Overtime changes ideas

[Poppa San]

I like the college method of both teams getting the ball. Skip the coin toss, visitors go first. 6 plays starting from midfield. No first downs. GO!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Great thread, was going to start one myself, but you beat me to it. I have never liked the overtime format. Takes a great game like the one we saw Saturday and gives it a high probability of ending on a lucky play/blown coverage. As we also witnessed in the NFCCG last year.

Its a hard fought game that has been played over 4 quarters. Extend it to a 5th quarter. Giving each team a chance of proving why they deserve to win the game under the same conditions as the game they just played. Shorten it to 10 minutes, if they think 15 more minutes is too much to ask out of athletes who are supposed to be trained and conditioned to "only last 60 minutes". Saying that tongue and cheek, because some use that as an argument against extending a game too long.

 

[Mondio]

I'm ok with the rules, sudden death is fine. It's overtime, not another game. I wouldn't argue against having to kick off after scoring for 1 possession each, but play defense and get the ball back. I know it was a busted play, but so was the tipped pass for a go ahead TD. They can happen at anytime, if it happens in OT, so be it.

We just tied the game on a hail mary, and I wouldn't care if we won or tied on that play in OT or end of regulation. If the rules say i get one first in OT I win, i'm fine with it. I do not like the College rules, or anything like it. Coin toss, kick it, pick your goal to defend and do it. Get the ball back and win.

 

[TJV]

In spite of how the last two Packers seasons ended, I like the current rule. All the team that kicks off has to do is prevent the opponent from scoring a TD to get a chance with the ball.

 

[Mondio]

In spite of how the last two Packers seasons ended, I like the current rule. All the team that kicks off has to do is prevent the opponent from scoring a TD to get a chance with the ball.

that's kind of how I feel. It's over time. It's not a time period for teams to showcase what they have, that time has already passed. The game has been played, it's over. OT is all about declaring a winner, so whoever wants to win, do it.

I can see them allowing both teams possessions because it will mean more time, more viewers, more money etc. But i'm fine with them just how they are

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I already stated how I feel, but I would be "Ok" if they at least changed it to each team is allowed one possession. IMO, that would eliminate the "luck of the flip" and would set it up for a very exciting finish, even if the receiving team scored a touchdown first. This was talked about quite a bit when they changed the current rules away from "first to score". I had to laugh because one of the arguments made for not doing this was by the major Networks, who feared a game lasting too long would disturb their regular schedule of broadcasting. Really? A dramatic entertaining game going on and you are worried about keeping it short so you can run reruns of Bonanza?

 

[Vrill]

Just adopt the CFB OT rules and call it good.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The way the NCAA does overtime doesn't sit well for me. Reminds me of a Hockey game being decided by a "shoot-out". Shortening the field to 25 yards just seems like it is taking too many other elements out of the game. Plus, in the NFL a 42 yard FG, although not a chip shot, has a higher probability. As the OP suggested, maybe college rules but each team starts at the 50. But still feels like all of the elements of a true football game are missing, which is why I prefer a 5th quarter scenario.

 

[azrsx05]

It shouldn't be over complicated. Just give them an extra 12 mins of play. Regardless if anyone scores right away or not. Keep playing till the clock says 0:00. In regular game, if it's tied after that. Then it's a tie. If it's tied in playoffs then go to the format we have now.

 

[Ceodore]

It's not the best format, but the Packers knew them not getting the ball was a possible outcome. They could have essentially had the ball for OT without a coin flip if they had elected to go for 2. From their own 2 yard line no less.

 

[Vrill]

The way the NCAA does overtime doesn't sit well for me. Reminds me of a Hockey game being decided by a "shoot-out". Shortening the field to 25 yards just seems like it is taking too many other elements out of the game. Plus, in the NFL a 42 yard FG, although not a chip shot, has a higher probability. As the OP suggested, maybe college rules but each team starts at the 50. But still feels like all of the elements of a true football game are missing, which is why I prefer a 5th quarter scenario.

CFB OT rules:

-Both teams get one timeout per OT
-Unlimited timeless OT's
-Both teams start at the 25 yard line 25 yards from the endzone
-Second team always has a chance to match or beat the first team's score (or a FG wins the game assuming first team doesn't score on their initial possession)
-After the 3rd OT, both teams have to start going for two after a scored TD

Honestly, it would be a lot harder to score a TD in the NFL using those rules. We both know how hard it is to score TD's in the red zone in the NFL. If you want to be blunt, the College OT rules suit the NFL more than it does College for that reason alone. In the end, the team receiving first scoring a TD on that initial possession would have a huge advantage. But at least the other team would have a chance to match it.

College uses the most exciting part of Football to decide the winner of a tied game: red zone play.

 

[Half Empty]

It shouldn't be over complicated. Just give them an extra 12 mins of play. Regardless if anyone scores right away or not. Keep playing till the clock says 0:00. In regular game, if it's tied after that. Then it's a tie. If it's tied in playoffs then go to the format we have now.

Why 12 instead of 15? Does it start with a coin flip and kickoff, or is it just a 5th period, so the teams change ends and pick up where they left off?

So, in the playoffs, in order to keep things simple, we add a different type of overtime and if that doesn't work, come back to what they're already doing?

Yup, simple.

 

[sschind]

In spite of how the last two Packers seasons ended, I like the current rule. All the team that kicks off has to do is prevent the opponent from scoring a TD to get a chance with the ball.

That's true but what if a team has a great offense and a suspect defense and loses the toss? Its somewhat unfair to not allow their offense a chance. I'd say that even if the Packers had won the toss and the game.

For the record I'm fine if they don't change it but I think they should have left it alone before going with this half *** measure. Go back to true sudden death (FG wins it) or give both teams a chance. I think its stupid to say the other team gets a chance if you only score a FG but if you score a TD its over. Why not say if the other team has a chance to WIN then they get a chance. That means the receiving team would have to score a TD and the 2 point to end the game. If they get a TD and the EP or they miss the 2 point the other team could win with a TD and a 2 point so they get a chance.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

I can understand not wanting to play an entire 5th quarter. The players aren't conditioned to playing that long and the longer the game goes, the more prone the players become to injury because of fatigue. So I'm sure the Player's Union would have something to say about playing another whole quarter.

I'm fine with the current format with one tweak. I would change it so both teams get at least 1 opportunity on offense, regardless of whether a td is scored by the first receiving team or not. After that, if the game is still tied it just goes to sudden death so whoever scores first after that wins.

 

[azrsx05]

Why 12 instead of 15? Does it start with a coin flip and kickoff, or is it just a 5th period, so the teams change ends and pick up where they left off?

So, in the playoffs, in order to keep things simple, we add a different type of overtime and if that doesn't work, come back to what they're already doing?

Yup, simple.

They can do another 15 min. But since they all complain that it's way more football they have to play. But I think they get paid enough and should be able to play an extra quarter if needed.

Hell. In the playoffs maybe make them take off 1pt tries and make them go for 2 if they score

 

[TJV]

That's true but what if a team has a great offense and a suspect defense and loses the toss? Its somewhat unfair to not allow their offense a chance. I'd say that even if the Packers had won the toss and the game.

For the record I'm fine if they don't change it but I think they should have left it alone before going with this half *** measure. Go back to true sudden death (FG wins it) or give both teams a chance. I think its stupid to say the other team gets a chance if you only score a FG but if you score a TD its over. Why not say if the other team has a chance to WIN then they get a chance. That means the receiving team would have to score a TD and the 2 point to end the game. If they get a TD and the EP or they miss the 2 point the other team could win with a TD and a 2 point so they get a chance.

If a team has a suspect defense - even if they have a great offense - I don't think they should complain about this rule since their suspect D will make it very difficult to win a title. I like this system better than sudden death because the team receiving the KO could kick a long FG without the other team having a chance with the ball: That seems more unfair to me than the current rule. At least with the current rule, the kicking team's D just has to stop the opponent from scoring a TD. Anything else and they get the ball. It's painful to say but if a team (like the Packers for two consecutive seasons) can't stop their opponent from scoring a TD they don't deserve to win IMO. But no OT rule would be perfect...

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Hell. In the playoffs maybe make them take off 1pt tries and make them go for 2 if they score

But then there wouldn't be controversy like this for us to debate afterwards.

Edit: thought I was in the Go For 2 thread.

 

[sschind]

If a team has a suspect defense - even if they have a great offense - I don't think they should complain about this rule since their suspect D will make it very difficult to win a title. I like this system better than sudden death because the team receiving the KO could kick a long FG without the other team having a chance with the ball: That seems more unfair to me than the current rule. At least with the current rule, the kicking team's D just has to stop the opponent from scoring a TD. Anything else and they get the ball. It's painful to say but if a team (like the Packers for two consecutive seasons) can't stop their opponent from scoring a TD they don't deserve to win IMO. But no OT rule would be perfect...

Except the issue with OT is not winning the title it is having fair chance to win the game. I do think this way is more fair than the old way I just don't think it went far enough so IMO it was pointless to make any change. Go all the way and give each offense a chance or leave it the way it was. If they leave it like this though I'll live with that too.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Bring out the QB's and make them throw balls from the 50 into trash cans in the endzone.....first guy to make one, his team wins. Problem solved.....until AR retires.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[longtimefan]

I'm fine with the current format with one tweak. I would change it so both teams get at least 1 opportunity on offense, regardless of whether a td is scored by the first receiving team or not. After that, if the game is still tied it just goes to sudden death so whoever scores first after that wins.

I agree, both offenses get the ball..

While a team's defense HAS to stop the offense--that is based only on a coin flip on who gets that ball 1st..

I am sure it will be changed, but when?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I am sure it will be changed, but when?

2 years 2 late, even if it happens tomorrow.

 

[RRyder]

I like the college method of both teams getting the ball. Skip the coin toss, visitors go first. 6 plays starting from midfield. No first downs. GO!

I absolutely hate the college format. The current format us ok. In fact I preferred the old format even of a true sudden death.

All the talk of thinking both teams should have a chance with the ball is non sense to me when it comes to the NFL.

This is the pros. That means If you don't win the coin toss your defensive and ST players are still getting paid. Make a play!!!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would prefer both teams to get the same amount of possessions until the score isn´t tied anymore, thus taking away the luck of the coin toss out of it. Absolutely hate the college format.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Don't really fully agree with Cowherds "solution", but at least one of the talking heads acknowledges the issue and is offering suggestions.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/...-green-bay-packers-road-team-touchdown-011816

 

[Carl]

I can think of games where the rule isn't fair. Shootouts are good examples.

I don't think the two most recent Packer game are good examples though considering the defense displayed ability to stop the offense most of each game.

Plus, when you give up a long TD drive in 3-4 in OT, that's more playing poorly than having bad luck.