NFL overtime needs to be changed

[unoriginal]

An additional thought occurs: kicking in the NFL has improved much over the years, so much so that field goal % has never been higher, despite the field goals having been moved behind the end zone (due to Jan Stenerud / player safety).

Anyone know if the touchback % has markedly decreased between 1974 and now, with the moving of the kickoff line from 35 to 30 yards (in 1994)?

 

[jbb9s]

A couple points:

If a team wins the coin toss, don't score on their first drive and then stops the opponents and scores on their second possession, that needs to be thrown out of the statistics for obvious reasons. Have they or have they not been?

If you have a good kick off, have a defensive stand giving up one first down or maybe even zero, you can receive a punt with substantially better field position with a much better chance of getting into a FG range than if you were to start at your own 20.

I didn't hear this discussion started after the OAK playoff game or the Miami Troy Bomb,......this board is skating dangerously close.......to Bill Polian land.

 

[SoCal Pmen]

BB's idea is the best. Make the OT half the time of a quarter. That's enough time for a team to put together a scoring drive.

 

[NJPatsfan26]

Not sure if this has been mentioned but here is my take on it....

In the event of a tie, a 15 minute period is to be played like a regular quarter in the game. Whoever comes out on top in the end of that 15 mins, wins. If they still tie, then they go into sudden death.

Alternatively they could do like soccer does and do a Field Goal Challenge.

Start at the 35 yard line and have each punter kick 1 each. If they both make it, move the placement back 10 yards and continue. First one to miss a Field Goal looses the game....

What do you think?

 

[JSn]

BB's idea is the best. Make the OT half the time of a quarter. That's enough time for a team to put together a scoring drive.

Like half the time, but play the whole thing?

My wife was amazed when she realized they didn't play the whole extra quarter. Half quarters played out fully is a brilliant idea.

If the season were shorter, and best 2/3 for the SB would be pretty cool too.

 

[Tunescribe]

I disagree. Yes, overtime cuts down the chance of a tie, but BB's idea increases it. In short, his idea gives you the worst of both worlds.

No idea is perfect, but his is essentially just playing a shortened 5th quarter.

I don't see how much more the chances of a tie would be in a shortened fifth quarter vs. a full 15-minute quarter. Again, BB's idea is to come up with an average number of minutes for how long overtimes last, then establish that as the time played. Right now, the current system is inequitable, as a majority of those winning the toss -- 53-plus percent -- win the game.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't see how much more the chances of a tie would be in a shortened fifth quarter vs. a full 15-minute quarter. Again, BB's idea is to come up with an average number of minutes for how long overtimes last, then establish that as the time played. Right now, the current system is inequitable, as a majority of those winning the toss -- 53-plus percent -- win the game.

Instead of one drive resulting in a field goal, there will be 2. That solves nothing and simply leads to more injuries.

 

[Tunescribe]

Instead of one drive resulting in a field goal, there will be 2. That solves nothing and simply leads to more injuries.

I sure as hell would've appreciated the opportunity last night to escape with a tie instead of losing. But I don't think you'll see that many teams playing for a tie; only if they have fourth and long within field goal range and time running out. I'll bet you'd see more teams going for it on fourth down in that OT scenario.

 

[Deus Irae]

I sure as hell would've appreciated the opportunity last night to escape with a tie instead of losing. But I don't think you'll see that many teams playing for a tie; only if they have fourth and long within field goal range and time running out. I'll bet you'd see more teams going for it on fourth down in that OT scenario.

Why would you expect them to play any differently in this overtime than they used to play in 4th quarter ties when ties were a part of the league?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

You have to believe...whining and changing the rules works.

............................... Believe .................................

 

[QuinielaBox]

No it shouldn't. I was hoping Belichick would go for two points last night after the Moss TD. In consideration of losing the coin flip, it was likely that Brett Favre was going to lead him down the field for a score - say 80% on the first possesion. So the Pats had a 40% chance of being screwed and they were.

Matt Cassall played very well, but his playmakers failed him enough so I rate the Patriots chances of scoring on the first OT possesion of 60%. Factoring the coin flip and the NYJ chances of being screwed is 30%.

If each team gets at least one chance, then NYJ is still more likely to score 1st due to Favre against a worn out Pats defense. New York gets 18% to New Englands 12% chance by my estimates of the play in the 4th qtr - dominated by the Jets 9:00 min go ahead drive.

So NYJ had a 58% chance to win the OT while NWE had 42% chance.

The Patriots rate of success on 2 pt conversions is at least 50% so they should have gone for 2 pts and not risk more injuries in OT to the defense.

I think you will see more coaches go for 2 points at the end of the game to win as time goes on if the OT rule remains as is with the coin flip being CRITICAL.

If the Patriots go on to a 10-6 record, 3-3 division, 6-6 AFC conference they might not qualify for the playoffs (Jets, Steelers, Chargers, Titans - division winners Miami, and Indy with 10 and 6 records beat New England on head to head tie breaker or Baltimore Ravens with a better conference record). There would be no shame in a 10 and 6 record with no playoffs considering this was going to be a rebuilding year at least on the defensive side of the ball and the Brady injury. But I want to see what Matt Cassell can do in January and even February.

 

[TruthSeeker]

It is actually 52% of the time, but I really think the NFL throws that number around to avoid the actual point of the reason why this rule is unfair. The current rule does not guarantee both teams a chance to have a shot to win the game in overtime.

Yes it does.

Oh, you think the only way you can win a game is to have your offense on the field and that it is a God-given right to see your offense in OT. Sorry. Teams have been winning with defense in this leage for a long time and will continue to do so (many would say that champions typically win *because* of their defense).

 

[PrairiePat]

I'm not sure what the right answer is. It does seem unfair to not get an offensive possession in OT (I'm admittedly biased after the Jets game, and yes, I do remember how we benefited from this in '01).

I'm not sure a shortened quarter is much better though - consider a running team like the NYG or Tenn with the first possession, they could basically run the clock down to 0 with a first down or 2. Heck, even Indy could do that with the short passing game.

Playing another full quarter will probably make the game too long, both for the networks and for shorthanded teams like the Pats this past week. Their primary defenders played 77 plays, I could see that approaching 100 with a full 5th quarter.

The college system is better, but maybe they should start the possessions at the 50 rather than the 25, so that a FG attempt isn't almost guaranteed. Of course, that would make the game longer again....

 

[PATSNUTme]

I have not liked the NFL OT rule for years. Maybe each team gets the ball on their own 30 and have to drive down for a score. Fumbles and Int's would go over to the recovering team, something like that.

But this is from the Cold Hard Football Facts site:

But the team that wins the toss does not have the advantage many think. According to official NFL statistics, the team that has won the OT toss has won just 53.2 percent the time (222 victories in 417 OT games from 1974 to 2007).

So winning the coin flip is not as big an advantage as I thought.

 

[Deus Irae]

I have not liked the NFL OT rule for years. Maybe each team gets the ball on their own 30 and have to drive down for a score. Fumbles and Int's would go over to the recovering team, something like that.

But this is from the Cold Hard Football Facts site:

But the team that wins the toss does not have the advantage many think. According to official NFL statistics, the team that has won the OT toss has won just 53.2 percent the time (222 victories in 417 OT games from 1974 to 2007).

So winning the coin flip is not as big an advantage as I thought.

CHFF is using the data in a misleading manner, though, and they are usually better than that. Take a look at the percentage over the past 10 years or so, and you'll see a different story, as the trend has been for the percentage to increase over time.

 

[PATSNUTme]

CHFF is using the data in a misleading manner, though, and they are usually better than that. Take a look at the percentage over the past 10 years or so, and you'll see a different story, as the trend has been for the percentage to increase over time.

I don't doubt what you say, but where are the numbers? I'm sure they are out there some place.

I think the idea of playing a 10 min OT period is the best I've heard so far.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

The purpose of overtime is to end the game and have a winner.

If either team was truly better than the other the game would not have gone to OT.

Don't want to risk losing to an unlucky coin toss, win the game in 60 mins.

 

[JoePats]

To come here and post a thread only after the Pats lose a game in OT on the first possession is awfully petty. I guess you wouldn't post this had we won the toss and scored on the first possession. Look, if you don't want to lose on the first possession of OT then don't allow a 3rd and 15 conversion.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't doubt what you say, but where are the numbers? I'm sure they are out there some place.

I think the idea of playing a 10 min OT period is the best I've heard so far.

Ivars Peterson's MathTrek - Football's Overtime Bias

RealClearPolitics - Articles - NFL's Inferior Overtime

ESPN.com: NFL - Overtime format works -- for now

 

[alamo]

I like the current system. Changing it adds complexity that hides and changes the nature of the advantage of winning the coin flip, but does not eliminate it.

Coin flip winners win 53% of the time in the NFL, 55% of the time in college, according to one of those articles. (That means coin flip losers win 43% of the time in the NFL and 45% in college). The coin flip always provides a small advantage, no matter how you try to fix it. So why is radically changing gameplay during an overtime a good thing? Apparently special teams don't count when assessing fairness, at least according to the college system.