10 minute OT period.

each team gets opportunity unless first teams scores a TD. If nobody scores or both kick FG's, the game is a tie.

what would happen in the extremely rare circumstance that the team takes the opening OT kickoff and goes on a methodical 10 minute drive and kicks a FG as time expired? Would it go to a 2nd OT even though the OT ended with a team having a lead?

No. There isn't a 2nd OT and even if there was it wouldn't matter in this situation.

In the regular season it's over, the team that scored the field goal wins. In the playoffs the game continues to a second overtime to give the team that has not received a possession an opportunity to score. This occurs even if the second team actually receives the ball, but runs out of time in the first overtime period.

the should suspend all kickers (including punters) from OT, no one wants to watch FG's and playing field position in do or die

Quote:

---

I really wish they'd change to the college format. There's nothing more exciting in sports other than maybe Stanley Cup playoff overtime.

---

The college format is just as contrived and silly as the pro format.

I think they should just do away with OT period and just have ties in the regular season, and 10 minute OTs in the playoffs with no sudden death. You'll just have to determine "how many ties is worth a win" and be done.

Note: just out of curiosity, I checked the consequences on the 2019 season so far. Seattle the most hurt since they won 2 games in OT. I think Philly is even more out in the NFCE. WC affected as well.

Obviously, I'm sure some would end differently strategically with no OT.

In also think regular season OT in the NFL is sort of dumb and unimportant since so many teams make the postseason relative to the size of the league.

My hot take is NFL overtime is a hell of a lot fairer than college OT. People gloss over the massive information advantage a team gets by going 2nd in college OT. At least in the NFL you have something at risk by getting 2nd possession.

That's not even getting into all of the aspects of a full game you are eliminating in college OT. I really hate it on so many levels.

Quote:

---

In also think regular season OT in the NFL is sort of dumb and unimportant since so many teams make the postseason relative to the size of the league.

---

The purpose of the NFL is to take as much money from blue collar fans as possible. Fans don't want to spend 50% of their weekly take-home to go to a game and not see somebody win.

Quote:

---

The purpose of the NFL is to take as much money from blue collar fans as possible. Fans don't want to spend 50% of their weekly take-home to go to a game and not see somebody win.

---

Fan's don't want to be forced to pay for games which don't really count at all and the starters don't even play, but here we are.

94chem said:

---

Quote:

---

In also think regular season OT in the NFL is sort of dumb and unimportant since so many teams make the postseason relative to the size of the league.

---

The purpose of the NFL is to take as much money from blue collar fans as possible. Fans don't want to spend 50% of their weekly take-home to go to a game and not see somebody win.

---

Cool. I would wager so much money with you if it were possible to prove that regular season ties wouldn't change a damn thing with attendance or TV ratings or overall revenue to teams. Only like 1 in 20 NFL games go into OT... you are telling me that 5% of games ending in ties is going to move the needle with fans.

People are people. There's another sport a lot of blue collar fans watch globally where ties are possible in most games and a lot of people still show up to games, their sport is thriving globally and teams and players make hand over foot money participating in it still.

If must result in a winner were such an intregal part to the entertainment experience of going to any major professional sporting event, teams wouldn't spend Lord know how much in time and effort around entertainment filler because they wouldn't need to.

Quote:

---

You'll just have to determine "how many ties is worth a win" and be done.

---

I may be misreading your comment, but if not, a tie is worth half a win and half a loss when determining end of year seeding. A team that went 6-0-10 would be considered 11-5 for seeding purposes.

I just mean that you don't have to take the current system. You can change it up and even do third of a win (soccer)

Out in Left Field said:

---

Nothing dumber than NFL overtime rules

---

Soccer is pretty close.

How so? Play a set amount of time with extra subs, then PKs. Both teams have an equal shot.

Only in games where you HAVE to have a result. And that's after playing another 33% of the original game period. If you just kept going endlessly looking for a goal or extra time you'd see people getting hurt or dropping on the field.

Quote:

---

Only in games where you HAVE to have a result. And that's after playing another 33% of the original game period. If you just kept going endlessly looking for a goal or extra time you'd see people getting hurt or dropping on the field.

---

I know...that's why I said you'd have ties for the regular season...

Quote:

---

The problems with college OT are:

1. Ridiculous "basketball scores". (i.e. - A&M/LSU in 2018).

2. The stats get all skewed. This would annoy fantasy league players.

---

3. Creating a brand new ruleset, which never existed in the previous 60 minutes and bring in different strategies, just for the sake of generate some sort of result is fundamentally stupid.

I think the current NFL OT is fine the way it is. It's still the same game in OT, not a shootout nor ends in a team having 2 plays, kick FG, game over.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

The problems with college OT are:

1. Ridiculous "basketball scores". (i.e. - A&M/LSU in 2018).

2. The stats get all skewed. This would annoy fantasy league players.

---

3. Creating a brand new ruleset, which never existed in the previous 60 minutes and bring in different strategies, just for the sake of generate some sort of result is fundamentally stupid.

---

If you don't want ties and don't want to play forever, you pretty much have to modify regulation rules in some way.

Out in Left Field said:

---

Nothing dumber than NFL overtime rules

---

except college OT. It's pretty much baseball.

NFL OT is fine as-is

I agree it is fine.

I'd like to go back to first team that scores in OT wins, but instead of a coin flip, coaches give a sealed "bid" as to what yard line they are willing to take the ball on. Whomever bids the lowest, starts with the ball at that yard line.

Let a team be willing to start at 9 yard line. If they can drive to FG range and make it, they win.

I think in a tie game, the team who has the ball when the clock hits 0:00 should just keep the ball as if the clock had not run out, and the first team that scores wins. That way the clock can't bail out a defense.

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

I really wish they'd change to the college format. There's nothing more exciting in sports other than maybe Stanley Cup playoff overtime.

I think it sucks when one team can win on a coin toss and the other doesn't even get a chance to answer.

---

The college system is a lot of fun, but it isn't really football.

jjmanzano said:

---

Out in Left Field said:

---

Nothing dumber than NFL overtime rules

---

except college OT. It's pretty much baseball.

---

Huh?

Rex Racer said:

---

I think in a tie game, the team who has the ball when the clock hits 0:00 should just keep the ball as if the clock had not run out, and the first team that scores wins. That way the clock can't bail out a defense.

---

So would you do that at halftime too?

Honestly, this makes no sense to me. Clock is a critical boundary to a football game.

Quote:

---

If you don't want ties and don't want to play forever, you pretty much have to modify regulation rules in some way.

---

That's my point - you're changing the way the game is played because you "don't want" ties. It's really dumb in a game that has critical strategic gameplay and roster decisions based on offense and defense.

Ultimately, if I didn't have to change things, I'd leave it as-is and accept the imperfect nature of it.

However, if I was forced to change the rules for some reason, then no OT in regular season and adding consecutive OT periods (10 mins) until a team has a lead when the clock hits 0:00 is the way to go.

ATM9000 said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

I think in a tie game, the team who has the ball when the clock hits 0:00 should just keep the ball as if the clock had not run out, and the first team that scores wins. That way the clock can't bail out a defense.

---

So would you do that at halftime too?

Honestly, this makes no sense to me. Clock is a critical boundary to a football game.

---

No. The game is not over at halftime and you don't need overtime for the first half.

I admit it is a drastic change from current rules. But it would still be football as we know it, because you would not arbitrarily start a possession for each team at the 25 yard line like they do in college, and it would be fair because it would just be a continuation of play.

Quote:

---

it would be fair because it would just be a continuation of play.

---

I'm tempted to buy into this because of how conservative coaches get in a tie game at the end of the game.

Rex Racer said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

I think in a tie game, the team who has the ball when the clock hits 0:00 should just keep the ball as if the clock had not run out, and the first team that scores wins. That way the clock can't bail out a defense.

---

So would you do that at halftime too?

Honestly, this makes no sense to me. Clock is a critical boundary to a football game.

---

No. The game is not over at halftime and you don't need overtime for the first half.

I admit it is a drastic change from current rules. But it would still be football as we know it, because you would not arbitrarily start a possession for each team at the 25 yard line like they do in college, and it would be fair because it would just be a continuation of play.

---

I disagree on the fairness of it. A football game's regulation is defined by time. It goes to the classic. You need to score more points than the other team in that set amount of time or you didn't win a football game. Seems arbitrary for possessions to just go back and forth all game then say at the end of the game 'defense can't be bailed out by the clock'. I'd argue you are giving the offense a bailout opportunity by letting them hold possession past the clock hitting 0:00.

ATM9000 said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

I think in a tie game, the team who has the ball when the clock hits 0:00 should just keep the ball as if the clock had not run out, and the first team that scores wins. That way the clock can't bail out a defense.

---

So would you do that at halftime too?

Honestly, this makes no sense to me. Clock is a critical boundary to a football game.

---

No. The game is not over at halftime and you don't need overtime for the first half.

I admit it is a drastic change from current rules. But it would still be football as we know it, because you would not arbitrarily start a possession for each team at the 25 yard line like they do in college, and it would be fair because it would just be a continuation of play.

---

I disagree on the fairness of it. A football game's regulation is defined by time. It goes to the classic. You need to score more points than the other team in that set amount of time or you didn't win a football game. Seems arbitrary for possessions to just go back and forth all game then say at the end of the game 'defense can't be bailed out by the clock'. I'd argue you are giving the offense a bailout opportunity by letting them hold possession past the clock hitting 0:00.

---

And that argument is perfectly valid. It's just my crazy idea, and it will never happen, so don't sweat it.