Overtime change idea

2,817 Views | 28 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Southlake
aggiejim70
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
By Jay Busbee

Good morning. It's time to discuss an issue that consumes our nation, an issue that divides us, an issue that pits us against one another, makes us suspicious of our friends and loved ones.

That's right. I'm talking about NFL overtime.

Put simply: NFL overtime is a mess. When you've got different sets of rules for regular season and playoffs or when you have to put the rules onscreen before every overtime, just to explain yet again to the viewers at home what the hell's happening you've got a flawed system.

Let's raise a glass to the Baltimore Ravens, then, who might just save us all from the perpetual "wait, how does this work now?" foolishness that hangs over current overtime rules. The Ravens are reportedly planning to introduce an overtime overhaul, a plan with the catchy name of "Spot and Choose."

Spot and Choose. What does it mean? In short: one team picks where the ball's spotted, and the other team gets to decide if it wants to play offense or defense. The coin flip would only determine which role each team plays "Spot" or "Choose."

Team A will pick a SPOT on the field say, the offense's 35-yard line. Team B would then get to CHOOSE whether to play offense and try to drive 65 yards for a touchdown OR play defense and hold Team A from driving those 65 yards.

Team A can't just pick the defense's 1-yard line, because then Team B would just flip the script and say, thank you very much, we're on offense now with a short field. But if Team A decides to try to crunch Team B deep in the offense's own territory, Team B can just say, no thank you, you take the ball on the offense's 10-yard line. And if Team A selects the 50-yard line, that's the equivalent of a returner getting the ball out to midfield, which most teams would be just fine with.

Is it always better to have the ball first, regardless of where you are on the field? Not necessarily. It's almost like blackjack, where you have to decide whether to stand or hit on 16. What's the break-point on the field where it's more advantageous for Team B to select defense? There's some speculation that it's as far back as the offense's 13-yard line. Any farther back than that, and it's worthwhile to surrender the ball in order to pin Team A up against the end zone.

This turns overtime's inciting element a coin flip from a matter of random chance into a matter of strategy. One generally winning approach to poker is to always force your opponent to make an uncomfortable decision, and Spot and Choose does exactly that, every single overtime.

Think of the chances for second-guessing. One dumb coaching move you know [fill in your preferred clueless coach here] is going to be the first to botch this and you'll have a solid three days of white-hot sports-talk content.

So what happens after one team takes possession? The Ravens will reportedly be offering two proposals: one's sudden death, the first team to score wins, with 10 minutes of game clock. The other would keep the game going as normal for seven minutes and 30 seconds, no sudden-death component. (Bill Belichick reportedly favors this option, which means there's some element of it none of the rest of us are seeing.)

Bottom line, though, Spot and Choose opens up a whole new world of strategy. Who's going to gamble? Who's going to play it safe? Who's going to overreach, and who's going to be too tentative? Spot and Choose is simple and brilliant shoot, I'd like to see games start this way and the NFL ought to implement it for overtime in 2021.


The person that is not willing to fight and die, if need be, for his country has no right to life.

James Earl Rudder '32
January 31, 1945
rbcs_2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Team A will pick a SPOT on the field say, the offense's 35-yard line. Team B would then get to CHOOSE whether to play offense and try to drive 65 yards for a touchdown OR play defense and hold Team A from driving those 65 yards.
I see a major flaw. The spot has to be chosen before it's determined which side plays offense. You might as well limit the field to 50 yards because it makes no difference at that point.

The current NFL rules are fine by me and not confusing, but I wish they had never really changed the sudden death OT to begin with. I know that isn't a popular opinion but I just prefer it that way personally.
Orlando Ayala Cant Read
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The fix is simple. Go to college ot rules. Sometimes it feels like the NFL doesn't wana take it up out of sheer arrogance for feeling like the lesser level of football came up with a better idea.
Kellso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Orlando Ayala Cant Read said:

The fix is simple. Go to college ot rules. Sometimes it feels like the NFL doesn't wana take it up out of sheer arrogance for feeling like the lesser level of football came up with a better idea.
College Overtime is complete garbage. Its not real football.
The current NFL overtime is 10x better.

I like the new idea.
I'm split on whether they should go with sudden death, or just an extra 7.5 minutes.

The biggest advantage to this new proposal is that it lessens the impact of winning the overtime coin toss.
Kellso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
rbcs_2 said:

Quote:

Team A will pick a SPOT on the field say, the offense's 35-yard line. Team B would then get to CHOOSE whether to play offense and try to drive 65 yards for a touchdown OR play defense and hold Team A from driving those 65 yards.
I see a major flaw. The spot has to be chosen before it's determined which side plays offense. You might as well limit the field to 50 yards because it makes no difference at that point.

The current NFL rules are fine by me and not confusing, but I wish they had never really changed the sudden death OT to begin with. I know that isn't a popular opinion but I just prefer it that way personally.

So....if I have Ray Lewis and Ed Reed (or some other all time great defense) and I win the coin toss. I might place the ball on the 11 yard line.

Either I get the ball first, and have the ability to score.

Or I put my team in a position to win with a short field if my defense forces a 3 and out.

I doubt too many teams would ever go on defense first, but this adds a layer of strategy to the overtime.
MookieBlaylock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Picking the spot is almost as dumb as the magic timeout in basketball that moves the ball from your baseline to mid court

Terrible idea designed for the radio hacks to discuss
Trucker 96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shortening to 10 minutes has made NFL OT the biggest joke of all. The requirement that an opening FG can't end it was a good change. But there are a lot of opening drives that kill a bunch of clock and make what happens after the FG a joke
Kellso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fore Left! said:

Shortening to 10 minutes has made NFL OT the biggest joke of all. The requirement that an opening FG can't end it was a good change. But there are a lot of opening drives that kill a bunch of clock and make what happens after the FG a joke
Completely agree.

The current OT should go back to 15 minutes.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Spot and Choose plus sudden death sounds like the most boring thing ever. A FG wins, so everyone is picking the offense's 18 yard line. So every overtime winning drive becomes 45 yards then a field goal. Or the defense stopping the drive, followed by a punt, followed by the other team driving 45 yards for a FG. The best thing about football is the unexpected madness, but generally if you plan for boring you end up with boring.

I agree that college football ovetime is video game, pinball nonsense, but it least it's exciting
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Iowaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
rbcs_2 said:

Quote:

Team A will pick a SPOT on the field say, the offense's 35-yard line. Team B would then get to CHOOSE whether to play offense and try to drive 65 yards for a touchdown OR play defense and hold Team A from driving those 65 yards.
I see a major flaw. The spot has to be chosen before it's determined which side plays offense. You might as well limit the field to 50 yards because it makes no difference at that point.

The current NFL rules are fine by me and not confusing, but I wish they had never really changed the sudden death OT to begin with. I know that isn't a popular opinion but I just prefer it that way personally.


That is the proposed plan. The spot is picked by one team, the other than determines whether they want to start on offense or defense.


If the spot is the 30 yard line, the other team doesn't get to pick offense and which direction they are going. Whoever starts on offense would have to drive 70 yards for a TD (or whatever distance required for a FG)
rbcs_2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Iowaggie said:

rbcs_2 said:

Quote:

Team A will pick a SPOT on the field say, the offense's 35-yard line. Team B would then get to CHOOSE whether to play offense and try to drive 65 yards for a touchdown OR play defense and hold Team A from driving those 65 yards.
I see a major flaw. The spot has to be chosen before it's determined which side plays offense. You might as well limit the field to 50 yards because it makes no difference at that point.

The current NFL rules are fine by me and not confusing, but I wish they had never really changed the sudden death OT to begin with. I know that isn't a popular opinion but I just prefer it that way personally.


That is the proposed plan. The spot is picked by one team, the other than determines whether they want to start on offense or defense.


If the spot is the 30 yard line, the other team doesn't get to pick offense and which direction they are going. Whoever starts on offense would have to drive 70 yards for a TD (or whatever distance required for a FG)
Yes this was understood when the OP said that the coin toss determines only who gets to spot and who gets to choose. The absence of the direction (more specifically which end zone the defense is made to defend) is what I'm pointing out. This is currently determined on the coin toss and isn't anywhere in the proposal above.
W
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
maybe for the regular season...it's time to just go back to ties.

you know for player safety and everything
BTHOB-98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Overtime in college football is just about the most exciting thing in sports! I love the rule!
Rex Racer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The problem is that the spotting coach will always pick about the offense's 25-35 yard line. If you get the ball, that's close enough to drive for a field goal, but if you don't, it's far enough to defend.

There isn't going to be a lot of gambling and changes for the sake of strategy. NFL coaches, in general, don't gamble.
double aught
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rex Racer said:

There isn't going to be a lot of gambling and changes for the sake of strategy. NFL coaches, in general, don't gamble.
There's been a pretty big shift in this the last few years, which is good. It's maddening how conservative nfl coaches traditionally are.
LincolnBorglum79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Use college OT rules except every TD requires a 2 point attempt. It's fair and exciting. If you want it to be quick then each team gets 1 shot and then it's a tie. The A&M 74-72 win over LSU was more exciting than most NFL playoff games.
birdman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Keep the playoff overtime rules the same.

Remove overtime in regulation season. If it's tied after 60 minutes, it's tied.
BBQ4Me
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LincolnBorglum79 said:

Use college OT rules except every TD requires a 2 point attempt. It's fair and exciting. If you want it to be quick then each team gets 1 shot and then it's a tie. The A&M 74-72 win over LSU was more exciting than most NFL playoff games.


I agree it's very exciting but it may not be practical with the NFL. Their rosters are roughly half as big as college teams.
Iraq2xVeteran
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LincolnBorglum79 said:

Use college OT rules except every TD in the 3rd overtime or later requires a 2 point attempt. It's fair and exciting. If you want it to be quick then each team gets 1 shot and then it's a tie. The A&M 74-72 win over LSU was more exciting than most NFL playoff games.
The NCAA Football Rules Committee on Friday recommended a slight change to overtime rules that would require a team to try a two-point conversion after a touchdown when a game reaches the second overtime instead of the third. The new rule would have teams run alternating two-point plays in the third overtime instead of starting another drive at the opponent's 25-yard line. Alternating two-point plays currently start in the fifth overtime.

https://www.si.com/college/2021/03/12/ncaa-rules-panel-recommends-shorten-overtime-games
Iraq2xVeteran
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think the NFL should implement college football overtime rules, except for requiring two-point conversions in the 3rd overtime or later. If its tied after 4 overtimes, then end the game in a tie. I agree that Texas A&M 74-72 7-overtime win was more exciting than most NFL games, but it's not practical for the NFL. NFL teams have 48 active game-day players. By contrast, college football teams can field 85 players. Starting in 2021, NFL teams will play 17 regular season games, compared to 12 for FBS teams.
Bonfired
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
birdman said:

Keep the playoff overtime rules the same.

Remove overtime in regulation season. If it's tied after 60 minutes, it's tied.


Back to the future, so to speak. I'd actually be OK with this. Would be interesting to see how NFL coaches played it late in games, kind of like college football used to be. I don't think too many coaches would play for ties, actually.

It would also be a nod to player safety, even if it is minimally impactful.

There sure as heck is no need for OT in preseason games, at the bare minimum...coaches will go for 2 to win/lose those in regulation because they don't want preseason OT, either.
mavsfan4ever
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rex Racer said:

The problem is that the spotting coach will always pick about the offense's 25-35 yard line. If you get the ball, that's close enough to drive for a field goal, but if you don't, it's far enough to defend.

There isn't going to be a lot of gambling and changes for the sake of strategy. NFL coaches, in general, don't gamble.
This would literally never happen. With the current rules, the offense gets the ball at the 25 yard line (bc it's almost always a touchback), and every singly team/coach in the league wants the ball first. And that's even with the fact that it's not sudden death (bc if you score a field goal the other team gets the ball).

So no spotting team would be dumb enough to spot the ball at the 25 yard line. Because they know the other team would pick to take the ball every single time (and would be correct in doing so), especially considering it would be true sudden death where a field goal wins. They certainly would never spot the ball at the 35 yard line and give the other team an extra 10 yards.

I honestly think alot of teams with good offenses would spot it at the 5 yard line, possibly even the 1 yard line. They will want the ball no matter where it is spotted, and then if the other team won't give it to them then they will have to be backed up near the goal line. Teams with bad offenses may not take that approach, but they definitely won't spot it at the 25-35 yard line
ATM9000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
mavsfan4ever said:

Rex Racer said:

The problem is that the spotting coach will always pick about the offense's 25-35 yard line. If you get the ball, that's close enough to drive for a field goal, but if you don't, it's far enough to defend.

There isn't going to be a lot of gambling and changes for the sake of strategy. NFL coaches, in general, don't gamble.

I honestly think alot of teams with good offenses would spot it at the 5 yard line, possibly even the 1 yard line. They will want the ball no matter where it is spotted, and then if the other team won't give it to them then they will have to be backed up near the goal line. Teams with bad offenses may not take that approach, but they definitely won't spot it at the 25-35 yard line


This is like multiple times as unlikely as what you are saying will never happen.

Bidding in the 1 or 5 yard line no matter how good the offense is ridiculously risky and no coach would do that to get the ball. They miss a 1st down and you are probably just punting the ball back to the opposition in FG range.
HotardAg07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Danny Heifitz had a good article outlining all the different overtime ideas people had come up with.
https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/1/23/18194165/overtime-rule-changes

My favorite idea was that the ball would be spotted at mid-field and the teams would take turns getting 4 plays each until someone scored a touchdown. If a team failed to score in 4 downs, the next team would take over from where they stopped. Could be gimmicky, of course, but I thought it would be cool.

College OT is of course good, better if 2 PT conversions are required.

His favorite was to make football OT like baseball. You play the OT like normally football. After each team gets 1 possession each, if one team is winning, they win, if it's still tied, you play on. That way, it's similar to college football with each team getting equal number of possessions and also doesn't end with the first team settling for a field goal on the first possession. It keeps special teams in play.
ATM9000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I personally think college OT is the most overrated institution in college football. It removes huge portions of the game out of it and there's zero incentive for either side to take a risk unless they absolutely have to.

In the current NFL system, while nearly everybody is going to elect to take the ball first if they can, they are at least taking on a significant risk when they do so. That's the fairer way to do it.
mavsfan4ever
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ATM9000 said:

mavsfan4ever said:

Rex Racer said:

The problem is that the spotting coach will always pick about the offense's 25-35 yard line. If you get the ball, that's close enough to drive for a field goal, but if you don't, it's far enough to defend.

There isn't going to be a lot of gambling and changes for the sake of strategy. NFL coaches, in general, don't gamble.

I honestly think alot of teams with good offenses would spot it at the 5 yard line, possibly even the 1 yard line. They will want the ball no matter where it is spotted, and then if the other team won't give it to them then they will have to be backed up near the goal line. Teams with bad offenses may not take that approach, but they definitely won't spot it at the 25-35 yard line


This is like multiple times as unlikely as what you are saying will never happen.

Bidding in the 1 or 5 yard line no matter how good the offense is ridiculously risky and no coach would do that to get the ball. They miss a 1st down and you are probably just punting the ball back to the opposition in FG range.


This just isn't true. You obviously can't put the ball at the 25 bc 100% of coaches would pick to take the ball at that yardline. They literally changed the old overtime rule bc that was too unfair and benefited the offense too much. So y'all are really arguing coaches will be dumb enough to put the ball on the 25? Or even the 35???? That's insane. I know coaches are dumb but they aren't that dumb. They've already shown they are smart enough to make that decision bc no coaches have been dumb enough to kick off in overtime. And Placing the ball at the 25-35 would be even worse than kicking off in overtime

So then the question becomes how far will coaches go back from the 25. If they have a good offense they should be willing to go back far. Maybe some coaches are too dumb to go back far (so you may be right that some coaches may not go back as far as they should). But some coaches with good offenses would go back far for the reasons I explained.

This isn't 1998. Being backed up isn't a drive killer like it used to be when you have mahomes, Rodgers, Wilson, or any other high octane offense with good qb play. So if you have chiefs vs Packers, those teams are definitely taking the ball if it's 10 yard line or further out. The closer you get to the goal line, the harder the decision becomes. But in sudden death, I think the coaches would rather get the ball on the 5 yard line rather than give the ball to the opposing qb at the 5 yard line. So it makes sense to go back very far so that you either (1) get he ball like you want or (2) back the other team up as far as possible if they lick to get the ball.

Obviously that changes if it's two teams with great defenses and terrible offenses.




Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think each team should get a chance to have the ball in OT no matter how many points the first team scores during it's possession.

College overtime would be better if they backed the ball up out of FG range.
ATM9000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
mavsfan4ever said:

ATM9000 said:

mavsfan4ever said:

Rex Racer said:

The problem is that the spotting coach will always pick about the offense's 25-35 yard line. If you get the ball, that's close enough to drive for a field goal, but if you don't, it's far enough to defend.

There isn't going to be a lot of gambling and changes for the sake of strategy. NFL coaches, in general, don't gamble.

I honestly think alot of teams with good offenses would spot it at the 5 yard line, possibly even the 1 yard line. They will want the ball no matter where it is spotted, and then if the other team won't give it to them then they will have to be backed up near the goal line. Teams with bad offenses may not take that approach, but they definitely won't spot it at the 25-35 yard line


This is like multiple times as unlikely as what you are saying will never happen.

Bidding in the 1 or 5 yard line no matter how good the offense is ridiculously risky and no coach would do that to get the ball. They miss a 1st down and you are probably just punting the ball back to the opposition in FG range.


This just isn't true. You obviously can't put the ball at the 25 bc 100% of coaches would pick to take the ball at that yardline. They literally changed the old overtime rule bc that was too unfair and benefited the offense too much. So y'all are really arguing coaches will be dumb enough to put the ball on the 25? Or even the 35???? That's insane. I know coaches are dumb but they aren't that dumb. They've already shown they are smart enough to make that decision bc no coaches have been dumb enough to kick off in overtime. And Placing the ball at the 25-35 would be even worse than kicking off in overtime

So then the question becomes how far will coaches go back from the 25. If they have a good offense they should be willing to go back far. Maybe some coaches are too dumb to go back far (so you may be right that some coaches may not go back as far as they should). But some coaches with good offenses would go back far for the reasons I explained.

This isn't 1998. Being backed up isn't a drive killer like it used to be when you have mahomes, Rodgers, Wilson, or any other high octane offense with good qb play. So if you have chiefs vs Packers, those teams are definitely taking the ball if it's 10 yard line or further out. The closer you get to the goal line, the harder the decision becomes. But in sudden death, I think the coaches would rather get the ball on the 5 yard line rather than give the ball to the opposing qb at the 5 yard line. So it makes sense to go back very far so that you either (1) get he ball like you want or (2) back the other team up as far as possible if they lick to get the ball.

Obviously that changes if it's two teams with great defenses and terrible offenses.






Just because a team can bid the ball back doesn't mean they will. Coaches are extremely risk averse... there is a breaking point where even if you are getting the ball, it doesn't make it less risky... that's even if you've got really potent offense. Typically, it only take 1 dud play and you probably aren't converting a first down... and even good offenses have a lot of dud plays. Then, all it takes is a punt and a 15 yard return and a first down and the other team is in FG range.

There's a reason that typically teams with great special teams are the ones who close the season in the top 4-8 in the league. It's because where your start drives matters a ton in even the best offenses' odds of ending a drive in success.
Kellso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frok said:

I think each team should get a chance to have the ball in OT no matter how many points the first team scores during it's possession.

College overtime would be better if they backed the ball up out of FG range.
This has been my idea for years.

College OT should be more like the NFL where you still have to drive the length of the field to score a touchdown.
The only difference is that if Team A scores first they have to go for 2, and the other team gets a chance to score.

If Team A gets the ball first and fails to score, then Team B can win with a field goal.
Southlake
How long do you want to ignore this user?
College OT is awesome.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.