MooreTrucker said:

---

TooTall 06 said:

---

Put me in the camp saying that both teams should get the ball. Overtime should determine who has the best complete team...not just one side of the ball.

---

The teams have had 4 quarters to show who has the best complete team. The best complete team would be able to stop the other team, get the ball back and score themselves.

---

What would your narrative be if the Falcons had won the toss and the Pats never got the ball in OT?

The best complete team is not going to be 100% themselves by time overtime arrives, fatigue definitely plays a big role.

The OT rules need to be revisited.

The same. I'm not a Pats or a Falcons fan.

Neither am I. I just was rooting for a good game which it turned out to be but the Falcons definitely should be given a chance to match in a Superbowl IMO.

I am pretty sure the NFL will look into this rule again to try to come up with something. Or at least I hope so

demack06 said:

---

Neither am I. I just was rooting for a good game which it turned out to be but the Falcons definitely should be given a chance to match in a Superbowl IMO.

I am pretty sure the NFL will look into this rule again to try to come up with something. Or at least I hope so

---

I don't think it's all that big a deal, but I wouldn't mind a switch to something similar to the college OT, starting at the 50 maybe, and keeping the "have to score a TD" to win to eliminate the "playing for a FG" scenario.

MooreTrucker said:

---

demack06 said:

---

Neither am I. I just was rooting for a good game which it turned out to be but the Falcons definitely should be given a chance to match in a Superbowl IMO.

I am pretty sure the NFL will look into this rule again to try to come up with something. Or at least I hope so

---

I don't think it's all that big a deal, but I wouldn't mind a switch to something similar to the college OT, starting at the 50 maybe, and keeping the "have to score a TD" to win to eliminate the "playing for a FG" scenario.

---

Exactly. The NFL doesn't need a drastic change but I believe some kind of change should be put in place at least for the Playoffs because the teams in it are supposedly supposed to be good enough that they could score on anyone in OT, so I would like to see both get a chance to prove that.

The league will look at the OT rules holistically with regular season games, but I would be willing to have no OT for the reg season and only have OT in the playoffs. Then you could have both teams possess the ball.

Both teams play the same 60 minutes and neither is 100% by OT, on both sides of the ball.

Exactly. And offenses in today's league is gonna have the advantage no matter what over a fatigued defense, especially with how the rules have been molded recently.

Therefore both teams should be given the ball with the same chance to score. Sudden death in a Superbowl is ridiculous. If the Patriots had lost b/c they didn't get the ball in OT, fans would be even more against the current rules because of the differences of how the 1st and 2nd half were played.

I am pretty confident the league will look into this again. Changing it from having a FG being able to win it for the coin toss winner, was a move in the right direction and I doubt they stop there after what happened Sunday

As I remind that overtime is not a new quarter but a sudden death, you accuse me of being off topic.

Obviously you here to just *****. Why so upset over rules that are the same for both teams?

demack06 said:

---

mts6175 said:

---

It's only time to talk about it when someone's team doesn't win.......

---

It's time to talk about things when it is obviously flawed.

---

Given your comments on the "Is cheating ok as long as you win?" thread, it's hard to take your comments on this thread at face value. I don't think it's a coincidence that your stance against Brady/the patriots in that thread, matches up with your stance against OT rules in this thread.

No because I would be saying the same thing had Atlanta won the toss and the Pats not gotten a chance to tie it. Sudden death has no place in championships.

Brady is a great player. After making a 25 point comeback and not being given a chance to comeback again in OT due to a coin flip, would not be right in my mind either.

Is it really a sudden death period when there is a scenario where team scores points and the other team has a chance to answer?

Is it really not an extra quarter when they put 15 minutes on the clock and the game can end in a tie if the clock runs out and neither team scores?

So what's your solution that does: (1) not greatly lengthen the game; (2) takes away any advantage of winning a coin flip?

UMichAg said:

---

So what's your solution that does: (1) not greatly lengthen the game; (2) takes away any advantage of winning a coin flip?

---

(3) does not add an advantage for going second in any possession for possession scenario.

UMichAg said:

---

So what's your solution that does: (1) not greatly lengthen the game; (2) takes away any advantage of winning a coin flip?

---

I like some of the ideas posted here. Starting at the 50 and do it like college isn't a bad idea. Starting from the 25 with no kick off isn't a bad idea. I could care less about regular season games. I am talking strictly playoff games.

It isn't up to me to decide. The NFL makes billions of dollars, surely they could figure something out to take a sudden death aspect out of a playoff game. No other major sport has sudden death for a reason.

whats wrong with just giving both teams a possession?

diehard03 said:

---

whats wrong with just giving both teams a possession?

---

Nothing at all, IMO

UMichAg said:

---

Suppose both teams score TDs on their first drives and Team A scores on their 2nd drive. They have still been at an advantage of winning the coin toss.

Teams that win the coin toss will always be at some degree of advantage. There's no way to make it 100% fair without significantly increasing the length of games, something the NFL is trying to avoid

---

Eliminate coin toss by giving home team the option to posses the ball or go on defense first. That would add an element of strategy to it. There will never be a perfect system.

demack06 said:

---

UMichAg said:

---

So what's your solution that does: (1) not greatly lengthen the game; (2) takes away any advantage of winning a coin flip?

---

I like some of the ideas posted here. Starting at the 50 and do it like college isn't a bad idea. Starting from the 25 with no kick off isn't a bad idea. I could care less about regular season games. I am talking strictly playoff games.

It isn't up to me to decide. The NFL makes billions of dollars, surely they could figure something out to take a sudden death aspect out of a playoff game. No other major sport has sudden death for a reason.

---

couldn't care less

The calls for rule changes by some people on this thread only really applies to when both teams have prolific offenses. If they have good defenses, then you're more likely to see field position battles and FGs than first drive TDs.

So let's take the following scenario:
Pos1: TeamA scores TD
Pos2: TeamB scores TD
alternate order ala CFB
Pos3*: Team B scores TD
Pos4: Team A scores TD

*cant just have sudden death here because this would essentially be the same as current rules where a team can win without the other team having equal number of chances.

What then? Just keep going? Doing this dramatically prolonges the game (NFL is attempting to shorten, not lengthen games). Also, you can't have like 5 OT games in college because NFL rosters are much smaller than college rosters. The OT sessions would be longer than in CFB if you have them start from the 50yd line.

Is the current rule perfect? No. But I don't think what you're proposing is better

Quote:

---

The calls for rule changes by some people on this thread only really applies to when both teams have prolific offenses. If they have good defenses, then you're more likely to see field position battles and FGs than first drive TDs.

---

That's ok. I just want both teams the opportunity to possess the ball.

Quote:

---

What then? Just keep going? Doing this dramatically prolonges the game (NFL is attempting to shorten, not lengthen games).

---

The NFL issue is conflated by looking at the regular season. I don't see an issue with having different rules for the playoffs (a la hockey). Regular season games can end in ties to meet time goals.

diehard03 said:

---

whats wrong with just giving both teams a possession?

---

In regards to your no OT in the regular season:
Ties are un-american. That is not an exaggeration. There is not a major american sport that is structured to regularly end in ties. Its impossible in baseball, hockey, basketball, college football, tennis, golf, etc. etc. The NFL allows for ties, but they are exceedingly rare (1.5 per season on average), if you remove OT from the equation however you'd go from a game ending in a tie .5% of the time up to roughly 14% of the time. That's two ties a week and two ties per season per team. You ready to concede to that kind of NFL? I'm not.

In regards to what's wrong with giving both teams a possession:

Imagine a game where the coin toss winner accepts the ball and does not score a field goal or touchdown. The loser of the coin toss merely needs to score by any means in order to win the game, they no longer have the requirement of running aggressive plays for an entire drive in an attempt to score as many points as possible, they merely have to get to the opposing team's 35 in order to win.

Look no further than the Falcons in the Super Bowl to see how going for the end zone can negatively impact your scoring chances. They had the ball 1st & 10 at NE's 22 yard line, a nearly guaranteed field goal for their kickers. Instead of locking up the win they continue to go for the end zone (something the receiving team in OT would be obligated to do) and they end up losing a yard on first down, 12 yards on second down, and 10 yards due to a penalty ultimately knocking them out of field goal range and leading them to lose the game.

You're trading one advantage for another.


You're all coming to overtime with the impression that it's a brand new game, it's not. It's a continuation of a game and the goal is the same, stop the opposing team from scoring and score points yourself. The rules are inherently going to (slightly) favor one team over the other.

The last time looked I looked at the stats, the team who wins the coin toss before the game has a 4% advantage by differing over teams who lose the toss.

Take the Super Bowl as an example. The Falcons enjoyed a 4% advantage for 60 minutes. I am not sure what the stats switched to for the sudden death, but the premise just the coin toss for OT causes an unfair advantage should apply to all coin tosses.

Quote:

---

Ties are un-american. That is not an exaggeration. There is not a major american sport that is structured to regularly end in ties. Its impossible in baseball, hockey, basketball, college football, tennis, golf, etc. etc. The NFL allows for ties, but they are exceedingly rare (1.5 per season on average), if you remove OT from the equation however you'd go from a game ending in a tie .5% of the time up to roughly 14% of the time. That's two ties a week and two ties per season per team. You ready to concede to that kind of NFL? I'm not.

---

I will give you that settling for ties like soccer is anti-american. We really don't like teams playing keep away to keep a tie. This is also not so important to me to keep. it's only a potential solution save time somewhere else...since the TV window is important to executives.

Quote:

---

In regards to what's wrong with giving both teams a possession:

Imagine a game where the coin toss winner accepts the ball and does not score a field goal or touchdown. The loser of the coin toss merely needs to score by any means in order to win the game, they no longer have the requirement of running aggressive plays for an entire drive in an attempt to score as many points as possible, they merely have to get to the opposing team's 35 in order to win.

Look no further than the Falcons in the Super Bowl to see how going for the end zone can negatively impact your scoring chances. They had the ball 1st & 10 at NE's 22 yard line, a nearly guaranteed field goal for their kickers. Instead of locking up the win they continue to go for the end zone (something the receiving team in OT would be obligated to do) and they end up losing a yard on first down, 12 yards on second down, and 10 yards due to a penalty ultimately knocking them out of field goal range and leading them to lose the game.

You're trading one advantage for another.

---

I am ok with this "advantage". Both teams got a possession. Both their offensive and defensive units contributed to the failure. Football is a sport of offense and defense. So, this is fine for me. The scenario where a team plays conservatively happens at the end of many games anyway. Just because the Falcons were stupid doesn't mean that other teams wouldn't have done that.

It does introduce some risk/reward decisions for the team that gets the ball first...and some decisions by the second team knowing that settling for a FG to tie the game in OT gives the back to the other team under a sudden death scenario. But this gives the power to the team to decide their strategy. A coin toss does not allow for this.

In any case, I am ok with the "should have scored more before" logic once both teams possess the ball once. You mentioned other American sports above - baseball would be bizarre if it's sudden death was whoever scored first regardless of inning.

Now, if you want to get into a nuanced situation, a more apt one is what happens on a INT, then fumble by the now-possessing team? Does that count as a possession? I'd say yes.

Each OT: Two, "2 minute" halves. One timeout per team per overtime. Possessions start at own 25

If the offense who possesses the ball first (Team A) scores with time left on the clock, that time is taken off of the other teams clock.

Team B can win by scoring more points, or an equal amount with any time left on the clock.

Team A wins by holding B to fewer points or having time expire.

In the rare event B equals A on the final play of the possession, repeat.

Additional rule to cut back on ties:

On PATs, team A may elect to go for 1 or 2 from any point on the field. If successful, this is the distance from which a 1 or 2 point conversion must be tried. (if attempting a 1 point conversion from 35 yard line, the 2 point conversion is still from the 3 yard line)

I'm gonna assume this means you'll sign the petition to implement this.