College OT rules coming to NFL?

[invasian]

How about this?

Just treat it like a 5th quarter until the next team scores. Transition occurs as if it is between Quarter 1 and 2 or Quarter 3 and 4.

In other words, let's say it is 2nd and 7, pass incomplete, end of Q4. Well, just start Q5 with 3rd and 7.

Would really change how teams play it tied with Q4 about to end.

 

[Deus Irae]

How about this?

Just treat it like a 5th quarter until the next team scores. Transition occurs as if it is between Quarter 1 and 2 or Quarter 3 and 4.

In other words, let's say it is 2nd and 7, pass incomplete, end of Q4. Well, just start Q5 with 3rd and 7.

Would really change how teams play it tied with Q4 about to end.

The bolded is the fatal flaw to your idea.

 

[Deus Irae]

Look, the reality is that football is a brutal and taxing sport. It's not baseball, which can keep the same rules and go inning by inning. It's not basketball, where fatigue becomes a problem, but injury risk remains low. It's not even hockey, and hockey's done a lot of silly **** to ruin its overtime situations already, without finding a satisfactory resolution.

Football is a grind at a different level. You can't just play under regular rules until someone wins, week after week, as a result. Therefore, you'll never find a "fair" way to end it, and all the changes that have been suggested and/or made have been bad decisions. The answer for football, just like hockey, is simple:

Either play one additional period of time (period for hockey, quarter for football), or accept the fact that ties will happen with more frequency in the regular season. Then, in the playoffs, you simply go with "next score wins". Yes, football's going to have a built in bias about a coin toss leading to first possession, but hockey will have a built in bias about faceoff percentages. So what?

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

College OT rules would be a great way for WR to bump up their stats and QB numbers..
Throw 3 overtime TD passes and they count as much as regular ones...

 

[Double TE]

Why not just give the home team the option of O or D and call it a day. For the SB use the better record and if tied, most pts scored.

 

[ivanvamp]

Look, the reality is that football is a brutal and taxing sport. It's not baseball, which can keep the same rules and go inning by inning. It's not basketball, where fatigue becomes a problem, but injury risk remains low. It's not even hockey, and hockey's done a lot of silly **** to ruin its overtime situations already, without finding a satisfactory resolution.

Football is a grind at a different level. You can't just play under regular rules until someone wins, week after week, as a result. Therefore, you'll never find a "fair" way to end it, and all the changes that have been suggested and/or made have been bad decisions. The answer for football, just like hockey, is simple:

Either play one additional period of time (period for hockey, quarter for football), or accept the fact that ties will happen with more frequency in the regular season. Then, in the playoffs, you simply go with "next score wins". Yes, football's going to have a built in bias about a coin toss leading to first possession, but hockey will have a built in bias about faceoff percentages. So what?

The present overtime rules are just fine in the NFL. I don't know why they need to be changed.

 

[sb1]

How about this?

Just treat it like a 5th quarter until the next team scores. Transition occurs as if it is between Quarter 1 and 2 or Quarter 3 and 4.

In other words, let's say it is 2nd and 7, pass incomplete, end of Q4. Well, just start Q5 with 3rd and 7.

Would really change how teams play it tied with Q4 about to end.

I can see scenarios where that would be even more "unfair" than what we have now. Also refs can easily decide the outcome by throwing a flag for DPI on a hail mary or deep ball into FG range the last play of Q4. Lots of teams would try it. I'd rather not see officials decide games.

 

[Todd Bradley]

But this gives the advantage to the 2nd team. The first team would punt on 4th downs in its territory, but if the first team scored either a FG or TD, the 2nd team would know to never punt, but to play for the needed score. No system is fair - but the current system gives a specific advantage to each team.

That's exactly what currently happens when the team that wins the coin toss kicks a field goal to begin the game.

The other team goes for it on 4th every time until they score or they can't convert and the game ends. We've seen this happen year in and year out since the current rule change was implemented.

There's really no added advantage whatsoever to my proposal, other than a touchdown on the first drive not completely ending the game.

If the team with the ball first can't score and has to punt, then all of this is a moot point to begin with, as it currently is.

 

[sb1]

Look, the reality is that football is a brutal and taxing sport. It's not baseball, which can keep the same rules and go inning by inning. It's not basketball, where fatigue becomes a problem, but injury risk remains low. It's not even hockey, and hockey's done a lot of silly **** to ruin its overtime situations already, without finding a satisfactory resolution.

Football is a grind at a different level. You can't just play under regular rules until someone wins, week after week, as a result. Therefore, you'll never find a "fair" way to end it, and all the changes that have been suggested and/or made have been bad decisions. The answer for football, just like hockey, is simple:

Either play one additional period of time (period for hockey, quarter for football), or accept the fact that ties will happen with more frequency in the regular season. Then, in the playoffs, you simply go with "next score wins". Yes, football's going to have a built in bias about a coin toss leading to first possession, but hockey will have a built in bias about faceoff percentages. So what?

Yup.

I think hockey does what they do since it's an 84 game schedule, they don't want ties, they need to quickly decide a game, and they can't have games going into multiple overtimes during the season like you see all the time in the playoffs.

A baseball game in theory could go indefinitely but they don't have nearly the grind that football and hockey do.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

How about this?

Just treat it like a 5th quarter until the next team scores. Transition occurs as if it is between Quarter 1 and 2 or Quarter 3 and 4.

In other words, let's say it is 2nd and 7, pass incomplete, end of Q4. Well, just start Q5 with 3rd and 7.

Would really change how teams play it tied with Q4 about to end.

Aw hell naw! Then the game isn't effectively 60 minutes. Imagine SB51 being played out after the Pats tied it. Atlanta would have immediately gone into "drive for the winning FG mode", but knowing they had longer than regulation to do so. They would have been content to get a first down or two over the middle, let time expire, then pick up where they left off. Blech.

Regulation time needs to mean something.

Regards,
Chris

 

[Froob]

This would be fun as hell.

 

[Deus Irae]

The present overtime rules are just fine in the NFL.

No, they aren't.

I don't know why they need to be changed.

Because they give an inherent advantage, to the second team, that's a direct result of stacking the deck with regards to a first score. As a poster has already pointed out:

But that's exactly what happens now if that first team kicks a field goal.

The other team goes for it on 4th every down. We've seen this happen year in and year out since the rule change has been implemented.

 

[sb1]

The present overtime rules are just fine in the NFL. I don't know why they need to be changed.

They're not perfect but I think they're fine too. There are no more cheap game winning FGs to be had when your team wins a coin flip and only has to go 40 or so yards. A touchdown is always decisive, as it should be. Games end relatively quickly.

 

[ivanvamp]

No, they aren't.

Yes they are.

Because they give an inherent advantage, to the second team, that's a direct result of stacking the deck with regards to a first score. As a poster has already pointed out:

I'm sure the Falcons thought it was an advantage for the Patriots to get the football first and go down and score a touchdown and win the game without them ever possessing it.

There's no perfect system. This one is fine.

 

[mosslost]

how about just playing a 5th 15 minute "quarter"? Whoever is winning at the end of that wins, make it no different than the end of regulation.. Get the lead, get possession back, run out the clock, or whatever.

 

[bormio]

The present overtime rules are just fine in the NFL. I don't know why they need to be changed.

It really is one of the better things the NFL did. The game will be decided by real play (not a "shootout") and the advantage to the first team was minimized - so much so teams sometimes elect to kick off - see Pats v. Denver (ignore the Jets fiasco).

 

[ivanvamp]

It really is one of the better things the NFL did. The game will be decided by real play (not a "shootout") and the advantage to the first team was minimized - so much so teams sometimes elect to kick off - see Pats v. Denver (ignore the Jets fiasco).

To follow up my other post to Deus, check this out:

The NFL’s Overtime Rules Aren’t Fair — but Neither Are the Alternatives

"Suffice it to say, there is no evidence that backs up the premise that kicking the ball in overtime helps a team win. Since the NFL instituted its new overtime rules, there have been 87 overtime games. Five have been ties, and the team to get the ball first has won 45 of the remaining 82. That’s 54.8 percent, meaning simply winning the coin toss makes a team 9.6 percent more likely to win."

And...

"The best alternative would seem to be college football’s OT system, a quickly understandable mini-game based around points. But if you’re looking for a system not influenced by coin tosses, college football isn’t the place. In that system, teams get to choose whether to play on offense first or second. The team that goes second has a massive advantage, knowing how many points it needs to tie or win the game. A study of the first 10 years of college football’s overtime rules found that teams that went second won 54.9 percent of the time."

So Deus' claim that the NFL rules favor the team playing defense first is contradicted by the actual data. And a switch to a college based system, which some here prefer, ACTUALLY favors the defense to about the same degree the NFL rule favors the offense.

 

[bormio]

That's exactly what currently happens when the team that wins the coin toss kicks a field goal to begin the game.

The other team goes for it on 4th every time until they score or they can't convert and the game ends. We've seen this happen year in and year out since the current rule change was implemented.

There's really no added advantage whatsoever to my proposal, other than a touchdown on the first drive not completely ending the game.

If the team with the ball first can't score and has to punt, then all of this is a moot point to begin with, as it currently is.

True, but nearer the goal line still have to decide between a FG and going for a TD. That is also an advantage that balances the risk of losing to a first drive TD. The current system gives advantages to each side.

 

[Deus Irae]

To follow up my other post to Deus, check this out:

The NFL’s Overtime Rules Aren’t Fair — but Neither Are the Alternatives

"Suffice it to say, there is no evidence that backs up the premise that kicking the ball in overtime helps a team win. Since the NFL instituted its new overtime rules, there have been 87 overtime games. Five have been ties, and the team to get the ball first has won 45 of the remaining 82. That’s 54.8 percent, meaning simply winning the coin toss makes a team 9.6 percent more likely to win."

And...

"The best alternative would seem to be college football’s OT system, a quickly understandable mini-game based around points. But if you’re looking for a system not influenced by coin tosses, college football isn’t the place. In that system, teams get to choose whether to play on offense first or second. The team that goes second has a massive advantage, knowing how many points it needs to tie or win the game. A study of the first 10 years of college football’s overtime rules found that teams that went second won 54.9 percent of the time."

So Deus' claim that the NFL rules favor the team playing defense first is contradicted by the actual data. And a switch to a college based system, which some here prefer, ACTUALLY favors the defense to about the same degree the NFL rule favors the offense.

Nothing you post is going to change the fact that the second team absolutely does have an inherent advantage in the ability/need to use all 4 downs to generate a score. Your response basically comes down to "Even though the second team has an inherent advantage, we still have the same so-called problem with the first receiving team winning too high a percentage because of its inherent advantage, and I'm going to pimp the even stupider college OT system as a result", which is silly.

 

[AzPatsFan]

It's as if the NFL is actively trying to drive fans away.

Can you imagine the uproar if Belichick had called for a Free Kick after the Fair Catch, with 3 seconds left, and Gostkowski was successful from 70+ yards away?

Talk about Anger and Knashing of Teeth created by the Cheetahs!!!