Don't Change a (Expletive Deleted) Thing about Overtime.

I would prefer initial possession of the football and my teammates and I intend to score.

If the team that wins the coin toss before the game chooses to receive first, they also get to receive to start overtime. If they defer and choose to kick off first, then they will kick off to start overtime.

For my own part, I’ve never once though this after a Seahawks game that went to overtime:
“Man, we sure got fucked by the OT format! DAMN YOU ROZELLLLLLLE!!!!”

Guess you weren’t watching the 2007 Divisional Round playoffs when we lost to the Bears in OT.

I don’t think the number of Seahawk’s losses decided in OT really warrants a dispositive rationale on why OT in the NFL doesn’t need to be fixed. The problem still exists in any FUTURE game the Seahawks are in. If the Seahawks were to play an epic Super Bowl or even a regular season game with the playoffs on the line and it’s decided by a coin toss it will be pretty hard to swallow when college and even high school football has a better OT format than the NFL.

And why is that the only point being made from the perspective of fans? Who cares what coaches and players think about the format of games? This game isn’t for their enjoyment. NFL overtime is a great example of why rules should be primarily made with the fan’s perspective in mind.

I don’t think fairness should be undervalued in the NFL. I’d much rather watch college OT then the NFL when an NFL game can suddenly be decided by an arbitrary result. Both teams should have an opportunity that is not decided by a coin toss to win. That doesn’t lessen the game or make it some pansy sport like baseball.

..should be whether it makes the game a few plays longer, or forces coaches to make strategic decisions. They’re big boys, who get paid to make such decisions, and with no risk to life and limb, either. No sympathy from me on that one.

I think John’s suggestion was to move the kickoff point forward. Maybe make it a safety-style free kick instead of a standard kickoff? (I don’t know why teams prefer to punt after safeties but they sure do prefer to punt after safeties.)

There’s gotta be some small way(s) to equalize the advantage without eliminating field position and (coverage) special teams (like college overtime does) or extending the games even further (like the new proposal would).

I still believe that the tie is the more accurate way of recording a regular season game that’s that close. Losing by 3 in OT is the same as losing by 45 (other than wild card tie breakers which rarely apply.)

But I also know that this option is downright unamurican.

So my next best options:

1) Play a full 8 minutes.

or

2) Start with the ball on the 20 instead of kicking off.

I understand that defense and special teams are a part of the game. But it’s way too flukey to be considered fair.

Sports can be enjoyed as a physical spectacle or a strategy game. The former would favor the exciting college OT format. The latter favors a format that preserves the values of the game. These values include fairness and, if that is to be preserved, a change must come. The game favors offense. OT rules allowing for the scenario of one offense beating one defense and winning the game is not ideally fair. I don’t think the rules as they exist now warrant a huge change because they are fair for the most part, but there is something very unsatisfying about the all too common one drive —> one FG —> win.

Also, if the players and coaches are only concerned with their well-being and not about the game, then I couldn’t care less about what they think.

…just keep the game going until someone scores. No “end of half” stuff — no coin toss, no kick-off and fresh possession. Whoever has the ball at the end of the 4th quarter of a tie game keeps the ball and the current down and distance. If they score on that drive, game over. It’s fair, because they have the ball as a result of all the game action that came before it, rather than a coin toss. If they punt / turn the ball over, it just keeps goingl until one team scores. You still have sudden death drama, but no coin-toss / game reset nonsense.

I bet the league hates this idea though, because you’ll eliminate some of the drama of a team racing against the clock in the 4th quarter of a tie game to win it in regulation.

Excellent article! Well put and ditto.

My plan for playoff overtimes is:

1 Home team gets possession of the ball 1st

Teams know this prior to the game and can plan for it during the game. Removes ambiguity.

By the way, no Super Bowl has ever gone to OT, but give 1st possession to the host city’s affiliation – be it NFC or AFC

2 No placekicking in OT

To win, a TD must be scored. This makes for a more dramatic finish. Eliminates the value to fluky FG attempts. Gives the non receiving team a higher chance of getting the ball.

No coins or FG attempts in OT = problems solved

It seems like there is a simple solution to all of this.

Proponents of the system like:

-sudden death nature (for the health of the players and broadcast time)
-all aspects of the game included (yay special teams!)

Critics don’t like:

-advantage decided by coin toss

These two sets are not mutually exclusive. Just decide OT possession on something other than a coin toss.

WarWolf suggest home team gets possession. That works.

I would suggest that the team who most recently had the lead should get possession. This would also give an incentive to the team that is ‘tying’ at the final seconds of the game to go for the win, rather than going to overtime (by going for 2 , or a TD).

But you could come up with other criteria as well: the team who scores the most TDs, time of possession, total yards, quarterback rating, whatever you want (these aren’t good ideas, just showing that there are tons of non coin toss possibilities)