I’ve said before in other NFL rules threads, but I vastly prefer the current NCAA rules to the current NFL rules. That said, while I like the NCAA rules I can see why the NFL wouldn’t want to go with it (vastly changes records, TV scheduling). I’d go with dalej42’s suggestion of just having ties in the regular season and playing another quarter in OT. If 15 minutes is too long, then make it 12 or 10 or whatever (though there have been games that went into double OT before, and the players didn’t drop dead).
If it’s still tied after the extra quarter… hell, come up with a mash-up of NCAA rules and penalty kicks. Each team gets five attempts at a 2 point conversion, team that makes the most wins. Yeah, it takes out the special teams, but who cares? No one ever came away from a football game saying “man, i wish I could’ve seen more kicking.”
Disagree. Teams are built a certain way, why should the rules suddenly change in OT to suddenly favor a different aspect? (Elsewhere you say you don’t like how the current OT rules “change the structure of the game” yet this is the same thing). The QB is the most important position in football (and arguably all of sports, next to pitchers), why suddenly make it so a team can lose without their most important player ever getting a chance to touch the ball? I can’t think of any other sport like this. Just imagine how silly baseball would be if it were sudden death.
This is just quibbling with language. I think it’s perfectly fine to call it “unfair” when the rules suddenly change to make the outcome based on luck (the coin flip) rather than skill/ability.
Yeah, I don’t think the ball has to touch the ground; the only reason the kicking team kicks it into the ground for onside kicks is to avoid the fair catch.
Pure sudden death isn’t fair either because statistics have shown that winning the flip gave an unfair advantage (the winner of the flip won more often than chance would allow). But as I said above, forcing the players to play a full quarter no matter what happens isn’t a good idea either. Football is a physically demanding sport. The players can often barely get through four quarters. A system where both teams get a chance at the ball is bets which is pretty close to what we have now. The only change I would suggest is each team gets a possession even if the team to go first scores a touchdown.
This is correct. The ball absolutely doesn’t have to hit the ground before it can be recovered by the kicking team (see Alabama’s onside kick in the NCG this year for an example). It is just usually done to avoid having the defender call fair catch and get the ball easily.
I say only count up field goals at the end of 15 minutes of OT. If one team scores in the endzone (either TD or Safety), that is the sudden death winning score, erasing any FGs, but if only FGs are scored, the period plays out.
This is what is done now. (If it is still tied after two rounds, they have another coin toss for the next two rounds, and so on.) If you are suggesting that there be more than one round of overtime, then the advantage will always be with the team that goes second in the final “guaranteed to be played” round.
Of the many OT fixes I’ve heard before, this one (in four easy steps) is my favorite:
Do away with the opening kickoff in OT.
The away team picks the yard line at which the first possession will occur and which end zone the offense will go towards.
The home team decides which team has the first possession.
First team to score wins.
Slight variation (steps 1 and 4 remain the same):
2. Coin toss decides which end zone the initial offensive possession will go towards.
3. Each team bids on the yard line they will take the initial possession, with the team who bids closer to their own goal line taking the first possession. Not sure whether only allowing a single bid for each team or allowing multiple rebids (bidding war!) would be better.
Both teams have choices to make to best analyze their strengths and weaknesses, with a minimal (if any) increase to the length of OT compared to the previous sudden death format and a shorter OT than the current format. Losing team only has itself and not a coin toss to blame.
I’ve heard the bidding war idea before, was it in a Bill Simmons column maybe? But yeah, that would be an interesting idea. Not to mention the added fun of watching, say, Brees and Rodgers getting into a bidding war.
Keeping in mind that expediency is one of the requirements of overtime; I would be in favor of the following rules for overtime.
Both teams must have possession once (or the opportunity to receive a kickoff).
Punts are not allowed
This allows the game to be finished fairly quickly. It give both teams a chance to have the ball. It also adds the element to the coin toss.
If you have a strong defense you might opt to kickoff, hoping your defense can get you good field position.
Really, though, two teams battled it out for [del]12[/del] “60” minutes and ended up tied. They have shown themselves, on this day, to be equals. OT merely provides an arbitrary means to select which one gets to chalk up a W. If it comes down to the matter of a coin toss, so be it. I mean, the game itself turned out to be a tossup, so the final outcome might as well be a matter of luck.
I like what dalej42 said right out of the gate. In the regular season it’s a tie. In the postseason you keep playing until somebody wins. Obviously that will never happen.