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.

re 118: point taken. Still, it doesn't seem too evil to me. If the worst thing about an OT format is that it favors the better goalline team, without necessarily guaranteeing them victory, I think I can live with that.

#119: The overtime pizza solution still completely eliminates clock management from the game. I've yet to see any argument against 3 additional 5-minute periods, after which it's a tie (or in the case of the playoffs, just more 5-minute periods).

Eliminating overtime completely would be nice (very nice for the people who don't understand fluke wins) but I can't imagine it happening, as it would be considered "boring". All of the other options (splitting the pizza, win by 4, matching possessions) all either change the rules of the game significantly, fix the "fairness" problem in a way that wouldn't be particularly visible to fans, or could drastically extend OT to the point where it's not feasible.

Auctions.

Alternately, team that gets possession first in OT must score or lose the game. That'll put the pressure on.

They should switch to NFL street rules, where each team picks 11 players to play both offense and defense until somebody scores.

That would be awesome.

Re: 125

Pat, what's wrong with calig23's suggestion in post#62. The vast majority of people want to change overtime because they hate the idea of a quick FG deciding the game, not because they want to completely remove luck. I find it hard to believe there would be many people unhappy with the idea that if the score is still tied after two possessions, that the team that won the coin flip will be getting a slight advantage.

Re:#96

What happens when the final tie-breaker comes down to a coin flip? Would that defeat the purpose?

In the 3 5 minute periods idea you require that the teams both get 3 timeouts at the start, which is your way of generating more than one possession (i.e. one team can prevent the other running out the clock before scoring). This could fail in the second period though, unless both teams get a fresh set of time outs in every period. That and there is the possibility, mentioned above, that the team with the first possession, the winner of the coin toss, could get an extra possession.

That and in a 5 minute period it would still be possible for the grind it out 4 yards a play offence (what would DVOA think of such a thing?) to simply use up the entire 5 minutes in one drive and prevent the other team from forcing a second possession by continually getting first downs and then kicking a FG to win at the end. However that team would probably deserve to win more anyway.

Teams will get 2 possessions without timeouts, pretty much, unless they give up a long scoring drive, in which case, hey, that's the penalty for giving up a long scoring drive.

The question is "does getting the ball first help?" and I don't think it does. There's a chance the first team could drive down the field first, and force the other team to bleed timeouts. But there's actually a higher chance that the team who receives the ball will punt the ball back to the other team, and they will be the ones forced to bleed timeouts to get a desperation attempt afterwards, since a 3-minute drive is easier than a 5-minute drive.

That and in a 5 minute period it would still be possible for the grind it out 4 yards a play offence (what would DVOA think of such a thing?) to simply use up the entire 5 minutes in one drive and prevent the other team from forcing a second possession by continually getting first downs and then kicking a FG to win at the end.

Sure. And what's the problem with that? First off, it's risky - it's harder to sustain a long drive like that. Chances are something's going to go wrong.

Second off, that's the way that that team would win during the normal game. So I don't see the issue.

#128: Because some teams require multiple possessions to score. A punt isn't always a bad option.

Changing the win condition results in a different game. Fundamentally. Using an extra 5-minute period doesn't change anything - it's still the same game. The same strategies still work, because it's exactly the same as backing up the game 5 minutes.

I have a stupid idea: why not eliminate overtime? Make coaches decide whether to play for wins or ties in regulation. So what if we have ties in the standings? It's not like everybody was 4-4-6 before they brought in overtime. It would make the last 5 minutes of a close fourth quarter VERY exciting.

OK, looks like others brought up the idea (even when chiming in late, I should read the 100+ responses already there). I just don't know why it is necessary.

Re: 132

If you're starting with "OT needs to change because it isn't similar enough to regulation", then I'd agree with you. But I (and I'm assuming many other people) are starting with "OT is fine, but a decent return followed by a short drive and a long FG is a sucky way to end a game."

#135: Right - but all of the modifications will be quickly followed by "OT is fine, but X is sucky" complaints where "X" is something that happens in those games but not in normal regulation.

There are a lot of good ideas being thrown out in this thread, but they are all basically based on the idea of getting rid of the quick one short drive field goal scenario. The problem is, that's the exact scenario the NFL wants, because it's the shortest. As long as you are giving the other team the chance to score, on average it's going to lengthen the game.

I would love to see either Pat's or calig23's idea implemented, but I think the NFL is pretty happy with overtime the way it is.

Pat, 3 five minute overtime games ( with 3 timeouts) would take a long time. That's 15 minutes of play and can't you envision the TV timeouts between OT games? How about the constant explaining of the rules to the "new fans. The OT segment would be longer than any invididual quarter.

I know you think the idea is more "fair" and "exciting", but is it practical from a time perspective? Wouldn't the team that wins the coin toss still be at an advantage? Wouldn't those 1PM OT games go well into the 4PM games?

137: No OT is the shortest option.

#138: If either team was ahead at the end of any one of the 5-minute periods, the game's over. The max 3 periods just tells you when the game's a tie.

For the vast majority of games, it would be exactly the same length as sudden death.

As long as you are giving the other team the chance to score, on average it’s going to lengthen the game.

That's not true. In the generic overtime format, you're putting no pressure on finishing the game early. Teams want to score, and win, but they don't want to lose, either, and so they won't push. If it's fourth down, and out of field goal range, they'll punt, rather than go for it.

By adding time pressure, a team now has to balance scoring quickly with scoring at all. Exactly like they do during a normal game.

Didn't FO once point out that before kickoffs were moved back to the 30 yard line, overtime really was a 50/50 shot. It was when kickoffs were moved back that the receiving team gained an edge.

If so, then restoring OT kickoffs to the 35 yard line would put us back to a fair situation.

OK, gotcha

but what if team A marches downfield and scores on a 4 min 20 second drive.

Team B receivers their kick with 40 seconds to score. (I don't care because I think you should have played better D&ST) but don't you think the Peter Kings of the world will cry that they didn't have a fair shot with 40 seconds?

What if a team marches down field and uses up the whole time? There have been 7 minute drives before.

I love #78's idea because it gives teams incentive not to use their timeouts frivolously, which will speed up the rest of the game. And it seems like a fair, non-random way to decide who gets the ball in overtime.

I suspect ABW is correct, and I too would be fine with either calig23's or Pat's suggestions. Oh well.

Re: 136

If you're trying to completely eliminate the possibility for people to complain about the OT rules, we're in for a long discussion. But I have a feeling that if the NFL implemented something that eliminated the quick FG OT win and had a minimum of changes to the way regulation is played (which I think calig's idea does), that would be enough to appease the vast majority of people who complain about the OT rules.

The whole reason why the KO point was moved back to the 30 was to increase the likelyhood that the return team would return the ball ( as opposed to a touchback). Kick returns are very exciting and you can argue that it would lead to increased scoring as well.

Throw in this variable, not every team elects to receive after the coin toss. In extreme conditions teams sometimes take the wind. Or what if you have the 2000 Ravens D? If you kick, go 3 and out you might get the ball back at your own 40, or better with Jermaine Lewis returning the punt. The other situation is extreme stupidity ( marty morningwig) in Detroit.

"For the vast majority of games, it would be exactly the same length as sudden death."

Huh? I don't follow this argument at all. For one thing, any argument about this is merely speculation. Pat, can you explain your reasoning here?

119 -

I think picking up OT where regulation left off makes perfect sense. If anything it's the most literal interpretation of "overtime".

There's no inconsistency with halftime. The game has two halves. Each team gets to receive an opening kickoff. The overtime period becomes simply an extension of the second half.

I don't see what is so cheap about returning a kick and having your offense marching 50+ yards downfield, and then your special teams kicking a game winning field goal. In a tie game.

What about college. If the team that goes first does NOT score, your offense picks up a couple of first downs and kick the game winner.

Which is cheaper to you?

Marko-

In Pats OT, there is a minutue OT that is played in duration. If a team is winning at the end of 5 minutues they win the game.

The advantage of this system is that if a team scores on their opening possession, the opponent would have time ( as limited as it may be), for their rebuttal score. It would give both teams a chance to score.

If the first OT ends in a draw, the same process goes on so that the other team receives the kick, then a third and final OT occurs before the game is a draw.

#148: Look at the examples of games I gave earlier in the thread. The difference basically would be that allowed the team to drive down the field and kick a FG would basically have less than a minute left, and no timeouts. In real time, that usually takes maybe 5 minutes or so, and could take as little as a minute if the team turns the ball over. The chance that the team will actually score is pretty low. It might happen once a year.

It also might not extend things at all, as it's entirely possible the defense will be unable to prevent the offense from gaining a first down, and then kicking the field goal - i.e., running out of timeouts.

#151: Actually, I wouldn't even start the other periods with a kick. If it's tied, the game keeps going, period. I don't think it matters.

The all-important rule here is:

KISS.

Keep It Simple, Stupid.

The overtime solution must be extremely simple to understand. If you think for even a moment that it's at all somewhat complex, it's too complex. Think of the the realities of implementing it and of getting Joe Public to buy into it.

Personally, I LOVE the auction idea, but taking kickoffs out of it seems conceptually wrong.

It's akin to Rich's very apt point about FGs -- it becomes the first choice during overtime, versus being the last choice during the game.

Let's kill two birds with one stone: if the score is tied after the 4th quarter, team with fewest players arrested in the past year wins.

That'll help weed out the criminal element from the NFL.

Are-Tee wins the thread.

#154: That's part of the reason why I suggested what I did. Conceptually, it's easy. You just say "okay, overtime's a five-minute period." It's exactly the same as any other quarter.

Splitting the overtime pizza might be conceptually fair, but I don't think fans would understand the fairness.

"Win by 4", "possess the ball with the lead", are relatively complicated solutions, in that they change the way winning works.

Pat- Yeah that's pretty cool, and then the Peter Kings of the world couldn't cry for a rebuttal.

I guess that "no kick" for OT2 would be better too. If I was the team that got the ball back with 1 minutue left, why not let the clock run out then take the kickoff for OT2 and have a full 5 minutes? I like that idea.

I actually like Pat's suggestion for OT, I was just trying to find some arguments against it. Other than the 5 minutes being somewhat an arbitrary number (would 2 sets of 7 minutes 30 seconds be fairer?) I think it is a system I would dislike less than the current one.

I really dialike the idea of simply extending the second half into an overtime period, as I think this has two many possibilities for changing the strategy at the end of a game, for example a team driving to win inside the last two minutes would have no incentive to go to a hurry up offence, they could simply keep the ball and milk the clock knowing they will get the ball to start overtime where they finish the game with it. I also dislike any suggestions that take away from the normal strategies you would see in a game. I think these are upheld in Pat's and in calig23's suggestions (calig's idea was(is?) used in NFLe, not that anybody would have paid attention.

Chris, I understand Pat's concept of the three 5 minute OT periods. I just don't understand how "For the vast majority of games, it would be exactly the same length as sudden death."

Pat: I still don't follow your argument. Part of it comes down to your use of the word "exactly." Maybe this system might not take much longer than sudden death in certain circumstances, but it wouldn't normally be "exactly the same length as sudden death." By definition, the game is over in sudden death when one team scores. That usually would not be the case in your proposed system. And even if the score came as the clock ran out in a a five-minute period, it would probably take longer than in the current system because more timeouts would be used by a team trying to preserve time on the clock in the event the opposing team scored.

Also, there would probably be more clock killing plays at the end of the first and second (if necessary) OT periods, making it take longer for the game to end.

Re: #150

I would say that, given that the team that went first had an opportunity to score and did not do so, it is perfectly reasonable for the game to end that way.

I'm not advocating the NFL go to the college system, but I see nothing "cheap" about a team getting a few first downs and kicking for the win if the other team has already had the ball.

OT should be a display of kicking skills, therefor, it should consist of a sudden-death game of field-goal horse between the two kickers. Coin toss determines who goes first. First kicker makes from 35 yards on the sideline, next kicker has to make it from there. If the first kicker misses, the 2nd kicker gets make that kick to win the game, or can select a new plaement to start the cycle over again. If bother kickers make the kick, the choice of kick placement alternates, until someone makes and someone misses.
A short-range kicker could make up for lack of distance by calling kicks to go in off the crossbar, crossbar and upright, calling barefoot, opposite foot, or drop-kick.

Only the kickers and their holders may take the field during this period. Two timeouts per team are allowed for icing purposes.

157

"Win by 4, possess the ball with the lead, are relatively complicated solutions, in that they change the way winning works."

But so does sudden death.

I'm coming around to favor Pat's idea. Just extend the game in five minute increments. A game like the Pats/Rams Super Bowl might change just a little, given that failure of Brady and Co. to score within regulation doesn't automatically expose the Pats to risking immediate loss of possesion via coin flip, but the Belichik would still see advantage in scoring in regulation, thus ensuring that the Rams don't get the ball. If a defense can't get off the field in five minutes, well, nothing's perfect.

But what if the first team didn't score not because of poor offensive play, but by a virtual extra point field goal that was missed?

I wonder what the probability of scoring is for each possession?

That problem with that rugby point differential system is that it doesn't factor in competition. What if you get that joke of a schedule Seattle played in their super bowl year?

#160: Exactly was a bit much, but I doubt they'd be much longer. The fact that you're adding a bit of time on after the first team scores isn't that big a change. The first team now has time pressure to score as well, since scoring after the 5 minute mark is a lot worse than scoring before.

The timeouts still exist in either situation. The other team just wastes at least one trying to ice the kicker, and the first team usually uses one as well to stop the clock and set things up.

By definition, the game is over in sudden death when one team scores.

Yes, but there's no pressure on teams to score quickly now, and so they don't try. If they're not in field goal range, they punt. Under time pressure, though, they probably would go for it, and attempt to score.

If a defense can’t get off the field in five minutes, well, nothing’s perfect.

If a defense can't get off the field in five minutes, their coach is an idiot, as he should've just let the other team score.

There's the other benefit of my proposed change: we get to criticize coaches for stupid decisions more. Plus crazy 2-minute drills and desperation plays (who doesn't love the lateral-to-save-your-life play?).

166: If both teams score and the game is still tied after an OT period, then it will take a lot longer than sudden death. And on the timeouts, I'm not talking about icing the kicker; I'm talking about using timeouts to preserve time on the clock. In that respect, the end of one of your 5 minute OTs would be like the last few minutes of regulation, which as we all know can take a long time to play.

I just don't see this system being viable for TV.

If overtime were limited to the playoffs, TV issues would not be a big factor (because the total number of overtime instances would be very small, a smaller proportion of games are followed immediately by other games, and overtime playoff ratings would be enormous anyway), and the focus could be on getting overtime right rather than making overtime short.

167: Okay, the main problem I see with Pat's strategy is that he imagines it will result in a lot of 2-minute offenses trying to score before the time runs out. (On a side note, maybe I misunderstood, but how could you possibly NOT kick off to start the second OT under this plan? Doesn't it defeat the purpose of the 5 minute rule? You may as well make it a 10 minute period, or, as would make the most sense, 15.)

What I imagine instead is that the receiving team will drain the clock down on every play, because they know they probably aren't getting the ball back again. The team with the ball last won't go crazy trying to score, they'll probably end up kneeling half the time to avoid a turnover for TD, and enjoy the fact that they get a kickoff and 5:00 to start the next half.

I think this system unfairly penalizes the kicking team... maybe a little less than the current system, but I think there's a clear advantage to having plenty of time to score, instead of 5 minutes minus however many minutes the other team took up. I suppose that team might "let the other team score," but that's a pretty strange decision for a coach to make, and not one they normally do very often. What are they supposed to do, just lie down to allow a touchdown when the timer gets to 2:00? 1:00? I think this sort of strategizing might "change the game" a lot more than sudden death does.

From a fairness standpoint, it seems clear to me the ideal choice is no OT in the regular season, followed by repeating 15:00 "games" of OT in the postseason. Obviously that won't happen in real life, so it seems to me like the easiest solution is actually the simplest and the least "fair:" home field advantage. I suppose the only gameplay imbalance caused by this would be that it favors equal talent between offense and defense... offense is more important at home (in case there's OT, and you get the chance to go win) defense is more important on the road (in case of OT, you have to stop the home team from scoring right off the bat).

166: If both teams score and the game is still tied after an OT period, then it will take a lot longer than sudden death.

You're right. Those situations, though, will be pretty rare, and they'll also draw more viewers, so I don't think it's that big a deal. It's tough for games to stay tied on 5-minute intervals.

On a side note, maybe I misunderstood, but how could you possibly NOT kick off to start the second OT under this plan? Doesn’t it defeat the purpose of the 5 minute rule?

Why would it? The only time when it matters is if no one's scored, or it's tied, and the teams will still try to score as quickly as possible, because scoring right after the 5 minute mark is nowhere near as advantageous as scoring before the 5 minute mark.

I think this system unfairly penalizes the kicking team… maybe a little less than the current system, but I think there’s a clear advantage to having plenty of time to score,

I think it's pretty much an even situation. If the team's clearly able to control the ball and gain yardage at will, the defense should just let them score directly.

I mean, to be honest, I think there'd be a fair number of defensive teams who would choose to kickoff. Which means there isn't that big an advantage for the receiving team.

Simple proposal which I've made before: first team to six points wins overtime. Two FGs or a TD, and it's over.

If the "play until each team has had a possession" thing is too complex, how about this:

Either team can elect to end the game anytime, but only when they have the ball (and not when they have the ball to kick it off).

Obviously, as long as the score is tied, neither team will choose to end the game. But as soon as a team scores, and then stops the other and gets the ball back, then they end the game.

Still keep the 15 minute limit.

what would you all think of this proposal?
Eliminate the extra point, after every TD a mandatory two point attempt.
I am thinking it would result in fewer OT games.

What about each team gets one posession, after that, the score is final. If neither team scores, it is a tie, if the first kicks a FG, the other team can kick for a tie (ending the game) or go for a TD to win. If the first team gets a TD and kicks the PAT, and the other team scores a TD, they can kick for the tie or go for 2 to win, etc.

I agree that Peter King's example of the Patriots throwing a bone to the Bears for Lance Briggs made me want to barf.

It's as if he's saying that the Patriots are the only team smart enough to give up a 1st round pick for a player unhappy being franchised.

(Weren't they basically on the other side of this equation in the Deion Branch deal???)

My 2 cents...I think that OT starts where the 4th quarter leaves off is the best way to settle the game. There would be some interesting strategical scenarios at the end of the 4th quarter. I don't understand why the coin flip is used as an option - whether it is draft position, tie breaker or who gets the ball first etc. Changing lanes....I don't think that having wireless to the MLB is a good idea. Instead, take away the wireless to the QB. The game is becoming too orchestrated as it is. Have headphones in the QB helmets improved the game? I would be interested to know to what extent teams use it. Technology has increased knowledge of team tendencies and situational coaching strategies but it still takes forever for them to call a play. I know I am likely in the minority on this but the game was great before wireless.

173,

A team will end the game on its first 4th down outside FG territory. This method still fails the KISS test, too.

160,

He may simply be implying that most games don't go to OT.

#73
At first, I thought #4 read "best beverage..."
I can see it now...bring back the "tastes great!" "less filling!" cheer to a whole different level...

Kyle #159,

See my post 59. You say "for example", but really you mean, "in other words", because there is no other situation where this OT rule removes time pressure. And as I point out, there are two situations where this creates more desperation. For example, rather than take the chip shot field goal near the end of regulation and roll the dice in OT, you may see teams go for TDs at the end of regulation because they know the other team will get the ball in OT.

The majority of time pressure drives take place when a team is DOWN, not when they are tied. This rule change would probably result in more strategic decisions for coaches, not less.

Ryan #101,

The "sense" in allowing a team to continue where they left off at the end of the 4th quarter is that it rewards a team for having a better field position, and/or having posession at the end of regulation. Having the ball, or being farther down the field, is a reflection of team quality. And it is far, far simpler to understand than other suggestions here, like giving the ball to the team with fewer penalties.

Or look at it this way: there's one kickoff by each team at the start of the halves. A third kickoff will be asymmetrical, no matter who kicks it.

All of that said, I'd agree with you and put myself in the "ties in the reglar season" camp, for the same reasons you state. It's simple, keeps the games short, and works fine.

But for the playoffs, I much prefer this to your "2 point conversion shootout" idea. As stated by MJK #109 and Will Allen #118, it's not a good reflection of the overall quality of the football team. Continuing the game from where it left off probably rewards overall team quality better than any other approach that actually plays OT.

I tend to like Pats suggestion the best, but I think the aspect of "letting someone score" isn't particularly convincing: playcallers aren't stupid, what's to stop them from simply having their RB taking a dive inside the five and kneeling down, letting time run down and kicking a chipshot FG? Not that there's no chance of that happening in regulation but it seems to penalize scoring a TD, something I don't think the NFL would approve of. I like the scenario better than any scenario that rewards any kind of stat (penalties, yards, VOA): I think that's a fundamental change to how the game works. Whether it's gaining yards or being penalized, the advantage/disadvantage is "self-assesing": your chances of scoring increase/decrease. Penalties are obstacles you have to overcome to score, yards help you score, but ultimately, the scoring is what counts, not the yards or penalties themselves, as they aren't imperative to the outcome of the game, that's what points are for.

75: You apparently have no idea what beer is. Stout is a type of ale, ale is a type of beer.

The two types of beer are ale and lager, the only difference is the temperature at which fermentation occurs.

You know what I love?

The horse-less carriage.

That Mr. Henry Ford is on to something.

What do you guys think about coaches going for 2 at the end of games to win it?

Remember when Jon Gruden let Mike Alstot barrel into redskins defenders for the win two years ago?

I seem to remember Dick Vermiel letting Larry Johnson run over some ( raiders maybe) for a win that year also.

#181: but I think the aspect of “letting someone score� isn’t particularly convincing:

Well, coaches have actually frequently said they'd take this tack, and some have.

As for the opposing team, honestly, I'm not sure I wouldn't take the free score. Forcing a team to score a TD might actually be a safer bet than a chipshot field goal.

#184 - I remember that all too clearly. A controversial play-call, even more controversial officiating, where they ruled Alstott across the goal line even though he was laid out on his back and the ball was still a foot and a half short.

A ballsy call, Gruden would have looked like an idiot if he hadn't been helped by the line judge. But thats ok, we got our revenge in the playoffs.

#185:

I didn't mean to question that the defense would let them score. I just don't think the offense would want that to happen, at least I wouldn't. Crazier things have happened, but the chance of it not working probably doesn't amount to much. If I'd have the choice of scoring a "free" TD with 2:00 left or kicking a chipshot 20 yard FG, I'd say I'd take the FG.

Keep OT the way it is now, although I would be amenable to the idea of the home team always getting the ball first. But, adopt a hockey like rule where once the game goes to OT, you can't lose it. If the game goes to OT and one team wins it in OT, then give that team credit for a win, and the other credit for a tie.

This would create all kinds of interesting incentives for teams to play to win during regulation, especially in games in your division. If you are trying to make up ground you need to go for the win rather than play for OT, because you only make up a 1/2 game if you win in OT vs. regulation.

I was originally a big fan of giving a point for an overtime loss in hockey, because I said to myself "If both teams know they're going to get at least one point, they can go for broke and try adventurous things to get the bonus point for the win."

But that, unfortunately, doesn't take into account the general "Coaching to avoid blame" phenomenon. Most overtime hockey, despite being fast-paced, 4-on-4 affairs, is quite cautious. The coaches play for the shootout. If the team takes chances, opens up the offense (thus sacrificing the blueline) and ends up giving up a goal, the coaches get blamed for a loss.

But if the coach plays for the shootout, and they lose in the shootout, well, the coach can't really do anything if they lose in the shootout - it becomes the fault of the goalie, or the players that didn't come through in the shootout.

Additionally, the awarding of a free point for a tie leads to late-3rd-period hockey that is sometimes listless, situations where, if the game is tied, both teams will sort of "tacitly agree" to play for the tie so they both get the point.

I think if "half a win" was awarded just for getting to overtime, you'll see teams avoid some of the riskier parts of a 2-minute drill, because they'd be happy to take a guaranteed half-game rather than risk getting nothing.

That is not the direction the NFL wants to move, I think.

I don't mind hockey giving a standings point for a shootout loss, because I think the shootout, while fun, is simply a method of never having to declare a tie. I consider shootout wins or losses as essentially ties.

186- I remember Alstott leveling Sean Taylor and I remember no knee, elbow or anything touched the ground yet. It was close, but he scored. The A train kept rollin.

I think all the ideas here are interesting and creative. Personally though I like OT the way it is. It's simple and I'm not convinced it needs to be "fair" when it comes to each team having the ball.

Pat, I don't see how your system avoids the current problem where only one side gets the ball. There are many, many drives in the NFL that last longer than 5 minutes and there would be an incentive in running the clock down for the receiving team. If the receiving side ran eight plays (this assumes that they need to pick up two first downs to score) then they would use approximatley 3 minutes 30 seconds so their opponent would get 1.30. That doesn't sound very fair to me. Additionally, a team like the Colts could lose without Manning stepping on the pitch.

What is great about Calig's idea (with kickoffs from the 30) is that you pretty much guaraantee that both sides get to use all three phases of the game before you can get a result. In fact I think that it is so fair that I cant decide wheter you would want the ball 1st or 2nd. First gives the advantage when the second team matches to first score. Second possesion has the chance to better the first team's score.

RE 190,

I just watched the clip again, and I'll just quote (renowned Redskins homer?) Troy Aikman:

"Well, the ball is in his right hand; his elbow is short of the goal line when it hits the ground, and the ball cannot be further (sic) ahead than what (sic) his elbow is. So I... to me, the ball's not in."

What does it say about me that I enjoy pointing out the grammatical errors of former Cowboys?

I agree with the idea of doing away with OT in the regular season (eliminates network whining about football cutting into their schedules during the regular season). And that the OT idea must be simple.

I'd vote for playoff-only OT, one 15 minute period, whoever is ahead wins. Coin flip starts OT. If game is tied at the end of the 1st OT period, the team that lost the OT coin flip chooses to receiver or end of field to defend. The choice continues to alternate every additional OT period.

I wonder about no EPs in OT, teams must go for two as a way to decrease the likelihood of ties. The increase in variation of TD outcomes (6 or 8 vs. almost always 7) may be offset by the times that 2 FGs now equals 1 TD w/a failed 2-pt conversion.

194.
I would actually be for getting rid of the extra point after the TD and either making a TD an aoutomatic 7. With the option to basically wager a point to go for 2. But I honestly think football would be better off with out FGs at all.

All the arguments in favor of ties seem disconnected from the reality that every major American professional sport has marginalized or removed the tie (Hockey, before that the NFL, and even baseball stopped calling games as ties due to lateness a few decades ago).

I think it's very obvious that the American sportsfan in general feels a tie is a complete waste of time and does not desire to see any game, ever, end in them, and the NFL had a profound interest in removing them which is part of why they implemented the sudden death OT instead of ties-after-regulation, which is how it was in the NFL for MANY years.

"A tie is like kissing your sister." is a statement alot of people take to heart - in the sense that its flat out grotesque and you're far better off having never experienced it.

Anyone who pays 150 bucks to bring their family to watch a tie will be pissed - why did I come?!

The NFL recognizes its need to force SOMEONE to win, even a controversial win pleases half the people involved (the fans of one team).

A tie pleases 0% of the people involved.

Oops, I forgot to post that if you ask me the simple solution is to put kickoffs back at the 35 in GENERAL, something which would improve gameplay overall by emphasizing the kickoff, with the side-effect of making sudden death much more fair overall.

196,

You're right, of course, that American sports have attempted to eliminate the tie. I think the FO demographic, being a bit more rational than the average sports fan, sees the silliness of this. Standings in the NHL and MLS are made significantly more random by having points assigned by shootout. The NFL has the same problem due to the coinflip, albeit to a much smaller degree. We should accept that occasionally "kissing your sister" is OK. Borat would approve.

The especially stupid thing about the NHL points system is that there's inflation whenever teams reach OT. As others have said, this makes it in both teams' interests to play conservatively and wait for OT if things are tied late.

A reasonable NHL system would be 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT/shootout win, and 1 for an OT/shootout loss. Teams get a point for tying in regulation, and play for the third point after that. No inflation, still incentive to score late in a tied 3rd period game.

I recall back in 1994, I was at a USC/Notre Dame football game, at USC. USC had lost something like ten in a row to Notre Dame, and scored with a few minutes left to go down one.

With the home crowd screaming, cheering, yelling...coach John Robinson sends out the kicker for the tie.

I don't think I've ever seen a moment where BOTH teams were loudly and consistently booed off the field at the end of a game. Either side would have been happier with a loss than that tie. At least they would have felt like there was closure.

Two years later, USC, again playing Notre Dame at USC, again ties the game with minutes to spare, but, overtime having been introduced that year, won in overtime.

Even if it's gimmicky (like the NHL shootout), it's generally better to name SOME winner rather than none at all.

That said, during the playoffs, ditch the gimmicks. No NHL shootouts (which is the case), no soccer shootouts (which isn't), etc. A championship should be decided on the regular field of play.

you know what I just discovered? automatic transmission. No more having to use the clutch. It's great. I highly recommend it.

You know what I just started getting into? Disco. Have you heard this music yet? It's great for dancing to.

You know what I'm really enjoying nowadays? The polio vaccine. I don't know why I hadn't been inoculated until now, but I'm really enjoying the use of my legs!

I like doktarr's NHL point system, it's one I've considered as well. It essentially means that 3 points are up for grabs every game - divided 3/0 for a win in regulation, but only 2/1 if it goes to overtime.

Certainly during playoff races, it pushes teams to try for the win. Right now, teams in the playoff hunt, especially near the end of games, really want to make sure they get at least one point (and hey, a win in the shootout is a bonus point) rather than go for the win.

It also means that a team that gets more wins will be ranked higher, and it would be hard to match that just by getting OT points. The fact that a 0-0-82 team is, currently, "better" than a 40-41-1 team is kind of dumb to me. Not that a team would ever go 0-0-82, but you get my drift.

Pat, I don’t see how your system avoids the current problem where only one side gets the ball. There are many, many drives in the NFL that last longer than 5 minutes

Not under time pressure. While the team which gets the ball is free to attempt to bleed the clock down, unless they are already in field goal range and still able to get a first down, without scoring, it won't happen.

Honestly, though, 5 minutes was just a guesstimate based on last year's drives. Extending it to say, 6 minutes, would probably do enough without significantly affecting anything.

It just seems to be a bit of an artifice to me. I think that calig23's system leaves no faults. under the current system it is possible that only part of the team could get onto the field. This is true of your idea too but calig's system gives both sides the chance to use all three phases. For that reason alone I prefer it.

"you know what I just discovered? automatic transmission. No more having to use the clutch. It’s great. I highly recommend it."

Real men still drive stick.

You know what I've just discovered? Toilet Paper! Soooo much better than leaves!!!

Re: College system eliminates special teams....Aren't FGs and XPs considered special teams?
Personally, I like the college set up. Who doesn't like an extra 2 hours of intense football when you have something like 2, 3 and 4 overtimes

#205: It completely eliminates time management from the game.

This is true of your idea too but calig’s system gives both sides the chance to use all three phases.

That's not a requirement of the game, though. Even in regulation, a team could theoretically possess the ball an entire half.

The whole "Manning might never see the field!" is true in regulation, too. That's the way the game works. The difference is that in order for the other team to never see the field, the team with the ball has to clearly control the game.

Re: 209

"It completely eliminates time management from the game."

I've see you say that a bunch of times, and I've yet to figure out how that would be true. The only thing it would change would be that the team that wins the coin flip may think twice about attempting that FG on their initial OT drive.

209: It's a hell of a lot more than 'theoretically' possible to hold the ball for 5 minutes. It's bloody unlikely that any side would hold the ball for 15 minutes.

Why do you want time management to be a factor? I can't see the appeal. I want to see exiting football. I don't want to look back at the season and think, "wow, he sure managed that clock!"

I also don't think that your system gives both sides as equal a chance. The receiving team has a chance to win without the other team having the ball, so it has the same problem as the current set-up.

You play to win the game!

"Who doesn’t like an extra 2 hours of intense football when you have something like 2, 3 and 4 overtimes"

CBS, when it wants the game to end so it can show "60 Minutes" in the East and Central time zones. Fox, when it wants the game to end so it can show whatever show precedes "The Simpsons" in the East and Central time zones. NBC, when it is showing "Football Night in America" or the Sunday night game which follows and does not want to compete with an overtime game on a different network. The NFL, to make CBS, Fox and NBC happy.

#209: It's only barely theoretically possible to hold the ball for the entire half.

Imagine team A receives the opening kickoff and returns it out to their own 1 yard line. Further imagine that the only play in their playbook is a run up the middle, which always gains exactly 2.5 yards, that they always go for it on 4th down, and that they always snap the ball as the play clock hits zero.

Simple math shows that they would take 40 plays to go the 99 yards for a TD. The 40 second play clock would be running after the first 39 of them, for a total of 26 minutes between plays off the clock. This leaves 4 minutes to be taken up by actual plays, which would only be possible if the 40 plays took an average of about 6 seconds per play (counting a negligible amount off the clock during the kickoff return).

That's a lot of time off the clock for a 2.5 yard play that ends inbounds. That kind of time usually only ticks off during a deep pass play, a scramble, or a long gain. So unless every play was a double reverse that ended inbounds and gained 2.5 yards...

Re: 214

You're forgetting on-side kicks.

#210: Nono - the overtime period has no time management aspect. In almost every case, there's no time pressure whatsoever. It's overtime. There should be time pressure. Heck, there should be constant time pressure.

#215: Actually, more importantly, he's forgetting penalties. It's actually theoretically possible to have an entire half burn away without a team even moving by exchanging offensive and defensive penalties.

214: You're also forgetting penalties. A team theoretically could keep getting first downs via personal fouls or defensive pass interference, regardless of whether or not the drive ends up losing or gaining yards.

Pat, you beat me to that one.

I'm not sure I agree on the need to have OT mirror regulation...I kind of like that it's a separate entity with its own dynamic

The pizza thing would be great if every kickoff were done that way.

Being well-defended by a well-regarded poster seems to get the 5 minute periods thing a lot of support, but I'm not seeing how it's not just a shorter time version of the current system.

If the coin flip is what has most of us up in arms, then make it a non-random event (the best and simplest, I think, is home team chooses).

If you think that both teams deserve a shot on offense (or to receive a kick, or however the fairness line is drawn), then I just disagree.

Re: 220

Yeah, that's really the main difference in the two main ideas in this thread. If you're looking for OT to mirror regulation as closely as possible under the time constraints of the networks, then you're probably in the "three 5 minute periods" camp. If you aren't all that unhappy with the current OT system, but despise the short-drive and kick a FG possibility, you're probably in the "delayed sudden death" camp.

Even if it’s gimmicky (like the NHL shootout), it’s generally better to name SOME winner rather than none at all.

I've been to many games where I felt like it was a shame that one team had to lose, or more distressingly, that one team had to win. The idea of a tie doesn't bother me, and I much prefer it to something as artificial as a shootout. What does bother me is teams playing for the tie in the late stages of the game rather than trying to win. A road underdog is much more likely to try to run out the clock and take the half-win late in the fourth quarter than it is to risk giving up the ball while trying for the full win.

The 'person pretending to be Peter King' post (211) was mine BTW, I posted the Loo roll joke as King (207) but forgot to change my nametag thing back.

#221: Because it decides the game in exactly the same way as regulation. That's the big difference. It won't feel artificial, weird, or contrived. It'll feel just like football during the rest of regulation.

I don't agree both teams need a shot on offense. It doesn't happen that way in a normal game - defenses have to either stop an offense, or let them score, in order to get the ball back. Period.

So it's "more fair" because it gives teams exactly the same benefit and drawbacks that they get during the normal game, whereas sudden death doesn't.

#222: but despise the short-drive and kick a FG possibility, you’re probably in the “delayed sudden death� camp.

But see, that fixes that problem, too. The only kind of drive where you can just kick a FG to win won't be a short drive. It'll be a clock-controlling, dominating drive. So it pleases everyone!

I'm curious, if all the OT games were ties instead, would that have changed the playoff seedings in past years? By how much?

Since the decision to take the tie and go to OT should have the same value to a coach as actually taking the tie, this anlysis should reflect the importance of regular season OTs (i.e. coaches shouldn't be choosing to go to OT any more or less than if there is no OT, except in week 17 scenarios, which ought to be rare, though there was one this year and one with Jim Mora, Jr messing it up ?2? years ago, I think. So maybe not so rare.)

There are some fairly interesting ideas in this thread. Amazing what FO posters can do with a PK column.

I personally love the sudden death aspect of football's overtime. It provides great suspense with every single play that takes place. It makes the heart beat a little faster when you know that your team has to execute at a higher level on every play, after already having played sixty minutes of ball. You get to see what teams and individual players are made of at moments like that.

It seems like the NFL is trying to reward teams that have better depth, better conditioning and are better balanced among the three phases of the game with their current overtime rules.

Special teams are an excellent reflection of what a team can do with the depth of their roster. How good a team is at picking up players that add real value to the team in day two of the draft. Making sure that all 45 players that suit up for the game have real value.
Eliminating or arbitrarily restricting or editing special teams from the normal rules, greatly reduces the quality of play.

A team with a strong defense and a poor offense may even elect to kick-off to start the overtime period. I was going to mention Chicago, but Hester greatly changes the equation for them. A defense that has good conditioning can be rewarded for all the hard work they put in during the off-season and practice by getting a three-and-out. This would give them even better field position on average than the team that had first possesion.

PK came up with ~30% for the times that the team wins with the first possesion. He seemed to imply that this has increased by 2-3% over the last five or so years.
This means that roughly 67-70% of the time both teams get a shot at offense. It just doesn't seem like it's really that great of a dillema.

And if all that doesn't convince you that overtime is fine as it is: Peter King doesn't like it the way it is and he just "discovered" ipods, guiness and norah jones.

Alex, just because Peter King has only just noticed a topic doesn't mean that other people didn't pay attention sooner. If you follow that logic then Adalius Thomas has only been a good player for 2 years and it's OK to think that the only place to get a decent cup of coffee is from a multinational that goes out of its way to shaft third world coffee growers.

225: Yes, but normal games are absolutely always, without exception, long enough for both teams to have multiple possessions. Unlike other "aspects of the game" that we value having in overtime, like offense, defense, or special teams, clock management is NOT always a factor, even in close games. A short overtime artificially induces time pressure... but only on the team that loses the coin toss! That's why I don't understand it, it doesn't significantly improve on the fairness of sudden death.

Anyway, it's obvious that none of these suggestions will be enacted, so I will stick with 15 minutes for the playoffs, ties in the regular season. To me, that's the best indicator of the true result of the game.

Yes, but normal games are absolutely always, without exception, long enough for both teams to have multiple possessions.

There's no need for both teams to have possession! That's a completely artificial constraint that you're adding in that doesn't exist in the game. A team that's dominant over another team's defense can completely prevent the other offense from gaining possession. Sometimes for almost an entire quarter. Longer if they want to onside kick.

The only question is whether or not the team that receives the coin toss doesn't have a higher chance of winning the game. Without the possibility of an instant win, and with the possibility that a failed drive can in fact be more lethal to them, I think it's entirely possible that it would be fair.

230: I think that's a little disingenuous. The game's rules are clearly crafted to encourage equal chances to play offense... from the requirement to kick off after scoring (okay, there are onsides... which are almost never used) to the alternating possessions of halftime. The game is designed to avoid an undue advantage to having the ball first, the opening coin flip is almost meaningless because the situation will be reversed at the half.

Ideally, any overtime system that involves luck in who will receive the ball first should also eliminate the importance of that randomness. Your system would not do that; the receiving team is getting an advantage. A slight one, but a clear one. An easy way to rectify it would be to have a minimum of two overtimes, where both sides get to receive. But that certainly doesn't help the time situation.

Granted, this does bring the 15 minute non-sudden death extra period into question. The receiving team gets an even smaller benefit than Pat's plan, but if there is an odd number of possessions, the receiving team would get an extra one. Maybe the best idea would be a 15:00 overtime that's split into two "halves," essentially creating a miniature second "game" identical to the first in all ways. Hard to argue with the fairness... during the regular season it is obviously too long, but it would be the best playoff system, I think.

231: That's a pretty good idea but I still prefer calig's proposal, it's a little quicker.

I agree with all those who said ties are good for the regular season. It would help to break up the farcically complex playoff tiebreaking procedures.

"There’s no need for both teams to have possession! That’s a completely artificial constraint that you’re adding in that doesn’t exist in the game."

So what? Going back to what I said in #222, I don't really care if OT isn't exactly the same as regulation. I like the sudden death aspect of OT, I just loath the opening drive FG. So if my only purpose is to eliminate that single aspect of the current system, having sudden death delayed until after the initial drive is the perfect solution.

Adam Archuleta to Chicago for a 6th round pick?

re: 207

So you were using leaves all this time until recently? Are you Danish?

How do you get the leaves on the toilet paper holder? Can you buy special leaves on a roll?

The overtime pizza column and the ensuing comments should be required reading for any writer who wants to discuss overtime possibilities.

re: 84

I agree with that opening paragraph there. That Colts-Chiefs game was terrible. Years from now, some kid will look in a football reference book and see that 38-31 score and think it was a great game. He'd be wrong as it was an awful game.

232: Calig's proposal is quicker, but I don't find it very satisfying. A team kicks a field goal, the other team kicks a field goal to match, the first team kicks another FG, they win. What have they proven? That if given the ball an extra time, they can make it to field goal range again? Why shouldn't the other team get the chance to match or better THAT attempt?

Basically it's the same problem again; significant advantage to the receiving team. Either we want that or we don't... if we want that, you may as well make it home field so as to avoid the impact of randomness. I still don't know what to do about the Super Bowl in that situation... eventually there will be an OT Super Bowl, so something has to be done. Better record?

"If the coin flip is what has most of us up in arms, then make it a non-random event (the best and simplest, I think, is home team chooses)."

The coin flip is not the issue.

The advantage given to the team that wins the coin flip is the issue. Last time I checked, its 55,40,5. IE, the team that wins the coin flip wins significantly more than the team that loses it.

Its not the randomness of the coin flip thats the problem. Its that the coinflip basically decides the outcome of the game, that causes problems

Someone used the fact that the team that recieves only wins the game like 30% of the time on the opening drive as evidence that its not a big problem.

The problem is, with evenly matched teams, in a sudden death game, field position matters greatly, and having the ball first gives you a big field position advantage.

You know what else I like?

Cordless Telephones. They're great! Mary Beth can talk to her friends while she is anywhere in the house. If Mr. Bell could only see what his invention has become.

What a country!

PK

Re: 240

So, doesn't moving OT kickoff to the 35 solve this?

The other hidden problem exposed here is that FGs have become so easy to make. has a post showing how FG percentage has gone from 65% in 1980 to 81% today. If FGs were harder to make, and the field position after kickoff wasn't quite as good, then I think this discussion would be pretty much moot.

That said, I love the idea of auctions or pizza-splitting. Never gonna happen though, coaches don't really want additional opportunities to look like idiots.

Crap. There was supposed to be a link to a Pro Football Reference post in the second sentence of the FG paragraph in my previous post.

As Rich says, the advantage is the choice. Extending overtime, be it through a guaranteed 5 minutes or by eliminating the 1-posession FG, will reduce this advantage, but it will not eliminate it. The only ways to truly eliminate the advantage of the choice are:

1) Splitting the pizza - one team defines the choice before the other makes it. Unfortunately, this is probably too complicated to get adopted.

2) Eliminate the choice. The only approaches suggested so far that do this are ties, and continuing the game where it left off in the 4th. I like both.

The main objection to ties, I think, is that most fans hate ties. How about, a-la my NHL suggestion in post 198, overtime wins and losses are worth a little less? So an OT win is half a win and half a tie, and an OT loss is half a loss and half a tie? This would be akin to a 4-point NHL system with 4 points for a regulation win, 3 for an OT win, 2 for a tie, 1 for an OT loss, and 0 for a regulation loss.

i hate people who hate ties. i really do. people who reflexively hate ties are just complete fucktards. i would also make point differential the sole playoff tiebreaker. the NFL's tiebreakers make my head hurt.

Rich Conley, I'm still not convinced that even with evenly matched teams, it is such a problem. With evenly matched teams it seems like it would be less of a problem. These teams would be more likely to exchange possesions more than once.
In my opinion (not having done any research) sudden death typically favors the perceived "better" team. Then again so does the game in regulation.
The better team should be able to regroup and prepare to play as they typically would play whether or not they start on offense or defense.
There is always the chance for anomolous plays, Troy Brown's strip of an interception in the playoffs, in this league, or even anomolous games, not even David Carr's dad would have put $2 on the Texans in wk16 against the Colts (a game that still had seeding implications for the Colts). How is it different if something unusual like that happens during regulation or in overtime?

To back up my belief that more often than not, both teams would get the ball without a rule change, I refered to FO's handy-dandy "just the stats" section. ...doing the research...

average drive lengths-offense:
1 IND: 41 yds - avgLOS 29 ydln
16 CHI: 28 yds - avgLOS 32 ydln
32 OAK: 20 yds - avgLOS 31 ydln

average drive lengths-defense:
1 CHI: 23 yds - avgLOS 29 ydln
16 TB : 29 yds - avgLOS 32 ydln
32 IND: 34 yds - avgLOS 31 ydln

(avgLOS actually did come out like that, coincidentally)

For evenly matched teams we are talking about a starting position at the 30yd line with a typical 30yd drive puts people at the oppositions 40yd line, which makes a 58yd FG. Not exactly 80% anymore for that FG try.

A better than average offense against an average defense should be able to get an additional 10-15 yds to put itself in position to make a 40+yd FG. This is what they are supposed to do. Can that average defense sack-up and stop them from getting those extra 10-15yds? That's the game, that's why we watch.

and Karl Cuba are you a member of the Film Actors Guild...I know how you feel about the corporations that cause the global warming requiring us to drive hybrid vehicles...perhaps making us all a bit too smug?

Now that PK has signed up for this new-fangled DirecTV to watch baseball, he's probably going to go ballistic over this news (linked).

"Rich Conley, I’m still not convinced that even with evenly matched teams, it is such a problem. With evenly matched teams it seems like it would be less of a problem. These teams would be more likely to exchange possesions more than once."

It doesnt matter if both teams get possessions if the team that wins the toss wins significantly more than the team that loses the toss. Right now, the team that wins the toss wins almost 40% more often than the team that loses it. (55% is 137.5% of 40%)

Rich Conley, I'll go back after work tonight to see whether that percentage is at all related to any other form of statistic.
Right now that 55-40 split is kind of in a vacuum statistically.

GlennW
That would be absolutly fantastic.

You know what else I've been using a lot lately?

Debit Cards...they're swell. I don't have to write checks anymore. Mary Beth and her teamates (who won this past weekend in Scranton, New Jersey, by a score of 4-2) just love them.

244: Well, my suggestion of a pair of shorter OT "halves" (or a modified Pat system with two guaranteed 5-minute halves) would also eliminate the significance of the choice, since you get the other option in the other half.

Jeff Fisher hasn't told Harper whether he'll be the man to replace Pacman Jones, but it's pretty obvious with the looming Jones suspension or worse (see below), Harper's going to be Tennessee's shutdown corner in 2007.

Peter, if you've actually watched the Colts the past few years, you know Nick Harper is nothing like a "shutdown corner." There are no shutdown corners, and Harper is FAR from one.

a. I want to be Ron Lewis when I grow up.

b. 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.

It's painful enough to read the crap you write without you constantly wasting space. Two "I think I thinks" and 6 lines to say Ron Lewis is clutch?

d. Let's hear the grousing about the selection committee now. In the West, the 1, 2, 3 and 4 seeds remain. South: 1, 2, 3, 5. East: 1, 2, 5, 6. Midwest: 1, 3, 5, 7. Of the top 12 seeds, only two, Wisconsin and Washington State, lost in the first two rounds. Pretty good judgment by the committee, it looks like.

Horrible job by the selection committee. The #1 seeds surviving somehow shows that they made good choices? The #1 seeds were obvious. It was some of the at-large choices that were dubious. Duke as a 6th seed? Arkansas, Old Dominion, and Stanford over Syracuse, Drexel, and Air Force? HORRIBLE decisions. And it was all backed up on the court.

2006 - wk 17
steelers 23 (8-8) DVOA(12) Off(11) Def(10) ST(30)
bengals 17 (8-8) DVOA(11) Off(4) Def(25) ST(12)

CIN scored TD @ 2:47. (cin17-14) PIT kicks a 35yd

(tie17-17) FG @ 1:03. CIN Misses 39yd FG @ 0:08
OT
Graham kicks 72 yards from Cin30 to Pit-2, Santonio

Holmes returns to Pit22 for 24 yards.
Parker run for 5, Roethlisberger scramble for 6.
13:27 Santonio Holmes 67 yd pass from Roethlisberger. This

was the 3rd play of the drive.

I checked the stats of the game and the overall game was

PITs with advantages in just about every stat with the

biggest play in regulation being a Parker Fumble at the one

followed by a 67yd TD pass to Henry for CIN.
This game was won on the first possession, one of the 55%.
Would the result have been more fair if the Bengals were

given a chance to tie the game? Was PIT's win a fluke?

2006 - wk 17
49ers 26 (7-9) DVOA(29) Off(22) Def(28) ST(18)
Broncos 23 (9-7) DVOA(18) Off(23) Def(12) ST(15)

Denver needed to win this game to make the playoffs. They scored a TD w/ 1:30 to go in regulation to tie.
The OT started with a DEN possesion @ 27yd line, 16 yd drive to own 43yd line. Punt to SF 11yd line. 11:49 SF 44yd drive. Punt to DEN11. 7:01 DEN 8yd drive. Punt to SF 27 12yd return. ball on SF 39yd line. 4:28 SF 43yd drive to Den 18. Nedney 36yd FG. Game.

The inferior team won this game, If Denver won this game they would have been in the playoffs. Was this a better game than the PIT v. CIN because both teams got a
chance to possess the ball a couple of times?

254/5: Ummm... what exactly are you giving us these breakdowns for? To show that sometimes OT ends on the first possession, sometimes it doesn't? Sometimes worse teams win football games? I'm serious, I have no idea what your point is.

RE: 23

I've always been in favor of ties. But there's still the issue of fair overtime for the playoffs.

I posted this on the pizza thread, but that idea can't possibly work. All teams would have to do is bid, "one inch away from our goalline," and a touchback is guaranteed.

Peter Libero, these are just the first two in the series of games that have gone to overtime.
The purpose of it is putting into context the many percentages that are being used in referencing keeping or changing the current overtime system.
I was thinking that putting together a summary of games that were decided in overtime may provide a better understanding.
After doing the first two breakdowns I realized that this will take more time than expected in the manner which I did the first two.
I'll try and package the remaining information in a more palatable way.
I just thought that FO posters would appreciate a little more depth for their positions.
Does anyone else know of a place that all overtime games have been preassembled?

259: I'm not sure what you will prove anyway... the percentages show exactly what we want to know: is there an advantage to winning the coin toss in overtime? The answer seems to be "yes." What "context" do you hope to provide?

The same context that FO put the "you have to run the ball to win" line into.
Just looking to see if there is more to it.
Why are you so against the idea of additional research anyway? If there is anything more to it, wouldn't you want to know? If there isn't what's the big deal?

261: I'm not "so against it," and I didn't tell you not to do it. You made two long posts that didn't seem to have a point, so I was confused. Also, I'm skeptical that there is anything deeper to be learned, and I'm not sure what could even possibly be proven. By all means try, if you have the time.

Your system would not do that; the receiving team is getting an advantage. A slight one, but a clear one.

I don't believe it is a clear advantage. While the receiving team has a chance to win without giving the ball back, that chance is slim. In the chances where the other team gets the ball back, they, however, have a large chance to win without giving the ball back.

So what? Going back to what I said in #222, I don’t really care if OT isn’t exactly the same as regulation.

The point wasn't that it's a problem. The point was that saying "but... but... both teams might not get a chance to have the ball!" isn't a valid complaint. Each team needs to have an equal chance to win, and I'm not sure that the drawback of getting the ball first (if you don't control the clock and score with no time remaining, the other team, if they score, will almost certainly win) doesn't equal the benefit of getting the ball first.

3: PackMan, I've said that several times on these boards, and people have called me crazy. I completely agree with you. That, to me, is simple and fair. Just extend the game, rather than putting it in the hands of a coin toss.

263: That's not really true. If you get the ball and take 3:00, and kick a field goal, you had three minutes to make your scoring drive. The opposing team will then have 2:00 to do the same thing. If the team that had the ball first wanted to take more time, they could, because they have plenty of time to organize their drive. The other team will not have that option, because they did not get the ball first, and the time limit will press them, not the other team.

Obviously all of this is speculative... we would have to see teams actually play with your method before we could be certain that it carries an advantage (hey, maybe I'm WAY wrong, and it's an advantage for the kicking team). I personally think it will end up favoring the kicking team, and in my view, the easiset way to make SURE it's fair is to balance the system completely. Guarantee two 5:00 halves for instance.

I meant: "it will end up favoring the receiving team."

Pat, it's very difficult to argue that any method involving a coin flip gives each team an "equal chance to win". You may be unsure that the drawback of getting the ball first doesn’t equal the benefit of getting the ball first, but are you sure they're equal? It's extraordinarily hard to definitively argue that that's true.

My new proposal - a combination of two suggestions I've made:

1) 4th quarter-to-overtime is treated the same as 1st/2nd or 3rd/4th.

2) OT wins and losses are counted in the standings as half a win/loss, and half a tie.

(1) makes understanding OT extremely simple for fans. It adds drama to down 3 or down 7 drives, because there is more pressure to go for the TD/go for 2.

(2) makes the NFL tiebreakers less convoluted (since some teams will have ties and others won't), and it gets rid of the main criticism of this approach - that teams driving while ties will have no time pressure. Now, scoring in regulation gets you a full win in stead of an OT win.

59:

doktarr, you really did a good job showing that the downside of your approach is mostly removing time pressure from last-minute drives in tie games.

But last year there were 16 last-minute field goal attempts to break ties. These were some of the most dramatic moments of the year. In each of those games, the final regulation drive would have lost its urgency with your proposal.

So the downside is a lot bigger than you would think.

267:
The problem with devaluing overtime wins is that it doesn't work in the playoffs. Also, by making overtime wins officially second-class, you reduce the entertainment value of those games.

You are absolutely right that any OT that begins with a coin flip cannot be exactly fair. But that is not the point. The idea is to reduce the benefit of winning the coin toss to a trivial amount, while keeping the other advantages of a sudden death OT. (drama, quick results, simplicity...)

So maybe the NFL is considering the right idea after all. I might go even farther: move the OT kick-off to the 40 yard line and make touchbacks illegal. If you field the ball, you must return it.

That would be exciting. And any team that scored on the first drive would really have earned the win.

I like the current NFL OT system as it is - with all of its flaws.

To me, if you can only salvage a tie after 60 minutes, lose the OT coin flip, kickoff, give up a return that give the opponent possession at it's 32-yard line, and the opponent picks up three 1st downs and kicks a 39-yard field goal, then you didn't play well enough to win.

I have no problem with the fact that if you can't manage to be ahead after 60 minutes, then you put your fate, at least in part, in the hands of a random event like a coin toss.

FWIW, here's what Belichick thinks about overtime. Alas, his comments don't address all the issues, such as TV scheduling.

Belichick wants a 7 and a half minute OT that gives both teams at least one possession. If still tied, sudden death.

#267:
"Pat, it’s very difficult to argue that any method involving a coin flip gives each team an “equal chance to win�."

Actually, it's extremely easy to make that argument. All you have to do is award the win to the team that wins the coin toss. That gives both teams the exact same chance of winning the game.

Cool, I was hoping people would spot the Belichick article. To summarize:

-He like's what is essentially Pat's idea on overtime.

-He opposes defensive player headsets.

-He opposes increasing the gameday roster size to 47.

-He sees no reason to change PI calls, but wants the league to emphasize consistency on them more.

nat,

If touchbacks are illegal, what happens if the kicker kicks the ball out the back of the endzone? Some kickers can do that now from the 30, on occasion (Gostkowski had a few of those this past year). If you kick off from the 40, then I would imagine a fairly significant percentage of kicks go out the back end of the endzone. If touchbacks are now illegal, how do you count that? A safety and the kicking team immediately wins?

Re: 263

The point was that saying "but…but…both teams might not get a chance to have the ball!" isn’t a valid complaint.

You're right. I really don't give a crap if both teams get the ball, I just loath the idea of a team winning with an opening drive FG. So how about we modify calig's suggestion:

If Team A fails to score on the opening possession of OT; begin sudden death.

If Team A scores a TD on the opening drive of OT; Team A wins.

If Team A scores a FG on the opening possession of OT; Team B gets the ball back:
a) If Team B scores a FG; begin sudden death.
b) If Team B scores a TD; Team B wins.
c) If Team B fails to score; Team A wins.

274:

Thanks for asking. I was trying to be brief.

First, why would a team kick it through the endzone when they could drop a high kick at the goal line, and pin the other team deeper than the twenty? That seems likely if the kick is at the 40.

My real answer is that it could be illegal to field the ball for a touchback. If you don't touch it and it goes out of the endzone, no problem.

You could also make it a yardage penalty to kick the ball out of the endzone - giving the receiving ball at the 30 yardline, say.

The idea is to give the receiving team bad average field position, without causing a lot of touchbacks. Touchbacks are the only problem I can see with moving the OT kickoff up to the 35 or 40.

272:

That's exacly the opposite of what Pat's trying to achieve. By your logic, the current overtime is fine, since prior to the coin toss both teams have an equal chance to win. The point is that there are so few OT games that the random chance result of the coin toss doesn't even out in the long run. With a 16 game schedule, the hit from losing that coin toss is significant. The point isn't to assure randomness, it's to make the result of the coin toss irrelevant, which is harder.

Looks like the 35 yard line solution will pass, according to MDS on Fanhouse. I suspect that isn't quite good enough, as nobody will choose to kickoff, which means everyone will still believe there's an advantage to winning the coin toss. Until there's a close to 50/50 split on the choice upon winning the toss, you probably haven't found the right solution. I do think moving the kickoff up is the right IDEA, though (it's basically the same as the auction, you're just having the auction now instead of after 60 minutes and without knowing how good the individual kickoff/return teams are)

Nat #268,

Why does reducing the standings impact of an OT win "reduce the entertainment value of those games"? I would agree in the very narrow case of a late-season contest where we know a team needs a regulation win to stay in contention, and is therefore eliminated once OT starts. But that's a statistically insignificant case.

RE: Alex #272,

I'm not sure if you were being serious or not, but in case you were, allow me to re-phrase slightly:

"...it’s very difficult to argue that any method involving a coin flip gives both the team that wins the coin toss and the team that loses the coin toss an 'equal chance to win' ".

278:
The NFL has it hard enough selling games of uncertain length. It would be worse to say to the networks, "You have to carry this unpredictable extra time, but we'll tell your viewers it's less important."

So, if OT is going to work, it has to matter as much as the games that it extends.

Well, it looks like the owners decided to leave OT the way it was. Enough owners were either holding out for requiring both teams to get a possession or trying to block any change, that they ended up short of the needed votes.

Too bad. Now they maximize the chance that only one team will get a possession, and ESP or psychokinesis at the coinflip remains the most important skill in OT.

My guess is that this will stay the way it is until we get an OT Superbowl. Then a change will pass 31-1, with the team that won the toss and the Superbowl dissenting.

None of you have addressed the fact that if you lose the coin toss you can still get the ball back by stopping the other team or by forcing a turnover.

280: You're probably right about the Super Bowl, that would guarantee the outrage necessary to pass a change.

281: Plenty have. Your commitment to defense is admirable, I've even heard it wins championships. It's also not more important than the other phases, so there's no reason to allow overtime to make it so.