In my book, neither does yours. Anything which significantly changes the rules teams play by in regulation is, to me and many people, gimmicky.
One thing you need to consider is that the current rule, SUDDEN DEATH, already changes the rules teams play by in regulation.
So the question is whether you go with a solution that still incorporates sudden death or scratch sudden death completely. One of the issues here is that there is no correct answer. There will never be a consensus on anything.
My feeling is that the goal of any offense is to score touchdowns and the goal of the defense is to stop them. Touchdowns are foundation of the game.
The current overtime rules were first implemented back in 1974 and while many rule changes have transformed the game the overtime rule has failed to adapt.
Consider:
1) In 1974, kickers averaged about a 60% success rate. Today that rate is about 83%
2) In 1974, the rules favored the defense. In today's game the rules favor the offense.
I don't have the statistical data to support this next point but it seems to me that the only teams that don't score on their 1st possession of OT are the poor offensive teams. It seems like every time an offensive minded team receives the ball, the game ends without the other team receiving the ball.
3) The average OT possession starts around the 30 yard line. That means that teams receiving the opening kickoff only need to go about 30-35 yards to win the game. Not only is that too easy for an offense but you also need to factor in officiating. Essentially all it takes to decide an overtime game is one questionable penalty. With the current success rates of the kickers, defenses hardly stand a chance. One bad break and they're done. The idea of only applying sudden death rules to touchdowns gives the defense a chance to overcome many of the bad breaks that are so prevalent in the game today. It makes the game more interesting and I believe the results would be much less "fluky".
I take it you feel this way about the 2002 and 2004 Patriots SB wins?
I'm not condemning field goals as part of the game. Those SB's were won in regulation.
Similarly, just b/c you don't apply sudden death to FG's in overtime, doesn't mean that they wouldn't decide overtime games.
Plenty of games would continue to end after the initial possession with teams kicking game winning fg's. My solution simply addresses 1st possession fg's which I believe are far too simple and anti-climatic to end games.
Having said all that....I would also support a system that got rid of sudden death altogether and simply and the teams play an extra 10-15 minute quarter. Whoever's leading after that quarter wins. If it's tied, next score wins but there's no kickoff to start the 2nd quarter. The action would continue just like it does from the 1st to 2nd or 3rd to 4th quarters in regulation. The teams switch sides of the field but other than that the play continues on.
Either one of these rule changes would be an immense improvement.