High school is usually on the 10. NCAA is the 25. Either way, a defined starting point isn’t arbitrary by definition.
Reading these overtime debates, you would think playing defense in the NFL is harder than string theory. It isn’t. Stop the other team and you get the ball, and that’s all there is to it. Arizona played horrible defense for most their game last night, lost the OT coin flip, and they still won the game on defense. And you don’t never need to force a fumble to make it work.
This is not a perfect system, but I think it’s better than taking out several critical elements of the game, which the college OT system does. College OT gets really exciting if it goes for about three periods, otherwise, it’s a mixed bag. If the kickoff line was moved back to where it used to be I think the 60 percent would go down.
NFL rules all the way.
The college system seems too much like a backyard pickup game. “I get a turn, then you get a turn; that tree is the goal line and the fence is out of bounds.”
To the argument that the NFL system is unfair, I’ll echo Marley23 above. You have to play offense and defense to win a football game.
I was using definition 3 here. Having the ball placed on the 25 yard line puts most NFL teams in field goal range to begin with, something I don’t think should happen. So where do you place the ball? I think a kickoff (or even a free kick/punt) would solve that issue and allow special teams play to affect overtime.
Just for reference, CA high school rules used to (still?) put the ball at midfield and had the teams play push-o-war for yardage, not try to score points.
Not if you win the OT coin toss; then you just have to play offense.
You have to play offense and defense in baseball too. Would you find sudden death for baseball extra innings acceptable? A run in the top of the 10th ends the game, and if the losing team doesn’t like it, they should have just played better defense. Or how about a sudden death game in tennis, where one player gets to serve?
Sudden death generally doesn’t make much sense in “alternating” sports like these; it works better in continuous sports like hockey or soccer. Now, in alternating sports, it’s generally impossible to make everything exactly equitable, because there is going to be some advantage to going first or second, and you can’t just give an equal number of possessions, because you need to break ties. However, you should try to make things at least reasonably equitable.
I said earlier that an option I like is to just continue a tie game at the end of the 4th quarter. To bring another random sport into things, you could say this is how it works in curling. In curling, it’s an advantage to have the last shot in an end. At most one team can score in an end; if you score, then the other team gets last shot in the next end. If a game is tied, then play just continues with an extra end, and the last shot is treated the same as for any other end. They don’t stop things and flip a coin for last rock.
I like the +4 idea.
That said, I’d like to think out loud for a second…
How about this two-minute drill format:
Instead of one 15:00 OT period, how about two 2:00 OT periods with alternating kickoffs to start each period. Normal rules of play apply in OT. The team with most points after the second OT wins, otherwise, a tie.
Playoffs: Keep playing additional 2:00 OT periods with sudden death after the first two OT periods.
Another thought from some other thread was to do the OT coin flip at the start of the game so you know before the game ends whether you won the OT coin toss.
To clarify, my suggestion was for the winner to be the first team to get six additional points in overtime. There is no required margin of victory. If Team A got a field goal and Team B got a touchdown, the game is over in Team B’s favor. Team B does not even have to attempt the extra point.
I think that this would take absolutely forever. For two teams tied after four quarters, I think it unlikely that either of the teams would get up by nine points in a quarter of overtime. You’d be back to ties, or be looking at multiple quarters of overtime.
Unless the defense does its job.
There’s no analogy here. You can’t score while playing defense in baseball, and you can certainly do it in football.
That’s not really how the game works.
Right, but that’s the point. One team wins if its defense does its job and then its offense does its job. The other team wins if its offense does its job.
There is also the relatively rare case where the defense scores to end the game, as happened yesterday in Arizona. It’s certainly possible to win the game after losing the OT coin toss.
Clearly the analogy isn’t perfect, but I don’t think the point is changed appreciably. In baseball the defense can’t score, and in football the defense rarely scores. The point is that there is a large advantage to being the offense in both NFL OT, and in this sudden death extra innings idea.
Not sure what you mean here. I know that this is not really how tennis or football works.
NCAA OT is absolutely perfect the way it is, and one of the many reasons CFB is better than the NFL.
Y’know, sometimes the KISS principle leads the most sensical resolution. I’d switch to 10 minute “sixths” tho, just the minimize the chance that the game would go on, and on, and on…
I voted “other.” I’d like to see a soccer-like rule established, where the OT is a full 15 min. period. After that, if they go to a sudden-death format, fine. I think it would change the strategy of some situations facing the choice of go for two now and end the game, or go for one and prolong it for 15 more min.
Other.
No overtime unless it’s playoff time. Then maybe The Simpsons would start on time.
Futurama was the series which suffered the most from that, actually.
I think he means that your description of overtime in tennis wasn’t accurate. It was like saying overtime in baseball is one pitch where either you hit a homerun or you lose.
Oh, ok. That was sort of my point. Tennis doesn’t work that way because it would be an unfair advantage to the player who gets to serve, and I was trying to compare that hypothetical tennis tiebreaker to the unfair advantage the receiving team gets in NFL OT.