An idea about overtime

[Pats726]

Just thought I'd give my thoughts about what could be done about it. I hate ties and I wouldn't ever allow one..you just play till it's over..like in baseball. I know that could extend games a bit, but more likely than not some team will get tired quicker and one tean will win.
I don't like the college system for the pros...runs scores up and gives away touchdowns too quickly. SO a few TDs in OT is teh same as one earned in long drives?? Just don't like it and even worse when looking at stats.
I would have an OT period that would be played till the end. 10 minutes (nothing scared about this except it's not 15 which is too long and would allow BOTH teams to get the ball. OK..maybe a team COULD keep it for the alloted time, but rare...and if they did, I THINK they would deserve to win.) Since it's played to the full, a team could go for 2 or not, all depending on what they think would happen in the 2nd OT period..but most likely at the end of this 10 minutes, someone would win.
If it's tied, the team that did not get the ball in the first OT would get it then. And in this period, it's sudden death, so that any score wins.
Just an idea and not sure it's all good or bad, but it's a thought.

 

[Sivy]

any idea is better than a coin toss...unless its like the roll of a dice or something, then thatd be just as bad.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

first team to 6 points wins

 

[Sicilian]

first team to 6 points wins

This actually sounds great the more I think about it.

 

[maverick4]

Why not winner is the team leading after 5 minutes of overtime, and then sudden death after that if it is tied at 5 minutes.

 

[maverick4]

first team to 6 points wins

A great idea. Scratch mine, I like this one better. Keep it sudden death, first to 6 wins.

 

[102 Pat]

I like the college way of doing things, start on your own 20, have your drive then your opponent gets it back on there 20. It's a bit contradicting that the NFL doesn't want to have a full quarter of OT, but are thinking about adding another regular season game...

 

[Pats726]

A great idea. Scratch mine, I like this one better. Keep it sudden death, first to 6 wins.

Again..the problem with that is that one team might never see the ball...what about the first team to hit 8?? I would grant a team that goes for the TD and the 2 should win..and THAT would be the only exception that a team would NOT see the ball in OT. But if it's a real defensive game...getting to even 6 might be hard...let alone 8. But these thoughts are a LOT better than a coin toss..

 

[Sicilian]

Again..the problem with that is that one team might never see the ball...what about the first team to hit 8?? I would grant a team that goes for the TD and the 2 should win..and THAT would be the only exception that a team would NOT see the ball in OT. But if it's a real defensive game...getting to even 6 might be hard...let alone 8. But these thoughts are a LOT better than a coin toss..

That's my thought: ANYTHING is better than a coin toss sudden death. One bad PI call and the game is over after that.

My first preference would be the college format, except let the teams kick off. Each team gets one possession, after that it's sudden death. A possession would be defined by an offensive snap or a score. This would exclude things like a team throwing an interception, the interceptor fumbles it right back, and thus the defending team had their "possession". It also means an INT returned for a TD would end the game.

 

[Ciara's Dad]

Personally speaking, I don't see anything wrong with a tied game, but if you are going to have o/t, then the team which receives the kick off, shouldn't be allowed the chance to run it back. Give them the ball on the 20yd line and make them work for anything they get.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

Again..the problem with that is that one team might never see the ball...what about the first team to hit 8?? I would grant a team that goes for the TD and the 2 should win..and THAT would be the only exception that a team would NOT see the ball in OT. But if it's a real defensive game...getting to even 6 might be hard...let alone 8. But these thoughts are a LOT better than a coin toss..

there is no problems with that. if you can't stop a td and a team from going 100 yards then you deserve to lose.

the current way of just a field goal winning gives little margin of error for a defense

 

[maverick4]

For me the biggest problem is a team winning a random coin toss, getting some crap PI call or making one good throw, and then kicking a FG to win.

First to 6 is a great idea because it primarily prevents that one scenario from happening.

If a team that lost the coin toss gives up the TD, they deserve to lose.

 

[Disco Volante]

Why does no one ever mention the easiest solution?

Just allow the other team to match! Once one of the teams isn't able to match the other, the game is over.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Personally speaking, I don't see anything wrong with a tied game, but if you are going to have o/t, then the team which receives the kick off, shouldn't be allowed the chance to run it back. Give them the ball on the 20yd line and make them work for anything they get.

So suddenly in OT ST isn't a third of your game???

I think it's fine the way it is. If you don't want to face the coin toss, do something about it before regulation runs out...as we did in XXXVI.

If teams have a fixed time OT or a guaranteed posession they will be even less inclined to go for the win. If you don't want to leave first posession to luck of the draw then have the OT commence with an extension of the rotation that the game began with 60 minutes earlier. Teams who want to hedge their bets against losing out on any OT posession can elect to receive to open the game rather than opting to receive the second half kickoff.

 

[PatsFan37]

Why does no one ever mention the easiest solution?

Just allow the other team to match! Once one of the teams isn't able to match the other, the game is over.

Tom Curran suggested exactly that. The main objection is that two strong offenses could keep putting up field goals. The coaches and owners are opposed, as mentioned above, to the extra wear and tear.

So I'd make this change -- allow the other team exactly one matching possession. If the first team scores and the second team scores and the first team scores again, OT is over. If you can't generate a stop in two series, you don't deserve to win.

 

[Pats726]

If teams have a fixed time OT or a guaranteed posession they will be even less inclined to go for the win. If you don't want to leave first posession to luck of the draw then have the OT commence with an extension of the rotation that the game began with 60 minutes earlier. Teams who want to hedge their bets against losing out on any OT posession can elect to receive to open the game rather than opting to receive the second half kickoff.

I am not sure teams would be less inclined to go for a win if teams knew it would be a fixed 10 minutes. Why would they wish to extend a game when they could end in regulation? Gee...more plays on the field, more chance of injuries, more wear and tear? Maybe teams would NOT want that and try to win in regulation..not wanting a guaranteed 10 minutes MORE of play.
Continuing with the rotation might be better than a coin toss, but that still doesn't guuarantee a possession each.
I agree eliminating ST is not good for the game in OT..it's PART of it and always should be.
What about one possession each and if it's tied the from that point sudden death??
I really think there must be a way that is better and fairer.

 

[Pats726]

Tom Curran suggested exactly that. The main objection is that two strong offenses could keep putting up field goals. The coaches and owners are opposed, as mentioned above, to the extra wear and tear.

So I'd make this change -- allow the other team exactly one matching possession. If the first team scores and the second team scores and the first team scores again, OT is over. If you can't generate a stop in two series, you don't deserve to win.

So...the first team to get the ball in OT always has the advantage? The first team's D might be just as bad...so?? That doesn't matter? Basically it would be one possession each and then sudden death..correct??

 

[godef]

This actually sounds great the more I think about it.

No kidding. It'll stop those first-possession-40-yards-and-kick-a-field-goal-for-a-cheap-win overtime drives and make that team really try for a TD before settling for the field goal, knowing the other team could come back and score a TD.

 

[Deus Irae]

So...the first team to get the ball in OT always has the advantage? The first team's D might be just as bad...so?? That doesn't matter? Basically it would be one possession each and then sudden death..correct??

Football's not a back and forth sport the way hockey is, so any time a "sudden death" enters into it, any concept of fairness is out the door. The only way to be fair about an overtime is not to have one. Since abandoning overtime is not likely to happen, the current system is as good as any other I've seen proposed.

 

[Pats726]

Football's not a back and forth sport the way hockey is, so any time a "sudden death" enters into it, any concept of fairness is out the door. The only way to be fair about an overtime is not to have one. Since abandoning overtime is not likely to happen, the current system is as good as any other I've seen proposed.

I agree it's not at all like BB or hockey...I like my original suggestion better than what is there now..did you read that? What you were responding to was my response to another proposal of OT.