WHAT!! How does a man his age just now discover Guinness is the perfect beer? I've lost all respect for this man.

FWIW, the Saints waiting list is 25,000.

And all of the suites are sold out.

Can we drop the "NOLA can't sustain an NFL franchise" nonsense now?

I say when regulation ends, just take a time out like the 2:00 warning, and then continue the game from where you left off, no kickoff, nothing. If you are on the 1 yd line at the end of regulation, you can run a QB sneak and end overtime on the first snap. If you're on your own 1, you've still got 99 yards to go. This is fair to everybody.

3: Or why not just play an extra period, like in every other sport?

3: So basically not have a rigid time for the game's length? I think that would kind of suck, because there'd be no two-minute offense, hurrying to the line, going for it on fourth, etc... you'd just take your time and run the offense as normal until you scored. It hurts the drama potential, I would say.

Okay, he likes Norah Jones, didn't like Prince at the Super Bowl.

Just got an iPod.

I'm hearing good things about Perry Como, Peter.

You know Ron? He's the ice-water-in-the-veins Ohio State Buckeye whose 28-foot, two-hands-in-his-face 3-pointer with two seconds left sent OSU's game with Xavier into overtime. That's the guy you want up with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth in the World Series right there.

It is statements like this that demonstrate to me that Peter King fundamentally does not understand sports.

Never thought I'd love Guinness, but it's pretty close to the perfect beer.

... and it is statements like this that demonstrate to me that Peter King fundamentally does not understand beer.

5. Sure there would. Most 2 minute offenses are when you are trying to come from behind, not when the game is tied and you are trying not to go to overtime. It seems like most teams with the game tied and less than 2:00 left tend to just run the ball to kill the clock and go to OT, or throw a few bombs hoping for a quick TD.

#4: Three five-minute overtime periods. If a team is ahead at the end of any of them, they win. It's the fairest, smartest suggestion I've heard.

If you don't get the ball first, and the other team bleeds 5 minutes off the clock driving down the field and scores a touchdown, no way you can complain, because your defense would look like crap, and the coach would be an idiot for not giving up and letting them score earlier (and yes, coaches have admitted that they would do this near the end of a half anyway).

It's also awesome because of the drama factor - you could have a series of like 4 or 5 two-minute offenses in the span of a real hour. Fans would love that.

The NFL does play an extra full period. They just end it when either team scores.

Every other sport (save perhaps baseball, if you count individual innings as periods) that plays an extra period tends to play a shortened one. Basketball plays 5 minutes, soccer generally 30 minutes, hockey 5 minutes.

But there's also the issue of frequency of scoring - sports that tend to have more infrequent scoring (soccer, hockey, football) tend to play sudden death, while sports with more frequent scoring (basketball, baseball) play out the entire extra periods.

Is there some way to make football's overtime better? I think so, but I don't think playing out all 15 minutes is the way to do it.

3
But that'll eliminate the excitement of two minute drills. If teams can retain the ball after regulation they won't have incentive to hurry.

4
This has been said many times before. The reason they don't want to play an entire extra period is TV. The NFL doesn't want games going too long.

I think it's funny when PK touts things that have been ubiquitous for years:

"Ya know what's great? Color TV. Makes a world of difference."

"Can't believe it's taken me this long to start using ATM machines. They are really convenient! If you're not using them, here's a tip: Use them."

"Rich McKay of the Bucs just clued me in to a great innovation: the elevator. They've got eight of them at the Bucs training facility and they are the way of the future. Where can I buy stock in Elevators?"

12:

I hear they're renaming the column "In My Day."

12:

I hear they're renaming the column "In My Day."

By far the best OT suggestion I've heard is to simply pick up the OT where the 4th quarter leaves off and the next team to score wins.

If you end regulation with 2nd and 6 on your own 35, then you start OT 2nd and 6 on your own 35. Treat it the same as the transition between the 1st/2nd or 3rd/4th quarters.

The kickoff idea is atrocious and PK's half-assed "any change is good change" defense of it doesn't help. That idea needs to die a quick death.

11.
Read my post #8, most 2 minute drills are by teams that are trailing at the end of the game.

And are we trying to be fair or exciting? Because I think the current system is exciting, though not entirely fair, so I proposed a system to make it more fair but likely less exciting.

I don't have an iPod, but even I know who Norah Jones is.

"Ya know what's really great? Direct deposit. No more of this having to take your check to the bank at lunchtime on payday!"

Here's what I'd do for overtime:

Touchdown wins the game.

If a team scores a fieldgoal, the other team has the upcoming possesion to tie/win the game. If they dont, they lose.

I still think that you should leave overtime as is, but add an option. If either team chooses to kick to start a half, then that team gets the ball first for the sudden death.

I've always opposed any overtime system that cuts out special teams, and any that would dramatically change the nature of the game. That's why I oppose the FO proposed auction. I also don't like the idea of moving the overtime kickoff--I wonder how much coverage schemes would change if the ball were kicked from an unusual location. I'm actually pretty OK with the current system. Defense and special teams are part of the game. If you're bad enough of them that you can't stop a FG on one opponent's possession, maybe you should play for the win harder.

That being said, there's two fixes people have talked about that I really like:

(1) Keep the kickoff the same. Whoever is ahead after a team scores its 4th point in overtime, wins. If 3 or fewer points are scored per team in the overtime period, whoever is ahead at the end of the overtime period wins. (You require one team to score at least 4, and not 4 total from both teams, so that a team can't win by scoring a FG and then committing an intentional safety to bring the point total up to 4). Getting the ball, marching down, and getting a TD wins. Getting a safety and a FG, or two FG's, wins. Getting a FG and hold the other team scoreless wins. Giving up a FG and then answering with a TD (or two FG's) wins.

(2) Keep the current sudden death approach, but just have it be designated who "wins the toss" without tossing. E.G home team always "wins the overtime toss". This would give the home team the advantage, but since every team plays the same number of home games, it's fair. It would keep the games short, and make the endgame stragegies clearer and fairer, but no less exciting.

I like MDS's solution (the 2003 column) but I have a better system. Each team gets one snap at their opponent's 40 to score, they keep exchanging the ball until one scores. Just think of all the ridiculous plays to try and end the game - flea flickers, hail mary's, hook and laterals, rugby plays, etc. It would be awesomes.

MDS's short field, in all seriousness, is a great idea, it completely revamps the strategery of the situation.

Some part of me thinks that perhaps there should be a different way of doing things in the playoffs.

Perhaps this is just "American attitude" talking, but it always baffled me that the Champion of the Universe in soccer could be determined via penalty kicks.

In an early-round game, fine. In your country's league, fine. In the regular season, fine. But the playoffs? The championship? Laaaaaaaame. And this comes from someone who enjoys watching live soccer.

The argument that "Everyone's tired" means nothing to me. Give teams an extra sub each overtime period and get it on. If a team is going to be the champion, I want them to actually win.

Once you hit the playoffs, hockey doesn't stick to 5-minute overtimes, or shootouts, and the game can only end by a goal being scored, even if it means playing multiple extra periods.

Likewise, I might be interested in the possibility of, during the playoffs, seeing football go to something like Rich Conley's "Touchdown wins" scenario, or perhaps a "First team to lead by 4."

Alternately, we could have NO overtime in the regular season (saves on the TV issue, as well) and only have it in the post season.

I wouldn't mind seeing coaches calling on their cellphones to see if a tie or a win would help them...

I still stand by my belief that there is nothing unfair about overtime as presently constituted.

The three five-minute periods intrigues me though. That's a fresh approach.

Alternately, play an entire 15 minute quarter, but the clock doesn't stop except for each team's one timeout.

You know what's great? Sliced bread. Honestly -- it's the greatest think since...

Brilliant!!!

The first team to four is close to what I was saying, but mine has one difference: after the first team scores 3, its sudden death. If you stop the opponent, you win. You can win without getting to four.

Basically, we're trying to get rid of that "team drives 25 yards and kicks a field goal" crap, without the other team ever seeing the ball.

IMO, if you can drive the length of the field, in overtime, you should win. This sort of solution would also cause some teams to do more risky things. It also adds more strategy around the 40 yard line: IE, do we kick for 3, and try to stop them, or do we drive for the win right now(most coaches are mamsy-pamsy girly men, and will kick).

Basically mine boils down to: If you're taking posession, and you're already ahead, you win. I dont know how a safety would be dealt with though...

I like 21.'s idea, but better yet, start at midfield and get 5 yards closer after every try, so its first ang goal from the 50, then 4 from the 45, then the 40, etc. until one team scores unanswered, and you could kick. So if you get to the 40 and decide to go for the 57 yarder, that is your choice, and the other team would have to match it if you made it. And the team kicking with the wind would likely be going first (one team picks direction and the other can choose to go first or 2nd).
I think that could be really good.

Any of the sudden death formats get rid of any influence of clock management, so how is it any more fair? It also changes "shootout" games (where both offenses are obliterating the opposing defense) into an entirely different game.

The only objection to just playing a full next period is the TV length. So cut it to 5 minutes. On average you'll give each team a possession, but you'll retain all clock management strategies, and "shootouts" stay shootouts.

Looking at some games last year where the game was decided on the first possession:

KC/DEN: KC would've called timeout after 1st, 2nd, and 3rd down, leaving them with about a minute left after Elam made the field goal. Would've been exciting.

WAS/JAX: Jacksonville would've gotten the ball back with 3:23 left in OT. At the end of regulation, Jacksonville drove down with less than 2 minutes left, so they'd been in this situation before. Again. Exciting.

PIT/ATL: Atlanta would've attempted to kick a field goal, Pittsburgh would've burned their timeouts, and probably got the ball back with just under a minute left. Shootout before, shootout in OT.

Re: 23

Bingo! You nailed it, Sophandros. During the regular season, overtime is unnecessary. In the playoffs, overtime ideally should be designed to be fair and to make the team that is better at standard regulation football more likely to win. I'm not sure what the best answer is, but I tend to like the no sudden death, extra quarter (or partial quarter) proposal. Whatever overtime method is employed, it won't be an issue very often as long as its use is limited to the playoffs.

Play a 10 minute period, and allow no kicks (punts, FG, PAT) - you have to go for it on 4th down and you have to go for 2.

MDS's system doesn't cut out special teams. You're not given the ball at a certain spot, you are kicking off from a certain spot.

I also like the idea of requiring a team to score 4 points in order to win in overtime. If a team kicks off, and can't play red zone defense well enough to force a field goal, or gives ups a long t.d., they deserve to lose. At the same time, this system would prevent the receiving team getting a good return, two first downs, and winning with a forty yard field goal, which is an outcome I dislike very much.

Best way to start overtime:

Scramble for the ball.

If a team kicks off, and can’t play red zone defense well enough to force a field goal, or gives ups a long t.d., they deserve to lose.

Why? They didn't choose to kick off (it was decided for them by luck). And how do you know the other team can't play red zone defense well enough to force a field goal, either?

So, in essence, you're still saying "winner is determined by coin flip."

I'd bet if you did the "win by 4" bit, and you selected all games with more than 60 points scored in regulation, you'd still see a strong coin flip bias.

32.
Do you mean like in the XFL?
I actually really liked that.

The NFL did fine without an overtime period for some 50+ years. We still have ties (albeit rare ones), so the league isn't completely averse to them. The only time it's necessary is the playoffs. Just get rid of it entirely.

Yeah, Rich, three points for victory would be o.k. as long as both teams had a possession. I agree that a team which yields a t.d. on the first o.t. series should lose.

I think one of the major issues with OT is that during the course of a football game, a FG is basically a last choice option.

In overtime, it essentially switches to the first choice, and I think thats a problem.

Starbucks. Guinness. We now know the secret. PK prefers his liquids viscous. Maybe we can sell him a bottle of Swill, the mineral water from Lake Erie.

The three five-minute periods intrigues me though. That’s a fresh approach.

Thanks. There's only one objection I can possibly think of regarding it, though - and that's that injuries might be more common in two-minute drills.

But I think that's a pretty weak objection. Timeouts still exist, and injury timeouts will still exist, too, so use them to let players recover.

I just don't understand people who want to really change overtime into a different game. Three five-minute periods makes it exactly the same game. No-huddle offenses still have an advantage when down. Field position games still work if you treat each 5-minute period as a quarter break rather than a half break (i.e. it's basically a timeout).

But the best part of it is:

We'll get to make fun of more poor Herm Edwards-style clock management.

12:

Great post. King really is about 10 years behind the times.

36.

Will, honestly, I'm fine with any endgame solution other than the stupid fieldgoal on the initial drive without the other team getting the ball. Kickers are just too good these days for that.

If a team comes out, gets a big stop, and then forces a safety, I think they should win.

You know Ron? He's the ice-water-in-the-veins Ohio State Buckeye whose 28-foot, two-hands-in-his-face 3-pointer with two seconds left sent OSU's game with Xavier into overtime. That's the guy you want up with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth in the World Series.

So he can pitch the ball, over the batters head ...

Pat, you know what I think may work well on that vein? Two 8 minute periods, with essentially a halftime between them. Both teams get the ball atleast once, theres an advantage to running a big long clock killing drive, etc.

My only problem with trying to guarantee each team a "possession" is that "possession" can become murky. What if you have the ball in FG range on your first possession, fumble it, a defender picks it up and starts to run with it, fumbles it back, and you recover. Each team has now had one "possession". Can you now kick a FG to win? Or do you want to ensure that each team gets at least one offensive snap?

Actually, I'm warming to this idea of 3 five minute periods. Really exciting. The main problem is, as every football wife and girlfriend knows, that the last two minutes of a game can last a very long time. Now you're going to have the last two minutes three or four times. Real clock time for games would go way up, which I don't think the networks would like.

Well, pat, I don't have a strong desire to minimize absolutely all elements of luck. My major desire is to avoid having games which are tied at the end of regulation decided by a couple of first downs and a long field goal. I guess it just comes down to personal taste.

It also may be the case that knowing that coin flip won't play a large role in o.t. may change behavior at the end of regulation in a manner we do not find favorable.

I'm intrigued by King's supposition that Randy Moss must be worth as much in trade as Wes Welker. Or at least, that would be the Raider's position.

Let's see. Moss is on the downside of his career, Welker is on the rise. Welker had a much better year (at least by FO standards) than Moss in 2006. Moss can be a pain in the butt, Welker hasn't been. And most importantly, even with his new contract Welker makes about a 1/3 of what Moss does (at least his current contract).

Somebody may offer the Raiders the same deal the Pats gave for Welker, but if they do it while inheriting his current contract, I think it's a big mistake. I suspect Moss gets a lot of leeway throughout the league for his lack of production as a Raider, just because the franchise has been so messed up. I just think it's a big risk to think that he'll be able to just 'turn it on' by landing with a better team.

#42 - Rick Ankiel is playing the wrong sport.

Perhaps, for the regular season, it could be kept as it is. However in the playoffs, maybe the best scenario would be "If you're ahead, and you are in possession of the ball, you win."

While that means that if the first team on defense gets a stop, then scores, they don't win, it would solve the safety issue (since the team that scored the safety gains possession of the ball), and also means at some point defense has to be involved.

Of course, that would mean a team that scores on defense didn't "win". So maybe...

"A team that is ahead by 4 points, or is winning by any amount and in possession of the ball, wins."

That means a touchdown on the opening drive does win (fine with me), but a field goal followed by a stop wins as well, but continually trading field goals does not. It also means a field goal followed by a turnover ends the game as well.

How does this new over-time rule help to lessen the impact on kick returns. Wouldn't this give the return team more area to set up a quality return?

Here's a thought that no-one's suggested. What if you keep the rules exactly the same, except you get rid of the sudden death and get rid of the 40 second playclock.

As long as no points are scored, teams will try to score normally.

When one team scores, they have to give the ball to the other team (unless the score was given up by a safety).

The team that is down obviously will try to score.

As soon as a team who is ahead gets posession (not that this gauranteed that each team will have had at least one offensive snap, unless they gave up a safety), they just kneel down and walk off the field. Having only 2 timeouts and no way to stop an indefinitely running clock, the game will end.

12- So true

I like the current overtime, but then again I like the college overtime too. The college OT is not without strategy though. The team that wins THAT coin toss is also at an advantage by going second.

If you don't want to lose the game, then win it in regulation. If you can't win the game in regulation, then how much right do you really have to complain?

Football is about offense, defense AND special teams. If you lose the coin toss, then your special teams and defense are on the field ( 2/3rds).

If your an offensive team ( with bad defense/special teams), then you should have been more aggressive or planned better at the end of the game. If your team has ONLY a good offense ( while you neglect D&ST) then how much do you really deserve to win anyway?

Of course the system is not perfect, but I don't see a solution that is.

Never mind, on second thought, what I just proposed is stupid, and pretty similar to what Tarrant just said anyway.

#44: Well, first, only give the teams 3 timeouts for all of overtime. The biggest time sink in the last two minutes are timeouts - all other time stops are less than 30 seconds.

Second, the vast majority of 2 minute drills fail. If you did have some freakish, amazing game where each team just kept racing down the field, do you think anyone would complain that it went too long? And it would happen, what, once in 5-6 years or so?

#43: I think any heavily shortened period would work. The reason I suggested 5 minute periods is that drives are typically 2-3 minutes in length. So this is pretty similar to "allow the other team to have the ball", but it adds the clock as well. You could probably tweak the 5-minute part, but all of the games I've looked at would've been fine with 5 minute periods.

Almost all the games would've likely ended with the same result (JAX/WAS, PIT/CIN, TEN/HOU might've ended differently - those would've had like 2-3 minutes more), except the team which lost would've been desperately trying to stop the clock, and if they had managed to, they would've gotten the ball back with usually like a minute left with no timeouts. That's not a good situation, but it's better than just making them lose.

Any team which makes a large wager that Randy Moss still has a strong desire to play football is making a mistake, especialy since Moss seems determined to inflict as much pain as possible on the Raiders in an effort to get out. If Moss just comes out and plays in a completely disinterested fashion this August, are the Raiders really going to be willing to pay his rather large 2007 salary?

Even a 2nd round pick alone is likely far too much to pay to acquire Moss' current contract.

Re. OT - copy the NHL: 5 minutes, 4 on 4. Still tied? Instead of hockey's shootout, how about a punt, pass and kick competiton?

Yeah, I like that, Tarrant.

Re 49: It increases the chance of the KO going into the endzone for a touchback.

The thing about shorted fixed time overtimes is the fact that somebody still gets the ball first.

If OT is 5 minutues, 10 minutes or even 15 minutes, there is still the possibility that the team that received the initial kick off will get 1 more possesion, 2-1, 3-2 just because of the mere fact that they got the first possession.

15:

YES. It's so obvious. And it's obviously even-handed. If a team has the ball in a tie game situation, they have the opportunity to grind it out for the win, clock be damned.

As far as I can tell, there are only two counter-arguments to "treat 4th/overtime transition like 1st/2nd or 3rd/4th":

1) It takes the kickoff out of the equation. To me, this is fairly spurrious: special teams has already had its chance to impact the game, and one less kickoff is not that significant an effect.

2) It reduces the opportunities for endgame drama. I think those who say this are not really thinking about it. Consider the different situations a team with the ball can find itself in in the last posession of the game, and the effect of this rule on strategy:

Up by any amount: no change. Still want to run clock and further build a lead.

Down by 8+: no change.

Down by 6, 5, 4, 2, or 1: no change.

Down by 7: More motivation to go for 2, since otherwise the other team will be getting the ball with time to score. MORE drama, not less.

Down by 3: More motivation to go for a touchdown rather than a field goal, since otherwise the other team will be getting the ball with time to score. MORE drama, not less.

Tied: No significant time pressure. Less drama. (Unless a team has the ball with a fair bit of time left, in which case this could create drama of a different sort, as the team tries to "milk the drive" into OT so that they won't have to give the ball back. I think this would be really cool, YMMV.)

In short, in most scenarios it doesn't matter, and in the three where it does, this rule would make more drama in two of them.

Re 49: It increases the chances for a touchback.

Two words: Penalty kicks

I still say that the simplest solution is simply to delay "sudden death" until each team has possessed the ball one time.

If the team that wins the coin toss goes and scores a TD, the other team gets one chance to match or better it. If they match it, next team to score wins. If they better it (go for two), they win. If they fail to match it, they lose.

If the first team kicks a FG, the second team gets one shot to match or better it. Kick a FG, and next team to score wins. Get a TD, and you win. Fail to score and you lose.

If the first team fails to score, then the next team to score wins.

(Exceptions: The second team getting a safety would mean an automatic win, as would an INT or fumble returned for a TD. Not sure about the kickoff being fumbled and returned for a TD, I could go either way on that.)

Simple. Fair. No wacky rule changes.

Pat,
Would the clock stop on plays that went Out of bounds?
Interesting idea.

34:

Yes. Both teams have a chance at the ball through skill/athleticism rather than luck. So much better than a coin toss.

Seriously, though, I like the college system. It eliminates ST from the equation. It's not sudden death, but it's not an extra quarter, either. Although I also like #15's 5th quarter idea. Tie after 5th quarter is resolved with a 6th quarter, &c. Nobody rests 'till it's over.

I don't get this opinion that "a team that yields a TD deserves to lose." For me it sounds a lot like "Defense wins championships" because it prioritizes that side of the ball for no apparent reason. As Pat points out, a shootout becomes complete luck based on who wins the coin flip. Really the only time the current OT makes sense is for a defensive, grinding game, where each team is likely to get a few possessions anyway.

Ties are obviously the most fair way to manage it during the regular season. It WILL be mostly chance that determines who wins any system that does not allow for a long period of normal play (15 minutes or more), so why not just admit that the two teams played to stalemate that game? The obvious answer is that Americans don't like ties, and find OT exciting. If drama is our main priority, though, we should probably use the NCAA system.

In the playoffs, where you have to try to determine a winner, I suppose the top priorities should be 1) equal respect for all phases of the game, 2) no inherent advantage to winning the coin toss. In that case, playing an extra 15 minutes is probably the fairest way to manage it, because time is less of a concern in the playoffs.

61:

Then Roberto Baggio can start a new career as "clutch NFL kicker."

#58, Are you opposed to the NFL possession rules in regulation for the same reasons? Why should each team be ensured an equal amount of possessions in overtime?

62- That is similar to college football on a longer field.

Re:#62

Oh, I forgot to mention: The normal time limit for the OT period remains the same. If no one scores, the game ends in a tie(unless it's the postseason of course).

59. Exactly. I think people forget that 2 minute drills are more often to force a tie than to break one.

Re:#68

Well, except that I'm not taking out special teams and the game can still end in a tie.

67- I'm more in favor of the current overtime. Every system has it's flaws and people just pick at the current systems flaws ( but they forget other systems have their flaws as well).

In our current system, one team might get a possession while the other team doesn't ( true), but offense is not the only portion of a football game.

Both special teams are on the field, and then either your OFFENSE or DEFENSE. It's not one offense against a ghost defense, and then another offense against a ghost defense.

The team that Receives the kick to start the game, kicks to open the second half and vice versa so each team has a CHANCE of an extra possesion in each half if there were no turnovers ( which would be rare).

Okay, some out-of-the-box thinking....

If most people are against the current overtime system because of the randomness of a coin flip, then take the coin flip out of the equation.

There must be better ways to determine who gets the ball first. Some ideas:

1) Second half points
2) Most total yardage
3) Fewest penalty yards
4) Best average gain per play

And so on. In other words, tie opening possession to some aspect of regulation so it is a reward for something done well in regulation, and not a random event.

Peter King:
So how does such a story like this spring to life, a life that has no end in Sports Talk America and Sports Blog America?

So, it was just us rubes that propagated this story? Should've known the professional writers would've never fallen for the "Moss trade" talk.

MSNBC

ESPN

Guinness isn't even beer, it is stout. Different stuff, different brewing process, just different.

73- That is very interesting. The yardage and stuff I don't like, but Penalties strikes my interest. That would give a HUGE disadvantage to getting penalties ( and further reason to not commit them). The only problem I see is that penalties called are rather subjective.

I really dislike the college system, not so much because it gets rid of special teams, but because it eliminates field position as a strategic element of the game, and, to me, one of the more interesting ones.

Peter, I will admit that I despise poor defensive play more than I despise poor offensive play. Simply a matter of taste, I guess, but watching somebody blow a tackle or get pancaked just irritates me a lot more that watching a qb overthrow an open receiver or seeing an offensive tackle whiff on a pass block.

I guess what I'm saying is that if I have to see the Vikings go 6-10, I'd rather see it done the way it was accomplished in 2006 than the way it was done in 2002.

What about the team with the most timeouts left gets the kick off in the second half? There is nothing subjective about that.

THEN, if there is a tie ( both teams have 1 TO), then the team that got to that point LAST, would get the ball.

This could penalize the team that 1) didn't manage the game well and called friolous timeouts, or 2) was in a hurry to catch up.

It is very easy to identify and it would REALLY put some coaches/QB's on the hot seat after a tough loss.

75: A stout is a type of beer, so Guinness is beer.

77- I agree that special teams/field position is part of the game. The college style just seems like such a controlled setting to me and the team that wins the coin toss STILL has an advantage.

If a team plays crappy defense and special teams, do they really deserve to win???

Do these teams that play prevent defenses in overtime really deserve to be defended? I think not. Football is about Offense, Defense, and special teams. 2/3rds of your team gets to play in OT depending on a random event. If you don't like it, then win in regulation or develop a more balanced team.

#63: Yeah. All rules that apply in the final minutes of regulation apply for all of overtime. It wouldn't change much. The team that has the ball first wants to bleed time, not conserve it, but of course, they still want to go down the field, since if they punt, that puts the opposing team in a great situation to win.

If OT is 5 minutues, 10 minutes or even 15 minutes, there is still the possibility that the team that received the initial kick off will get 1 more possesion, 2-1, 3-2 just because of the mere fact that they got the first possession.

Having the ball first isn't necessarily an advantage in a short OT period, though. If you fail to score, the opposing team won't have to do much to get the clock down to a minimum, which means you'd be in a serious desperation stage.

That's the point - in that case, getting the ball first is basically an even proposition. You control the ball, but you're also more likely to have your back slammed against the end of period if you don't score. So the advantage is basically washed out.

78.
That is really interesting. I have proposed before that the visiting team receives first, since I think (can someone verify this with stats??) the home team wins in OT more often than the team that receives the ball first.

73: That's an understandable instinct, but really that's going to end up kind of arbirary, isn't it? The fairest stat would of course be VOA, but then why not just award the game at the end of regulation to the team that has whatever stat you choose? What's the point of just giving the "better" team an advantage in the OT, if you're acknowledging that the other team probably didn't play as well? Either you want the OT to be a fair tiebreaker based on an equal standing after the regulation, or you don't.

If you don't, then you're probably best off with the "there is no clear end to the game" system that's been advocated here. I guess it's not crazy, but to me it changes the game in a big way whenever it's tied. I suppose "MORE drama" might kick in when the losing team has a chance to tie/win, but I think it's almost always gonig to mean the coach kicks the FG or the XP rather than go crazy worrying that the opponents are getting the ball back. It would be like if soccer or hockey just kept playing until somebody scored, it's not done because it disrupts the standard length of the game. I think you should reset the game situation and give each team a fair shot at winning, since they clearly ended up equal for the standard game length of 60 minutes.

I guess I'm biased with you, Will. The worst football game in recent memory, in my opinion, was that horrible shootout between the Colts and the Chiefs a few years back in the playoffs, when neither team could stop the other.

On the other hand, I love watching close, gritty, field position battles that end with a final score of 12-9.

But I guess it's just a matter of personal taste.

Pat, regarding what you said about win by 4 overtimes still being biased by the coin toss when the two teams just had a shootout, I would answer that yes, that is the case, but that overtime in shootouts is probably statistically less common than overtime between two more balanced teams. Because there are different types of scoring, it seems like the more scoring there is, the lower the probability of a tie after 60 minutes.

I.e. if you know a priori that there will be exactly two field goals scored in a game and no other points, the probability of a tie is relatively high. On the other hand, if you know that there will be seven touchdowns, five FG's, three 2-point conversions, and a safety, the probability of a tie is much much lower.

#80: If you don’t like it, then win in regulation or develop a more balanced team.

The other team could be just as imbalanced as the team that lost, and at that point, you're penalizing (with a loss) something that you're rewarding (with a win) to the other team for.

I just don't see the point in sudden death. Watching a QB desperately try to move the ball down the field in 10 seconds is awesome. All sudden death gets you is slow, plodding football.

Time for me to post my OT idea again: No coin toss -- home team gets the ball, always.

Sets up all kind of late game strategy. Visiting team might go for two rather than the tie, might try to score rather than kill clock with a lead, etc.

Also, makes home field advantage a real value, not just about crowd noise and intangibles.

#59, Doktarr, I really dislike the idea of removing time pressure at the end of regulation in tie games.

I don't think it should be "possession" that a team should have when leading by X under Y circumstances. It ought be a "down". That avoids unexpected termination when there are multiple fumbles in one play.

BTW, Home team should get the ball to start the game too. No more coin flips, period.

"This has been said many times before. The reason they don’t want to play an entire extra period is TV. The NFL doesn’t want games going too long."

Exactly. And that's why many of the ideas proposed here would never be seriously considered. Sure, some of those ideas might be more fair, but the league would never go for them because they would take too long and thus be bad for TV, and that is a primary consideration for the NFL. Having a relatively quick (and exciting) conclusion is more important to the NFL than having a more "fair" conclusion to a game.

I (and others) made this point last year in the thread on this topic. If the OT game goes too long, it screws things up for TV. For example, if the OT game is a late game on Sunday afternoon, the game leads into prime time on CBS and Fox, with the local news following that. The longer the game goes, the more it screws up the schedule for the network televising the game. And it runs the risk of bleeding over into the start of the Sunday Night game on NBC, which would not make NBC happy. Other problems would exist if the OT game were the early Sunday game (the OT game might overlap too much of the doubleheader game).

I like overtime the way it is and don't see any need to change it. I find sudden death to be very exciting.

As for our friend Peter King, here are some other recent things he might want to check out: The Beatles, Bruce Springsteen, microwave ovens, VCRs, CD players, and angioplasty.

If the team with the most timeouts left gets the ball, the when a guy like Mike Martz I can only imagine the media criticism.

The team violently trying to come back ( using timeouts), or calling timeouts to try and get the ball back at the end of the game, would be the one that is penalized.

Think about it, some people would say they got "lucky" by getting back into the game like that ( using their TO's to in effect create another possession or prolong one). Since they just HAD that advantage, instead of maybe getting the ball back by luck, the OTHER team would have the advantage of being able to receive the kick.

A) It elminates the randomness of a coin toss
B) It is easy to identify and NOT very subjective
C) It could play out some interesting situations in games where a guy doesn't call a TO when he normally might have.

#73

Simple solution to the coin flip. The XFL had the "scramble for the ball"/steal-the-bacon minigame to determine the the kick-off. Make it interesting: scramblers approach from opposite directions (per XFL), but must get past an opposing defender, positioned 5 yards from the ball (on a kicking tee) at midfield. Defenders are not allowed to touch the ball, unless it is dislodged from the tee. It would be absolute mayhem. Maybe throw in a few flaming hoops and a trampoline, it would be awesomes.

#84: I dunno, it happened twice last year.

89: I suppose you mean home team gets to choose first?

"Home team gets it in OT" isn't a horrible choice, especially if paired with ties during the regular season. In the postseason, it's just another reward for having won more games during the regular season, which I think is good. The only problem is the Super Bowl, where it's a neutral site... how would you resolve that?

Sure, some of those ideas might be more fair, but the league would never go for them because they would take too long and thus be bad for TV, and that is a primary consideration for the NFL.

I think 5 minute periods might actually speed up some overtime games. Teams would be more willing to take a shot at scoring depending on how much time was remaining, which might cut some of the really long OT games (like the 2005 Atlanta game that could've ended in a tie) when they succeed.

It would lengthen (insignificantly) some games, which probably makes it a wash in general.

94.
Team with the better record chooses first. Which could go down to whatever tie-breaker it needs to.

Peter @ 73,

I don't think the problem is that overtime is unfair. Overtime is fair - both teams have an equal chance to get the ball first.

I think the issue is that opening possession is random.

Again, I see nothing wrong with the current system. Zilch. But in overtime, somebody has to have the ball first, and having it be decided by a previously agreed upon, non-random event would be an improvement.

I think the two penalties which wreck the pace of a game the most are false starts and encroachment. If there were additional incentive to avoid these calls (although I'd favor any neutral zone penetation by the defense getting an automatic flag), I'd be interested in looking at it.

#1 - wait a minute...you mean people respect PK?

I think the whole idea of overtime is inherently unfair. I mean, if my team manages to tie our opponents at the end of regulation, we should get credit for a win. At least, it counts as a win in my book.

re 23: that's exactly what I say every time OT comes up.

To re-hash, eliminating OT has the following advantages (I haven't read all comments so apologies if I'm repeating stuff):

1) less likely that teams finish the season with exactly the same record and a countout has to determine playoff spots

2) makes the decision to go for the win or the tie late in a game way more interesting (taking the tie means you actually take the tie!)

3) record better reflects the team's performance (maybe a 6-2 team with two OT wins is really a 4-2-2 team?)

In the playoffs ties could be broken by best of five 2-point conversions. Pretty much the football equivalent of a penalty shootout in soccer.

Allowing a team to continue where they left off at the end of the 4th quarter is the worst idea I've ever heard. Even as a Bengals fan, whose team would have benefitted substantially from such a rule at the end of the final regular season game, I can't see any sense in this rule at all.

How about going with #3's idea -- continuing the game from the same spot on the field where regulation ended --except with one crucial twist: Change of possession. I think it would create a whole new strategic framework.

If you're on the opponent's 3 yard line when the clock runs out, you lose possession, but then your opponent is backed up to his own end line. This maintains the incentive to try to score in regulation, but it also allows what happened in regulation to influence the start of OT.

If you're at your opponent's 40, you can try a 57-yard field goal, but if you miss, you give your opponent great field position in overtime -- or, if there's a couple seconds remaining, to punt it into your end.

The biggest drawback I can see is that there would be an incentive to punt on the last play to get it deep into opposing territory before possession flips. So make it a rule that a tie game can't end on a punt or something. The offense gets one untimed down, so they can punt it back.

I'm still working on this.

Penalty shootouts are an absolutely awful way in which to settle games, in both soccer and hockey. They really encourage the inferior team to stall in regulation, thus giving them a better chance to win via the effort of a sole competitor, as opposed to total team performance.

Settling football games via best of five two point conversions would so tremendously favor a certain type of team that it would scarcely be the same game.

#98 Will -

I was thinking more along the lines of personal foul penalties.

Regarding the shootouts in soccer/hockey, if a league is determined to declare a winner (rather than just declaring a game a tie), then I'm OK with shootouts, but only during the regular season.

During the playoffs, or during a championship round, or whatever, the game should not end in that way.

It's ridiculous to me that the Champion of the Universe in soccer was determined by penalty kicks.

Having penalty kicks and such in those situations, as Will Allen said, gives an incentive for teams to minimize risk so as to get to the shootout round, which can be fairly random.

re 103: How does a team "stall" in regulation of a football game?

What "type" of team would be favored by a 2-point shootout?

I can see the stalling argument for soccer or hockey, but can't see it in football. In football, you either do something with the ball when you have it or you have to turn it over.

...one more comment: a 2-point conversion isn't "the effort of a sole competitor" like a penalty kick is in soccer.

My fault for making the comparison to penalty shootouts. There are a number of differences which make a 2-point shootout fairer than a penalty shootout IMO.

Oh, by the way,

Why oh why would the Patriots trade a 1st round pick for Lance Briggs? Between Welker, Stallworth, and especially Adalius Thomas, they Pats have pretty much used up their FA cap surplus and probably couldn't afford to give Briggs the contract he's looking for, while still retaining enough cap space (and real money) to sign draftees, sign replacement players over the season, pick up bargain free agents to shore up the roster before camp, and enter into contract negotiations with impending FA's over the season. On top of that, as far as I understand, Briggs plays OLB (is that correct?) primarily. Between Colvin and Thomas, with Vrabel as a backup, the Pats are now in pretty good shape at OLB (in spite of the fact that that's the harder 3-4 position to fill). What they really need now is a really good ILB to dilute the geriatric factor there.

A 2pt conversion pits a red zone short-to medium offense against a red zone defense. While important partws of a football team, these specific parts are not particularly representative of the football team's quality as a whole. For example, that style of overtime would give the Denver Broncos of this past year a big advantage (great red zone defense and good short yardage running game, but mediocre defense and lousy offense overall), and would have really penalized the Colts of a few years ago (weak--compared to the rest of their offense--short yardage red-zone attack, and not particularly great short yardage red zone defense).

Didn't read the whole thing, but I really like the FG idea. "You kick a field goal, the other team gets another possession to tie/win. If you score a TD, the game is over"

I think that would make OT a lot more intense.

How does a team “stall� in regulation of a football game

Easy, you take the full 40 seconds of each playclock, don't run any corner routes or sweeps, call mainly runs and safe passes, essentially use good clock management skills.

It's something teams rightly should do, but it is certainly less exciting to fans than a two-minute drill...

Also, on stalling someone (Bill Krasker) found an interesting loophole in the NFL rule digest that a team could supposedly exploit to stall. Of course, we don't have the complete rules, so we don't know if it actually exists, but it was something like this:

After a before the snap penalty (e.g. a false start, delay of game, etc), while there's still at least 10 minutes left in the game (I think...maybe it was even 5), the playclock gets reset to 30 seconds and the game clock starts up again, or something like that. Meaning a team can wait for the full 40 seconds to expire, commit a penalty, and then run more time of the clock, commit another penalty, etc., and keep going. Meaning that if a team has a big lead, it could supposedly continuously commit pre-snap penalties infinitely, getting closer and closer to its own goal line, and run the clock all the way down to 10 (or even 5?) minutes. Then punt from its own 1/2^n yard line.

Peter Libero - the Super Bowl never is tied at the end of regulation. Just look at history...

Sophandros - I agree with you in that there should be no OT. The spectre of coaches on their cellphones is amusing; Barry Switzer could even use his to order a hot dog.

In general - Why is OT necessary except in the playoffs? All it does is take a game that by definition has been completely even for 60 minutes and produce an artificial result by changing the rules (sudden death). NFL standings would be more accurate if they reflected ties - counted as half win, half loss - than teams getting lucky on a coin flip or early OT turnover. In addition, throwing ties back into the standings as more than just a once-in-a-blue-moon occurence would reduce the probability of ties in the standings at the end of the season, since there would be more possible regular season records.

PK- brought up the contraversial idea of changing OT in the article this week.

90% of this thread brainstorming Over time ideas, 10% bashing PK instead of the 30 % content talk and 70% PK bashing.

Well, forgetting the loophole in post #112, your stalling tactics in #111 only work in the final two minutes. Any more time than that and unless you're moving the ball you're going to have to give it back to the opponent at some point.

Nothing like the problem you have in soccer where teams can literally stop trying to score and play for penalties halfway through regular time, with a fairly high probability of acheiving their aim.

Re 100: Now, if losses could retroactively be counted as ties...

MJK- I know a guy that swore by that pre-snap penalty argument.

Ryan, my stalling point mostly referred to hockey and soccer. Both of these sports are really harmed by the ability of an inferior team to play for a shoot-out.

My point regarding the problems with a red zone- dependent method for settling football games was covered in #109. The game is entirely different when it is contested exclusively on such a short field. It's the same problem I have with the college ot system, except it is even more exagerrated.

The pizza solution is still the best answer.

Picking up in OT where you left off makes no sense. In order to be consistent, you'd have to do that at halftime, too. Competitively and aesthetically, I like the idea that there's a set "regulation". If the teams are equal at the end of regulation then you have to start over.

Re: 62

I love that idea.

In addition to no OT, we should probably see a points system like two points for a win, one point for a tie. Borrow from the Super 14 in rugby and have bonus points for #of TDs scored or losing by less than 7 (not counting ties, of course).

Then, division championships and wildcards are determined by point totals instead of obscure tiebreakers.

Put me in the "get rid of OT in the regular season" camp.

Put me in the "get rid of OT in the regular season" camp.