OT rules discussion

[Rudy's Curve]

From a fan's perspective, it's a travesty that Allen never got to touch the ball. Two conference championship games and a Super Bowl have also ended like this. It's easy to just say don't give up a touchdown, but it's not that easy in today's NFL and there's no reason one team shouldn't have a possession. I would favor college rules in that regard, but the teams would actually play normal football starting with a kickoff instead of at the +25. In the playoffs, teams would just play until one team outscores another with equal possessions (unlike college, the same team would always be on defense first since it's pretty taxing to ask a team to play defense on two consecutive full drives especially in OT). It's not feasible for a game to go on forever in the regular season for a couple of reasons - TV windows and teams shouldn't play a marathon game with a game for certain the following week. Therefore, I would keep the 10 minutes currently in place but play until either one team outscores another with equal possessions or the clock runs out, so it's still an advantage to get the ball first as you could have one more possession. I just don't see how the current system is fair, and it's a shame an all-time classic game was decided this way.

What say you?

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Objectively the fairest thing to do - in terms of determining who deserves to win the game - would be to convert to sudden death after the fourth quarter ends, maintaining the game situation as is. Same field position, same down. The only argument against this approach is the drama of time running out in the fourth requiring teams to scramble to win the game before the dreaded coin toss. Every other approach sacrifices some fairness for drama. I'm not convinced that similar dramatic endings wouldn't still happen, just in slightly different scenarios. Say you're fourth and goal at the two, down three, two seconds on the clock. Right now everybody kicks the FG. But if you know your defense is toast and you know that kicking a field goal will just give the ball back to the other team, maybe you take a shot at the touchdown. My guess is the sudden death scenario would end up trading one set of dramatic scenarios for some other set.

If you don't buy that and you think overtime rules should be written to increase dramatic effect, then create a "two minute turnover on time" clock. Starting at the two minute warning in the fourth quarter of a tie game, you have two minutes to score. If you don't do so in that two minute window, it's a turnover. Get the ball with 15 seconds left in regulation, you have 15 seconds to score before an official timeout/commercial break. Game then switches to sudden death, and you have 1:45 to score. Fail to score in that time and it's a "turnover on time", other team gets the ball at the spot, and they now have two minutes. Get the ball at the two minute warning in the fourth, you have two minutes to score. If you don't, other team gets the ball when the clock hits zero, now they have two minutes. Turnover clock is only on if the game is tied and there's less than two minutes remaining. No extra time outs. This approach codifies the drama while maintaining continuity of the game situation at the end of regulation.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Check these out for some good discussion

https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/spot-and-choose-new-proposal-for-overtime-rules.32841/

https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/nfl-overtime.26467/

https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/overtime-rules.17993/

 

[Justthetippett]

Objectively the fairest thing to do - in terms of determining who deserves to win the game - would be to convert to sudden death after the fourth quarter ends, maintaining the game situation as is. Same field position, same down. The only argument against this approach is the drama of time running out in the fourth requiring teams to scramble to win the game before the dreaded coin toss. Every other approach sacrifices some fairness for drama. I'm not convinced that similar dramatic endings wouldn't still happen, just in slightly different scenarios. Say you're fourth and goal at the two, down three, two seconds on the clock. Right now everybody kicks the FG. But if you know your defense is toast and you know that kicking a field goal will just give the ball back to the other team, maybe you take a shot at the touchdown. My guess is the sudden death scenario would end up trading one set of dramatic scenarios for some other set.

If you don't buy that and you think overtime rules should be written to increase dramatic effect, then create a "two minute turnover on time" clock. Starting at the two minute warning in the fourth quarter of a tie game, you have two minutes to score. If you don't do so in that two minute window, it's a turnover. Get the ball with 15 seconds left in regulation, you have 15 seconds to score before an official timeout/commercial break. Game then switches to sudden death, and you have 1:45 to score. Fail to score in that time and it's a "turnover on time", other team gets the ball at the spot, and they now have two minutes. Get the ball at the two minute warning in the fourth, you have two minutes to score. If you don't, other team gets the ball when the clock hits zero, now they have two minutes. Turnover clock is only on if the game is tied and there's less than two minutes remaining. No extra time outs. This approach codifies the drama while maintaining continuity of the game situation at the end of regulation.

I like the first idea but the most objectively fair scenario has to be just some set amount of minutes of clock (5, 7, 10, or whatever) each team gets two timeouts, repeat until a winner is decided. Brings all the usual end of game strategies into play. I honestly don’t know why this is so complicated.

 

[wilked]

I read somewhere that with existing OT rules, playoff teams who win the cointoss are 10-1? I am trying to verify that, google not getting me there

 

[BaseballJones]

I'm sure we've discussed this, but what do we think it does to (a) fairness, and (b) the odds of either team winning, if we make OT like baseball in that the road team gets the ball first, and the home team gets the ball second. Play them like "innings". If the road team scores nothing, the home team can win it with any type of score (or the road team can win with a safety or defensive touchdown). If the road team scores first, then the home team has to either match it or score more points. Also, to reduce the odds of it going on and on, make them go for two points on the conversions.

Each little back-and-forth is like an inning, and the home team is guaranteed the ball as a response. But they get the ball via kickoff, just like normal. So they could have a KO return for a TD or whatever. And they have to go down the field. None of this starting at the opponents' 25 crap.

It seems "fair". Both teams get a shot at the ball. And there's no "sudden death". It would still have all kinds of drama. The road team scores a TD and the home team has to match it. The road team kicks a FG and the home team has a chance to match it or win with a TD. The road team doesn't score and the home team can outright win it. The road team scores and the home team matches it, and then they all buckle up and do it all over again.

Great theater.

The time issue seems to be the only thing.

 

[joe dokes]

I'm sure we've discussed this, but what do we think it does to (a) fairness, and (b) the odds of either team winning, if we make OT like baseball in that the road team gets the ball first, and the home team gets the ball second. Play them like "innings". If the road team scores nothing, the home team can win it with any type of score (or the road team can win with a safety or defensive touchdown). If the road team scores first, then the home team has to either match it or score more points. Also, to reduce the odds of it going on and on, make them go for two points on the conversions.

Each little back-and-forth is like an inning, and the home team is guaranteed the ball as a response. But they get the ball via kickoff, just like normal. So they could have a KO return for a TD or whatever. And they have to go down the field. None of this starting at the opponents' 25 crap.

It seems "fair". Both teams get a shot at the ball. And there's no "sudden death". It would still have all kinds of drama. The road team scores a TD and the home team has to match it. The road team kicks a FG and the home team has a chance to match it or win with a TD. The road team doesn't score and the home team can outright win it. The road team scores and the home team matches it, and then they all buckle up and do it all over again.

Great theater.

The time issue seems to be the only thing.

I like that, as it's sort of a hybrid of the NCAA start-at-the-25 back and forth without some of the contrivance of starting at the 25.

 

[Manuel Aristides]

Just a thought: it's always going to be a little unfair as long as you have multiple conversion options and a sudden-death style. It just is.

Say the rule is, as most people are calling for "both teams get one possession". It puts an inordinate amount of importance on KC's extra point decision. They really CAN'T go for two; if they do they risking giving Buffalo the easy win if they can get into the endzone. Which means going second will be hugely valuable; assuming you can score, you get to choose to try and win the game on a conversion or to keep pushing for more OT. That, plus the "they didn't score a FG on the opening drive, we can win on a FG" advantage that is always baked into second, in my opinion, swing the pendulum too far towards second possession being too valuable.

As presently constituted, the team going first gets a pronounced advantage (win on a TD) and a not-quite-as-impactful disadvantage (failing to score tells the other team they win outright on a FG). It also creates an exceptionally tense and exciting atmosphere. I think it's a good balance (I think winning on field goal was definitely too far and I'm glad for that change).

Not to be too old school about it, but, if you're afraid of losing in overtime... win in regulation. The Bills lost their win in regulation.

 

[BigJimEd]

I read somewhere that with existing OT rules, playoff teams who win the cointoss are 10-1? I am trying to verify that, google not getting me there

From last March:
https://www.espn.com/blog/baltimore-ravens/post/_/id/54491/coin-flips-sudden-death-and-cookies-why-ravens-want-to-change-overtime

According to Baltimore’s research, receiving teams are 28-20-4 (a win rate of 58%) since 2017, when overtime was shortened to 10 minutes. In the playoffs, receiving teams are 9-1 since 2010 when “modified sudden death” was first introduced, including four teams since 2015 winning on a first-possession touchdown.

 

[Jimbodandy]

I think that Allen needs to discuss this travesty with his defense.

 

[BaseballJones]

Just a thought: it's always going to be a little unfair as long as you have multiple conversion options and a sudden-death style. It just is.

Say the rule is, as most people are calling for "both teams get one possession". It puts an inordinate amount of importance on KC's extra point decision. They really CAN'T go for two; if they do they risking giving Buffalo the easy win if they can get into the endzone. Which means going second will be hugely valuable; assuming you can score, you get to choose to try and win the game on a conversion or to keep pushing for more OT. That, plus the "they didn't score a FG on the opening drive, we can win on a FG" advantage that is always baked into second, in my opinion, swing the pendulum too far towards second possession being too valuable.

In my scheme, if you score a TD you have to go for two. So it eliminates this PAT decision.

But to your other point, yes I wonder just how big of an impact it would have going second. But that's why I don't leave it as a coin flip. The home team gets that advantage. Which, in the case of the playoffs, they've earned.

 

[cshea]

I'm in the minority, but I don't think there needs to be any changes. The teams had 60 minutes to settle it, eventually you have to do something to end the game. Some sort of alternating possessions system or play a full quarter system likely only prolongs the game. I get that it would've been fun to watch Mahomes and Allen trade TD's but at some point they have to do something to end it. If they played a full 5th quarter and were still tied, then what? If they trade TD's on an alternating possession system for 2 or 3 go arounds, then what? 2-point conversion contest?

In the 3 high profile OT games, the losig team had opportunities earlier in the game to end it and failed. Atlanta blew a 28-3 lead, tough luck when it comes down to a coin toss. Even withthe DPI, the Saints won the toss and Brees turned it over. In overtime alone, Kansas City had three 3rd and 10's where a stop on any one gives Mahomes a chance. That doesn't even include them failing to make stops at the end of regulation. Last night, all Buffalo had to do was not allow a 45 yeard drive in 13 seconds and it doesn't come down to a coin toss. They couldn't do it. Tough break.

 

[wilked]

From last March:
https://www.espn.com/blog/baltimore-ravens/post/_/id/54491/coin-flips-sudden-death-and-cookies-why-ravens-want-to-change-overtime

I do think the two datasets are sufficiently different that presenting the first (not you BigJim, but some have used it to defend) as a defense is a mistake

Obviously in the playoffs you get a distilled group of the best teams, and therefore generally the best offenses. There is a much larger chance at a 'kill shot' TD to open the overtime than sampling the entire NFL team population (ie the Jets)

I wasn't in favor of a change until I saw that stat (9-1), which I think is fairly damning and begs for a rule update

 

[BigJimEd]

I do think the two datasets are sufficiently different that presenting the first (not you BigJim, but some have used it to defend) as a defense is a mistake

Obviously in the playoffs you get a distilled group of the best teams, and therefore generally the best offenses. There is a much larger chance at a 'kill shot' TD to open the overtime than sampling the entire NFL team population (ie the Jets)

I wasn't in favor of a change until I saw that stat (9-1), which I think is fairly damning and begs for a rule update

Yeah, I agree. 10-1 in the playoffs is very telling.

 

[Jnai]

I thought last night's finish was absurd, and fun, and crazy. Sudden death type scenarios make the game more fun for fans and reduce the chance that on possession 17 of these crazy everyone-gets-the-ball scenarios Mahomes suffers a knee injury or whatever.

The Bills were winning with 13 seconds left and could have done a dozen things differently. It's not a travesty that Allen never got to touch the ball, it's a travesty that the 52 other people on the Roster and however many coaches didn't figure out a way to win the last 13 seconds.

 

[cshea]

How many of the other 6 winners won on an opening score TD? Pats twice, KC last night. Did the other 6 win on an opening touchdown or was it FG, stop or some kind of defensive/ST score?

Edit: I remember the Tebow bomb to Thomas but I think that was before the current rules and that was a FG wins situation.

 

[tims4wins]

10-1 doesn't look good, of course. I think that 5 of the 11 have been decided on the opening possession, which feels like too high. Of course Brady is 2-2 in those situations, so it's only 3 out of 9 without him. Small sample sizes...

As for the current format, I'm ok with it. The one change I'd like to see made - and I acknowledge this would not have impacted last night's game - is knowing in advance who would get the ball. Maybe it's the home team; maybe it's the visitor; maybe it's the team that lost the opening coin toss of the game; maybe you even have a separate coin toss pre-game just in case. But let teams strategize about OT knowing whether or not they have the ball first prior to the game ending. It's akin to baseball where you might play things differently if you are the visitor vs. the home team in extra innings.

 

[nolasoxfan]

I'm in the minority, but I don't think there needs to be any changes. The teams had 60 minutes to settle it, eventually you have to do something to end the game. Some sort of alternating possessions system or play a full quarter system likely only prolongs the game. I get that it would've been fun to watch Mahomes and Allen trade TD's but at some point they have to do something to end it. If they played a full 5th quarter and were still tied, then what? If they trade TD's on an alternating possession system for 2 or 3 go arounds, then what? 2-point conversion contest?

In the 3 high profile OT games, the losig team had opportunities earlier in the game to end it and failed. Atlanta blew a 28-3 lead, tough luck when it comes down to a coin toss. Even withthe DPI, the Saints won the toss and Brees turned it over. In overtime alone, Kansas City had three 3rd and 10's where a stop on any one gives Mahomes a chance. That doesn't even include them failing to make stops at the end of regulation. Last night, all Buffalo had to do was not allow a 45 yeard drive in 13 seconds and it doesn't come down to a coin toss. They couldn't do it. Tough break.

I join you in the minority. The current OT is about as "fair" as one should expect. Each team has a 50-50 chance at getting the ball first. Stop your opponent's advance to the end zone you're defending if you want a better shot at winning in OT...or don't pick "tails."

 

[Ralphwiggum]

I don't have a problem with the current system. I hate the college rules, removing special teams and field position from the equation is just changing the game too much for me. And I would hate a system that takes managing the clock in a tie game in the fourth quarter out of the equation, as suggested above.

I don't think it is a travesty or unfair that Josh Allen didn't get a chance in OT last night any more than I did three years ago when Mahomes didn't get a chance. Defensive players get paid too. Make a stop.

 

[DJnVa]

Each team gets possession--if first team gets TD, second team can make decision to go for 2 if they score to avoid giving it back and losing with FG.

 

[Kliq]

I don't have a problem with the current system. I hate the college rules, removing special teams and field position from the equation is just changing the game too much for me. And I would hate a system that takes managing the clock in a tie game in the fourth quarter out of the equation, as suggested above.

I don't think it is a travesty or unfair that Josh Allen didn't get a chance in OT last night any more than I did three years ago when Mahomes didn't get a chance. Defensive players get paid too. Make a stop.

I agree and it's annoying every few years when this situation happens. Defense is important and it seems to me that it's fair that one team should have to rely on its defense to actually do something if they want to win the game. People get bent out of shape over the coin toss being arbitrary, as if that was what decided the game. Buffalo's defense let KC score in 13 seconds to get to OT, and then let them go right down the field to score.

 

[Time to Mo Vaughn]

Each team gets possession--if first team gets TD, second team can make decision to go for 2 if they score to avoid giving it back and losing with FG.

If each team is guaranteed a possession that's a big advantage for the team that goes second as they'll know whether they need a FG or TD before receiving the ball. They'll essentially be playing with 4 downs while the first team plays with 3.

As Belichick has said before, clock management is a massive part of the game. I think a 8-10 minute time period on the clock. Two timeouts, but no two minute warning. If someone can do a 9.5 minute drive and then a FG to run the whole thing down, good for them. There's still going to be an advantage to the team that gets the ball first having a higher chance at an extra possession, but it'll come down to how both teams work the clock on their own possessions.

 

[BigJimEd]

How many of the other 6 winners won on an opening score TD? Pats twice, KC last night. Did the other 6 win on an opening touchdown or was it FG, stop or some kind of defensive/ST score?

Edit: I remember the Tebow bomb to Thomas but I think that was before the current rules and that was a FG wins situation.

The Tebow bomb was in 2012 so with the current rules. So at least 6 out of the 11 by my count. The 4 mentioned in the article since 2015

 

[Captaincoop]

This feels like typical reactionary Twitter-era stuff. Two really good teams play, and play well...someone has to lose. They both just had 60 minutes worth of chances to win. At some point the game has to end, and the current system seems pretty reasonable compared to any of the alternatives I've seen.

The NCAA version, for example (which is similar to the "innings" approach above) is a total travesty that lets a game be decided by something that isn't really even football. Go watch the end of that Auburn-Alabama game this year for an example of how not to do OT.

 

[BaseballJones]

If each team is guaranteed a possession that's a big advantage for the team that goes second as they'll know whether they need a FG or TD before receiving the ball. They'll essentially be playing with 4 downs while the first team plays with 3.

True, but (a) they'll have the pressure of being behind and HAVING to score (if the other team scores first), and (b) if we make it not a coin flip but home team goes second, in the playoffs anyway they've earned that advantage.

I mean, we give baseball's home team the advantage every single game in the same way. Doesn't seem to be a problem.

 

[Rudy's Curve]

The Tebow bomb was in 2012 so with the current rules. So at least 6 out of the 11 by my count. The 4 mentioned in the article since 2015

It was in the 2011 season, although I believe they put the OT rules in place just for the playoffs that year.

 

[BigJimEd]

If each team is guaranteed a possession that's a big advantage for the team that goes second as they'll know whether they need a FG or TD before receiving the ball. They'll essentially be playing with 4 downs while the first team plays with 3.

As Belichick has said before, clock management is a massive part of the game. I think a 8-10 minute time period on the clock. Two timeouts, but no two minute warning. If someone can do a 9.5 minute drive and then a FG to run the whole thing down, good for them. There's still going to be an advantage to the team that gets the ball first having a higher chance at an extra possession, but it'll come down to how both teams work the clock on their own possessions.

Yeah, a single possession each gives the 2nd team a big advantage.

One proposal I saw this morning was two 8-minutes halves, playoffs only. Of course then you have the problem is if it is tied at that point. How often do you repeat or when do you do to some sort of sudden death?

 

[Silverdude2167]

If each team is guaranteed a possession that's a big advantage for the team that goes second as they'll know whether they need a FG or TD before receiving the ball. They'll essentially be playing with 4 downs while the first team plays with 3.

As Belichick has said before, clock management is a massive part of the game. I think a 8-10 minute time period on the clock. Two timeouts, but no two minute warning. If someone can do a 9.5 minute drive and then a FG to run the whole thing down, good for them. There's still going to be an advantage to the team that gets the ball first having a higher chance at an extra possession, but it'll come down to how both teams work the clock on their own possessions.

That is true now though, isn't it not? Just with the added factor that if you give up a TD on the that first drive you do not lose the game.

 

[Captaincoop]

The Tebow bomb was in 2012 so with the current rules. So at least 6 out of the 11 by my count. The 4 mentioned in the article since 2015

There was the Ravens game where it went to 2OT (but the team that won the original coinflip ultimately won, so is included in those 9 wins). There was at least one other with multiple punts where the coinflip winner won (Buffalo over Houston a few years ago).

 

[lexrageorge]

I'm in the leave the OT rules as they are camp.

It used to be far worse when a FG on the opening possession could decide the game. I think it's fair to expect the defense to stop a TD on the opening drive. The goal of OT is to end a very physical game in a reasonable amount of time. The NCAA OT rules are absurd, and should never be seriously considered for a NFL game.

Mahomes is a great QB, playing for a loaded KC team. But the reason the Bills lost is not the OT rules; they lost because they boomed the kickoff out of the end zone and then left Kelce wide open on a play where KC's limited options were well known up front.

 

[BigJimEd]

It was in the 2011 season, although I believe they put the OT rules in place just for the playoffs that year.

Thanks, it was the 2011 season. I was looking at the date of the game. My bad but yes still under the rules. Those were changed for the playoffs after Favre led Vikings were knocked out in the 2009 NFC championship on a FG in OT.

https://touchdownwire.usatoday.com/2022/01/23/patrick-mahomes-josh-allen-nfl-overtime-rules/

In the 2009 NFC Championship game, the New Orleans Saints beat the Minnesota Vikings, 31-28, on a 40-yard Garrett Hartley field goal with 10:15 left in overtime. The fact that Brett Favre wasn’t able to participate in Super Bowl XLIV caused the NFL to alter its overtime rules. Now, instead of a first-drive field goal winning the game, a team would have to score a touchdown or a safety on its first overtime drive to win, and if that team kicked a field goal, the opposing team would have an opportunity to tie or win from there.

'

 

[Rudy's Curve]

If you don't want the game to go on forever with alternate "innings," then just have a 10-minute clock and whoever is ahead after that (if alternate possessions haven't decided it yet) wins. The method of it can't be tied after alternate possessions (unless both teams score zero or eight) also works. Either one is better than the current system. Teams have equal opportunity to win in extra time in every other major sport.

 

[Jungleland]

I liked the current system for a while - it's good in the regular season when the stakes and relative talent are lower and the odds of stop + field goal are roughly as likely as a TD. The playoffs really highlight that it's not a fair system. The offenses that are playing at this point in the season are, more often than not, strong enough to throw the above balance out of whack. (I mean, 10-1 in the playoffs says it all.)

I don't really like the college system, it feels too much like penalty kicks/shots in being a entirely different game. If it must be a walk-off scenario, I think it should be alternating possessions and the goal to find whatever minor tweak makes it relatively immaterial to have the ball first or second. Or maybe if you're tied after the first possession, the team that lost the toss now gets to pick if they want it first or second.

 

[Comfortably Lomb]

Eh, it's the playoffs and they should play another quarter. Or since these players do start to gas out maybe 10 minutes and guarantee a possession regardless of a TD. Or start teams on the 25 and go until someone doesn't score a TD. Something that doesn't result in the team that wins the toss driving down the field and just ending the game.

A lot of the answers above feel like rub some dirt in it, play better defense, old guy tough luck stuff.

 

[Captaincoop]

Yeah, a single possession each gives the 2nd team a big advantage.

One proposal I saw this morning was two 8-minutes halves, playoffs only. Of course then you have the problem is if it is tied at that point. How often do you repeat or when do you do to some sort of sudden death?

That's insane. You'd be adding a guaranteed hour to the game.

 

[RedOctober3829]

From a fan's perspective, it's a travesty that Allen never got to touch the ball. Two conference championship games and a Super Bowl have also ended like this. It's easy to just say don't give up a touchdown, but it's not that easy in today's NFL and there's no reason one team shouldn't have a possession. I would favor college rules in that regard, but the teams would actually play normal football starting with a kickoff instead of at the +25. In the playoffs, teams would just play until one team outscores another with equal possessions (unlike college, the same team would always be on defense first since it's pretty taxing to ask a team to play defense on two consecutive full drives especially in OT). It's not feasible for a game to go on forever in the regular season for a couple of reasons - TV windows and teams shouldn't play a marathon game with a game for certain the following week. Therefore, I would keep the 10 minutes currently in place but play until either one team outscores another with equal possessions or the clock runs out, so it's still an advantage to get the ball first as you could have one more possession. I just don't see how the current system is fair, and it's a shame an all-time classic game was decided this way.

What say you?

Not only could Buffalo have stopped them in overtime, they were winning not once but twice with under 2 minutes left and gave up scores both times in unforgiveable ways. I mean, you're up with 13 seconds to go and the other team has 40-50 yards to gain. The only place to be looking at after that game is the defense as to why they didn't win.

Every team in the league had a chance to vote on KC's proposed changes to the OT rules after they cried about the ending to the 2018 AFCCG and nobody stepped forward.

 

[Mystic Merlin]

Eh, it's the playoffs and they should play another quarter. Or since these players do start to gas out maybe 10 minutes and guarantee a possession regardless of a TD. Or start teams on the 25 and go until someone doesn't score a TD. Something that doesn't result in the team that wins the toss driving down the field and just ending the game.

A lot of the answers above feel like rub some dirt in it, play better defense, old guy tough luck stuff.

Yeah, I mean, I’m fine with this format for regular season games since it ensures the game won’t go past the OT period - which is ten minutes in the regular season - and very likely ends prior to the expiration of the OT period. I get the interest in limiting the extent to which players play additional quarters.

But in the playoffs? This is the final 12-13 games of the season for all the marbles. Who would complain if a playoff game went down to the end of an OT period after a flurry of back and forth scoring? The players? Whoever still watches 60 minutes, which probably hasn’t aired on time in decades during football season?

Play the period straight up. I’m not in favor of the college football arcade style OT, incidentally, because it undermines the role of special teams in the most critical spot.

 

[tims4wins]

Not only could Buffalo have stopped them in overtime, they were winning not once but twice with under 2 minutes left and gave up scores both times in unforgiveable ways. I mean, you're up with 13 seconds to go and the other team has 40-50 yards to gain. The only place to be looking at after that game is the defense as to why they didn't win.

Right - they gave up TD-FG-TD on the last 3 drives, and obviously if there was more time on the clock then it would have been TD-TD-TD. If they can't stop KC at all why do they deserve to win? Pretend Allen got a shot. He led Buffalo to a TD. What happens next? KC goes right down the field again and scores. And on and on we go.

 

[Mystic Merlin]

Right - they gave up TD-FG-TD on the last 3 drives, and obviously if there was more time on the clock then it would have been TD-TD-TD. If they can't stop KC at all why do they deserve to win? Pretend Allen got a shot. He led Buffalo to a TD. What happens next? KC goes right down the field again and scores. And on and on we go.

If KC can’t stop them at all at the end why do they deserve to win?

We really doing that thing?

 

[tims4wins]

If KC can’t stop them at all at the end why do they deserve to win?

We really doing that thing?

Someone has to win... I mean I guess if you want it to come down to 2 point tries we can say it was fair that both teams got a shot?

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Play the period straight up. I’m not in favor of the college football arcade style OT, incidentally, because it undermines the role of special teams in the most critical spot.

I don't mind the current system but the only change I'd be in favor of (playoffs only) is this one. Play another quarter. Of course then you have to decide what to do if it is still tied after that.

In terms of the travishammockery that is the college system, it not only undermines the role of special teams, it also completely ignores the importance of field position. Football is fundamentally a game of field position. Just giving the offense the ball just outside of the red zone isn't football.

 

[Captaincoop]

If KC can’t stop them at all at the end why do they deserve to win?

We really doing that thing?

Yes, we're doing that thing because the game has to end at some point.

 

[Captaincoop]

I don't mind the current system but the only change I'd be in favor of (playoffs only) is this one. Play another quarter. Of course then you have to decide what to do if it is still tied after that.

In terms of the travishammockery that is the college system, it not only undermines the role of special teams, it also completely ignores the importance of field position. Football is fundamentally a game of field position. Just giving the offense the ball just outside of the red zone isn't football.

Outside the red zone? Now they give it to them at the TWO.

 

[tims4wins]

Outside the red zone? Now they give it to them at the TWO.

I get how they arrived at this point though (edit: but to be clear I am in no way in favor of it, it's so dumb). If you give each team equal chances, and the defenses can't stop them, then it just comes down to who converts the two point try anyway. With the state of offensive football in 2022, isn't that how the KC-Buffalo game would have had to end? Ok, give each team equal shots. At some point force them to go for 2 (like the old college OT rules once you got into the 2nd or 3rd OT). So it just becomes a formality and a two point contest.

I get it. A team that is very good and deserving to win has to lose. That sucks. But someone has to lose eventually.

 

[jose melendez]

It's basically fine. Not perfect, but fine. The old system was horrible. Watching a team drive for a field goal with no time pressure is not fun. The problem with this is that's its less fun than it could be, because, in post season, it takes the clock out of play. The college system is fun, but it results in some BS scores that really distort the state and the game story.

The most entertaining thing would be to start playing an extra 10 minute quarter--though that's probably insane healthwise.

Alternatively, you could always just settle it with teams sending up five people to kick 30 yard field goals.....

 

[BigJimEd]

That's insane. You'd be adding a guaranteed hour to the game.

Yeah, probably at least 45 minutes. That is a big issue and I've seen different times proposed as low as 5 minute halves.

I don't know if there is any good solution, assuming they even need one. At some point you need to set a limit and do some sort of sudden death. Whether that is after 60 minutes, 70 minutes or whatever, I'm not sure.

NFL does seem to be trending further to an offense driven league so I expect the winner of the coin toss to continue winning these games at a high rate.

 

[cshea]

Outside the red zone? Now they give it to them at the TWO.

It's stupid, but it's the 25 for the first OT then it becomes a the 2-point contest.

 

[CFB_Rules]

So there are really two competing ideas here. There is the idea of what "feels" fair, and what system produces something close to a 50-50 outcome i.e. is mathematically fair.

The college system feels fair, because both teams get the exact same opportunity. It's like baseball extra innings, both teams get the same number of outs. But mathematically maybe it's not perfect since the coin toss winner wins about 55% of the time.

The NFL system fails at both. It doesn't feel fair to the average fan, and the math in the playoffs doesn't seem to be working out either. What are the odds that the coin toss winners would go 10-1 just based on pure chance alone assuming the system is fair? 0.5% They can do better.

I understand those who say that Buffalo should be able to get a stop. But the simple truth is that if the coin had simply landed tails, it's virtually certain that KC fans would be whining about the rules today.

 

[CFB_Rules]

It's stupid, but it's the 25 for the first OT then it becomes a the 2-point contest.

It's the 25 yard line for the first TWO overtimes. Then it goes to the 2-pt try, which is from the 3 yard line not the 2.

EDIT: I need coffee.

 

[BaseballJones]

What's wrong with my idea? Play OT like baseball in that the road team gets to receive the kickoff first, and they get one possession (assuming the home team doesn't onside kick or the road team doesn't fumble the kickoff). If they get a TD, they have to go for two. Then the home team gets their chance. If they tie, they play another "inning". Plenty of drama, yet the odds of it going on and on and on past, say, a 15-minute period, are slim (not that it couldn't happen, but it's not too much more likely really than the current system).

It satisfies the "fairness = each team gets a chance" criterion.
It satisfies the "drama" criterion.
It does give the home team a little advantage, if you think that going second is beneficial, but that's ok because in the playoffs, they've earned it.

What's the downside to this idea?