Because then the team that goes on offense second has a much bigger advantage than the team going first does right now. If Team A goes first and gets 3, then Team B is in the enviable position of knowing that they can’t punt – effectively allowing them to plan for 4 downs to get 10 yards instead of the usual 3. Should they score a touchdown to win, then Team A just got screwed because they had no way of knowing that their field goal wouldn’t be enough – especially if Team B converted on one or more 4th downs on their drive.
Yeah, and there’s some nonzero possibility that the team that scores will be the team playing defense.
Offense isn’t the only phase of the game.
They line up and try to advance, you line up and try to stop them.
That’s football. Not ceding the advantage to the other guy’s offense.
I’m not one that is clamoring for an update to the Overtime rules, but every time this argument comes out I’m floored by how stupidly macho it sounds. People who cite the “unfairness” of overtime aren’t pro-offense people. They are people that are recognizing the inequity of the current system. Denying that there’s inequity is ignorant of reality.
Your beloved perennial defensive juggernauts and special teams savants like the Ravens, Steelers, Bears and Bucs always choose to go on offense, no matter how inept those offenses are compared to their defenses and special teams units. This is the most clear evidence that it’s not about “manning up” and playing defense. Do you honestly think that given an equitable situation the 2005 Bears, 2008 Steelers or the 2001 Ravens would choose to put their defenses on the field in that situation? There’s been exactly one occasion that I recall it happening and it was Marty Mornhinweg’s Lions getting laughed off the field after trying it.
Yes, it sounds manly to claim that your defense should be able to get you the ball back, but that isn’t really the argument. People asking for change aren’t complaining because they are weak defense teams, they are complaining because it puts a massive amount of weight on a coin flip.
Ah, I feely admit little knowledge of the game. I’d just assumed the first team that had possession, if they couldn’t score, would be able to get the ball to a similar field position to when they received it. i.e. both teams would get a more or less equal bite of the cherry to score.
The second statistic is relevant because you don’t have to score on the opening possession in order to realize a benefit from starting with the ball. Getting the opening kick, gaining field position in order to pin the opposing team inside the 10 via punt is almost as inequitable.
Well, field position is the largest part of the game. You cannot assume that the 2 teams would get similar field position unless they both receive the ball via kickoff. Still, this is essentially moot, because the larger issue with giving both teams one possession is that the team that gets the ball second has a huge tactical advantage since there are 2 types of ways to score in football. Knowing which you need in advance would be greatly beneficial to the second team.
Ah, true to your user name.
I should clarify that I am in favor of the sudden death overtime. I think that this proposal just makes things a bit more fair. And I think that with this rule in effect, other positives would result. Overtime losers who never touched the ball would have less to complain about…eg. You knew that whole game that you were going to have to kickoff. You should have prevented overtime. 4th quarters, I suspect, would be more exciting. Teams would take more risks with 2-point conversions, 4th downs, fake field goals, etc. resulting in wins or turnovers, leading to fewer overtimes.
I do agree with Blaster Master’s post 5. Teams that know that they will receive the ball in OT might have less of an incentive to take risks in their last drive. But I think that this is a less frequent scenario, because a final possession in the 4th quarter is just as valuable as the first possession in OT.
Hmm let’s see here…
A sport which has a ton of points/minute, basketball, has non-sudden-death OT-5 minutes every time no matter what, which is as it should be.
A sport which has very few points scored per minute, ice hockey, has sudden-death, which works very well as the team which wins the center ice faceoff basically gets a miniscule advantage, if any.
Football obviously lies between these two extremes, hence the problem (if anything it is closer to basketball, close enough to be worrisome). Would those who claim that defense perfectly balances offense want their favorite team to have their chances of getting the ball first for a sudden-death hoops OT depend on a coin flip? [Yes I know about the center court toss to begin things]
Checking Wikipedia to see how arena football does it, since that is a very high-scoring sport…yep, just as I thought, each team gets a possession, then it reverts to sudden-death.
Me, in regulation FB, I’d just play an extra full quarter, but with no stoppages of the play clock except for TV &/or team (injury) timeouts, until the 2 minute warning. The problem with sudden death is that it mutates the sport’s checks and balances significantly enough that much of strategy is drained out of it. In regulation a touchdown has a 7/3 advantage in points over a FG, but in sudden death they are equivalent; there can be no goal-line stands as they’ll just kick it (usually) inside the 10. This is football?
Why do even defense-oriented teams choose to receive the kick in overtime? Because you have a better chance scoring when your offense has the ball. It doesn’t necesarily downplay the role of defense to say hey - I’d prefer to have the ball kicked to me rather than me being the one to kick the ball off. The fact that every coach in NFL history who has ever won the toss (that I’m aware of) has chosen to receive indicates that there’s an inherent advantage to receiving, regardless of whether your offensively or defensively oriented.
(I have a nasty habit of writing a reply, then reading the rest of the thread - I noticed Omni covered most of this already).
Personally, I lean towards the solution that would least deviate from normal football play - so college styel OTs, no field goal OTs, or a both teams get a possession system whereby the second team up knew how many points they needed are out. I’d prefer an extra quarter - ideally full, but perhaps only 8-10 minutes if necesary.
If that’s not practical because of broadcast reasons, then simply end games in a tie. It’s not the end of the world if a team ties. In the playoffs, keep playing extra quarters until there’s a winner at the end of one.
Edit: People often bring up the all time stats in this debate - I think it’s something like the coin flip winner wins 53-55% of the time. But what happened 30 years ago isn’t too relevant - the rule and enforcement changes have been geared towards easier and more frequent scoring, and field goal kickers have become longer ranged and more accurate over the years. As time goes by, the advantage of the coin flip winner grows.
Bad idea. The formation requirements exist to reduce injuries. There used to be a popular formation known as the “Flying V” which was immensely effective, but caused terrible injuries. Eventually, TPTB decided to end the carnage and require seven on the line.
Sparse wiki link about the formation
I remember a factoid about Teddy Roosevelt in his pre-presidential days being somehow influential in eliminating the Flying V, but I’m not sure whether it’s true. [/hijack]
I always had a problem with the concept of sudden death overtime, first possession determined by a coin flip but I’ve come to appreciate the system, despite its flaws. I had a change of heart when my Jets played the Raiders earlier in the year and (of course) lost. Even though all you have to do is drive the ball forty yards, it’s easier said than done and there are drawbacks too. A missed field goal forty yards away will give your opponent’s great field position. Also, if you start at the 20 and don’t get ten yards, you’ll have to punt and you have to hope for a good punt which, considering the crappiness of most punters these days, is unlikely. So, although you can get hot and roll down the field, failing to advance can be just as deadly.
The main problem with the current system is the idea of first possession being determined by a coin toss. Obviously winning it is very important seen by the 100% instances of choosing to receive. I’m pretty sure that no team has ever decided to kick off in ovetime, although I could be wrong and even so it would be quite a rarity anyway. When fans are actually on the edge of their seats because of an action initiated by the referee, it leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth. The stadium should not rock with excitement because of what should really should just be a technicality.
However, it’s the least of all evils and, as mentioned above, there are three aspects to a football team: offense, defense, and special teams. I did like one mention (I think on another thread) where the coin toss would determine kickoff/receiving and starting field position, which is the NFL equivalent of one guy cutting the pie and the other choosing a slice. At least it would balance the coin flip where “winning” it would not really be such a consideration.
Terrible injuries is a bit of an understatement
I dont have a cite, but if I recall from another posting…
54% win when they win the coin toss…and 44% looses…the remainder were ties.
I think they may have taken the first drive as the win, where as the other team doesn’t get the ball.
There has not been sufficient evidence of an overwhelming majority of teams who won the toss, have a great deal more advantage.
It is up to the defense to get the ball away from the other team.
I personally wish they just play for 15 min straight no timeouts or commercial interruption…unless injury time out…and just booth reviews.
Overtime is ManUp time. 
Does anyone have a opinion on my suggestion of just awarding the ball to the home team and dumping the coin flip?
Aren’t NFL teams comprised of both an offense and a defense?
Flip the coin, team A chooses heads, it’s heads, team A chooses to receive.
If team A doesn’t score on their drive, team B wins.
If team A chooses to kick and team B doesn’t score, team A wins.
Equal opportunity, short OT, definite outcome.
Sounds easy enough to me!
Do you really think they’re crappy? The art of coffin corner kicks has been deemphasized in recent years, but in terms of booting as big a punt as you can from your own 20? I bet punters have never been better.
But the offense and defense aren’t weighted equally. Among other factors, the NFL deliberately sets up its rulebook to encourage scoring and give advantage to the offense over the defense.
To use a more extreme comparison - what if Arena football had this same system? You’d say the coin flip winner has a big advantage because defense in that league is weak compared to offense and most teams will score when they have possesion of the ball, right? Well the NFL isn’t nearly that extreme and defense is more important, but the design of the league still generally favors the offense scoring more often than not.
If I were to accept some goofy non-standard rules for OT, someone (sorry, forgot who) in a previous OT thread suggested that both teams be able to bid a starting position. One team says “We’d be willing to start at our own 20” - the other team says “We’d be willing to start at our own 15” - the team that bids 15 gets the ball at their own 15.
Why not just allow the tie? They both scored the same amount, they tied. Why must the tie be broken?
Ties are unfulfilling, simply horrible to watch in a game with the scoring structure of football. In addition, with only 16 games in a season, having numerous ties would make seeding the playoffs pedantic.
In any case, even if there were no overtime in the regular season, ties would have to broken in the playoffs.
I don’t see why overtime can’t just be, say, 10 minutes, period. No other changes, no sudden death, just more playing football.
The thing is, people who have this conversation are often at cross-purposes, with regard to their view on the purpose of rules in sport ought to be. I think that a person’s opinion on this subject is directly tied to their (possibly internal and unarticulated) definition of the purpose of the rules.
Most people, I think, favor rule changes to sport that promote the kind of game that they, personally, enjoy watching. Someone who appreciates strong defense and special teams favors rules that generate games where defense and special teams are valuable. A young Colts fan growing up watching Peyton Manning throw perfect little rainbows to Marvin Harrison will favor rules that open up the passing game.
This is a perfectly reasonable and defensible outlook. If hypothetical Fan X likes defense, and the overtime (or any) rule is changed in a way that seems to devalue defense, the resulting games will be less entertaining to Fan X. Since sports exist only because they provide entertainment to individual fans, this is a fair outlook. I have no truck with it, except to say that it provides no real ground for discussion, because PplEtrs1970 likes the rules where they are and BradyFan12 would favor a change, and their reasons will never make sense to one another.
But…
Since it is not possible to generate rules that will satisfy every fan’s preferences regarding what the game oughta be, I submit that football (and every sport) needs a more objective purpose for its rules. I propose the following:
Above all else, the rules of a sport should be designed to ensure that the outcome of each game is reflective to the greatest degree possible on the relative performance of the teams playing in the game, and to the smallest degree possible on outside factors or random chance.
I think this is a reasonable proposition; other may not. But if you do agree with it, then it seems difficult to argue that the current overtime rule adheres to this criterion.
My Google skills are wanting, and I can’t find a very recent cite for overtime statistics. But I’ll point folks to this site, which notes that between 1974 and 2003 the team winning the coin toss won the game only 52% of the time, a statistically nonsignificant difference. However, as the author of this page argues, using data from 1974 as part of a cumulative analysis is extremely deceptive.
In 1975 (to pick a year at random), the league lead in field goals was tied between Tony Fritsch and Jan Stenerud, both with 22. That year Fritsch’s accuracy on field goals was 62.9%, and his accuracy on field goals of over 40 yards was 30%. Stenerud hit 68.8% of his attempts overall, and about 43% of his attempts over 40. By way of contrast, this year Stephen Gostkowski and David Akers each made 40 field goals, with accuracy rates of 90% and 82.5%, respectively; Akers was 10 of 15 from over 40 (including more field goals of over 50 yards, 2, than Stenerud and Fritsch managed between them in 1975). Gostkowski was an 83% kicker from over 40 yards.
The improvement in kicker accuracy and effective range, all by itself, means that the overtime data from the 70’s is useless today. And of course, in 1994, they moved the kickoff back to stimulate more offense, which exacerbates the problem. In 1975, a team might start on their own 27, and have to get the ball to the opposition’s 23 yard line or so to have better than a break-even chance of kicking a field goal (at best!). So you’ve got to get 50 yards, just to have a 2 in 3 chance of getting the field goal. Nowadays, a team starts at the 35, and needs to get to the opposing 35. That’s a big difference.
Going back to the cite above and using only data from 1994-2003, there is a 99.99% certainty that receiving in overtime confers a statistically significant advantage. In 2002, about 60% of teams receiving in overtime went on to win the game. That’s an enormous advantage. It’s all very well to say that, well, if you lose the flip, your defense just has to man up, and in a football sense it’s true, but it’s completely beside the point. If a particular practice confers an advantage to one team or another on the basis of random chance, of factors that are outside the control of the players/teams involved, then that’s a suspect practice.
It comes to this: I don’t care whether “Peyton Manning had a shot in overtime.” I care whether the Colts and Chargers have a level playing field, whether, if you set aside every contribution made by the actual teams to the outcome, you are left with an equal chance for both sides. Under the current overtime rules, that simply isn’t the case.
I agree. All of the stats that I have heard on the inequity, including those cited in this thread (e.g. the team that won the coinflip won 44 of 72 overtime games), indicate to me that winning the coin flip conveys a huge advantage.
I don’t understand why people think that a swing of 11 percentage points from that of a level playing field is a negligible advantage.
If two teams play for four quarters only to tie, they are by definition pretty equivalent teams (at least for that particular game, taking into account injuries, etc.)
You would expect that the team that wins the coin flip would go on to win 50% of the time, and the other team would win the other 50% of the time.
Instead, the team that wins the coin flip wins 61% of the time, and the other team only wins 39% of the time.
This is a huge disparity, is demonstrably not a level playing field, and it makes the determination of the winner of the game heavily weighted on the coin flip.
The NFL needs to fix this. That being said, it doesn’t matter what fix they make, so long as it results in a level playing field–as defined by a 50% win percentage for the team with the first possession.