NFL overtime needs to be changed

[PATSNUTme]

Ivars Peterson's MathTrek - Football's Overtime Bias

RealClearPolitics - Articles - NFL's Inferior Overtime

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

Good stuff. So the number could be anywhere from 53 to 65%.

 

[unoriginal]

Good stuff. So the number could be anywhere from 53 to 65%.

Depending on the year you are measuring from.

From 1974, its ~53%. In the last decade, over 60%.

 

[Double G]

"Cry me a freaking river ....

The Pats D could not stop a 38 year old gassed out QB in the 5TH QUARTER from leading the team downfield for the score including allowing several 3rd down conversions - The Patriots deserved to lose the game since they could not stop Favre..case closed"

That hits the nail square on the head. The drama queens longest completion of the night was a hail mary wounded duck punt that was caught by the reciever in his armpit. He dinked and dunked the defense to death, coin tosses had nothing to do with it.

I hated this clown with a passion when he played for the Packers; seeing him prancing around the field with those black clodhoppers on in that puke green uniform makes my balls boil................

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

This debate has been going on for years. For the longest time the OT records were 50/50 on winning/losing the coin toss, but then a key rule change happened: The kickoffs were moved back to the 30yd line, allowing for better returns and shorter fields for the team that won the coin toss. At that point the percentage started to skew in favor of the toss-winning team.

Last night Gost kicked the OT kickoff for a touchback. No long return. No short field for the Jets. At that point the OT was more like the old days of 50/50.

Yup. Saved me the trouble of typing.

The only rule change that needs to be made for overtime is to move the opening kick off to the 35. It would again make it a 50/50 proposition.

The reason that doesn't happen is because then someone asks the question -- "why did you move it to the 30 in the first place?" To which the answer is "well, uhh, because we changed the clock rules to have fewer plays in the game so that we could keep games around 3 hours but have 14 percent more commercials."

 

[godef]

It's funny; the Pats have absolutely thrived on this sytem in the Belichick years... the Snow Bowl; '02 vs KC and Miami; these were three games in which we won the opening toss and won the game without the opponent ever seeing the ball. We were long overdue to lose such a game.

Don't mean to pick on the original poster, he may feel a change is needed regardless of the Pats recent OT history. I, too, think a change is needed: simply give the team losing the coin toss one last chance should the team winning the coin toss score first (they will always have had one more possession), and allow the OT period to extend if necessary to permit this (the theory being is that each team had the potential of an "extra" drive during the two halves of the game, but this could never be equalled in OT).

At the least, this would encourage teams who win the coin toss from getting a few first downs and settling for a cheap figgie win, and take the FG only if faced with 4th and a longshot knowing that the opponent could trump them with a TD.

Yeah, this does create loopholes: if the coin-toss-winner had a chance at a FG, but ultimately lost the ball on a turnover, now it would be the other team looking to secure a cheap figgie win. So perhaps they would be allowed to attempt a FG ONLY IF the coin-toss-winner attempted a FG, otherwise they would be required to attempt to score a TD.

Complicated? I'm guessing that's why they still have the system that they do, and why college does what it does. The problem I have with the college system is that it plays into some team's strengths and otehr team's weaknesses. But I suppose the NFL shoot-out does too.

 

[godef]

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.

Actually, the Dolphins won the OT coin toss in that game, so this was a "legitimate" win despite the system. OTOH, we beat them in game 17 of the 02 season in OT without their ever getting their hands on the ball; ditto vs KC earlier that year. Points taken, though.

 

[godef]

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.

This is even worse in regard to each team getting equal opportunity.

 

[Pats726]

I tend to agree...but how??? I think it should be like this..a 10 min OT...NOT sudden death but an OT period..I think both teams would have the ball and a chance to score..if it ends up tied?? another OT...but sudden death with the team that kicked off in the first OT period getting the ball. I hate ties.....and I think a team would not go for a tie at the end of the 1st OT if they were NOT getting the ball. SO they might score..just an idea..