One Small Change to NFL Overtime

[albionmoonlight]

I don't really think that NFL overtime is broken. Sudden death is awesome, and teams that win the toss tend to win the game about 1/2 the time. So, not much to fix.

That said, after the Indy/SD game, I thought of one small change that might make things a bit easier for the coin-toss losing team. Instead of a standard kickoff to start overtime, make it a free kick from midfield. Kicking team choice over a punt or a kickoff.

That would make it much more likely that the receiving team gets pinned inside the 20 and would at least force the offense to drive down the field to kick the winning field goal.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

First to score six.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I don't really think that NFL overtime is broken. Sudden death is awesome, and teams that win the toss tend to win the game about 1/2 the time. So, not much to fix.

That said, after the Indy/SD game, I thought of one small change that might make things a bit easier for the coin-toss losing team. Instead of a standard kickoff to start overtime, make it a free kick from midfield. Kicking team choice over a punt or a kickoff.

That would make it much more likely that the receiving team gets pinned inside the 20 and would at least force the offense to drive down the field to kick the winning field goal.

While I see your point here (especially as a Colts fan), I think that you need to recognize the return game as a vital part of the NFL game. The easy solution to the problem for the Colts would be to, you know, stop Sproles at some point in the game. They couldn't, and they paid for it.

I still think that down the road (and by down the road, this could be 10-20 years) kickoffs may be eliminated. It seems like a VERY large majority of serious neck injuries come from kickoffs.

[albionmoonlight]

Interesting point, Wade. If it is true that kickoffs lead to more serious injuries than other plays, I would hope that the NFL considers eliminating them.

I think that a free kick from midfield has the advantage of keeping special teams as part of the overtime. It is a different type of special teams play than a kickoff--but it still forces the teams to play at least one kicking play in overtime.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Interesting point, Wade. If it is true that kickoffs lead to more serious injuries than other plays, I would hope that the NFL considers eliminating them.

I haven't done/seen a serious study on it, but from my recollection in the NFL all of the "career ending" neck injuries of the past 5 years or so have been on kick coverage. You have a recipe for disaster with the high speed that these guys get up to before their collisions, often not seeing it coming, etc, etc.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I still think only two changes really need to be made in the NFL that would make it immensely better game.

1. In overtime, the team that scores should have to kick off (or maybe a free kick!) and the opposing team then must score a TD to win. If the 1st score is a TD, then the next score would be a TD + 2pt. The game would always end on a football play, instead of how many we see on a 2nd down 45 yard FG. We got lucky the other night with Sproles actually scoring, but how much would you have wanted to see Manning with one chance to win or lose?)

2. Realign to 4 divisions with 8 teams each. Winning a division gives you the bye-week. The wild card round is just that, wild card teams

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

First to score six.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

First to score six.

Hope you like ties.

[gstelmack]

The reason for everyone getting up in arms over FGs was that they moved kickoffs back to reduce touchbacks in an effort to generate more scoring by allowing the receiving team to start further advanced. This impacted OT by giving the team that receives the ball a shorter distance to go to get into FG range.

How about the OT kickoff going back up to the 35?

[Tigercat]

60%+ winning percentage by those who win the toss is too high. Add in the fact that sudden death overtime goes against the basic way football is set up (team that loses possession choice in the first half gets it in the second half to ensure time and chances for each team to score on offense.)

Sudden death is as gimmicky as the college system, with less payoff and a greater chance that the better team will lose.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by wade moore

While I see your point here (especially as a Colts fan), I think that you need to recognize the return game as a vital part of the NFL game. The easy solution to the problem for the Colts would be to, you know, stop Sproles at some point in the game. They couldn't, and they paid for it.

I still think that down the road (and by down the road, this could be 10-20 years) kickoffs may be eliminated. It seems like a VERY large majority of serious neck injuries come from kickoffs.

Not to mention all those dumb penalties.

[Fidatelo]

At first I thought the OT system the CFL adopted was stupid (each team gets 3 possessions, all starting from the same place on the field I believe), but I've grown to like it in comparison to most of the other scenarios (including the existing NFL sudden death rules).

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Hope you like ties.

Yep. http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html

Ties would increase from 9% to 12%.

Originally Posted by Tigercat

60%+ winning percentage by those who win the toss is too high.

That an accurate figure? I thought it was much lower. Or does that include teams that win the toss, don't score, but go on to win later?

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Logan

Or does that include teams that win the toss, don't score, but go on to win later?

Yup. Last I saw it, it was 62% win eventually after winning the toss.

[MJ4H]

It should. That team gets one more possession than the other team in both cases, which is an advantage.

Also be careful assuming that 50% coin-flip winner winning and losing means everything is fine. There are lots of really poor ways to decide the game that would also get pretty close to 50%.

[MikeVic]

They should run for the ball at midfield. Winner is the player that gets to it first.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

They should run for the ball at midfield. Winner is the player that gets to it first.

I'm liking this. The XFL tried it (for a while) to determine first possession of the game, but the NFL doing this to decide a winner? EPIC.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I'm liking this. The XFL tried it (for a while) to determine first possession of the game, but the NFL doing this to decide a winner? EPIC.

Can you imagine the Super Bowl heading into overtime, with Willie Parker and Derrick Ward lined up at opposing end zones ready to give it all?

[Oilers9911]

NFL Overtime IS broken. There is a good chance that one team doesn't even get to see the ball in overtime. Imagine extra innings in baseball if the team scores in the top half and the other team doesn't get their at-bat? What is the solution? Not sure, first to 6 points works. Or eliminate ties, give each team one possession, if no winner is decided then go to the current system. If Team A kicks a field goal, does team B kick the field goal on 4th and 1 and take their chances in sudden death or do they try for the win? Would be interesting.

[Fighter of Foo]

The defense can't score in baseball.

[gstelmack]

I keep hearing the "first to 6" coming from the same media pundits who thought the SDO/IND game was a travesty, even though SDO won it with 6...

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Not to mention all those dumb penalties.

Yup. Colts cannot blame OT rules on this loss.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I keep hearing the "first to 6" coming from the same media pundits who thought the SDO/IND game was a travesty, even though SDO won it with 6...

A great point, of course it's overlooked.

[sabotai]

How about instead of a coin toss, the home team automatically gets the ball first (or gets the choice, if someone wants to kickoff first...). It would add an extra element to home field advantage, especially in the playoffs.

For the Super Bowl, you could have a special OT rule that says both teams get at least 1 possession.

[MikeVic]

Or make it like soccer.

[albionmoonlight]

Re: First to 6 points: It does not really affect things other than neatness, but the OCD among us would have problems reading a boxscore that noted that the game ended in a 17-14 tie.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

As far as the six point thing goes, personally I would tell them to keep playing until there's a winner. I'm sure that that would never work, of course, but I see no reason for ties in the NFL.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Re: First to 6 points: It does not really affect things other than neatness, but the OCD among us would have problems reading a boxscore that noted that the game ended in a 17-14 tie.

hahaha

[Young Drachma]

Just keep playing until there is a winner. Have a timed overtime like basketball. Or one possession of regular play with no running clock.

[gstelmack]

The problem with making too many changes is that right now there is a big decision: go for the win or the tie? If you try to make OT "fair", you remove the desire to go for the win at the end of the game.

Move the kickoff back up 5 yards for more touchbacks and make people earn the points. That's it.

[Young Drachma]

Touchdowns (not field goals) made after the 2 minute warning in both quarters are worth 10 points, instead of 6.

hehe..if we're just gonna wreck the sport..let's.

[MikeVic]

That would screw a lot with fantasy.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

That would screw a lot with fantasy.

oh NO

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

oh NO

[Maple Leafs]

I've argued for a "win by four" rule, which I guess is similar to "first to six".

But it wouldn't be hard to say "or, whoever is ahead after 15 minutes" to eliminate the "17-14 tie" situations.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Re: First to 6 points: It does not really affect things other than neatness, but the OCD among us would have problems reading a boxscore that noted that the game ended in a 17-14 tie.

No. My concept of first to 6 would have the winner be the team leading at the end of the 15 minute overtime. But simply that the game could not end on a first drive field goal like it can now. I really have no problem with it ending on a first drive TD.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by sabotai

How about instead of a coin toss, the home team automatically gets the ball first (or gets the choice, if someone wants to kickoff first...). It would add an extra element to home field advantage, especially in the playoffs.

If you are going to continue to do sudden death, I think this idea is much better than a coin flip. At least you are emphasizing something other than dumb luck.

[RainMaker]

I think it's fine the way it is. If a team can't stop another offense, they don't deserve to win. Each team has 60 regulation minutes to get a lead. I don't feel sorry if they can't win it in overtime.

Yes it's not perfect, but it's still determined on the field.

[molson]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I keep hearing the "first to 6" coming from the same media pundits who thought the SDO/IND game was a travesty, even though SDO won it with 6...

I haven't heard "first to 6" very often with the media, all I've heard so far is that "It wasn't fair to Manning" and that he should have gotten the ball.

I think the NFL has two concerns about changing the overtime system. One, it would screw up the stats - they obviously can't do anything like the college system. And two, they like to keep their games as close as possible within the 3 hour window - that's important to TV.

The home team getting the ball first makes a lot of sense, if they want to keep the system as is.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by stevew

No. My concept of first to 6 would have the winner be the team leading at the end of the 15 minute overtime. But simply that the game could not end on a first drive field goal like it can now. I really have no problem with it ending on a first drive TD.

Does that really fix the problem though? Won't the team with the ball first still have an advantage? It won't be as easy, but it's still an advantage.

I would be OK with each team being guaranteed one possesion. I don't think that changes much.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Does that really fix the problem though? Won't the team with the ball first still have an advantage? It won't be as easy, but it's still an advantage.

I don't know if there's a system that wouldn't give one team a advantage. Even in the college system, you want to go last (does anybody know what the stats for W/L in that system)?

Obviously, in the first-to-six-point system, you'd want the ball first. But once you have it, you better score a TD, or you give the advantage up. Obviously that's a much smaller advantage. If you give that advantage to the home team, I think you have the closest thing you can have resembling "fair".

[adubroff]

I think they should change it to a bidding system for the first possesion in overtime, rather than a coin flip. Each coach can make a bid as to where they would allow the other team to kick off from, whomever has chosen to take a greater challenge gets the ball first. If they bid a tie, it goes to the home team.

[JetsIn06]

Originally Posted by adubroff

I think they should change it to a bidding system for the first possesion in overtime, rather than a coin flip. Each coach can make a bid as to where they would allow the other team to kick off from, whomever has chosen to take a greater challenge gets the ball first. If they bid a tie, it goes to the home team.

That's a pretty cool and innovative idea.

[Poli]

Two men enter. One man leaves.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by wade moore

(especially as a Colts fan)

*scratches head*

When did you jump off the Redskins wagon?

[JimboJ]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Realign to 4 divisions with 8 teams each. Winning a division gives you the bye-week. The wild card round is just that, wild card teams

I think this would be a great way to eliminate the situations where an 8 win team goes to the playoffs while an 11 win team goes home. How would the regular season schedule work though? You obviously couldn't play every team in your division twice. It could negatively impact division rivalries.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

*scratches head*

When did you jump off the Redskins wagon?

Colts are my #2 team.

I'm a Vols fan, so I started by rooting for Peyton, then just came to like the Colts as a team.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by JimboJ

I think this would be a great way to eliminate the situations where an 8 win team goes to the playoffs while an 11 win team goes home. How would the regular season schedule work though? You obviously couldn't play every team in your division twice. It could negatively impact division rivalries.

I dont understand the issue with this. It's like the NCAA's. Win your conference(division in NFL) and you're in. Otherwise you have to qualify for an at-large bid. Division schedules are 87.5% identical.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

I dont understand the issue with this. It's like the NCAA's. Win your conference(division in NFL) and you're in. Otherwise you have to qualify for an at-large bid. Division schedules are 87.5% identical.

I agree. It's an issue this year because those teams won "weak" divisions, when the rule is there for teams that go 8-8 in a "strong" division that beats up on itself.

I think the real problem is the inter-conference scheduling which dates to pre-TV days so you had an opportunity to see players you wouldn't otherwise. With true fans that care about who they see being priced out of stadiums anyway, they should just cut this and keep all 16 games in conference for a more (but not completely) balanced schedule within a conference. 6 games in division, 8 more against 2 other divisions, final 2 matched up against last conference. NFC/AFC don't play until the Super Bowl to crown a champ. Or go to two 8-team divisions in each conference, play 14 games within division, 2 at-large against other division (based on prior season's records).

The current setup of 4 4-team conferences with 4 games against the other conference creates these weird standings scenarios among wildcard teams with very different schedules.

[JediKooter]

The overtime rule is fine as it is. Had the Colts won, there wouldn't have been any discussion about it at all.