NFL Overtime

AJ_II

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2008
6,197
169
63
36
Houston, TX
Do you like it the way it is now with the sudden death format, or would you like to see it tweaked? How would you modify it? As it is now, the team that wins the toss wins the game about 53% of the time. But the real interesting stat is, about 28% of the time, the team that wins the toss takes the kickoff and immediately drives for the winning score, not allowing the opposing team to ever get the ball.

What I would do is just play one more quarter, only shorten it to 10 minutes long. You'd have the coin toss as it is now, each team gets two timeouts, the booth has control over all challenges, etc. But you play the entire ten minutes. If they're still tied after that, then it's a tie. Oh well.

But with this format, the coin toss wouldn't be so crucial. And, you could get some interesting situations late in an overtime period. Say a team is down 3 with the ball at their opponent's 25 with a little under 2 minutes left, 4th and short. Do they kick the FG for the tie, or go for the 1st and hopefully the eventual win? You'd get some interesting decisions for coaches to make late in overtimes, and anytime you get to watch coaches squirm on the sidleines, that's a good thing!
 

Aaron

Moderator
Oct 10, 2008
13,010
7,771
168
South Louisiana
I hadn't realized that the team winning the coin toss only wins 53% of the time. I assumed it would be much higher.

It does make sense for both teams to be guaranteed at least one possession. I'd rather see the OT goes 15 minutes instead of 10 if it means less ties. I hate ties. :cool:
 

AJ_II

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2008
6,197
169
63
36
Houston, TX
It does make sense for both teams to be guaranteed at least one possession. I'd rather see the OT goes 15 minutes instead of 10 if it means less ties. I hate ties. :cool:

One of the reasons they do the sudden death rule is to cut down on the actual playing time, and consequently the possibility of injuries. Plus, after 60 minutes of football, everyone is pretty much exhausted anyway. That's the reason I'd cut the extra quarter down to ten minutes.
 

semipenguin

Cheeseburger Connoisseur
Oct 11, 2008
24,641
8,784
168
51
One of the reasons they do the sudden death rule is to cut down on the actual playing time, and consequently the possibility of injuries. Plus, after 60 minutes of football, everyone is pretty much exhausted anyway. That's the reason I'd cut the extra quarter down to ten minutes.

If they're so worried about cutting down the playing time, why don't they just do like soccer? Just do kicks until one or the other team loses. They could give points for an overtime loss like they do in the NHL...:right:

:)
 

MoeSyslack

Member
Oct 14, 2008
130
7
18
Summer Shade KY
If sudden death OT has to go I would rather see no OT at all until the playoffs. If you cant win in regulation then its a tie. I like sudden death, it makes the players play harder.
 

AJ_II

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2008
6,197
169
63
36
Houston, TX
If they're so worried about cutting down the playing time, why don't they just do like soccer? Just do kicks until one or the other team loses. They could give points for an overtime loss like they do in the NHL...:right:

:)

Haha yeah, they could do a field goal kick-off. Start at a 35-yarder, if each kicker makes it, then move back 5 yards. Repeat until someone misses.

Or you could have the opposing head coaches arm wrestle. I don't think the 49ers would ever lose an OT under that rule.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Sherbet is NOT and NEVER WILL BE ice cream.
Oct 11, 2008
20,073
7,751
168
Toronto, ON
I like the college way.

TMQ has a suggestion where all kicking except kickoffs be eliminated. No FG, PATs, or punts allowed.

Another suggestion is that only a TD will make it sudden death. If you go for a FG, the other team will get a crack. You could kick as many FG as you could but the only way to win off that would be the end of the quarter.