Why the NFL Should Replace the OT Coin Toss

by robbbbbb on Jan 30, 2009 10:40 AM PST Comment 10 comments

Slate has an excellent article today talking about solutions to the NFL's overtime coin toss problem.

Simply put: The team that wins the toss in overtime wins the game about 60% of the time. In the '08 season, that number was 70%. And we all remember that Peyton Manning never saw the field against the Chargers in the first round of the playoffs. The NFL's OT system has to change.

I always appreciate well-designed systems that use good incentives to promote optimal solutions. It's one reason that the study of economics appeals. And the suggestions in this article include methods that would balance overtime and create tension (and thus entertainment!) for the viewing public.

A place to bury strangers.

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I understand the NFL's opinion that

games can’t afford to be any longer. What if each team was essentially given a two-minute drill in OT? If both teams scored, then you do the same thing again except sudden-death i.e. first-team to score wins.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 30, 2009 1:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I don't mind the current OT rules.

I prefer the NFL’s system over the NCAA’s because IMO, it’s more “fair” to the entire team. All 3 phases of the game (O, D, ST) have the same importance. I think the college system gives too much of an advantage to strong offenses. It’s also a big pet peeve of mine when the NFL’s OT set-up is criticized because “Player X didn’t get a chance” So what? He just had 60 minutes to do his thing, and there are 21 other guys on the field who contribute to the outcome as well.

I don’t loose any sleep over the coin toss. 60% is IMO about as close to fair as any system is going to be. It’s not nearly the burden that the media makes it out to be when they gripe about the rules, and cherry-pick the few glaring examples (like the IND/SD game) to prove their point.

If there were changes, my personal preference would just be no separate coin toss for OT. Just go off the results of the first toss and possession changes just like it does at halftime – the team that got the ball to start the game gets it to start OT, and field conditions, wind, which endzone all remains the same. Then it simply becomes part coaching strategy decision made at the first toss whether a team elects to receive or defer.

Also, if it was predetermined which team was getting the ball to start OT, it would influence the strategy of how the teams play out the 4th quarter and you’d probably see more teams going for the win instead of the tie, stuff like that. And with no extra toss, it eliminates that “chance” element that seems unfair, and is more or less just a natural progression of the game that was being played.

That’s just my opinion, of course.

by jteckmann on Jan 30, 2009 3:27 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

My suggestion is

Whoever scores 6 points first wins and for shortness sake they can limit overtime to 7-8 minutes.

If life gives you lemons, keep the receipt

by Bramlet A. on Jan 30, 2009 6:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

can't they just move the kickoff line farther

so the receiving team gets the ball deeper on their end of the field and have farther to go to get into FG range?

by Will Kier on Jan 30, 2009 6:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

QTR 5 (OT)

They should just play an entire extra quarter of football. Even a 10-minute quarter would ensure each team a fair chance at the ball.

by Misfit74 on Jan 31, 2009 10:37 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

NFL games are long enough as it is.

NFL fans wouldn’t mind this, but other TV viewers probably wouldn’t want this. Not to mention, a full 5th period means the players would be extremely tired, and the quality of the gameplay would be compromised.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 31, 2009 10:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

true

ideally, reduce the season’s toll as a whole and limit the number of pre-season games (I know: too much cash involved), and like I said, maybe not a full quarter of play. 10 mins? I have already heard the Colt’s GM talk about this, and he echoed the tiredness of players playing an extra frame. It’s unlikely, I realize. I certainly don’t want the college rule, though.

by Misfit74 on Jan 31, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This Seems Insanely Simple To Me

Each team is guaranteed one opportunity to possess the ball in OT. If the coin-toss winner (CTW) scores, they have to play defense. If the coin-toss loser (CTL) ties the score, it’s sudden death from that point on. And ANY possession counts as a possession. So CTW fumbles the kick-off, and the CTL scores? Game over. CTW throws pick 6 on opening drive? Game over. If the CTW scores and the CTL fumbles the ensuing kick-off to the CTW? Game over. But if each team has possessed the ball once, and the score is still tied, then it’s sudden death.

I think there may be a slight advantage for the CTW in this system, but I think the guaranteed other possession introduces so many other variables that it eliminates whatever statistical advantage there would be. It would lengthen OT games, but I think only a little (of course if you’re looking for zero added time then this idea doesn’t work; though you could shorten the overall overtime period).

by Kumar on Feb 2, 2009 11:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I like it the way that it is

The last thing that I want to see is any rule change that favors coaches being more conservative at the end of a close game. If coin toss = win/loss than teams better try harder to avoid overtime. Also, judging it by a single season is too small of a sample size; historically Sudden Death OT is somewhere in the 52% range.

Also, defense and special teams are part of the game too; why should you not have to stop someone to win?

by Azimeir on Feb 3, 2009 9:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

This is about game length?

I have no idea why the NCAA style tie breaker isn’t used. I have no data on how long it takes to resolve games, as compared to the current NFL system, but why is the game length the issue?

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that fans won’t be riveted to their seats watching the tie breaker, so the only real issue is the missed first quarter of the trailing game. ESPN broke the mold on this long ago and rightfully so — a game that runs long or goes to overtime always takes precedence over the next show to start. Why wouldn’t the NFL do the same?

If anything, can imagine their TV partners have put this pressure on the NFL, but even that seems dopey — what re-run of the X-Files gets better ratings than an overtime NFL game?

by BrianF on Feb 5, 2009 9:29 AM PST reply actions 0 recs