NFL is behind the times with OT rules

[jenkins.math]

Actually yes it was proven definitively that the coin toss determines the winner in most OT games. That is why the OT in the NFL was changed so it requires a TD to win or the other team gets the ball. The biggest issue is with rules being purposefully adjusted for more offense, bigger pass plays and more scoring overall it makes this 1 drive win more lopsided than it once was. Situations like the longest game ever (Dolphins vs CHiefs Divisional playoff went dbl OT) wont happen as things stand. The rule is supposedly player safety as long games mean players are tired and more injury prone in the game or just wear and tear. That being said I donno if anyone asked the players their feelings about it. One thing is true, if ya wanna win just dont let it goto OT.

Winning the coin toss and receiving in OT results in a win 52.7% of the time. That isn't a large enough disparity to make it some insane advantage that needs a rule change.

[Jigga94]

I agree. College still starts on the 25 right? I'd just have the NFL start at midfield instead

[Yarnith]

Actually yes it was proven definitively that the coin toss determines the winner in most OT games. That is why the OT in the NFL was changed so it requires a TD to win or the other team gets the ball. The biggest issue is with rules being purposefully adjusted for more offense, bigger pass plays and more scoring overall it makes this 1 drive win more lopsided than it once was. Situations like the longest game ever (Dolphins vs CHiefs Divisional playoff went dbl OT) wont happen as things stand. The rule is supposedly player safety as long games mean players are tired and more injury prone in the game or just wear and tear. That being said I donno if anyone asked the players their feelings about it. One thing is true, if ya wanna win just dont let it goto OT.

Winning the coin toss and receiving in OT results in a win 52.7% of the time. That isn't a large enough disparity to make it some insane advantage that needs a rule change.

Actually if you finish reading the NFL post with all that info..

"It seems fair but these numbers are somewhat misleading because in 1994 a rule changed moved the kickoff back 5 yards to the 30 yard line (those numbers were based on data from 1973-2003). Since then, it's been about 60%. Prior to the rule change, the coin toss had no predictive value for deciding who would eventually win the game. Since 1994, the coin flip winner has a clear advantage."

[Cameron Giles]

The NFL would only benefit from both teams getting a chance. Higher ratings, more social media engagement, memorable games, more live betting in Vegas, etc. It's a weird own-goal on their part to reward the first team who scores a TD.

College is closer to getting it right, but I do think the constant possessions so close to the end zone are just bloating the stats.

There's a middle ground that could work. I actually think the XFL's OT setup is the best one of the bunch:

The XFL's current incarnation uses a five-round shootout of two-point conversions similar to a penalty shootout in soccer or ice hockey. Such a shootout had never been attempted in organized football at the time the rule was proposed.

The defense is not able to score, as should a turnover occur, the play would be dead. Defensive penalties result in the ball moving up to the 1-yard line, while a second defensive penalty on any play, even in future rounds, results in a score awarded to the offensive team. To speed up the overtime process, both teams' offense and defense are on the field at the appropriate end zone.

Once one team's offense has completed its round of the shootout, the other team's offense plays its round from the opposite end zone. These overtime rules ensure that both teams have an opportunity to win the game and would limit overtime to 5 or 6 minutes. If both teams remain tied after five rounds, multiple rounds of conversions will be played until one team succeeds, thus ensuring that no game can end in a draw.

Only thing I would change is giving the offense points for a defensive penalty. Other than that, I like the idea of a shootout of two-point conversions, and it prevents players from having to play a long distance of the field again for another quarter.

[nathanq42]

I think being a "turn based/clock based hybrid game" (essentially no fluidity in possession like hockey/basketball, and no ensured possession for both teams like in badeball) makes it difficult to come up with a good OT system. You get both arguments and they both have valid reasoning behind them. I think most fair is to either go to a college style OT/hockey style shootout where the other team has the chance to answer, or if we stay with the sudden death thing, a defensive stop (0 points) should win the game for the defending team, a FG can be answered, and a TD is game over. Now hear me out on this last one

If your team scores a TD on my team's defense, my offense doesn't get to answer, if my team's defense get the stop outright, why does your defense get to answer? You can make the exact same argument that people are making in favour of sudden death, your offense had their shot to at least put up points, if they can't get to the ~35 for a decent percentage FG they don't deserve to win, especially with all of the advantages the NFL has afforded offenses through various rules and how the game is called.

Me personally I prefer the college/hockey shootout rules where a team can answer, but if it is going to be sudden death there should be consequences for failure on either side of the ball, not just the defense.

[BabyChark23]

I think being a "turn based/clock based hybrid game" (essentially no fluidity in possession like hockey/basketball, and no ensured possession for both teams like in badeball) makes it difficult to come up with a good OT system. You get both arguments and they both have valid reasoning behind them. I think most fair is to either go to a college style OT/hockey style shootout where the other team has the chance to answer, or if we stay with the sudden death thing, a defensive stop (0 points) should win the game for the defending team, a FG can be answered, and a TD is game over. Now hear me out on this last one

If your team scores a TD on my team's defense, my offense doesn't get to answer, if my team's defense get the stop outright, why does your defense get to answer? You can make the exact same argument that people are making in favour of sudden death, your offense had their shot to at least put up points, if they can't get to the ~35 for a decent percentage FG they don't deserve to win, especially with all of the advantages the NFL has afforded offenses through various rules and how the game is called.

Me personally I prefer the college/hockey shootout rules where a team can answer, but if it is going to be sudden death there should be consequences for failure on either side of the ball, not just the defense.

I like that idea a lot!

[Pac_Eddy]

Me personally I prefer the college/hockey shootout rules where a team can answer, but if it is going to be sudden death there should be consequences for failure on either side of the ball, not just the defense.

What I don't like about the hockey shootout, and to a lesser extent the college OT, is that is a very different game than the non-OT game. Going from playing full rink hockey to a shootout is such a big difference. I can see why they do it in hockey with goals being scored in regular play less frequently than NFL scoring though.

[Vcize]

I really loathe the argument that basically goes "if they wanted to win they shouldn't have <insert mistakes here>".

The other team made mistakes too. The Chiefs' defense #### the bed down the stretch too. They shouldn't have made those mistakes too.

Teams make mistakes all game long. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get a fair shot via a rule or correct calls the rest of the way (people often use this argument about bad calls too, "if they hadn't screwed up xxxxx then that bad call wouldn't have mattered".

You can't just say "if they wanted to win they should have made a stop". The Chiefs couldn't make a stop either, but they still won. Why?
Because a coin landed on heads instead of tails.

[FantasyFreak]

Obviously Bills have nothing to complain about fairness-wise. The rules were in place and they had every opportunity to win in regulation and win the coin toss. 99% win probability with 0:13 left, and completely bungled it. Will Special Teams and Defensive Coordinators EVER study end of game tactics? Or will they keep costing their teams games?

[Edit: why not squib kick and waste time? Would have left KC with a single play. Why rush 4 on the final play(or two even) when KC needed a very specific type of play and that involved immediate quick passes? Just such bad coaching and execution, Bills really deserved to lose and asked for it with those terrible, high school level mistakes in the final 0:13. Your average Madden obsessed teenager would call it better]

That said, I would like to see the OT rules changed to each team gets one possession minimum in the future, but by an odd twist of fate, the Chiefs tried to get that to be the rule in 2019 after they lost to the Pats in playoffs the same way, and they only got the support of 2-3 other teams total, so it was dead on arrival. Bills were not one of those teams.

All you have to do is squib kick. It kills 1 play for the Chiefs. Even if they get to the 35, with 9 seconds left, you are better off. Then, all you have to do is press, and when I say press, I mean hold, maul, tackle, Hill and Kelce off the LOS, before they can get 10 yards down the field. Taking a 5 yard holding penalty is a huge win. The time doesn't go back on the clock. They literally didn't go anywhere near Hill or Kelce on 2 consecutive plays. As good as Mahomes was in that game, he really didn't even need to do anything in those 13 seconds, other than throw quick short pass (designed) to Hill, and then throw to a wide open Kelce down the seam. That's what is so mind boggling. It's like the Bills laid down on purpose. That's what it looked like. Not saying they did, just saying how bad the strategy was.

[FantasyFreak]

"It's not fair!"

You had 60 minutes to win in regulation. And with the Bills specifically, you had 13 seconds left. Squib kick it and then make sure you cover the best TE in the NFL for 1 play. College OT rules suck.

The first 60 minutes have nothing to do with the OT rules, though. Parity. It's that simple. The rules don't have it. It's not just the Bills game. It's all OT games. College OT rules may suck, but at least they have parity. NFL OT rules suck more because they lack it.

[FantasyFreak]

I really loathe the argument that basically goes "if they wanted to win they shouldn't have <insert mistakes here>".

The other team made mistakes too. The Chiefs' defense #### the bed down the stretch too. They shouldn't have made those mistakes too.

Teams make mistakes all game long. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get a fair shot via a rule or correct calls the rest of the way (people often use this argument about bad calls too, "if they hadn't screwed up xxxxx then that bad call wouldn't have mattered".

You can't just say "if they wanted to win they should have made a stop". The Chiefs couldn't make a stop either, but they still won. Why?
Because a coin landed on heads instead of tails.

This argument has nothing to do with the argument the OT rules aren't good. What happened in the prior 60 minutes is completely irrelevant. It's a baseless argument. The OT rules aren't laid out for an even playing field, and that's just a fact.

[Vcize]

I really loathe the argument that basically goes "if they wanted to win they shouldn't have <insert mistakes here>".

The other team made mistakes too. The Chiefs' defense #### the bed down the stretch too. They shouldn't have made those mistakes too.

Teams make mistakes all game long. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get a fair shot via a rule or correct calls the rest of the way (people often use this argument about bad calls too, "if they hadn't screwed up xxxxx then that bad call wouldn't have mattered".

You can't just say "if they wanted to win they should have made a stop". The Chiefs couldn't make a stop either, but they still won. Why?
Because a coin landed on heads instead of tails.

This argument has nothing to do with the argument the OT rules aren't good. What happened in the prior 60 minutes is completely irrelevant. It's a baseless argument. The OT rules aren't laid out for an even playing field, and that's just a fact.

Right, we're saying the same thing. I was talking about many of the replies in this thread, where people say stuff like "the coin toss wouldn't have mattered if the Bills could have made a stop" or "the Bills lost when they gave up 40 yards in 13 seconds not when the coin was flipped".

What happened previously should have no determination on whether the rest of the game is designed or called fairly. Throughout the course of 60 minutes the Bills earned a shot to win with their offense in overtime just as much as the Chiefs did. But they didn't get it.

If the roles were flipped and that coin toss landed on tails people would just be saying "if the Chiefs wanted to win they shouldn't have given up 2 TDs in the last 2 minutes". But they still got to win even with the defense totally screwing up down the stretch. Because of a coin toss.

[nathanq42]

Me personally I prefer the college/hockey shootout rules where a team can answer, but if it is going to be sudden death there should be consequences for failure on either side of the ball, not just the defense.

What I don't like about the hockey shootout, and to a lesser extent the college OT, is that is a very different game than the non-OT game. Going from playing full rink hockey to a shootout is such a big difference. I can see why they do it in hockey with goals being scored in regular play less frequently than NFL scoring though.

Playoff games have OT until there is a winner which I prefer, but as you said for less important regular season games going into 5OT when you have a game tomorrow and fans have work in the morning isn't a recipe for success

[remedy29]

In the name of "fairness" I think most fans fail to realize, if both teams get a possession, the team who has the 2nd possession has an advantage.

Team 1, has 3 downs to march towards a FG or TD. On the 4th down, they need to decide to take the FG approach, or risk coming away with no points

Team 2 knows what they are up against. Do they need to score a FG or a TD. They have 4 downs to ensure they are in position for either. In addition, they can decide to go for the TD instead of a FG.

The only thing I would alter with the current NFL OT rules is to have the "winner" of the OT coin toss known during regulation. However means they determine that. This way, in regulation both teams know who will get the ball in OT and they can make their game time decisions based on that knowledge.

Since they change the OT rules, I'm not sure what the data is between who has a better chance to win. I thought it was the team that kicks.

[murphysxm]

The Bills let KC's best two weapons get 45 yards in 13 seconds. Having a hard time saying the coin flip lost them the game. Some pretty poor clock awareness and way conservative play calling on that last drive lost them the game.