NFL is behind the times with OT rules

[abloom]

While on the topic of choosing choices.

Have a coin flip. Winner chooses what yard line to run one play from to get a TD. The other team chooses who plays offense. If a TD is scored offense wins, if a TD is not scored defense wins. Penalties would be enforced as if time is expiring at end of game (ie if a defensive foul then one additional untimed down is given after yardage enforcement).

If the team that wins the coinflip chooses something too easy the other team will choose offense. If too hard the team will choose defense.

[Cameron Giles]

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

This is why just doing a shootout of two-point conversions is easier. Everyone gets the ball and it's on an even playing field.

[ThunderTung]

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.

ya i dont think the OT rules need changing, but I think forcing the 2pts to win would be alot of fun. I think its alot easier for a defense to get one two yard stop with only 12 yards of room, than having to stop an offense from gaining 10 yards in 3 or 4 plays. The best part, is that your decision as a team on whether or not to go for 2 or kick the PAT is solely your decision, and if that decision ends up biting you in the bleep, you have no one to blame but yourself

[Pac_Eddy]

While on the topic of choosing choices.

Have a coin flip. Winner chooses what yard line to run one play from to get a TD. The other team chooses who plays offense. If a TD is scored offense wins, if a TD is not scored defense wins. Penalties would be enforced as if time is expiring at end of game (ie if a defensive foul then one additional untimed down is given after yardage enforcement).

If the team that wins the coinflip chooses something too easy the other team will choose offense. If too hard the team will choose defense.

I don't think the NFL would like this, but I do.

1) it forces you to bet on yourself.
2) the game is over relatively quickly into OT
3) coaches be will berated for weeks when they lose in OT

[Bronco Billy]

I think college football had it right until they screwed it up. Each team starts at the other team’s 25 and either scores or goes out on downs. After 2 exchanges, teams have to go for 2 after a TD. Keep playing until someone wins. Some of the college OTs were epically entertaining.

[abloom]

Well let's see what happens this week in the latest edition of NFL OT

[remedy29]

So what's the playoff OT record now since the new rules, 7 out of 12, the coin toss winner wins the game? Going into this year it was 6 out of 10. I'm not seeing a compelling reason that the OT rules need to change.

Cincy lost the coin toss, won the game, and the game was very exciting.

[abloom]

Cincy played way better defense than the bills.

[FantasyFreak]

So what's the playoff OT record now since the new rules, 7 out of 12, the coin toss winner wins the game? Going into this year it was 6 out of 10. I'm not seeing a compelling reason that the OT rules need to change.

Cincy lost the coin toss, won the game, and the game was very exciting.

Still doesn't change the fact the rules favour the winner of the toss. I can't believe people still argue this. It's common sense. Would you have posted if Mahomes had walked down and won?

The reality is, the fact of this was put down by a previous poster. 100 percent of teams that win the toss choose taking the ball, because they know the rules are inherently uneven after that.

THE GREATEST ARGUMENT: That nobody has stated, for the fairness of the OT rule is that. In fact. You have a 1/2 chance of winning a coin toss. So the deciding factor to make it unfair after that, is inherently fair.

[abloom]

So what's the playoff OT record now since the new rules, 7 out of 12, the coin toss winner wins the game? Going into this year it was 6 out of 10. I'm not seeing a compelling reason that the OT rules need to change.

Cincy lost the coin toss, won the game, and the game was very exciting.

Still doesn't change the fact the rules favour the winner of the toss. I can't believe people still argue this. It's common sense. Would you have posted if Mahomes had walked down and won?

The reality is, the fact of this was put down by a previous poster. 100 percent of teams that win the toss choose taking the ball, because they know the rules are inherently uneven after that.

THE GREATEST ARGUMENT: That nobody has stated, for the fairness of the OT rule is that. In fact. You have a 1/2 chance of winning a coin toss. So the deciding factor to make it unfair after that, is inherently fair.

Not actually 100% but the exceptions are few and far between. And none in the playoffs as far as I know.

[Pac_Eddy]

Still doesn't change the fact the rules favour the winner of the toss. I can't believe people still argue this. It's common sense.

You realize that you're arguing against no one right? Everyone agrees that the winner of the coin toss has an advantage.

The remaining question is how much, and we need a much larger sample size to determine that. And if it is relatively low, the simplicity and shorter OT period will likely win out.

[Ray Finkle]

So what's the playoff OT record now since the new rules, 7 out of 12, the coin toss winner wins the game? Going into this year it was 6 out of 10. I'm not seeing a compelling reason that the OT rules need to change.

Cincy lost the coin toss, won the game, and the game was very exciting.

Still doesn't change the fact the rules favour the winner of the toss. I can't believe people still argue this. It's common sense. Would you have posted if Mahomes had walked down and won?

The reality is, the fact of this was put down by a previous poster. 100 percent of teams that win the toss choose taking the ball, because they know the rules are inherently uneven after that.

THE GREATEST ARGUMENT: That nobody has stated, for the fairness of the OT rule is that. In fact. You have a 1/2 chance of winning a coin toss. So the deciding factor to make it unfair after that, is inherently fair.

Not actually 100% but the exceptions are few and far between. And none in the playoffs as far as I know.

Marty Mornhinweg?

[wickerkat1212]

Just give them another 15 minutes. Playoffs only. High score wins.

[remedy29]

So what's the playoff OT record now since the new rules, 7 out of 12, the coin toss winner wins the game? Going into this year it was 6 out of 10. I'm not seeing a compelling reason that the OT rules need to change.

Cincy lost the coin toss, won the game, and the game was very exciting.

Still doesn't change the fact the rules favour the winner of the toss. I can't believe people still argue this. It's common sense. Would you have posted if Mahomes had walked down and won?

The reality is, the fact of this was put down by a previous poster. 100 percent of teams that win the toss choose taking the ball, because they know the rules are inherently uneven after that.

THE GREATEST ARGUMENT: That nobody has stated, for the fairness of the OT rule is that. In fact. You have a 1/2 chance of winning a coin toss. So the deciding factor to make it unfair after that, is inherently fair.

The only real fair OT rule would be to play an extra period, either 10 or 15 minutes. If it's tied after that, then play another one and so on. The NFL will never do that in the regular season, I doubt they'll do it for the post season.

Other than that, I'd be in favor of eliminating the coin toss in OT, and somehow have the receiver of the ball first in OT be known in regulation. This way both teams can strategize knowing who gets the ball first in OT.

And I would not have been happy if KC won the game. I thought they were pretty poor all season and certainly not deserving of a SB appearance. Thankfully the great advantage of "winning the OT coin toss" couldn't even help them in the end.

[FantasyFreak]

So what's the playoff OT record now since the new rules, 7 out of 12, the coin toss winner wins the game? Going into this year it was 6 out of 10. I'm not seeing a compelling reason that the OT rules need to change.

Cincy lost the coin toss, won the game, and the game was very exciting.

Still doesn't change the fact the rules favour the winner of the toss. I can't believe people still argue this. It's common sense. Would you have posted if Mahomes had walked down and won?

The reality is, the fact of this was put down by a previous poster. 100 percent of teams that win the toss choose taking the ball, because they know the rules are inherently uneven after that.

THE GREATEST ARGUMENT: That nobody has stated, for the fairness of the OT rule is that. In fact. You have a 1/2 chance of winning a coin toss. So the deciding factor to make it unfair after that, is inherently fair.

The only real fair OT rule would be to play an extra period, either 10 or 15 minutes. If it's tied after that, then play another one and so on. The NFL will never do that in the regular season, I doubt they'll do it for the post season.

Other than that, I'd be in favor of eliminating the coin toss in OT, and somehow have the receiver of the ball first in OT be known in regulation. This way both teams can strategize knowing who gets the ball first in OT.

And I would not have been happy if KC won the game. I thought they were pretty poor all season and certainly not deserving of a SB appearance. Thankfully the great advantage of "winning the OT coin toss" couldn't even help them in the end.

That's actually not even fair unless you split it into 2 halves.