved making it really sudden death all along.

 

Go to college rules. Take the game clock out of equation and leave just the play clock. 

 

[Billsatlastin2018]

5 hours ago, Big Turk said:

Perhaps that is why Shanahan took the ball first? Never thought of this possibility but if both teams scored TDs or FGs or had to punt, then the team with the 3rd possession only needs a FG to win the game.

Shanny FUBARed that choice- surprisingly!

 

You cannot ever give Mahomes 4 Downs on every possession. Brain dead. You kick so that YOU get the 4D advantage, plus the beauty of what is required!

[st pete gogolak]

37 minutes ago, sullim4 said:

 

This I think is the right solution.

 

Play 15 minute quarters, each team gets 2 timeouts, include a 2 minute warning, and whoever is winning at the end of the quarter is the winner.  If it's still tied, add on another quarter and 2 timeouts.  Every 2 quarters of overtime gets a halftime break.  This amount of time almost guarantees one possession each and also forces teams to employ strategies around eating the clock.

 

The current system is overly complex for no good reason.  I wish they'd do the same thing with the 10 minute overtime periods in the regular season.

The problem with this is that if it’s not the SuperBowl or even conference championship, do you really want your team to play a game and a half (or more) and then play another game a week later?  I know that they have different rules for regular season OT and playoffs but I assume you at least want a uniform OT rule throughout the playoffs.

[BarleyNY]

5 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Whats your strategy if you get a TD on the 1st possession? I think I’m going for 2. I wouldn’t play for a 3rd possession. I’m going for 2. 

I think this is what Kyle Shanahan intended when he took the ball in OT. If you get it then the best your opponent can do is tie you. If that happens then you just need a FG on your 2nd possession. 

[Shaw66]

This all well and good, but the point of the overtime rules ALWAYS has been sudden death.   There are reasons for this, I suppose.

 

One reason is that sudden death is exciting.  It's dramatic.

 

Another reason is TV.  The networks like their schedules, and they want the games to end when they're supposed to end, or as soon thereafter as possible.   

 

Another reason is injury.  Playing a full quarter to see if the tie is broken, and certainly having to play a second quarter, creates a war of attrition.  It might be dramatic, but it isn't fair to the players.  Remember how gassed the Bills and Chiefs were in 13 seconds?  The Niners and the Chiefs this year, too.  Those guys' bodies want it, need it, to end.  

 

The current system makes it reasonably fair to both teams.   Essentially, the game is sudden death after the first possession.  Would you rather go first or second?  Sure, there's a difference, and analytics will determine what's the smarter move, but that doesn't make the game unfair.   

 

 

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

6 hours ago, Big Turk said:

While it's nice they addressed the fact that each team is now guaranteed at least one possession, that still leaves the situation of is it really fair that if both teams are the same after the first possession then the team with the 3rd possession can win it with no ability to respond for the other?

 

I'd say no.

 

I'm not sure why the NFL doesn't just go to the college OT format. It clearly is the most fair, as both teams are guaranteed the same number of possessions, and it comes down to which team scores more points on the same number of possessions, not which team has the ball for the 3rd possession of the game is still tied after the first 2.

 

The NFL still has it wrong even with their "fix" in the playoffs IMO. 

 

Perhaps that is why Shanahan took the ball first? Never thought of this possibility but if both teams scored TDs or FGs or had to punt, then the team with the 3rd possession only needs a FG to win the game.

The team matching with a td has the option to go for two which they’d undoubtedly take advantage of.  That is why Shanahan took the ball first though cuz if you score a td you pressure the other team into a two point attempt if they match and he likely had a play ready to go on defense that he liked.

 

if that ever happens that 2 point attempt will probably be one of the most exciting plays in nfl history haha

really both teams have an attempt to be the team that ends the game on offense so it’s about as fair as it could get

Edited February 13 by Generic_Bills_Fan

[MRW]

55 minutes ago, sullim4 said:

 

This I think is the right solution.

 

Play 15 minute quarters, each team gets 2 timeouts, include a 2 minute warning, and whoever is winning at the end of the quarter is the winner.  If it's still tied, add on another quarter and 2 timeouts.  Every 2 quarters of overtime gets a halftime break.  This amount of time almost guarantees one possession each and also forces teams to employ strategies around eating the clock.

 

The current system is overly complex for no good reason.  I wish they'd do the same thing with the 10 minute overtime periods in the regular season.

 

This is what I favor, except I'd just eliminate OT in the regular season. Don't want the game to end in a tie? Go for 2 on a late/game-ending TD. But I think I'm in a very tiny minority that would be ok with that.

[FilthyBeast]

I think this game other night proved definitively it's fixed and probably a dream scenario for the NFL to finally showcase it in the biggest game of them all.

 

The 49ers scored first, albeit a field goal...and the Chiefs scored the TD which won the game and prevented the 49ers from having a chance to touch the ball again and need just another FG to win.

[dpberr]

For the playoffs, I'd support the teams having a 10-minute intermission and then playing another full quarter.

 

 

 

[Cash]

1 hour ago, MRW said:

 

This is what I favor, except I'd just eliminate OT in the regular season. Don't want the game to end in a tie? Go for 2 on a late/game-ending TD. But I think I'm in a very tiny minority that would be ok with that.

There are dozens of us!

 

(Also, I favor the full quarter approach for playoff OT, but think it should be sudden death if tied after the quarter.)

 

2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

But there is the issue...they are not equal advantages.  That is the point people are making on college vs pros.  

 

The OT rule is improved now, but college system is still the single only true equal opportunity structure.  

 

Counterpoint; College overtime SUUUUUUCKS. No special teams, virtually no value in field position, takes way too long, and feels like something out of the XFL. Count me out. 

[Billsfanatic8989]

6 hours ago, BillMafia716ix said:

I never thought it was broken to begin with. I’m old school. If your team gives up a TD in OT, Your team should lose the game. All this both teams need a chance is elementary. Defense is part of the game

Bingo.

 

I was fine with them changing it to where  team can't win with a fg on the opening possession.

 

I don't care that this rule cost the Bills a few years ago. But I like the rule where a TD on possession one ends it. A FG gives the other team a chance.

 

This new rule came about, ironically enough, because of 13 seconds game. 

 

 

 

 

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

But there is the issue...they are not equal advantages.  That is the point people are making on college vs pros.  

 

The OT rule is improved now, but college system is still the single only true equal opportunity structure.  

Not really because the team that goes on offense second knows what it has to do in college.  There's no perfect system but the NFL playoff overtime system is the best I've seen so far in any version of football.

[ControllerOfPlanetX]

Just leave it a tie..

[Brand J]

Mahomes was puffing his chest out saying (paraphrasing) “they changed the OT rules because of us, now we used that change to win again. What are they going to change next?”

 

Guess he has the right to be cocky. 

[TrentEdwardsCheckDownOn4th]

It's fine as is.  I'd argue kicking off has a bigger advantage than receiving .

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

16 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Not really because the team that goes on offense second knows what it has to do in college.  There's no perfect system but the NFL playoff overtime system is the best I've seen so far in any version of football.

 

Just take kicks out of it.  No fg's no extra points.  6 or 8.  

1 hour ago, Brand J said:

Mahomes was puffing his chest out saying (paraphrasing) “they changed the OT rules because of us, now we used that change to win again. What are they going to change next?”

 

Guess he has the right to be cocky. 

 

They requested the change first though didn't they?  After they lost to New England? 

 

I bet they even voted to approve it.  

[TheFunPolice]

Growing up watching football as a kid, a 50 yard FG was long, long distance. Now those are almost like extra points, especially once you get into playoff games with the best teams and best kickers. 60 is new 50, so if you receive at the 25 you only need 35 yard to be in FG range. Sudden death was too heavily weighted on the coin toss. 

 

Kickers are almost automatic now, for the most part anyway. In the past it was much more of a crapshoot. Norwood's FG in the SB was in the 40's in terms of distance and that was considered a tough FG then. 

 

Now, it's debatable whether you kick or take the ball first, which IMO proves it is a better system. 

 

If I end up with the ball first either by choice or because you chose to kick I am using all 4 downs until I'm in sound FG range but overall thinking TD and then go for 2. Sure, if I turn it over on downs I probably lose. If I punt I probably lose too. 

 

Why?

 

First of all, if I punt, I'm done. You just need a FG and the game ends. So I'm using all 4 downs unless I'm in something crazy like 4th and 10 from your 23 yard line where I'm kind of forced to take the 3 and hope for a defensive stop. 

 

Everyone says if they have the ball 2nd and are down 7 that they would go for 2 to end the game. Reid said that would have been his strategy as well in the SB. So do you want to be on defense for the most consequential 2 point attempt, or offense? 

 

My thought process: go down, score 6 on your tired defense, then tack on 2 if possible. 

 

What if I miss the 2? Then I need to stop you from scoring a TD, which is no different than if I kick the XP because you're going to go for 2 anyways and beat me then, or make the entire game come down to a 2 pointer anyway where all the rules favor the offense. 

 

I'd rather be the one on offense for the big 2 point attempt. 

 

This gives me multiple ways to win. I'm up 8, you not only need the TD but also a successful 2 just to tie me. Then I just need to get a FG on your gassed defense, if you do all of that. 

 

If I'm up 6 I can still stop you on defense and win, because you still need to score a TD. I have all sorts of plays to stop you from doing that. 2 point attempts are slightly above 50/50 anyway, so if I'm up 7 and you score a TD you probably are going to win either way. So I would rather take my own 50/50+ shot at being up 8 and roll the dice that my D keeps you out of the end zone if we don't convert. 

 

We've never seen this play out under the Josh Allen playoff OT rule, but it would be fascinating to see if the first team to score a TD goes for 2. 

 

IMO, being up 7 is the same as being up 6: you're done either way if the other team answers with a TD.