NCAA does it that way.
I’d be down for removing PATs from overtime altogether, leaving only 2pt attempts.
Yes, in that I don’t think that’s the case. Maybe the majority choose to defer, but nowhere near the unanimity of choosing to receive in OT under the current rules, or wanting to go second in a “one drive only for both” situation.
I think it’s very different. The second team to go in OT is often no longer playing the odds with their decisions, they are reacting to a certainty. If you’re down 3, you don’t ever punt, if you’re down 6-7, you don’t ever kick a FG, if you’re down 0, a FG will win 100% of the time. The first team doesn’t have that certainty, they don’t know if a FG will be enough to win, if a punt will doom them to a loss.
The benefit of ‘holding them to a FG’ pales in comparison to the other team knowing they 100% have to get a TD, and can freely play 4 downs to get it, or that they 100% only need a FG, and can kick it on 1st down to avoid a turnover.
So does the NFL. When the first team scores a FG and the second team loses the ball on their drive.
I like this idea. Flip a coin, and the coin toss winner likely chooses to go second.
Where should the drives begin from? 20? 40? 50?
Since the NFL went to the current OT rules in 2012 there have been 10 ties. I don’t think 1 tie a year is excessive and they should leave the rule as it is. For the playoffs, each team getting at least 1 possession is the best way to go.
It would. Because as the rules are now, if Team A goes first and kicks a FG, and Team B gets the ball and there’s a turnover, the game is over and Team A wins.
Under the “both sides get the ball, then it’s over” idea, if Team A didn’t get a FG and instead punted or had a turnover of some kind (fumble, interception, failing on 4th down) and then Team B got the ball and had a turnover, the game is over with a tie.
I would be opposed to this.
I don’t like it either to be honest.
[Moderating]
@penultima_thule and especially @Omniscient , you’re getting dangerously close to personalizing your arguments, here. I instruct both of you to cool it.
Kickoff like at the start of each half.
OK, assume that Team A didn’t score and punted. Team B throws an interception that is returned for a touchdown by Team A.
Does the game end as soon as the interception is recorded? Or does Team Team A win?
The play would be allowed to finish. Generally, in the NFL you don’t end a play prematurely on a technicality.
There would be no “point after” attempt though. Just as now, if you score a TD in OT, the game ends at that point and you win.
Nvm …
Certainly the play would be allowed to finish.
I was just being a jerk and pointing out that the game might not IMMEDIATELY end with a turnover by Team B.
I’d say consolidate it to one coin flip. Loser of the opening flip wins the OT flip by rule. Or as I suggested upthread, tie OT possession to home field advantage. Even if a full OT rule change isn’t adopted, making it so that the teams will know before going into OT who starts with the ball would resolve a lot of the frustration with the current rule.
Does overtime even need a coin flip? Give the advantage to whoever scored last. (Or first, but I think last feels better.)
For that matter, ties could be resolved without overtime by giving the win to whoever scored last.
You weren’t a jerk, it was actually a good point. 
How about team throws an interception, but then fumbles the ball back? I’d say the possession was still over, but others might disagree.
Doesn’t it already work that way? My understanding is that under the current rules, during the “fair ups” drive in OT – where you must score at least a FG to keep the game going – if you turn the ball over the play is immediately whistled dead, no return or potential of fumbling it back even possible.
Do I have that wrong?
Both False Start and Offsides (unabated to the QB) come to mind.