# NFL Overtime **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [October 2, 2008, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176 "2008-10-02T14:56:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/81 "2008-10-08T10:57:29Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > By all rationales the Bears defense was their best squad and had the best matchup versus the Bucs, if their being on defense was not a huge disadvantage strategically they would have kicked and tried to pin the Bucs deep or gotten a turnover. I’m not going to claim anecdotal evidence on this because this is what all coaches do regardless of the situation. It doesn’t have to reflect a strategic advantage, though. It could be equally driven by coach cowardice, which is the strong desire not to have to deal with endless second-guessing in the media all week. (Note that I said “could”, as in hypothetically. I’m not making a claim; I’m attacking the evidence.) The last guy to choose to kick (citing strong winds) is still reviled as the biggest buffoon ever. No coach wants to deal with the baggage that comes with choosing to kick. Much like you can’t point to coaches never going for it on fourth down as evidence that it isn’t a strategically sound, because it sometimes is. Most people cynically assume the reason they don’t is because it would open them up to criticism. (Though I suspect it has more to do with field position, which many fans and pundits seem to have forgotten is the fundamental aspect of football.) ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/82 "2008-10-08T10:59:48Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Teams would always know entering the final minutes of the 4th quarter who will be getting the ball in OT and can adjust their play calling to adjust. This has the stink of brilliance. Why not just do the OT coin flip at the same time as you do the opening coin flip? Two in a row, and now everybody knows exactly what to expect if the game should go to overtime. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/83 "2008-10-08T11:04:44Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > I’m not of the opinion that overtime should somehow be “fair”. Many things about sport, and particularly football, are not fair and no solution is going to be perfectly equitable. The issue with the current system is not that the coin flip is “unfair” it’s that it’s **random**. I concede that I have many personal subjective issues with the concept of football being random, but remember that this is a game where the friggin’ ball bounces randomly by design. It’s not like randomness isn’t woven into the fabric of the game. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/84 "2008-10-08T11:40:47Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > This has the stink of brilliance. > > Why not just do the OT coin flip at the same time as you do the opening coin flip? Two in a row, and now everybody knows exactly what to expect if the game should go to overtime. Um, can’t we just do one flip? Assume the loser of the opening flip has won the OT flip? Still, I think we could do away with the coin altogether. Give the home team the choice at the outset and the road team the choice in OT, or something to that effect. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/85 "2008-10-08T12:04:48Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > There is a REASON all other methods of breaking ties use some similar concept: it is unfair not to let each side have an equal opportunity to display whatever aspect of the game is involved in the tiebreaker. Your cites don’t support the position you think they do. Hockey has no rule whatsoever in guaranteeing both offenses get to touch the puck. In tennis as well, there is no guarantee that both players get the same number of serves. Quite the opposite, actually; by definition one player gets an extra serve. Hell, tennis itself has this built right in: whomever serves the opening game of a set (or the opening point of a tiebreaker) is statistically more likely to win that set. Your appeal to authority is a classic logical fallacy because the authorities you’re appealing to are not in agreement. You’ve mentioned baseball a couple times, and still feel it is an appropriate analogy. You must not be aware that the pitching team is not allowed to score, necessitating a “fair ups” system. In football, all three units can and do score points in a variety of ways. In other words, every single overtime play in the NFL can win the game for either team. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/86 "2008-10-08T12:29:04Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Moving the kickoff from the 30 to the 35 would probably make the outcome of overtime to be closer to 50-50 but I’m not entirely clear why 50% is somehow the goal. Who said overtime should be a coin flip? Who says no one should have an advantage? I think the idea is that if you identify the receiving team with a coin flip, then there should not be a statistical advantage to being the receiving team. I would not base the OT coin flip it on the loser of the opening coin flip, that team gets to receive starting the second half, so they’ve already gotten their chance to even out. In that vein, how about having two 5 minute long overtime periods. Straight up play, change of possession, multiple scoring opportunities, the works, and alternate kickoffs for the two periods just like the first and second half. Each team is guaranteed to get the ball, it’s not sudden death or first past X points, the second team to receive isn’t going to have an advantage by knowing the first team’s result. You can’t win by getting a good return, 20 yards of offense and a long kick, because the game keeps going. Limit the time outs, no 2min warning, the periods will go fast and provide for a relatively fixed length of overtime. If it’s still a tie, then it’s a tie, playoff games will continue play until it’s no longer a tie. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/87 "2008-10-08T18:32:59Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > It’s good to see that you’ve conceded your entire argument. > > You don’t care whether or not it’s fair at all. All you care about is that offense gets on the field. You’re not even worth my time anymore. You’ve moved about three full, fifteen, non-sudden death quarters past arguing in good faith. At the risk of saying something not-nice outside of the Pit, you’re just like the Bush Administration: just keep saying something until you think it’s true, even if you’ve been refuted point blank a dozen times. Bah. I’m done with you. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2008, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/88 "2008-10-08T19:14:07Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > First and foremost. _No Fucking Ties!_ Ties are fine for games like Hockey and Soccer where scoring is sometimes very infrequent and the likelihood of a protracted 0-0 game is a somewhat common possible outcome. But scoring in the modern NFL is not uncommon and it becomes increasingly common as time passes in a game, back in the early days of football when scoring was often rare and single digit scoring was common between evenly matched teams ties made more sense. To pretend that modern football somehow should regress to that rule when the game is so different is silly. See, I totally disagree here. If a touchdown was worth two points, and a field goal worth one, football games would have scores about on a par with baseball, and not much higher than baseball. Football isn’t a “high-scoring game” because scoring is “not uncommon in the modern NFL”, it’s a high-scoring game because scoring plays are given unusually high numbers of points. If someone in baseball decided that “home runs count triple”, the scores of baseball games would go through the roof. There wouldn’t be a jot more action, and it wouldn’t be a jot more exciting. Furthermore, the argument that “in the early days of football…scoring was often rare” is bogus. The NFL instituted sudden-death overtime in regular-season games in the ancient year of 1974. Back in 1973 the average NFL team scored 19.5 points per game. Scoot up to 2007, and the average NFL team scores…21.7 points a game. Not exactly an offensive explosion there. If we go back to, say, 1949, we find that the average NFL team scored 22.5 points a game–even more than today. You have to go back to the 20’s and 30’s before you start seeing the stereotypical 7-0 nailbiters. But then there were 30 years of scoring rates which were very similar or even higher than today’s NFL before sudden-death overtime was introduced. Arguing that ties were a necessary evil in a low-scoring league is simply a non-starter. Scoring-wise football before 1974 was emphatically not a “different game” from the modern NFL. ETA: If you want to take a look at team scoring averages in the NFL from 1922 to 2008–[here ya go](http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/scoring.htm). ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/89 "2008-10-09T08:37:03Z")
How about we talk about things I actually said… > [@Duke](#): > > See, I totally disagree here. If a touchdown was worth two points, and a field goal worth one, football games would have scores about on a par with baseball, and not much higher than baseball. Football isn’t a “high-scoring game” because scoring is “not uncommon in the modern NFL”, it’s a high-scoring game because scoring plays are given unusually high numbers of points. If someone in baseball decided that “home runs count triple”, the scores of baseball games would go through the roof. There wouldn’t be a jot more action, and it wouldn’t be a jot more exciting. I never said that the NFL was “high-scoring”, I just said that scoring wasn’t rare. The point being that ties are only tolerable in games where scoring _is_ rare. Ties are a imperfect solution, a necessary evil if you will, for games like Hockey and Soccer where prolonged 0-0 scores are expected. The relative scoring of football is completely off topic, the point is that scoring happens readily and therefore settling for a tie is lazy and pointless. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, the argument that “in the early days of football…scoring was often rare” is bogus. The NFL instituted sudden-death overtime in regular-season games in the ancient year of 1974. Back in 1973 the average NFL team scored 19.5 points per game. Scoot up to 2007, and the average NFL team scores…21.7 points a game. Not exactly an offensive explosion there. If we go back to, say, 1949, we find that the average NFL team scored 22.5 points a game–even more than today. You have to go back to the 20’s and 30’s before you start seeing the stereotypical 7-0 nailbiters. But then there were 30 years of scoring rates which were very similar or even higher than today’s NFL before sudden-death overtime was introduced. > > Arguing that ties were a necessary evil in a low-scoring league is simply a non-starter. Scoring-wise football before 1974 was emphatically not a “different game” from the modern NFL. > > ETA: If you want to take a look at team scoring averages in the NFL from 1922 to 2008–[here ya go](http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/scoring.htm). Again, you are arguing a point no one made. I’m just pointing out that the argument that “we used to have ties in the NFL, why not now?” is a stupid one. I understand that the NFL had ties in a era where scoring was common, that was stupid and that’s why the NFL changed it in 1974. Of course it took them 30 years too damn long, but that’s what the NFL does. Ties were a necessary evil in 1920, in 2008 having them would be idiotic because the game is completely different. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/90 "2008-10-09T14:09:49Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Ties were a necessary evil in 1920, in 2008 having them would be idiotic because the game is completely different. But that, too, is no argument. **Every** sport is “completely different” in 2008 than it was in 1920. In baseball in 1920 spitballs were legal, home runs were significantly more infrequent, and set-up men and relievers only showed up in blowouts or when the pitcher was injured. Clearly, the game has undergone radical changes, and so radical changes are needed to the game, right? Maybe shortening the game to seven innings, or allowing unlimited substitutions? I mean, seriously: if you don’t like tie games, just say so. Claiming that ties were a “necessary evil” of the past is just reiterating that. I don’t think tie games are inherently bad because some people think they are; I’m still personally of the opinion that if an NFL team can’t win a regular-season game in 60 minutes, they shouldn’t get another chance to win the game. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/91 "2008-10-12T22:12:30Z")
> [@quixotic78](#): > > just keep saying something until you think it’s true, even if you’ve been refuted point blank a dozen times. I have not yet been refuted in this thread by anything you or your cheerleader **DsYoung** have said. Your leaps in logic are laughable. You claim that the TEAM (your caps) doesn’t get to determine its fate unless every part of the team gets to participate, but then you want to take special teams off the field completely, undermining whatever meager logic led you to that position. Then when it’s pointed out that if the sudden death format resulted in the coin flip having no effect, you outright state that even if fair it still wouldn’t feel statisfactory to you because your favorite part of the game (offense) wasn’t on the field. And I’m the one not arguing in good faith? Your entire position is a textbook case of not arguing in good faith while trying to further an agenda. It’s clear the NFL isn’t as offensively-oriented as you would like. You should try either college football or the Arena League where they put as much stock in offense as you do. Those of us who like defense and special teams as well as offense can continue to appreciate the value of the sudden death overtime format. * * * > [@Omniscient](#): > > I dislike watching the current system because I find that watching a team return a kick to the 35 yard line, gaining 30 yards on quick slants and off tackle runs before spending the final 3 plays centering the ball before trotting out a kicker to make a 52 yard kick incredibly dull and unsatisfying. I rarely see this and feel that the better team necessarily won. This is a position I don’t understand. When did it get so easy to score? I mean, if that’s all it takes, then every drive should end in at least a FG attempt, right? Unless the sequence you describe isn’t actually as easy to do as you make it out to be, in which case you’re being disingenuous. I’m curious about the percentage of drives that end in a score. My best guess is that an average game has somewhere around 130 plays in 15 possessions between both teams, contributing to a combined 5 scores. If anyone has the actual numbers, that would be great. > [@Duke](#): > > I mean, seriously: if you don’t like tie games, just say so. He did, in no uncertain terms, when he said “First and foremost. _No Fucking Ties!_” ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/92 "2008-10-12T22:16:31Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > In baseball in 1920 spitballs were legal, home runs were significantly more infrequent, and set-up men and relievers only showed up in blowouts or when the pitcher was injured. Clearly, the game has undergone radical changes, and so radical changes are needed to the game, right? Maybe shortening the game to seven innings, or allowing unlimited substitutions? Are you trying to imply that baseball _hasn’t_ undergone radical changes? I’m not much of a baseball fan, but it seems to me that lowering the pitcher’s mound was a more radical change to baseball than introducing sudden death overtime was to football. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2008, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/93 "2008-10-12T23:47:29Z")
[How unsatisfying for the Cardinals that their offense never got on the field in overtime.](http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=29612&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2008&week=REG6&override=true) ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2008, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/94 "2008-10-13T05:43:48Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > [How unsatisfying for the Cardinals that their offense never got on the field in overtime.](http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=29612&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2008&week=REG6&override=true) When I saw the game, I knew it would end up in this thread, but the stats still hold up. Out of six OT games this year, 4 were won by the team winning the cointoss (67%) and 2 (33%) were won on the first possession. I like what basketball does. A shortened extra period that is played to the end. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2008, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/95 "2008-10-13T12:35:12Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I like what basketball does. A shortened extra period that is played to the end. That’s fine in a vaccuum, but the television contract makes that solution unworkable. As for the six OT games this season, be careful. You don’t want to get mocked for being a complete idiot because of course any fool knows that 6 games is such a tiny sampling that absolutely nothing can be gleaned from them. ---
**Author:** ![Jurph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jurph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jurph)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/96 "2008-10-14T12:33:38Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > That’s fine in a vaccuum, but the television contract makes that solution unworkable. That’s putting the cart before the horse, though. The television contract exists because advertisers like showing off their products to people who watch football. If you’re going to let advertisers decide how to end a game, you might as well concede a tied game to whichever team’s home market puts up bigger Neilsen numbers during the 4th quarter. I guess it’s fine to talk about the nuances of contracts and corporate influences, but I was under the impression that our major goal here was to find a way to end a game that would be more satisfying to both sides. Personally I like the following concepts quite a bit: - Predetermined OT possession as a consequence of the initial coin toss - OT is a timed 5th “quarter” but much shorter than 15:00 (see my proposal about statistically choosing this time limit to be “fair”) - Make it as much like the rest of the game as possible: don’t restrict punts, FGs, or anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Omniscient](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omniscient/32/3290_2.png) [@Omniscient](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omniscient)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/97 "2008-10-14T12:54:47Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > That’s fine in a vaccuum, but the television contract makes that solution unworkable. Time to put this stupid argument to bed. Are you seriously going to contend that a sudden death format that can last an undetermined amount of time is more convenient to TV producers and ad buyers than a fixed timeframe with predetermined commercial breaks? That’s asinine. If anything the NFL and the networks would stand to profit considerably from ad revenues sold on a contingency basis for a standard 5 minute overtime period, especially compared to what happened in the Cards-Cowboys game. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/98 "2008-10-14T13:19:43Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Time to put this stupid argument to bed. Are you seriously going to contend that a sudden death format that can last an undetermined amount of time is more convenient to TV producers and ad buyers than a fixed timeframe with predetermined commercial breaks? That’s asinine. > > If anything the NFL and the networks would stand to profit considerably from ad revenues sold on a contingency basis for a standard 5 minute overtime period, especially compared to what happened in the Cards-Cowboys game. You don’t seem to understand how the television contract is structured. The majority of games (ie: regional games) are on at 1:00pm. When talking about ad revenue, the big money game is the the national game, which is always at 4:15pm. Anything that causes the start of the national game to have fewer viewers is a very bad thing; it’s actually a dealbreaker. That’s why when you’re watching the exciting conclusion of an out-of-market 1:00pm game, they’ll cut away no matter what at 4:15 on the nose. This is a bad thing, and the league very wisely wants to avoid cutting away from exciting conclusions as much as possible. But their hands are tied by the television contract, which dictates all out-of-market broadcasts be terminated at 4:15 regardless of what’s happening. That’s why sudden death is so preferred; because it is the quickest way to resolve an overtime. And since most games are on at 1:00, most overtimes will happen in 1:00 games. That Cowboys-Cardinals game just happened to be the national broadcast. What the league really does not want is to have exciting finished like that that nobody gets to see, which would be more likely if you switched to a fixed period overtime. EDIT: Actually, that Cardinals-Cowboys game was a 1:00 start. Luckily, the sudden death format resolved it quickly and cleanly, so we all got to see it. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/99 "2008-10-14T13:23:29Z")
> [@Omniscient](#): > > Time to put this stupid argument to bed. Are you seriously going to contend that a sudden death format that can last an undetermined amount of time is more convenient to TV producers and ad buyers than a fixed timeframe with predetermined commercial breaks? That’s asinine. Also, there is no ad revenue from overtime because there are no commercial breaks in overtime. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2008, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176/100 "2008-10-14T13:32:36Z")
> [@Jurph](#): > > That’s putting the cart before the horse, though. The television contract exists because advertisers like showing off their products to people who watch football. If you’re going to let advertisers decide how to end a game, you might as well concede a tied game to whichever team’s home market puts up bigger Neilsen numbers during the 4th quarter. The advertisers don’t care what format the NFL uses for overtime, because they aren’t buying ads for overtime and they are guaranteed that everyone else in the country (aside from the two markets for the teams in overtime) will be watching the national broadcast. They probably would prefer that the overtime finishes quickly so those last two markets can join the party, but that’s pretty minor. It’s the NFL that wants a quick resolution to overtime because they really don’t want another Heidi. > [@](#): > > I guess it’s fine to talk about the nuances of contracts and corporate influences, but I was under the impression that our major goal here was to find a way to end a game that would be more satisfying to both sides. > > - Predetermined OT possession as a consequence of the initial coin toss > - OT is a timed 5th “quarter” but much shorter than 15:00 (see my proposal about statistically choosing this time limit to be “fair”) > - Make it as much like the rest of the game as possible: don’t restrict punts, FGs, or anything else. It has to work in the real world, so you can’t just ignore the fact that ten million fans will get pissed because they weren’t able to see the exciting conclusion of a game because you switched to a slightly less unfair system. A short period is fine in hockey, but any period long enough to give a reasonably good statistical chance for both sides to have possession is going to bleed past 4:15, which is what makes it unworkable for the reasons I’ve outlined. I wouldn’t want the OT possession determined by the initial coin toss, because that toss is already made fair by swapping choices at halftime. Just adding in a second toss before the opening kickoff satisfies that complaint while adding virtually no extra effort. I’m on board with no artificial special teams restrictions. One thing that made that Cowboys-Cards game so great was that both the first and the last play of the game were special teams touchdowns. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nfl-overtime/466176.md?page=6)