NFL is behind the times with OT rules

[ThunderTung]

The only real statistic we can use is the one Pac eddy brought up, that over the last 10 years the win rate is 53% (including reg season) feels like parity to me

does it really, though?
have you considered ties?

win%: 52.8
tie%: 6.1
loss%: 41.1

it doesn't look all that balanced. the sample size is still small, though, and of course, overtime games aren't a 50/50 event, one team is generally better than the other, so you can win the toss after getting into overtime thanks to an excellent defense, and still blow it. it's hard to determine whether the result is due to the toss or the actual teams.

so now it comes down to common sense: getting the ball first gives you an advantage, i can't see how anyone can say it doesn't.

but if you have doubts, how about this stat: when winning an overtime coin toss, how many teams have decided to kick the ball, rather than receive it?

I don't think anyone is arguing that there isn't an advantage to getting the ball first, just how much that advantage is and whether its enough to warrant overhauling the OT rules. I don't think it is. I think that if you lose the toss, your defense needs to step up, if they don't, you lose, and I'm fine with that. I've been on the wrong side of these OT rules, and yea it sucks to lose on the opening OT drive, but I've never blamed the rules, I blame the defense for not stepping up and making a play with the game on the line.

[FantasyFreak]

I think even something paralleling soccer would be better/fair. 2 halves in OT. Say 4 minutes each (or 5). That's fair. If it's still tied after, 2 point conversion attempts to decide. (Paralleling Penalty Kicks). It the regular season, don't even need OT IMO. A tie is a tie. I know people hate the idea of ties, though.

[Jigga94]

I think even something paralleling soccer would be better/fair. 2 halves in OT. Say 4 minutes each (or 5). That's fair. If it's still tied after, 2 point conversion attempts to decide. (Paralleling Penalty Kicks). It the regular season, don't even need OT IMO. A tie is a tie. I know people hate the idea of ties, though.

I like the idea of 2 short halves (or just an extra quarter as well), but the 2 pt conversions for the win doesn't sit right with me.

I love how Hockey has it. Regular season you can do the special OT and the shootout. But in playoffs I don't want a skills competition to decide who wins. Of course, sudden death in Hockey works a lot better than football, which is why we have this thread lol I don't think there's a perfect way to do it

[FantasyFreak]

I think even something paralleling soccer would be better/fair. 2 halves in OT. Say 4 minutes each (or 5). That's fair. If it's still tied after, 2 point conversion attempts to decide. (Paralleling Penalty Kicks). It the regular season, don't even need OT IMO. A tie is a tie. I know people hate the idea of ties, though.

I like the idea of 2 short halves (or just an extra quarter as well), but the 2 pt conversions for the win doesn't sit right with me.

I love how Hockey has it. Regular season you can do the special OT and the shootout. But in playoffs I don't want a skills competition to decide who wins. Of course, sudden death in Hockey works a lot better than football, which is why we have this thread lol I don't think there's a perfect way to do it

It didn't with me either. It's just a parallel to soccer (PK's are a way to end the game because it's already gone long enough, player safety becomes an issue). To be fair, the 2 point conversion is actually better than a shootout, because it's not a skills competition. It involves all 11 on each side, so no change to the foundation of the play to decide it, whereas a penalty shot becomes a 1 on 1 scenario (skills competition).

[murphysxm]

To be fair, the 2 point conversion is actually better than a shootout, because it's not a skills competition. It involves all 11 on each side, so no change to the foundation of the play to decide it, whereas a penalty shot becomes a 1 on 1 scenario (skills competition).

As a goalie who played at some high levels, PO's aren't a skills competition. The person kicking has to make a mistake for the keeper to make a save. It's a mental competition. The NFL equivilant would be kickers alternating taking FG's until one misses.

[FantasyFreak]

To be fair, the 2 point conversion is actually better than a shootout, because it's not a skills competition. It involves all 11 on each side, so no change to the foundation of the play to decide it, whereas a penalty shot becomes a 1 on 1 scenario (skills competition).

As a goalie who played at some high levels, PO's aren't a skills competition. The person kicking has to make a mistake for the keeper to make a save. It's a mental competition. The NFL equivilant would be kickers alternating taking FG's until one misses.

Correct. I played competitive soccer myself in my younger days. Actually went to a shootout a few times, including the finals of a tournament in the USA (we were from Canada) I was actually going to say something similar about the FG's.

[Jigga94]

I think even something paralleling soccer would be better/fair. 2 halves in OT. Say 4 minutes each (or 5). That's fair. If it's still tied after, 2 point conversion attempts to decide. (Paralleling Penalty Kicks). It the regular season, don't even need OT IMO. A tie is a tie. I know people hate the idea of ties, though.

I like the idea of 2 short halves (or just an extra quarter as well), but the 2 pt conversions for the win doesn't sit right with me.

I love how Hockey has it. Regular season you can do the special OT and the shootout. But in playoffs I don't want a skills competition to decide who wins. Of course, sudden death in Hockey works a lot better than football, which is why we have this thread lol I don't think there's a perfect way to do it

It didn't with me either. It's just a parallel to soccer (PK's are a way to end the game because it's already gone long enough, player safety becomes an issue). To be fair, the 2 point conversion is actually better than a shootout, because it's not a skills competition. It involves all 11 on each side, so no change to the foundation of the play to decide it, whereas a penalty shot becomes a 1 on 1 scenario (skills competition).

I agree 2 pt is less skills competition than shootout. But we're talking NFL playoffs vs NHL regular season. If this were just about NFL regular season, I'd be fine with the 2 pt tries immediately after regulation

[Water Buffalo]

Wow. Why is this so complicated? Obviously the OT rule sucks or we wouldn't be talking about it.

It took 4 pages, but someone finally said it - "If the rule is fair and balanced, why do 100% of the teams winning the coin toss receive the ball?" That's all you need to know. The exact winning % and sample size is all irrelevant. It's an advantage, and it's based purely on random chance. You guys seriously want an epic game like Bills vs Chiefs that we all just witnessed ending how it did because a coin flip decided which team gets the ball? Is that satisfying to you? Do you hate football and not want to watch more of it? Do you think Josh Allen in an overtime of playoff football in one of the best games in recent memory wouldn't be worth watching? There are zero compelling arguments for keeping the OT as it currently is and numerous arguments in favor of making it legitimately fair.

Add another 15 minute quarter and whoever has more points at the end of that quarter wins the game. We don't need to go all college football, crazy stats, starting at the 20 yard line, or any other such nonsense. Just more normal NFL football. If it's a regular season game and it's still a tie at the end of that quarter, then it ends as a tie. If it's the playoffs, play on. Add another quarter (maybe lower it to 10 minutes) and the team that didn't start the first OT quarter with the ball now gets the ball. Whoever has more points at the end of that quarter wins the game. There's zero reason to change any rules, starting locations, or anything else. Just play another quarter. That's it. Solved.

[Pac_Eddy]

Wow. Why is this so complicated? Obviously the OT rule sucks or we wouldn't be talking about it.

It took 4 pages, but someone finally said it - "If the rule is fair and balanced, why do 100% of the teams winning the coin toss receive the ball?" That's all you need to know. The exact winning % and sample size is all irrelevant. It's an advantage, and it's based purely on random chance. You guys seriously want an epic game like Bills vs Chiefs that we all just witnessed ending how it did because a coin flip decided which team gets the ball? Is that satisfying to you? Do you hate football and not want to watch more of it? Do you think Josh Allen in an overtime of playoff football in one of the best games in recent memory wouldn't be worth watching? There are zero compelling arguments for keeping the OT as it currently is and numerous arguments in favor of making it legitimately fair.

Add another 15 minute quarter and whoever has more points at the end of that quarter wins the game. We don't need to go all college football, crazy stats, starting at the 20 yard line, or any other such nonsense. Just more normal NFL football. If it's a regular season game and it's still a tie at the end of that quarter, then it ends as a tie. If it's the playoffs, play on. Add another quarter (maybe lower it to 10 minutes) and the team that didn't start the first OT quarter with the ball now gets the ball. Whoever has more points at the end of that quarter wins the game. There's zero reason to change any rules, starting locations, or anything else. Just play another quarter. That's it. Solved.

The NFL and NFLPA have made it clear that they don't want another full quarter of football played, particularly if it still ends in a tie for regular season games.

[Water Buffalo]

Wow. Why is this so complicated? Obviously the OT rule sucks or we wouldn't be talking about it.

It took 4 pages, but someone finally said it - "If the rule is fair and balanced, why do 100% of the teams winning the coin toss receive the ball?" That's all you need to know. The exact winning % and sample size is all irrelevant. It's an advantage, and it's based purely on random chance. You guys seriously want an epic game like Bills vs Chiefs that we all just witnessed ending how it did because a coin flip decided which team gets the ball? Is that satisfying to you? Do you hate football and not want to watch more of it? Do you think Josh Allen in an overtime of playoff football in one of the best games in recent memory wouldn't be worth watching? There are zero compelling arguments for keeping the OT as it currently is and numerous arguments in favor of making it legitimately fair.

Add another 15 minute quarter and whoever has more points at the end of that quarter wins the game. We don't need to go all college football, crazy stats, starting at the 20 yard line, or any other such nonsense. Just more normal NFL football. If it's a regular season game and it's still a tie at the end of that quarter, then it ends as a tie. If it's the playoffs, play on. Add another quarter (maybe lower it to 10 minutes) and the team that didn't start the first OT quarter with the ball now gets the ball. Whoever has more points at the end of that quarter wins the game. There's zero reason to change any rules, starting locations, or anything else. Just play another quarter. That's it. Solved.

The NFL and NFLPA have made it clear that they don't want another full quarter of football played, particularly if it still ends in a tie for regular season games.

Leave it to the NFL and especially the NFLPA to not want the fairest, simplest, most logical solution that would solve the problem indefinitely. Oh well.

[Prison_Mike]

I've heard some interesting ideas floated while listening to some talk shows this week.

One of them being a "blind bid" approach where each team submits a blind bid on field position and where they'd be willing to start with the ball. i.e. if BUF submits their own 5 yard line and KC submits their own 20, Buffalo gets the ball first, but carries the risks that come with starting deep in your own territory and could end up giving KC great field position to score and end the game if they get stopped.

That one is fun but I don't think it's very realistic.

Another idea was to flip hold a 2nd coin toss BEFORE the game starts. One for regulation, one for overtime. This way you know the entire game who is going to get the ball to start overtime, thus potentially having an effect on your strategy throughout the game.

[mild]

The NFL and NFLPA have made it clear that they don't want another full quarter of football played, particularly if it still ends in a tie for regular season games.

I think I have a solution:

- Winner of the toss (Team A) gets the ball.
- Team B gets one possession to match (or beat) either the 3pts or 7pts (or 8pts!) that Team A scored.
- Sudden death after that.

Both teams must possess the ball once on offense. After that, if it's still tied: next score wins.

Any objections?

[Pac_Eddy]

The NFL and NFLPA have made it clear that they don't want another full quarter of football played, particularly if it still ends in a tie for regular season games.

I think I have a solution:

- Winner of the toss (Team A) gets the ball.
- Team B gets one possession to match (or beat) either the 3pts or 7pts (or 8pts!) that Team A scored.
- Sudden death after that.

Both teams must possess the ball once on offense. After that, if it's still tied: next score wins.

Any objections?

I'd be fine with that. I'm still not convinced that the current system is too unbalanced though. Wouldn't be surprised if that NFL adopts this change to appease the critics.

[ThunderTung]

The NFL and NFLPA have made it clear that they don't want another full quarter of football played, particularly if it still ends in a tie for regular season games.

I think I have a solution:

- Winner of the toss (Team A) gets the ball.
- Team B gets one possession to match (or beat) either the 3pts or 7pts (or 8pts!) that Team A scored.
- Sudden death after that.

Both teams must possess the ball once on offense. After that, if it's still tied: next score wins.

Any objections?

i can picture it now:

*KC goes down and scores a TD
*BUF responds with a TD and converts a 2pt conversion ending the game
*KC fans complain that the OT rules are unfair, and gives the team that gets the ball first too much of a disadvantage

I actually think it would just be easier to say that if you want to end the game on the first OT drive, you have to score a 2 pt conversion. If you kick the PAT, the other team gets the ball, if you get the 2pt conversion you win, if you miss it the other team gets the ball and all they have to do is score and kick the PAT to win.

[mild]

i can picture it now:

*KC goes down and scores a TD
*BUF responds with a TD and converts a 2pt conversion ending the game
*KC fans complain that the OT rules are unfair, and gives the team that gets the ball first too much of a disadvantage

I actually think it would just be easier to say that if you want to end the game on the first OT drive, you have to score a 2 pt conversion. If you kick the PAT, the other team gets the ball, if you get the 2pt conversion you win, if you miss it the other team gets the ball and all they have to do is score and kick the PAT to win.

I do like it. I'm always in favour of anything that makes teams go for 2.

The only people not serviced by this is the "I think both offenses should get to touch the ball" crowd, because people ostensibly have a problem with the Defense's inability to stop the opposing O deciding the game in Overtime. I have zero doubt that you'd still favour Mahomes to win the game for KC last Sunday if it came down to a do-or-die 2pt conversion for the Kelce TD.

They're not wrong, given that the rules of the modern game have changed to favour the Offense so much. Games like that one really showed the flaws of the OT rules when it was a matchup between two unstoppable Offenses vs. two "above average" defenses.