My Overtime Proposal

Hmm, interesting, but kinda don't like the thought of different rules for the OT.  No punts, no kickoffs, no FGs?  Why bench certain players for OT?

I actually think the current option is pretty good.  Score a TD to win, in not, give the other team a chance on offense.

  I like where you're going with the concept.  In essence, the NFL has deemed the kickoffs to be the most dangerous, injury-ridden play in the game, so why not get rid of it entirely?
Plus, by moving extra-points back and making teams not win with "cheap" FG's in OT, the NFL is attempting to limit the kicking portion of scoring. 
Heck, Commish Baddell probably has a new name for the game... "SafeandFairball"!
But seriously, with the average sports fan's attention span and looking for NBA-esque scores, it certainly would make the "new" game more exciting!  :p

@"greediron" said: Hmm, interesting, but kinda don't like the thought of different rules for the OT.  No punts, no kickoffs, no FGs?  Why bench certain players for OT?

I actually think the current option is pretty good.  Score a TD to win, in not, give the other team a chance on offense.

But, as you stated, the OT rules are already different.  Score a TD (or get a safety) and win.  That can essentially bench an entire unit.  The first drive of OT can score a FG and the game still isn't over.  It's actually a pretty strange OT right now.  I'm not saying it's bad or anything, but it's not the same game compared to the first 4 quarters.  MLB plays an extra inning as of it is the 9th (as many as necessary), NBA plays a shortened period (as many as necessary) and the NHL goes to 3 on 3 with a shootout if no team scores.  The NFL is actually pretty odd.  I do like the college OT, as each team gets the same opportunity.

@"silverjoel" said:

@"greediron" said: Hmm, interesting, but kinda don't like the thought of different rules for the OT.  No punts, no kickoffs, no FGs?  Why bench certain players for OT?

I actually think the current option is pretty good.  Score a TD to win, in not, give the other team a chance on offense.

But, as you stated, the OT rules are already different.  Score a TD (or get a safety) and win.  That can essentially bench an entire unit.  The first drive of OT can score a FG and the game still isn't over.  It's actually a pretty strange OT right now.  I'm not saying it's bad or anything, but it's not the same game compared to the first 4 quarters.  MLB plays an extra inning as of it is the 9th (as many as necessary), NBA plays a shortened period (as many as necessary) and the NHL goes to 3 on 3 with a shootout if no team scores.  The NFL is actually pretty odd.  I do like the college OT, as each team gets the same opportunity.

@"greediron" said:

@"silverjoel" said:

@"greediron" said: Hmm, interesting, but kinda don't like the thought of different rules for the OT.  No punts, no kickoffs, no FGs?  Why bench certain players for OT?

I actually think the current option is pretty good.  Score a TD to win, in not, give the other team a chance on offense.

But, as you stated, the OT rules are already different.  Score a TD (or get a safety) and win.  That can essentially bench an entire unit.  The first drive of OT can score a FG and the game still isn't over.  It's actually a pretty strange OT right now.  I'm not saying it's bad or anything, but it's not the same game compared to the first 4 quarters.  MLB plays an extra inning as of it is the 9th (as many as necessary), NBA plays a shortened period (as many as necessary) and the NHL goes to 3 on 3 with a shootout if no team scores.  The NFL is actually pretty odd.  I do like the college OT, as each team gets the same opportunity.

The only rules that are different currently pertain to how long the OT lasts.  The game is still the same game.  You can punt, kick a FG, or whatever you do in regulation.  The only change is what happens after a score, whether or not the OT is over.  So the game is the same, with the rules governing the length of OT being the only thing added (which are necessary no matter what the setup.) 

Not knocking your thoughts, just saying why I actually prefer the current setup.  In yours, the coaches are forced to play by different rules, no punting on fourth down.  No kicking at all. 

@"silverjoel" said:

Feel free to bash the idea, but one major thing you're missing is the winner of the coin toss wins about 2/3 of the overtime games.  The coin toss has nothing to do with football, it's just a random chance that benefits the guess of heads or tails.  Football is a turn based game and there shouldn't be a sudden death aspect to a turn based game because it's highly dependent on which team gets the ball first.  The most fair way would be to just play another quarter (our a shortened quarter), but it doesn't seem the NFL wants to go that direction.

Is that still the case? 

I too would prefer another quarter, but since football is relatively low scoring and if teams are evenly matched, another 10-15 minutes might lead to many ties.  But as you say, it is a turn based game, so the sudden death is a bit unfair.

I think the current overtime rules are stupid, primarily
because each team doesn’t have the same opportunity to win, because the game
breaks to sudden death prematurely.

I think the most logical overtime methodology, would be to break
the overtime into rounds.  In each round,
give the first team a chance to score, and regardless of outcome the second team
gets a chance to match or better the first teams score.  At the end of the round, if one team is
winning, they win.  if the scores are
even, a new round starts.  At any point
if there’s a change in possession (via TO, punt, or safety, etc.) the game goes
to sudden death.

I’m pretty impartial as to whether they play regular
football or if they have some sort of abbreviated version that shortens the
field.  Mostly, I want both teams to have
equal chances to win.  I’d probably say
that in the playoffs, you play to regular rules, and in the regular season, you
shorten the game to just starting at the 25 or whatever to try and keep the
game moving and interesting.

@"medaille" said: I think the current overtime rules are stupid, primarily because each team doesn’t have the same opportunity to win, because the game breaks to sudden death prematurely.

I think the most logical overtime methodology, would be to break
the overtime into rounds.  In each round,
give the first team a chance to score, and regardless of outcome the second team
gets a chance to match or better the first teams score.  At the end of the round, if one team is
winning, they win.  if the scores are
even, a new round starts.  At any point
if there’s a change in possession (via TO, punt, or safety, etc.) the game goes
to sudden death.

I’m pretty impartial as to whether they play regular
football or if they have some sort of abbreviated version that shortens the
field.  Mostly, I want both teams to have
equal chances to win.  I’d probably say
that in the playoffs, you play to regular rules, and in the regular season, you
shorten the game to just starting at the 25 or whatever to try and keep the
game moving and interesting.

I would probably like this the best, even more than the current option,   however I dont like taking any aspect of the game out of the equation,  so if a team has a strong special teams unit, but a weaker offense or defense... why should their strength be take out of the game.  just line them up and play football, but use your approach of taking the game clock out of the equation.  how about no timeouts or only giving them 1 game clock reset per round,  not a full time out per se,  but enough time to make personnel changes or to have a quick chat.  Also if a player gets dinged and there is a game stoppage for that injury,  that player is out of the game for the duration of that round and the for the next round as well,  this should keep teams from having players take a dive to get the clock stopped in most cases. 

I think the current OT rules are about as fair as can be.  I'm against any changes that make it less like football.  Removing kickoffs, punts, FGs, etc. is a no go for me.

The college OT rules greatly benefit a good offense.  Not a fan of just giving teams the ball on the other team's 25 yard line.

The 2/3 chance of winning the game because of the coin toss is why they changed the rules a few years back. It is much more even now. I found this in an article from October 2015:

"Since the NFL instituted modified overtime rules, there have been 73 overtime games, including postseason and Monday Night Football. Three have been ties. In the other 70, the team that receives the ball first has won 38 of those, or 54.2 percent."

The only real problem I have with the new system is that if both teams score field goals, which can easily take 10 minutes of game clock, there's very little time left for another score. We see more ties, which nobody wants. My proposed solution to that is just to have the clock stop on out of bounds for the enitre overtime instead of just the last five minutes just to allow more time in sudden death mode, but I doubt the league is interested in making games longer. 

@"NoGoingBack" said: The 2/3 chance of winning the game because of the coin toss is why they changed the rules a few years back. It is much more even now. I found this in an article from October 2015:

"Since the NFL instituted modified overtime rules, there have been 73 overtime games, including postseason and Monday Night Football. Three have been ties. In the other 70, the team that receives the ball first has won 38 of those, or 54.2 percent."

The only real problem I have with the new system is that if both teams score field goals, which can easily take 10 minutes of game clock, there's very little time left for another score. We see more ties, which nobody wants. My proposed solution to that is just to have the clock stop on out of bounds for the enitre overtime instead of just the last five minutes just to allow more time in sudden death mode, but I doubt the league is interested in making games longer. 

The wording on that is changed, "the team that receives the ball first" is not the same as the winner of the coin toss.  I can tell you as far as playoff overtime since the rule change (after the game I'm sure we all would like to forget), the winner of the coin toss is a perfect 6/6.

Tie games don't bother me.  In fact I think they kind of spice things up, standings-wise.   I'd rather see ties than gimmicky overtime rules.

Funny Comet, today I was reading this and thinking, "what if there wasn't an overtime?" What is wrong with a tie? With the extra point moved back and so much new incentive to go for two after a touchdown, I somewhat think if two teams end up tied after 4 quarters they should eat it. Eat the tie and win the game next week. Maybe we'd see more chances and gambles on those PAT/2pt plays?

With overtime eliminated, maybe tacking on an extra game (with 4 preseason games in tact) isn't a big deal. Maybe one more game helps break tiebreakers in the standings as tie games become more relevant? Maybe all it takes is one season to go by where a team or two with identical (tie) records end up out when another team makes it in to the playoffs, and teams/players beg for one more game to separate their record from the rest.

------

If "no OT" is dumb, here's a dumber one: How about soccer "extra time" rules? Have the game clock always run. No stoppage for an incomplete pass, turn over, or change of possession. No stoppage for a penalty announcement. Stop the clock when a commercial break occurs or when a real stoppage in the "game" happens, otherwise, wrap all of the written stoppage rules up and call them a part of the "game." At the end of 4 quarters, the team with possession keeps the ball right where they have it and the game goes into extra time. No water break, no extra time outs, just.... go. Let's say a game has accumulated +4:30 in time: It's not sudden death. The game plays out like a real game for 4:30. If one team scores, they kick off until that 4:30 is +spent. If they match the score... tie game. Or, maybe the current overtime rules would slide in nicely at that point: break, new quarter, equal possessions. As written, the current rules would kinda feel like "free kicks," since both teams get possession.

It would solve the unfairness that is subliminally tied to winning the coin toss in OT. Let the team keep the ball where ever they had it at the end of 4 quarters, add the exhausted clock time to the game clock, and don't cry if you can't string together a 9 play drive in 3 minutes to match an extra time score.

http://phdfootball.blogspot.com/2013/06/field-position-and-scoring.html

Here's why this won't work...