What do ya'll think about the NFL's version of overtime? Personally, I like the NCAA's ways of doing things a lot better. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link Jan. 30, 2003, 12:10AM Players agree OT needs tweaking By JOHN McCLAIN Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle HONOLULU -- Most players surveyed at the Pro Bowl this week favor a change in the NFL's overtime rule that would allow each team to have a possession before the game could be decided. In separate news conferences at the Super Bowl last week, commissioner Paul Tagliabue and NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw recommended changing the rule to give each team a chance to score rather than continue with the sudden-death format that has been in place since 1974. "I may feel differently once I'm on the field next season and we win the toss and score, but right now, I don't think it's fair the way it is," 49ers quarterback Jeff Garcia said. "The way the system's set up now, if you win the toss, more than likely you're going to win the game. "I don't think it's fair to battle for 60 minutes, end regulation in a tie, and all of a sudden, it comes down to one possession. I think each team deserves an equal chance to win." When the owners voted to move kickoffs back to the 30-yard line to give offenses better field position in an effort to increase scoring, it increased the odds that the team winning the coin toss in overtime would score on its first series and win the game. This season, there were a league-record 25 overtime games. Ten games were won by a team that won the coin toss, elected to receive and scored on its first possession. "I don't think it's fair for all that hard work to come down to a coin flip," Dolphins middle linebacker Zach Thomas said. "Instead of flipping the coin to see who gets the ball first, maybe the team with the most yards or most first downs or best time of possession could get the ball. "I think it would be awesome if the rule was changed. If they changed the rule and make it more like the college game, that would make it more exciting." One thing Tagliabue and Upshaw want to avoid is an overtime rule like college teams use. They believe some overtime games in college take too many possessions to decide. "That's just too much football when teams can get the ball four or five more times in overtime," Steelers outside linebacker Joey Porter said. "I think each team should get the ball once, and then it's over." Porter and the Steelers were eliminated in the divisional round of the playoffs earlier this month at Tennessee, where the Titans won the coin toss in overtime and kicked a field goal on their first series. "Obviously, we need to take a closer look at changing the rule to make it fair to both teams," Upshaw said before the AFC practice Wednesday. "We believe that each team should handle the ball. We don't want the ball to go back to the 25-yard line. If we did that, teams would just kick field goals. "My position is that if you score, you should have to kick off to the other team and give them a chance to score. Then, we'll go from there and see where we can refine it in a way that's fair. I'm putting together a proposal to present to the competition committee next month." Titans coach Jeff Fisher is co-chairman of the competition committee that recommends rules changes to the owners before the NFL's spring meetings each March. Last week, Buccaneers general manager Rich McKay, the other co-chairman of the competition committee, said he didn't believe there was a lot of support among the owners to change the rule. It takes a three-quarters majority vote to change the rule, which means 24 of 32 owners would have to approve it. "There's going to be a great deal of discussion regarding overtime, and we'll examine a number of proposals and make a recommendation to the ownership," said Fisher, whose staff is coaching the AFC team at the Pro Bowl. "There'll be a lot of things to take into consideration. "The rule will still be different than in the playoffs. You'll still be able to end up tied in regular season, and you can't end in a tie in postseason. We want to avoid triple-overtime games and four-hour games. Whether we stay the same or make some adjustments, we're not going to increase or decrease the number of ties." Saints receiver Joe Horn agrees a change should be made, but he is in the minority about the format. "I'd like to say that it's about time," Horn said. "The players have always felt that way. It looks like it's going to be changed now that so many coaches are ticked off about it. "I think the game should continue until one team scores and stops the other, and I don't care how long it takes. That's what we play for -- to win, not to tie. It wouldn't bother me if we were out there for several overtimes. That's what we get paid for. We should stay on the field until a winner's decided." Atlanta and Pittsburgh played the only tie game this past season. "I think it's a great idea to give both teams an opportunity, because basically, it now comes down to the coin toss, and that's not the way it should be," Falcons linebacker Keith Brooking said. "What does a tie mean? I left that game feeling like we lost. It's not a win, and it's not a loss. I don't know what it is, but it should never end that way." Texans cornerback Aaron Glenn believes a change to give both teams a chance to score would affect offensive strategy in overtime. "It'll be more competitive and more exciting," Glenn said. "The way it is now, the mindset can be to just kick a field goal to win the game. If both teams get the ball, if you win the toss and kick a field goal, it puts more pressure on the defense because you can give up a touchdown and lose." A few Pro Bowl players don't want to change the sudden-death system. "I like the system the way it is," Patriots strong safety Lawyer Milloy said. "There's a reason we play defense in this league. If you lose the coin toss, you should be able to play well enough on defense to get the ball back and give your offense a chance to win. If your defense can't stop them, you don't deserve to win." Dolphins running back Ricky Williams agrees with Milloy. "Even though we lost our last game (at New England) in overtime that way, I don't think we should change the rule," Williams said about the Patriots winning the toss and the game. "I'm a traditionalist. The game's exciting and competitive the way it is. They've been playing football the same way for so many years. Why change it now?"
If they want to change anything they could just make the team who scored last in regulation kick off in overtime or make it that you have to score 6 points to win in overtime. Better yet, stop whining about coin flips and play some damn defense. I hate college overtimes, keep that crap out of the NFL.
Exactly. Force a 3 and out, and you will be in great field position to kick a FG. If you have a very good defense, it is almost advantageous to kickoff. Teams play the field position game all throughout regulation, but they don't think to do it in OT.
I would welcome a change in the Overtime rules. I am not sure that the college method is the correct avenue although I think it`s only sporting to give each team the equal oppurtunity to score.
But there can never be an equal opportunity to score. And this is my problem. If Team A scores 3 in overtime they did it on three downs. Team B now gets to come back down the field with 4 downs each time because they have nothing to lose. Team B gets every advantage. There's no equity in that either. The current system provides the best equality on the field.
I never understood, what's so damn hard about just letting each team have equal possessions. A possession is counted as anytime the a player on one of the teams has control of the football. That way, when the team who got the ball first scores, the other team is guaranteed a possession to try and score. Seriously, what's so hard about that? You'll still be playing normal football, and both teams will have equal opportunities to score. The thing I don't like about college overtime is that it automatically puts teams in field goal position. I just think that puts way too much importance on how good of a field goal kicker each team has, when it is not as important in a normal football game.
What you say is true, but it is miles better than not even giving the other team a chance. There just isn't going to be any perfect way, but I think this would be the best because it's still normal football, and it does the best job possible of giving each team equal opportunities to score.
Hmmm, good point. I knew there was something wrong with the college system. In any case, what they SHOULD do, is move the kickoff back the old spot (about 3 years ago). That way, the kicking team has a chance to force a touchback and give the other team worse field position. I saw a stat where the overtime winner was about 50/50 when the kickoff was at that spot. Now, with teams regularly getting field position between the 30 and 40 yard line, it's too easy to score. I wish the NFL could see this. Moving the kickoff back to increase points was dumb in the first place.
I love the way it is now. College's method is insane. Starting with the ball well within NFL field goal range is crazy! As people have mentioned before, if teams would play defense this wouldn't matter. It's not like the team winning the coin flip is going out there unopposed! The job of an NFL defense is to, gasp!, stop an offense!
In college though, don't the teams swap being team 'A' and 'B' with every OT? Let's say team A kicks a FG and then team B kicks a tying FG. During the next series of possessions, Team B goes first and the team A. This swaps until there is a winner. On the professional side, I agree with your kickoff scenario. Have them kick off from the 40.
I agree with this, except I would change it to less than 15 minutes for the overtime period. Maybe like 5-8 minutes.
My proposal: 1) Keep sudden death (or "golden TD/FG/safety", for the "real" football fans out there (who probably can't read this by now)). 2) Instead of a coin flip, have the captains bid on where they would take the ball on offense, in Name That Tune style. Example, in case that doesn't make sense: So, Tennessee would start overtime with the ball on their own 15. Pittsburgh would get to choose which way each team goes. Other than that, the rules would be the same as they are now. This assumes that, in a sudden death situation, it's better to be on defense than on offense if the ball is at the offense's 1-yard-line. I believe that's true, but I don't have any mathematical analysis of it.
It needs to be long enough to where a team couldn't have the ball the whole time. There are plenty of 5-8 minute drives, hardly ever any 15 minute drives.
