PDA

View Full Version : Let's Talk NFL Overtime Rules


RhymesayersDU
10-11-2009, 10:08 PM
So here's my issue. What I noticed today was that the second loudest cheer in my house was when we won the coin toss to start OT. (The loudest was obviously the GW FG.)

But should it be like that? Should games and lives hinge on a coin flip? I know that on one side, you could easily say the Pats (or any team that loses the coin toss) have every opportunity to play good, hard defense. But let's be real. Most teams that win the flip win the game.

Do you feel there should be a change?

Clockwork Orange
10-11-2009, 10:09 PM
Leave it as it is. It doesn't come down to a coin flip, it comes down to whether or not you can stop the opposition. If your defense can't stop them, you deserve to lose.

Bronx33
10-11-2009, 10:11 PM
Leave it as it is. It doesn't come down to a coin flip, it comes down to whether or not you can stop the opposition. If your defense can't stop them, you deserve to lose.


this...

Orange4Life
10-11-2009, 10:12 PM
I hate the college/HS format. I think the NFL format is great. Sudden death creates incredible drama. If you can't get a stop you deserve to lose.

SouthCarolinaBronco
10-11-2009, 10:12 PM
Either one full 15 minute quarter or use the college system but start from the 40.

The system is "fair" in that the outcome of the coin flip is random and you are just as likely to benefit as you are to lose. But games should be decided on the field, and the coin toss gives too much of an advantage to the winner unless the teams involved are very defense oriented.

Man-Goblin
10-11-2009, 10:13 PM
I hate it. But I also hate the college version. I don't know what you could do that would be fair. Maybe give each team a shot from the other 20.

SouthCarolinaBronco
10-11-2009, 10:14 PM
Leave it as it is. It doesn't come down to a coin flip, it comes down to whether or not you can stop the opposition. If your defense can't stop them, you deserve to lose.

Think about Denver-San Diego last year, the Ed Hochuli game. If that thing goes to overtime, the coin flip winner wins because of the coin flip. Neither of those defenses could stop the other team, it was a total track meet. That's not how NFL games should be decided.

TDmvp
10-11-2009, 10:14 PM
I hate the college version of OT added with the BCS so much I don't even really follow college ball...

spdirty
10-11-2009, 10:14 PM
I usually hate the overtime rules, but today I love em.

cutthemdown
10-11-2009, 10:16 PM
So here's my issue. What I noticed today was that the second loudest cheer in my house was when we won the coin toss to start OT. (The loudest was obviously the GW FG.)

But should it be like that? Should games and lives hinge on a coin flip? I know that on one side, you could easily say the Pats (or any team that loses the coin toss) have every opportunity to play good, hard defense. But let's be real. Most teams that win the flip win the game.

Do you feel there should be a change?

I'd like to see the official numbers on how many teams that won flip won game.

HEAV
10-11-2009, 10:17 PM
While I feel that it's the defense's job to get the ball back. I really wouldn't mind just playing the extra quarter and see what happens.

Clockwork Orange
10-11-2009, 10:18 PM
Think about Denver-San Diego last year, the Ed Hochuli game. If that thing goes to overtime, the coin flip winner wins because of the coin flip. Neither of those defenses could stop the other team, it was a total track meet. That's not how NFL games should be decided.

The way I see it is that coming up with a big stop in a pressure situation is part of the game. If your defense isn't any good, you don't deserve to have the rules amended to give you a better shot in OT.

Don't leave it up to a coin toss, have a capable defense.

Fedaykin
10-11-2009, 10:21 PM
an interesting change to preserve the "sudden death" concept would be make the overtime one posession.

If the team with posession scores, they win the game.

If they don't score, the defenders win.

Orange4Life
10-11-2009, 10:22 PM
I hate it. But I also hate the college version. I don't know what you could do that would be fair. Maybe give each team a shot from the other 20.

If it is changed it should go an entire 15 additional minutes. The problem with each team getting a shotis that the team going second gets a huge advantage because they know what they need to win/tie and can use fourth down accordingly. So the coin flip is still a huge factor.

SouthCarolinaBronco
10-11-2009, 10:25 PM
The way I see it is that coming up with a big stop in a pressure situation is part of the game. If your defense isn't any good, you don't deserve to have the rules amended to give you a better shot in OT.

Don't leave it up to a coin toss, have a capable defense.

Well sure, but the practical effect is this. If two teams are very, very defensive-oriented, then the coin toss is not likely to have an effect on the outcome. If two teams are very, very offensive-oriented, then the coin toss quite likely determines the outcome. It's that latter situation that I don't like, because I don't think something having nothing to do with playing the game on the field should affect the outcome of the game.

DeuceOfClub
10-11-2009, 10:25 PM
Don't like it myself.
My idea: 1st team to score 8 points win.
(if no team scores 8 points after 15min, the team with the most points win)

ScottXray
10-11-2009, 10:26 PM
Think about Denver-San Diego last year, the Ed Hochuli game. If that thing goes to overtime, the coin flip winner wins because of the coin flip. Neither of those defenses could stop the other team, it was a total track meet. That's not how NFL games should be decided.

You youngns need t think about what it was like before there was Overtime.

It used to be that the game ended in a TIE. 1/2 win 1/2 loss in the standings.

If your defense blows it and gives up the score on the first possession you lose. Stop the other team and your offense gets its chance.

Want the best chance...Don't lose the toss, and or don't give up a score and take the ball back.

What"s fair about saying ...Okay ...Now YOU get a chance?

You had it already and failed.


Stop the other team if you want to get that chance....it's SUDDEN DEATH!

SouthCarolinaBronco
10-11-2009, 10:32 PM
You youngns need t think about what it was like before there was Overtime.

It used to be that the game ended in a TIE. 1/2 win 1/2 loss in the standings.

If your defense blows it and gives up the score on the first possession you lose. Stop the other team and your offense gets its chance.

Want the best chance...Don't lose the toss, and or don't give up a score and take the ball back.

What"s fair about saying ...Okay ...Now YOU get a chance?

You had it already and failed.


Stop the other team if you want to get that chance....it's SUDDEN DEATH!

From a statistical standpoint, none of the options people have been talking about--including the current system--is UNFAIR. Each team has an equal chance to win. If the rule was "At the end of the fourth quarter, a tie shall be decided by paper-rock-scissors," that would be FAIR, but it would also be LAME.

The problem is that in certain circumstances with certain teams, the coin toss outcome has an awful lot to do with the game outcome. Sports shouldn't come down to a coin flip.

Mr. Elway
10-11-2009, 10:49 PM
2 words: Jump ball

Bronx33
10-11-2009, 10:50 PM
team owners fight to the death.

SouthCarolinaBronco
10-11-2009, 10:53 PM
team owners fight to the death.

If this was the rule, Raiders coaches would kneel down on 1st and goal from the 1 in a tie game with a minute left just in the hopes somebody would knock off Al Davis.

LongDongJohnson
10-11-2009, 10:59 PM
do some xfl crap and put the ball at 50 and have two players race for it.

ward63
10-11-2009, 11:06 PM
Both get one position, but still kickoff.

Irish Stout
10-11-2009, 11:12 PM
Used to hate it, but over time I have come to accept and actually like it.

The issue - the guys with the advantage need to only get to the 35 yard line to win the game with an FG.

However, look at how good the Ds are on good teams, they make stops all the time. Up until overtime, in one hour of football, we only scored 17 points. The Pats D did decently in stopping us and we missed a field goal. Winning the coin toss is huge, it gives you the upper hand, but your D needs to be ready to step in and make the stop because they know the rules too. I thought that our D was finally clicking in the 4th and I was confident even if we lost the toss that we would have the opportunity to get the ball back.

Broncobiv
10-11-2009, 11:22 PM
I am so sick of this debate! Lose the coin toss? Want to win? Play some ****ing defense! Force a punt, pick off the ball, strip it for a fumble!

"Defense wins championships", right? So play some defense in OT instead of b****ing and moaning for a rule change! All-time, the percentage of teams winning the coin toss and then winning the game on the first possession is only about 30%. The team winning the coin toss and eventually winning the game is between 50 and 60% overall. Not too lopsided!

Defense is just as important as offense in the NFL (in fact, a lot of people would say it's more important). This debate gets so tiresome and old. The current system is the simplest method of determining a winner. No ridiculous rules like both teams get the ball, the ball is automatically placed on XX yard line, etc. 1) Kickoff 2) First team to score wins 3) Game over...simple!

Leave it the way it is!

atomicbloke
10-11-2009, 11:32 PM
an interesting change to preserve the "sudden death" concept would be make the overtime one posession.

If the team with posession scores, they win the game.

If they don't score, the defenders win.

Most radical and interesting suggestion I have heard....

SouthCarolinaBronco
10-11-2009, 11:41 PM
The current system is the simplest method of determining a winner.

No it's not. The simplest method would be to flip a coin with the winner being decided by the coin toss itself.

azbroncfan
10-11-2009, 11:52 PM
I usually hate the overtime rules, but today I love em.

:thumbs:

Broncobiv
10-11-2009, 11:56 PM
No it's not. The simplest method would be to flip a coin with the winner being decided by the coin toss itself.
Ooh, good call there. How amazingly clever you are. Hey, why not just have coin flips decide the winners of every game, then? Save a lot of time and injuries! ::)

TheReverend
10-11-2009, 11:57 PM
If this was the rule, Raiders coaches would kneel down on 1st and goal from the 1 in a tie game with a minute left just in the hopes somebody would knock off Al Davis.

They would do that under the direction of Al so he has a legal opportunity to feast on a soul and gain another 5 years of life.

SouthCarolinaBronco
10-12-2009, 12:03 AM
Ooh, good call there. How amazingly clever you are. Hey, why not just have coin flips decide the winners of every game, then? Save a lot of time and injuries! ::)

Well if simplicity is the end-all and be-all of deciding games tied at the end of regulation, that's the simplest way to do it.

The point is that everybody freaks out if you suggest a coin flip deciding everything, but it's apparently ok if the coin flip just has a substantial influence instead of totally controlling the outcome.

The statistics, which you reference, show that the coin toss winner has a 50% better chance at winning in overtime than the coin toss loser. That just ain't right.

Broncobiv
10-12-2009, 12:11 AM
The statistics, which you reference, show that the coin toss winner has a 50% better chance at winning in overtime than the coin toss loser. That just ain't right.
I don't have access to the statistics (or I don't care to look them up), but I'd be willing to bet that in the history of the NFL, either the coin toss winner or the coin toss loser has better than a 50% winning percentage, too. Should we change the rules of having a coin toss to start each game, too?

Of course it's gonna be shifted one way or the other. It's never going to be exactly 50%. Using your logic, whatever system you implement is going to be shifted to one side. Doesn't mean it's unfair (doesn't mean it "just ain't right").

The point is, it's close enough to 50% that it's fair enough. I mean, if the coin toss winner was at something like an 80% win rate, then yeah, maybe the rules would need tweaking. But it's not. The current system is fair enough, and complicating it more would just ruin it. Keep it simple. Someone kicks off, and then you either play offense or defense. Score first and win!

SouthCarolinaBronco
10-12-2009, 12:17 AM
I don't have access to the statistics (or I don't care to look them up), but I'd be willing to bet that in the history of the NFL, either the coin toss winner or the coin toss loser has better than a 50% winning percentage, too. Should we change the rules of having a coin toss to start each game, too?

Of course it's gonna be shifted one way or the other. It's never going to be exactly 50%. The point is, it's close enough to 50% that it's fair enough. I mean, if the coin toss winner was at something like an 80% win rate, then yeah, maybe the rules would need tweaking. But it's not. The current system is fair enough, and complicating it more would just ruin it. Keep it simple. Someone kicks off, and then you either play offense or defense. Score first and win!

I would be shocked if the game-beginning coin toss winner had any statistically significant effect on outcome. In fact, coin toss winner in overtime had no statistically significant effect until the kickoff yard line was moved back to the 30. That has resulted in coin toss winners winning 60% and losers winning only 40%. That means coin toss winners have half-again the better chance at winning, a 50% advantage.

And again, the system is not UNFAIR. It's just that a very substantial part of the outcome is determined by something other than football skill and playing ability. And that's what I don't like.

ZONA
10-12-2009, 01:57 AM
If you can't win the game during regulation, you can't bitch about losing a coin toss. You had all game to try and win it so you just live with the results of the toss. You still have the choice to pick which side to defend and you still get a chance to stop the other team.

Hogan11
10-12-2009, 06:45 AM
Leave it as it is.

If you wanna change something with the rules, make the motion of throwing a flag by WR's DB's & QB's a 15 yrd. unsportsmanlike penality. I could get behind that because I'm sick of seeing it. That one is coming BTW, whether you like it or not.

The Joker
10-12-2009, 06:53 AM
Leave it as it is.

If you wanna change something with the rules, make the motion of throwing a flag by WR's DB's & QB's a 15 yrd. unsportsmanlike penality. I could get behind that because I'm sick of seeing it. That one is coming BTW, whether you like it or not.

Agree with that, hate seeing players begging for flags.

As for OT, one minor change I'd like to see is that the team who gets the ball first can't kick a FG to win the game. They need to get a TD.

If you can't keep a team out of the endzone then you have no right to complain whatsoever, but FG's just seem soft to me.

One day a Superbowl will go to OT and the team that wins the toss will drive, make a FG, and win the game. Everyone will overreact and the rule will change.

Arkie
10-12-2009, 06:59 AM
The coin toss winner has the clear advantage. I'm not complaining in this case. I'm glad Brady never got to touch the ball in OT.

GoBroncos DownUnder
10-12-2009, 07:02 AM
If you can't win the game during regulation, you can't b**** about losing a coin toss. You had all game to try and win it so you just live with the results of the toss. You still have the choice to pick which side to defend and you still get a chance to stop the other team.
Yep! :thanku: Argument over.

HAT
10-12-2009, 07:09 AM
Decent enough as is....The only change I would be in favor of is "First team to 6"

College OT sucks.

Arkie
10-12-2009, 07:23 AM
College OT is exciting!

Matt Jones v. Eli Manning in 7 overtimes.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0BhXJ67JBvU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0BhXJ67JBvU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

lex
10-12-2009, 07:26 AM
Either one full 15 minute quarter or use the college system but start from the 40.

The system is "fair" in that the outcome of the coin flip is random and you are just as likely to benefit as you are to lose. But games should be decided on the field, and the coin toss gives too much of an advantage to the winner unless the teams involved are very defense oriented.

Historically, it has been about 50/50 in teams of the team having the first possession winning. Aside from the fact that defenses get paid too, theres also the data to suggest its more than fair.

Arkie
10-12-2009, 07:37 AM
The coin toss winner wins the game 60% of the time since 1994 when they moved kickoffs back 5 yards.

lex
10-12-2009, 07:47 AM
The coin toss winner wins the game 60% of the time since 1994 when they moved kickoffs back 5 yards.

On the first possession?

BTW, has anyone noticed that the proponents of the college OT here have been guys that are fromt he southeast where college football is more prevalent?

I think theyre eating college OT propaganda in their grits.

GoBroncos DownUnder
10-12-2009, 07:55 AM
The main problem with College style OT in the NFL is that if the game goes too long, like 2-3 OT's ... at what point do you just say "screw it" and lose the game, because your next game is a Thursday night game!
Getting a win via a LONG game might hurt you for weeks to come.

chex
10-12-2009, 08:05 AM
The problem with each team getting a shotis that the team going second gets a huge advantage because they know what they need to win/tie and can use fourth down accordingly. So the coin flip is still a huge factor.

I think that's what would make it even more dramatic.

For the record, I'm in the minority on this, but I feel each team should get one possession in OT. If it's still tied after that, then the first team to score wins. No starting at a pre-determined spot, it should be played like the start of a half, with the kickoff going to the coin toss winner, and if they score, they kick it off as well.

The drama comes in where the first team canít just decide to be conservative and play it safe, drive to the 35 or 30 and kick a FG, since a TD the other way will cost them the game.

For me, thereís too many variables that go into it. If you get sloppy on the kick coverage, or get called for a bad PI penalty, that affects the outcome as much as anything else. If you have a chance to win or at least tie, and donít, then thereís no one else to blame.

I will say this though, this topic comes up every year and it never gets changed. If it doesnít get changed this offseason after the league seeing Brady lose without ever getting his hands on the ball in OT, it never will.

TexanBob
10-12-2009, 04:54 PM
I say one modest change. Both teams get one possession in OT. If they are tied after the first possession, it goes to sudden death.

So, in the case of yesterday's game, if the Broncos kick a FG, Patriots would get one possession under the normal NFL rules. If the Patriots fail to score, Broncos win. If the Patriots score a TD, Patriots win. If the Patriots kick a FG, Patriots kick off to the Broncos and then it becomes sudden death.

The reason I like this rule is that both offenses get to have the ball at least once. I don't think it would decide too many outcomes and it puts pressure on the team who gets into FG range to actually try for a TD instead of lining the ball up on third down for the FG try.

Rohirrim
10-12-2009, 04:56 PM
Let me put it this way, given what happened in the fourth quarter, if the Pats had won the toss, it still wouldn't have mattered. They were going nowhere.

Mogulseeker
10-12-2009, 04:58 PM
do some xfl crap and put the ball at 50 and have two players race for it.

Beat me to it, lol

lex
10-12-2009, 05:03 PM
I say one modest change. Both teams get one possession in OT. If they are tied after the first possession, it goes to sudden death.So, in the case of yesterday's game, if the Broncos kick a FG, Patriots would get one possession under the normal NFL rules. If the Patriots fail to score, Broncos win. If the Patriots score a TD, Patriots win. If the Patriots kick a FG, Patriots kick off to the Broncos and then it becomes sudden death.

The reason I like this rule is that both offenses get to have the ball at least once. I don't think it would decide too many outcomes and it puts pressure on the team who gets into FG range to actually try for a TD instead of lining the ball up on third down for the FG try.

No way. Thats too "every one gets a trophy"...everyone gets an at bat.

Broncobiv
10-12-2009, 06:39 PM
On the first possession?
No. It's only about 29% of the time that a team wins the coin toss and then scores on that first possession. Big deal! Leave it as it is!

SouthCarolinaBronco
10-12-2009, 06:51 PM
No. It's only about 29% of the time that a team wins the coin toss and then scores on that first possession. Big deal! Leave it as it is!

That stat only makes sense when you analyze it in terms of overall win percentage. If 50% of the time the team that won the coin toss won, but 50% of the time the team to possess second also won, then coin toss has no overall effect.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be an asshole math nerd. I do have a mathematics degree though, which screams at me to disagree with some of the stuff posted here. I agree that OT the way it is is completely fair. And this past game with the Patriots was fun as hell.

All I'm saying is, if I were designing the game from scratch, my tie-breaker at the end of regulation would be something that minimized the influence of factors not relating to play on the field.

It surprised me to learn that there was no statistically significant difference between coin toss winning and losing back when the kickoffs were from the 35. Moving the kickoff in OT to the 35 would actually totally resolve the problem.

Broncobiv
10-12-2009, 11:31 PM
That stat only makes sense when you analyze it in terms of overall win percentage. If 50% of the time the team that won the coin toss won, but 50% of the time the team to possess second also won, then coin toss has no overall effect.
But I wasn't even claiming that the overall winning percentage by coin toss winners and losers was 50/50. We know that's not true. What does that have to do with the 29% stat?

All I said was that in 29% of OT games, a team wins the coin toss and scores on that very first possession, not letting the other team get the ball. Less than 1 in 3 OT games end the way that everyone seems to be b****ing and moaning about, as if it's a near-guarantee or something.

SouthCarolinaBronco
10-13-2009, 12:01 AM
But I wasn't even claiming that the overall winning percentage by coin toss winners and losers was 50/50. We know that's not true. What does that have to do with the 29% stat?

All I said was that in 29% of OT games, a team wins the coin toss and scores on that very first possession, not letting the other team get the ball. Less than 1 in 3 OT games end the way that everyone seems to be b****ing and moaning about, as if it's a near-guarantee or something.

Some people may be bitching about the possibility of a team winning without the other team's offense touching the ball. That is not at all my complaint. The 29% stat is only relevant to determining that issue.

My complaint is that the team that wins the toss is more likely to win the game; 50% more likely to win in fact. I don't think a coin toss should have that much affect on the outcome of an NFL game or any other athletic contest. The 29% stat has nothing to do with that.

I would have no problem with sudden death if the statistics showed that the coin toss didn't affect the outcome, as was the case before the kickoff line was moved back from the 35 to the 30. The idea that one team may win before the other team's offense gets the ball doesn't irritate me in the slightest. The idea that an outcome--a championship even--might come down to a coin toss is sickening.

Super Bowl XXXII was not exactly a defensive game. Say John Mobley doesn't make the play on 4th down and the Packers score. At that point in time, the Broncos first championship and perhaps John Elway's career could have come down to a freaking coin flip. That ain't right.

Broncobiv
10-13-2009, 12:30 AM
I wouldn't even have a problem with the system if the team that wins the coin toss wins the game 95% of the time, as long as it's not on the first possession. Why should it even matter if the team that wins the coin toss wins the game most of the time, if it's not on the first possession? I mean, both teams got the ball. At that point, just because the coin toss winner ended up winning doesn't matter, because it was equal. It was not the first possession. Both teams played offense.

60% of the time, the coin toss winner ended up winning the game. So what? Only 29% of the time did it occur on the first possession. That is the more important statistic, IMO. For example, the ball could change possession 6 times, and the coin toss winner eventually wins the game. And therefore, it supports your "60%" complaint. But in reality, it didn't make a difference who won the coin toss, because by the end of it, the ball changed hands 6 times!

That's why I think the "29% stat" is important. The "60% of the time, the coin toss winner wins the game" stat loses a lot of it's luster when you consider the fact that most of the time, both teams actually do get possession during OT. And therefore, most of the time (71% of the time, to be exact), you have a nice, happy, fair, both teams get possession, overtime period.

Maybe I'm going on about something you're not even complaining about, but all of the arguments seem to intermingle anyway.

Broncobiv
10-13-2009, 12:39 AM
Just a quick example to support my last post:

Last week (Week 4, 2009): The Bengals beat the Browns in overtime. Uh oh, the Bengals had also won the coin toss! So that's not fair, right?

Well, you tell me. The Bengals had 4 OT possessions. But the Browns got 3 OT possessions for themselves.

But of course, "60% of the time, the coin toss winner ends up winning the game." Do you really believe that the coin toss had any tangible effect whatsoever in determining the outcome of this game?

SouthCarolinaBronco
10-13-2009, 12:41 AM
I wouldn't even have a problem with the system if the team that wins the coin toss wins the game 95% of the time, as long as it's not on the first possession. Why should it even matter if the team that wins the coin toss wins the game most of the time, if it's not on the first possession? I mean, both teams got the ball. At that point, just because the coin toss winner ended up winning doesn't matter, because it was equal. It was not the first possession. Both teams played offense.

60% of the time, the coin toss winner ended up winning the game. So what? Only 29% of the time did it occur on the first possession. That is the more important statistic, IMO. For example, the ball could change possession 6 times, and the coin toss winner eventually wins the game. And therefore, it supports your "60%" complaint. But in reality, it didn't make a difference who won the coin toss, because by the end of it, the ball changed hands 6 times!

That's why I think the "29% stat" is important. The "60% of the time, the coin toss winner wins the game" stat loses a lot of it's luster when you consider the fact that most of the time, both teams actually do get possession during OT. And therefore, most of the time (71% of the time, to be exact), you have a nice, happy, fair, both teams get possession, overtime period.

Maybe I'm going on about something you're not even complaining about, but all of the arguments seem to intermingle anyway.

Eh, it was a good and well-argued debate :-)

Frankly, there is not much about pro football that needs fixing. Best game in the world.

Broncobiv
10-13-2009, 12:44 AM
Eh, it was a good and well-argued debate :-)

Frankly, there is not much about pro football that needs fixing. Best game in the world.
LOL good point, I guess we've been going on for about 2 days now.