Near OT game in Super Bowl got me thinking

[PromoTheRobot]

If Pittsburgh kicked a FG and sent the game into OT, how awful would it have been if the team that won the toss scored and won the game? The Super Bowl is no place to decide the game on a toss of a coin. It's like letting a baseball team win in extra innings without giving the home team their at bat. The NFL must modify the OT rules to give each team one possession.

 

I would like to propose such a modification. Tell me what you think:

 

I propose the NFL model OT after baseball extra innings, with the home team always getting the last possession. Start with the road team getting the ball first. The home team would always get a possession after the road team scores. That guarantees an equal number of possessions. There would be no sudden death. The home team would always get the last possession.

 

Examples:

 

1) Road team gets ball and punts. Home team scores. Game over.

 

2) Road team gets FG. Home team gets TD. Game over.

 

3) Road team gets FG. Home team fails to score. Game over.

 

4) Road team gets TD. Home team gets TD. Keep playing.

 

5) Road gets FG. Home team gets FG. Both teams get ball but fail to score. Then road team gets FG. Home team gets one more possession. FG, they keep playing. TD, home team wins.

 

Just as it is now, OT lasts only 15 minutes in the regular season, but play till there's a winner in the playoffs. Hockey and soccer are the only sports where sudden death makes sense. Football OT is closer to extra innings in baseball. Both teams must have their offense on the field an equal number of times to be fair.

 

Discuss.

 

PTR

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

If Pittsburgh kicked a FG and sent the game into OT, how awful would it have been if the team that won the toss scored and won the game? The Super Bowl is no place to decide the game on a toss of a coin. It's like letting a baseball team win in extra innings without giving the home team their at bat. The NFL must modify the OT rules to give each team one possession.

 

I would like to propose such a modification. Tell me what you think:

 

I propose the NFL give each team an equal number of possessions in OT. Start with the road team getting the ball first. The home team would always get a possession after the road team scores. That guarantees an equal number of possessions. There would be no sudden death. The home team would always get the last possession.

 

Examples:

 

1) Road team gets ball and punts. Home team scores. Game over.

 

2) Road team gets FG. Home team gets TD. Game over.

 

3) Road team gets FG. Home team fails to score. Game over.

 

4) Road team gets TD. Home team gets TD. Keep playing.

 

5) Road gets FG. Home team gets FG. Both teams get ball but fail to score. Then road team gets FG. Home team gets one more possession. FG, they keep playing. TD, home team wins.

 

Just as it is now, OT lasts only 15 minutes in the regular season, but play till there's a winner in the playoffs. Hockey and soccer are the only sports where sudden death makes sense. Football OT is closer to extra innings in baseball. Both teams must have their offense on the field an equal number of times to be fair.

 

Discuss.

 

PTR

 

I'd like to see a carbon copy of the college overtime. I would just change it so that you start at your own 40 on each drive instead of the opposition's 25. The kickers are too good to just start at the 25 every time.

[PromoTheRobot]

I'd like to see a carbon copy of the college overtime. I would just change it so that you start at your own 40 on each drive instead of the opposition's 25. The kickers are too good to just start at the 25 every time.

Or the 50. or their own 20. That would be more fair than what they have now. Really you can just kick the ball off. That way special teams still plays a role in the game. Just do something to make sure each team gets their offense on the field, preferably with an equal number of chances.

 

PTR

[rockpile]

Why fix it if it ain't broke?

 

If a team loses the toss, their D has to D-liver.

 

[Dan]

Why fix it if it ain't broke?

 

If a team loses the toss, their D has to D-liver.

 

Thank you.

 

In overtime, the game is not at all won/lost on the flip of a coin. It's called playing the game. All three phases must perform. Look it up, plenty of overtime games result in one or more offensive possessions for both teams. So, how can you say the winner of the coin toss wins the game?

 

Overtime is fine. If you want to fix something.... fix all this stupid over-officiating that puts the game in the hand of the ref all too often. My sister summed it up good yesterday after the game, "Perfect Super Bowl for the year of the referee."

[LenSYR]

Bob Costas suggested in the pregame, to make it so 6 points were required to win the game. Two field goals, or one touchdown. It would require a lot of thought, and risk to win.

[Ned Flanders]

Why fix it if it ain't broke?

 

If a team loses the toss, their D has to D-liver.

 

Agree. Team A wins toss, gets ball. Team B plays defense, which last time I checked is a huge part of the game, and forces a punt, gets ball and scores. Game over.

 

To those who say, "what if the team that wins the toss runs back the KO for a TD, it isn't FAIR!" To those I say, Special Teams are part of the game as well. Tackle the freakin' kick returner...or stay in your lanes.

 

Please, not the college abortion.

 

As far as a baseball-type approach, still wouldn't buy it. See above.

[bizell]

boo to college overtime rules. for one thing, it's going to skew the statistics. for another thing, like someone said earlier, "if it aint broke, then don't fix it".

 

you lose the coin toss in OT? Then stop the other team with your defense.

[PromoTheRobot]

Why fix it if it ain't broke?

 

If a team loses the toss, their D has to D-liver.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

In overtime, the game is not at all won/lost on the flip of a coin. It's called playing the game. All three phases must perform. Look it up, plenty of overtime games result in one or more offensive possessions for both teams. So, how can you say the winner of the coin toss wins the game?

 

Overtime is fine. If you want to fix something.... fix all this stupid over-officiating that puts the game in the hand of the ref all too often. My sister summed it up good yesterday after the game, "Perfect Super Bowl for the year of the referee."

 

 

Agree. Team A wins toss, gets ball. Team B plays defense, which last time I checked is a huge part of the game, and forces a punt, gets ball and scores. Game over.

 

To those who say, "what if the team that wins the toss runs back the KO for a TD, it isn't FAIR!" To those I say, Special Teams are part of the game as well. Tackle the freakin' kick returner...or stay in your lanes.

 

Please, not the college abortion.

 

As far as a baseball-type approach, still wouldn't buy it. See above.

 

Okay, so why give the home team in baseball an at bat in extra innings if the other team scores first? Are they not playing defense too? Offense and defense are not equal. Defense can't score a FG. The point is if you are going to be fair to both teams you have to give both teams the same chances to score. Otherwise you might as well decide the game with Rock, Paper, Scissors.

 

PTR

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Yeah, but what if team A has a decent offense and a weak defense. Team B has a great offense but a weak defense. Team B all around is stronger. However Team A wins the toss goes and scores a field goal against Team B's weakest part of team. If team B had the chance to get their offense on the field they would have very likely scored a TD. But they never were given the change. I agree all three parts are requally important, but each team should be given a chance to uitlize all three parts of their game.

 

I did think Roger Godell had an interesting rebuttal though somewhat of a cop out to Costas comments about changing OT. His defense was the present system makes teams try harder to score in regulation rather than risk outcome of game on a coin toss.

 

 

Agree. Team A wins toss, gets ball. Team B plays defense, which last time I checked is a huge part of the game, and forces a punt, gets ball and scores. Game over.

 

To those who say, "what if the team that wins the toss runs back the KO for a TD, it isn't FAIR!" To those I say, Special Teams are part of the game as well. Tackle the freakin' kick returner...or stay in your lanes.

 

Please, not the college abortion.

 

As far as a baseball-type approach, still wouldn't buy it. See above.

[PromoTheRobot]

Yeah, but what if team A has a decent offense and a weak defense. Team B has a great offense but a weak defense. Team B all around is stronger. However Team A wins the toss goes and scores a field goal against Team B's weakest part of team. If team B had the chance to get their offense on the field they would have very likely scored a TD. But they never were given the change. I agree all three parts are equally important, but each team should be given a chance to utilize all three parts of their game.

 

I did think Roger Godell had an interesting rebuttal though somewhat of a cop out to Costas comments about changing OT. His defense was the present system makes teams try harder to score in regulation rather than risk outcome of game on a coin toss.

What a lame comment by Goodell, as if teams aren't "trying hard enough" to score. You have to give each team at least one offensive possession to even come close to being fair.

 

PTR

[Dan]

Okay, so why give the home team in baseball an at bat in extra innings if the other team scores first? Are they not playing defense too? Offense and defense are not equal. Defense can't score a FG. The point is if you are going to be fair to both teams you have to give both teams the same chances to score. Otherwise you might as well decide the game with Rock, Paper, Scissors.

 

PTR

Well, for one, you can't score on defense in baseball. In football, the defense can score points.

[BuffOrange]

Jim Nance of all people swayed me to the side of changing the rule. Reason being that kickers are so much better, rules favor the offense more than ever, and teams kick off from further back. Clearly 1st possession is a bigger advantage than it was 20 years ago.

 

College is a stupid gimmick and I can't be convinced otherwise.

 

Bob Costas suggested in the pregame, to make it so 6 points were required to win the game. Two field goals, or one touchdown. It would require a lot of thought, and risk to win.

 

I love that idea.

[Ned Flanders]

Yeah, but what if team A has a decent offense and a weak defense. Team B has a great offense but a weak defense. Team B all around is stronger. However Team A wins the toss goes and scores a field goal against Team B's weakest part of team. If team B had the chance to get their offense on the field they would have very likely scored a TD. But they never were given the change.

So what? What constitutes a good/weak offense or defense? The weekly stats? Is it a given that the decent offense scores on the weak defense every time?

 

The point is, yes, you want the ball first in OT for obvious reasons. But the defense or ST can't B word and moan that they never got their hands on the ball in OT if the opposing team scores. The defense has a job to do, just as the offense.

[nucci]

Play a full 15 minutes with no sudden death.

[Ramius]

College OT is gimmicky. I think OT should be like PTRs suggestion, with equal possessions. Whoever wins the toss can take the ball of the wind, knowing they will get equal possessions. If you hold the other team to a FG, then you can win it with a TD. I think both teams should get a shot with the ball in OT. If you kick a FG first and then the opposition fumbles the kickoff, game over.

 

But, rules should stay NFL rules. If you score a FG, then you kickoff like normal. None of this "start at the 25/30/40" BS.

[Ned Flanders]

Well, for one, you can't score on defense in baseball.

What he said.

 

The baseball analogy is moot...if you're going to use another sport analogy why not basketball? Why not a 15 minute overtime period, regardless...no sudden death. If there's still a tie after one OT period, play another.

 

But I wouldn't go for that, and I doubt the players would either.

[PromoTheRobot]

What he said.

 

The baseball analogy is moot...if you're going to use another sport analogy why not basketball? Why not a 15 minute overtime period, regardless...no sudden death. If there's still a tie after one OT period, play another.

 

But I wouldn't go for that, and I doubt the players would either.

It's not exactly like baseball of course. But to say the defense has as much chance of scoring as the offense is silly. Therefore it's not equal. Any rule change that gives both offenses a possession is needed.

 

PTR

[Beerball]

It's not exactly like baseball of course. But to say the defense has as much chance of scoring as the offense is silly. Therefore it's not equal. Any rule change that gives both offenses a possession is needed.

 

PTR

In your opinion.

 

In the opinion of The Commish it's fine just the way it is. Unless the rules committee can change his mind it is what it is.

 

BTW...said Commish feels that the current rules force teams to play regulation with more intensity so as not to get to OT. A pretty round about endorsement of the current process, but that's what the guy said.

[Dan]

It's not exactly like baseball of course. But to say the defense has as much chance of scoring as the offense is silly. Therefore it's not equal. Any rule change that gives both offenses a possession is needed.

 

PTR

Why is it so unfair? History disagrees with you.

 

The NFL has had 325 overtime games since the rule was adopted in 1974. The results:

 

Both teams have had possession 235 times (72.3%).

The team that has won the toss has won 169 times (52.0%).

The team that has lost the toss has won 141 times (43.4%).

223 games were decided by a field goal (68.6%).

86 games were decided by a TD (26.5%).

One game was decided by a safety (0.3%).

There have been 15 ties (4.6%).

US Today

[BuffaloWings]

Okay, so why give the home team in baseball an at bat in extra innings if the other team scores first? Are they not playing defense too? Offense and defense are not equal. Defense can't score a FG. The point is if you are going to be fair to both teams you have to give both teams the same chances to score. Otherwise you might as well decide the game with Rock, Paper, Scissors.

But the defense can return an INT or fumble for a touchdown, or at least force a turnover. It's less likely, but it still is giving them a chance to score. Tony Dungy commented on this after he lost to SD in overtime...his defense didn't do their job to stop the Chargers, so they deserved to lose.

 

I don't mind the way things are today and don't think there's really a need for change, IMO. That said, if they *must* make a change, I'd rather see them just play another quarter w/o it being sudden death, like nucci said. It's just like playing another 4th quarter to give both teams a chance. The "extra innings" format you described would be the next preference for me, but there's no need to go further than that.

[PromoTheRobot]

But the defense can return an INT or fumble for a touchdown, or at least force a turnover. It's less likely, but it still is giving them a chance to score. Tony Dungy commented on this after he lost to SD in overtime...his defense didn't do their job to stop the Chargers, so they deserved to lose.

 

I don't mind the way things are today and don't think there's really a need for change, IMO. That said, if they *must* make a change, I'd rather see them just play another quarter w/o it being sudden death, like nucci said. It's just like playing another 4th quarter to give both teams a chance. The "extra innings" format you described would be the next preference for me, but there's no need to go further than that.

If you had to score points, would you rather play your offense or defense?

 

PTR

[JDG]

I'd like to see a carbon copy of the college overtime. I would just change it so that you start at your own 40 on each drive instead of the opposition's 25. The kickers are too good to just start at the 25 every time.

 

But why would you want to take special teams out of deciding overtime?

 

Another really interesting proposal is to have both coaches put in bid for what yard line they would be willing to start at - the team that selects the furthest back yard line gets the ball, and you play sudden death, same as now. This proposal does have the flaw of taking kickoff returns out of overtime - but that's not so bad since there can only be one kickoff in overtime anyways. This proposal does leave the punting game in place to play a role in overtime.

 

JDG

[JDG]

Bob Costas suggested in the pregame, to make it so 6 points were required to win the game. Two field goals, or one touchdown. It would require a lot of thought, and risk to win.

 

I like Bob Matthews' proposal to make it four points. That would allow a safety and a field goal to win it (or even, if it ever happens, two safeties.)

 

JDG

[nucci]

But why would you want to take special teams out of deciding overtime?

 

Another really interesting proposal is to have both coaches put in bid for what yard line they would be willing to start at - the team that selects the furthest back yard line gets the ball, and you play sudden death, same as now. This proposal does have the flaw of taking kickoff returns out of overtime - but that's not so bad since there can only be one kickoff in overtime anyways. This proposal does leave the punting game in place to play a role in overtime.

 

JDG

Interesting? I have a much different word!

[1billsfan]

The best and only change I would be in favor of is that the winner of the coin toss has the choice to take the ball placed on their own 20 yard line or let the other team have the ball placed at the far 20 yard line. Then play it like a regular game.

 

Driving the ball 50 yards (for a field goal attempt) is no easy proposition and gives the team that loses the coin toss and doesn't get the ball first a more than fair shot to stop the team that won the toss and elected to receive.

[AdamK]

My solution for the NFL OT, the 2-minute drill (How all good games should end.):

 

1. Coin toss. Winner of the coin toss can elect to go first or second.

2. 2:00 minutes placed on the clock and 2 timeouts given to Team A.

3. Kickoff. (1st OT session can only be ended by a score or time running out. *No 2-point conversions allowed. If a turnover occurs, the team that caused the TO can use the remaining time to score and win the game.)

4. 2:00 minutes placed on the clock and 2 timeouts given to Team B.

5. Kickoff. (2nd OT session – Team B MUST go for the win. No tying FG will be allowed. A tying TD must be followed by a 2 point conversion. )

6. Repeat if neither team scores.

 

I think this employs strategy and excitement for the overtime period, both of which are currently absent in the current format.

[Ramius]

My solution for the NFL OT, the 2-minute drill (How all good games should end.):

 

1. Coin toss. Winner of the coin toss can elect to go first or second.

2. 2:00 minutes placed on the clock and 2 timeouts given to Team A.

3. Kickoff. (1st OT session can only be ended by a score or time running out. *No 2-point conversions allowed. If a turnover occurs, the team that caused the TO can use the remaining time to score and win the game.)

4. 2:00 minutes placed on the clock and 2 timeouts given to Team B.

5. Kickoff. (2nd OT session – Team B MUST go for the win. No tying FG will be allowed. A tying TD must be followed by a 2 point conversion. )

6. Repeat if neither team scores.

 

I think this employs strategy and excitement for the overtime period, both of which are currently absent in the current format.

 

Congrats. You have managed to devise a system that is somehow exponentially worse that the current system.

[AdamK]

Congrats. You have managed to devise a system that is somehow exponentially worse that the current system.

 

 

Please elaborate.

[Realist]

I haven't read the whole thread, but there are 3 phases to football, offense, defense, Special teams. You have to play well in all three phases if you want to win in OT. There's no need to change anything.

[KD in CA]

If Pittsburgh kicked a FG and sent the game into OT, how awful would it have been if the team that won the toss scored and won the game?

It wouldn't have been awful at all if it was the Cards. But it would have been awful if they had some stupid 6 OT gimmick like they do in college.

 

I really hate all the whining about this issue. You want to win, you play defense and stop the other team like you've had to all game. Some of you guys sound like you'd be happy if they had a 'throw the football through the tire' contest to decide it. Waah --- it's not fair!

[bladiebla]

NFL Europe featured these OT rules; toss for first possession then team to score would win if the number of possesions had been equal else the opponent would get another possession. This worked great and led to extremly exiting OTs (just a fg was often not enoug for a win).

 

Edit: NFL vote on incorperating the NFL Europe rule didnt make it btw.

[Jim in Anchorage]

My solution for the NFL OT, the 2-minute drill (How all good games should end.):

 

1. Coin toss. Winner of the coin toss can elect to go first or second.

2. 2:00 minutes placed on the clock and 2 timeouts given to Team A.

3. Kickoff. (1st OT session can only be ended by a score or time running out. *No 2-point conversions allowed. If a turnover occurs, the team that caused the TO can use the remaining time to score and win the game.)

4. 2:00 minutes placed on the clock and 2 timeouts given to Team B.

5. Kickoff. (2nd OT session – Team B MUST go for the win. No tying FG will be allowed. A tying TD must be followed by a 2 point conversion. )

6. Repeat if neither team scores.

 

I think this employs strategy and excitement for the overtime period, both of which are currently absent in the current format.

Can you imagine McNabb trying to follow this?

[BuffaloWings]

Please elaborate.

Way too gimmicky for me and hard to follow for the average fan. Jim in Anchorage jests that we imagine McNabb trying to follow this, but if there are fans & players who don't realize there can be a tie in the NFL, how do you think we'll all be able to follow this complex scheme?

 

I still say go with a full quarter and play it like it's the 4th quarter. Do the coin toss and play. Not hard at all to me.

[silvermike]

I think the goal for overtime is to have it the most like normal football as possible. The more gimmicky it gets (see the college system), the more pointless it is, I think. You want the winner to be the team that has played the best football, not won a post-game contest. You might as well just have the field goal kickers play a game of Horse at that point.

 

So I'd suggest one of these:

 

a.) Sudden death doesn't kick in until the second possession of the game. Each team gets at least one shot, if it's still tied, it's sudden death.

 

b.) The team with the ball at the end of the game either receives the kickoff after overtime, or just continues their drive from regulation.

[KD in CA]

I still say go with a full quarter and play it like it's the 4th quarter. Do the coin toss and play. Not hard at all to me.

 

This is the only acceptable alternative to the current sudden death.

[BuffaloWings]

If you had to score points, would you rather play your offense or defense?

 

PTR

Of course, I'd rather play offense. But you can't assume that just because you lose the coin toss and don't get the ball first that you have no chance to win. You have a defense for a reason....to stop the opponent's offense and get the ball back.

 

Yes, they have been rare, but there have been games won in OT by a team's defense. If Nate Odomes didn't pick off a Warren Moon pass, would the Bills have won the Comeback Game? Matt Hasselbeck opened his mouth against Green Bay and then threw a pick-6 to lose in the playoffs.

 

I think we're all too focused on how OT games have ended on the first possession and we're way too "politically correct" (I don't have a better word/phrase) in thinking that it's not fair to the other team. It's not as if the loser of the coin toss gives up.

[PromoTheRobot]

Of course, I'd rather play offense. But you can't assume that just because you lose the coin toss and don't get the ball first that you have no chance to win. You have a defense for a reason....to stop the opponent's offense and get the ball back.

 

Yes, they have been rare, but there have been games won in OT by a team's defense. If Nate Odomes didn't pick off a Warren Moon pass, would the Bills have won the Comeback Game? Matt Hasselbeck opened his mouth against Green Bay and then threw a pick-6 to lose in the playoffs.

 

I think we're all too focused on how OT games have ended on the first possession and we're way too "politically correct" (I don't have a better word/phrase) in thinking that it's not fair to the other team. It's not as if the loser of the coin toss gives up.

Look, the only point I'm making is that OT should be fair and equal to both teams. You can quote stats all day long but you can't say offense and defense have an equal chance at scoring. That alone makes NFL OT uneven. Football is not like basketball, hockey or soccer where teams play both offense and defense and possession changes quickly. It's bad enough when a playoff game OT ends on one possession. You want the Super Bowl to end that way? Just find a way to give the ball to both teams at least once.

 

PTR

[PromoTheRobot]

NFL Europe featured these OT rules; toss for first possession then team to score would win if the number of possesions had been equal else the opponent would get another possession. This worked great and led to extremly exiting OTs (just a fg was often not enoug for a win).

 

Edit: NFL vote on incorperating the NFL Europe rule didnt make it btw.

Read my starting post. That is essentially what I was proposing.

 

PTR

[Ramius]

Please elaborate.

 

It too complicated and you are holding each team to a different set of rules. What is the point of forcing the second team to go for the win? That would make likelihood of victory for the coin toss winner even greater. The winner only had to drive to the opposition 30 to kick a FG, but the next team is forced to try and win? its much easier to stop a team from scoring a TD than a FG.