Now that the Colts got screwed by the overtime rule will they change it?

[FreeTedWilliams]

I'm convinvced that if the Pats had won the toss in the Jets loss, that they would have marched down the field and won that game, and would be in the playoffs as we speak. Now that the Colts have been at the losing end of this, will Pilion moved to finally change the Overtime?

I do not want the college system, although it works well in college. I think the easiest way to fix the overtime system in the NFL, is simpley make it a rule that each team must have one possession in the overtime. So if the other team goes down the field and scores, the other team at the very least gets a chance to get the ball. This change would not effect the strategy of the overtime (expect for teams will try and score TDs on the first possessions, instead of just lining up a field goal on 1-10 at the 20). And the overtime would still be timed, and YES Donovan, you could still have a tie.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I don't think that the Colts got screwed or we got screwed. The Colts gave up a 3rd-and-11 conversion and also committed 3 penalties.

If your defense gets a 3-and-out then you get the ball at the 40 or so, though with the way the SD punter was booming it I guess they would have been at about the 5 yard line (LOL).

I wouldn't mind sudden death but each team gets it at least one posession. But I don't want the stupid college stuff from the 35, and I wouldn't mind it if they don't change a thing. It emphasizes the need to not rely only on offense, and the game has constantly changed to favor offenses not defense.

This might be one thing on which I'd agree with Tony Dungy (and Belichick, I think, though I don't recall any direct statements by BB on that rule.)

 

[FFDan]

Personally, I don't think that the system is broken. I have no problem with ties. In fact, ties are a little interesting to me. I think college overtime is the equivaleant of a shoot-out in hockey. At least in hockey there is an actual attempt at an overtime period.

If they do feel the need to make a change, the only change I would recommend is if you kick a field goal, then you must play defense. If you get a touchdown, then you win. If your defense stops the other team, then your first score wins. I'm sure it's not perfect, but what is?

 

[Fixit]

I don't particularly love overtime as it's currently constituted. I'd rather see each team get the ball, with the second team forced to beat the first team's result. First team punts, FG or better wins it...second team gets nothing, they do it again. First team gets a FG, TD wins it...anything else is a loss. First team gets a TD, second team has to get a TD and go for two. No ties, because they're evil.

Having said all that, I see no problems with sudden death overtime, either. So a team might not get the ball and a chance to win. How's a team winning on their first drive of OT different from them winning on the last drive of regulation?

 

[tatepatsfan]

I don't think it's broken, so it doesn't need to be fixed. Sure, we got screwed by it this year, but there have been years in the past where we've been the beneficiaries. It just plays out that way.

 

[cavtroop]

I like it how it is. Your defense can't stop the other team? Tough. Its a two-sided game (well, 3 if you count ST). This tests both sides.

If there was a change, the only one I'd like to see is a full 15 minute overtime. But I hear the networks don't like that one.

I seem to recall BB saying that he doesn't like the current system, and wants to see a full 15 minute OT quarter played, but I can't find the quote.

 

[Scouse Patriot]

Instead of first to score wins just play another full quarter of football and treat it the same as regular time, whoever is winning after the quarter of OT wins the game. Is it not that simple? That way teams will get multiple possesions, time and even a better climax to a game.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

One rule I think would be kind of cool is to just treat overtime as the continuation of any tied game, exactly as the game stands. Nobody ever agrees with me on that. Then again, I also favor getting rid of time outs.

As I've mentioned here ad naseum, overtime only needs one tweak to bring it back to a 50/50 proposition regardless of the outcome of the coin flip: Move the kick off to the 35. The inequity in the stats for overtime all started when they moved the kick off back to the 30. Before that, it was almost exactly 50/50. Moving the kick off skewed it to it's current 57/43 or whatever. Alternatively, another simple tweak would be to tell the team that wins the toss that if they take the ball they have to start at the 20.

It actually didn't affect either the Patriots or the Colts, though, this year, since both overtimes started with a touchback I think (or possession at the 20). I think that makes it fair.

 

[DaBruinz]

What's interesting is that Peter Kings' MMQB is on this specific topic....

NFL prepares for Rematch Weekend - Peter King - SI.com

Actually, I love overtime. Great drama. I just hate the NFL's overtime rule, which puts an inordinate value on whether the visiting-team captain calls heads or tails. The Colts called heads Saturday night. It came up tails. So this is how the game sends Tony Dungy into his retirement deliberations -- with the NFL MVP standing on the sidelines, never able to touch the ball with the season on the line. So in 2008, nine of the 15 overtime games have been one-possession periods. Nine out of 15. I know what you overtime-rule lovers are saying: Defense is half the game, so if you want to win in overtime, stop 'em on the first possession and go down and score. True. So why, after every coin flip in overtime, do the winning players and the home crowd (if the home teams wins the flip) get all euphoric? Because they know it's a huge advantage. Who wouldn't rather have the ball first when the first team to score wins? In regular-season history, by the way, 141 games (33 percent of all games) have been won on the first possession. That's 141 unfair games.

 

[Synovia]

Personally, I don't think that the system is broken.

The team that wins the Toss wins more than 60% of the time. If thats not broken, I don't know what is.

 

[Fixit]

The team that wins the Toss wins more than 60% of the time. If thats not broken, I don't know what is.

Again, what's the difference between winning on the first drive in overtime or the last drive in regulation?

 

[Steve Zabel]

The team that wins the Toss wins more than 60% of the time. If thats not broken, I don't know what is.

The Colts bucked an interesting trend however. The last four OT games in the playoffs were won by teams losing the toss.

The Colts have no excuse. They were burned by a third and 11, the same way we were burned in the Jets game by a 3rd and 15.

Even the Colts agreed the rule shouldn't be changed.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

I have no problem with the sudden death approach

I just want to know why regular season games just can't end in a tie and bag the OT thing

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

I don't like it when people saying the current system is good enough, or that your defense just needs to do it its job, or whatever.

If you had to design a tiebreaking scenario from scratch, what would you choose?

Would you choose sudden death? Would you choose a system where the team winning the coin flip simply needs to drive 40-50 yards and the game is over?

Kickoffs were moved back to the 30 and FG kickers have gotten very good at long kicks. Those two changes have made the old overtime rules obsolete.

I say it is time (actually, it was time years ago) to scrap the old system and come up with a new, better system. The debate should be about what that new system is, not whether or not a change should be made.

 

[DaBruinz]

Again, what's the difference between winning on the first drive in overtime or the last drive in regulation?

The first drive of overtime is determined by chance.

The last drive of the game is determined by clock management and player execution.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Peter King's point that 33 percent of overtime games have been won in the first drive is irrelevant. It gives you absolutely zero information you need to make your decision. If the other 67 percent of the games were won by the team that got the ball second, for example, that would tend to suggest that it's better to lose the toss.

The issue, and the only issue, should be the win percentages. As I understand the percentages, since they moved the kick off, are about 57/43 (not over 60 as someone mentioned, although I could be wrong).

Under the old kick off rule, it was 50/50, and you never heard any complaining. In fact, you'd repeatedly hear about how the coin flip didn't matter statistically. Why do anything dramatic? Why not just move the kick off for overtime.

I think the reason is that the NFL does not want to admit why they moved the kick off in the first place from the 35. The reason has to do with reducing the number of plays in the game (by making corresponding changes to the clock rules and also reducing halftime from 15:00 to 12:00) so that more commercial time could be added to get more revenue while also keeping the game at 3:00.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

The problem with most OT change proposals is they increase the likelihood the game will end in tie and/or will greatly lengthen the game.

The problem with the current rule is the ease by which it is to kick FG.

My proposal is that the team that receives the ball may not kick a FG on their first possession. After that first possession the rules of OT are the exact same as today.

 

[Fixit]

The first drive of overtime is determined by chance.

The last drive of the game is determined by clock management and player execution.

That's stretching it a bit in some cases, seeing as a great deal of every game relies on chance.

However, either way one team has the advantage of getting a chance to win without the other team getting the ball back.

It's simple: stop them, and you get your chance.

 

[indycolts685]

I'm convinvced that if the Pats had won the toss in the Jets loss, that they would have marched down the field and won that game, and would be in the playoffs as we speak. Now that the Colts have been at the losing end of this, will Pilion moved to finally change the Overtime?

I do not want the college system, although it works well in college. I think the easiest way to fix the overtime system in the NFL, is simpley make it a rule that each team must have one possession in the overtime. So if the other team goes down the field and scores, the other team at the very least gets a chance to get the ball. This change would not effect the strategy of the overtime (expect for teams will try and score TDs on the first possessions, instead of just lining up a field goal on 1-10 at the 20). And the overtime would still be timed, and YES Donovan, you could still have a tie.

I have always hated the OT rule long before we lost to the Chargers, I think both teams need at least 1 possesion.

 

[DaBruinz]

Peter King's point that 33 percent of overtime games have been won in the first drive is irrelevant. It gives you absolutely zero information you need to make your decision. If the other 67 percent of the games were won by the team that got the ball second, for example, that would tend to suggest that it's better to lose the toss.

How is it irrelevent when that is what is being discussed? You make no sense with that.

The issue, and the only issue, should be the win percentages. As I understand the percentages, since they moved the kick off, are about 57/43 (not over 60 as someone mentioned, although I could be wrong).

You really should read what was said. The 60% that was mentioned was how many games were won this year on the 1st posession. Which, btw, directly affects yourr 57/43 ratio since they were kick-offs from the 30.

Under the old kick off rule, it was 50/50, and you never heard any complaining. In fact, you'd repeatedly hear about how the coin flip didn't matter statistically. Why do anything dramatic? Why not just move the kick off for overtime.

I think the reason is that the NFL does not want to admit why they moved the kick off in the first place from the 35. The reason has to do with reducing the number of plays in the game (by making corresponding changes to the clock rules and also reducing halftime from 15:00 to 12:00) so that more commercial time could be added to get more revenue while also keeping the game at 3:00.

Actually, its because they wanted to SHORTEN the length of the games because they felt that games over 3 hours were costing them audiences since the early games would then over-lap the later ones. Yes, its still a revenue issue, but not in the sense you mentioned.

BTW, shortening the half time from 15 minutes to 12 minutes actually reduced the amount of commercial time. It didn't add to it.