Diner morning news: My solution to the OT debate

Reguarding overtime. Treat overtime like it was the 2nd or 4th quarter and let the team who has the ball at the end of the 4th quarter continue their drive and whoever scores first wins. There would be no need of the coin toss.

I don't like the constant tinkering of rules every year so maybe I'm more of a purist. 60 minutes should be enough for the dominant team to win the game.

While I realize that the team that wins the toss more often wins the game I still don't like the idea of changing the rules. Don't win the toss? How about you kick the ball deep, cover the kick well and play good defense? Of course the league has made it easier for offenses so the team on defense is at a disadvantage, but teams can still win with defense and special teams plays and should prepare as such.

I also am adamantly against an 18 game season as I feel it dilutes the regular season that much more.

Overtime is fine. Leave it alone. The Vikings did turn the ball over six times in that NFC championship, which included one of the worst INTs ever (not to mention at the worst possible moment). A coin flip did NOT cost them that game.

The 18 game schedule should happen--for the sake of parity in scheduling if nothing else. Everyone would have 6 division games, 4 games against a division in the other conference, and 4 games against two divisions in their own conference (or 1 game against each of your 12 fellow conference teams if people want to get rid of interconference games for some reason). This mess where the third best team in a strong division plays the third best team in a weaker division has to go.

One factor not many people are mentioning is television overlap during regular season games. The networks do NOT want overtime lasting 30 minutes or more in actual time (not game clock time), because it would eat into viewship of the late, typically nationally televised, games Sunday afternoons. These are the prime revenue-generating games during Sunday day games. I really believe the main goal of the sudden death OT period was to end the game quickly, without sacrificing too much integrity of the game. Is it fair if one team wins the toss and scores right away? Probably not, but each team had 60 minutes to win the game prior to the OT period. I would have no problem leaving OT as is during the regular season.

In terms of the playoffs, where the games are sufficiently spread out to avoid any potential overlap, I would definitely advocate a set time period for OT. 5:30, 8:00, 10:00 or whatever time they deem necessary to determine a winner is fine with me. Mike, you are absolutely right that special teams needs to play a part in OT. As for those people who say you can't change OT rules in the regular season and the playoffs, the NHL has been doing this for years and no one seems to care all that much (the long NHL playoff games are more likely due to how hard it is to score, rather than the duration of OT periods). By enacting OT rules this way, networks get to keep their viewships for the early part of late Sunday games high (since little, if any viewers would be still watching an earlier OT game), and playoff games are decided by football and not necessarily a coin toss. Remember, the money generated from TV is driving the league success, and people cannot forget about the networks when discussing the OT situation.

18 game schedule is a disaster.

1. More Injuries
2. Dilutes regular season
3. Lose continuity of history
4. Throw 32 years of statistics and records out the window

Is there no end to the greed? Keep the product as good as it can be. Eliminate one or two preseason games and play the 16 regular ones. Dont tweak the playoffs. With overtime, yeah do something like college--it's not elegant but at least it's fair. Perhaps just say FG = 1 pt and TD = 2 pts so the scores dont look rediculous.

A couple of things on OT:

The way the current OT works, teams don’t play the game the same way, they mostly play for the FG and rarely even take a shot at the endzone. Something needs to be done, when the OT rule was put in place, a FG attempt was a hit or miss proposition. Today, FG kickers are way more accurate and pretty much automatic inside the 40 yard line.

Lastly, some time in the last decade, the NFL moved the kickoff back to the 30 yard line, instead of the 35 yard line. This has let to way less touchbacks and better field position for the teams. In overtime, this is a major advantage.

I don’t love the correct proposal, but it is better than the current system. I would simply give each team one position, but that is just me.

Change is needed. After all, a game shouldn’t be decided on a coin flip and if you think it’s not, when was the last time you remember that a team elected to kick in OT?

Just keep it the same, but just make it a rule that whoever won the pre-game coin toss also gets the option of whether they want to kickoff or receive in overtime. Obviously, 95% of the teams will elect to receive, but this way both teams know before the end of the game who's going to get to make that call.

With this simple tweak, both teams can plan accordingly at the end of regulation. Maybe a team goes for two or maybe they try harder to score a TD that puts them ahead, instead of settling for a game tying field goal.

Just a simple thought that doesn't change anything but lets both teams know who's going to get the kickoff if it does go to overtime. We don't need a wholesale change to the process.

Every team gets at least one possession. If receiving team scores, other teams gets one shot to tie or win or lose. If other team scores more, it wins. If it scores less, it loses. If it ties, it kicks off and then sudden death applies.

The Dez Bryant Situation is going to be a nightmare. Because of his "issues" he is going to be drafted later than he and his advisers thought. They are going to want more money than his draft "slot". Holdout will ensue, year lost. Where have we seen this before? How about Michael Crabtree and his agent Eugene Parker. The same agent now representing Dez Bryant. Take last year, rinse and repeat only subtract even more millions because at least Crabtree got top 10 money. Bryant/Parker are not going to be happy with #25 money.

Because of what happened last year and the fear of this repeating could we see Bryant even fall out of the first round? Holy cow!!

I suppose adding an extra quarter would be fair, but then we longer have a 'Sudden Death' which I will miss greatly. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. MOVE THE KICKOFF BACK TO WHERE IT WAS! The statistics at that time were 48%-52% slightly in favor of the team that wins the coin toss. Anything else will be gimicky. It was perfect, now it's not. I can't believe that I haven't seen one other person suggest this, it's ridiculously logical.

There is absolutely no reason to change anything about OT. The main reason for my thinking is that OT doesn't occur very often. Why is it such a problem now? Because Favre didn't get a chance to have the ball in OT against the Saints in the NFC title game. The fact is the majority of teams that won OT games last season were those that lost the coin toss. There should not be massive change to something that doesn't occur very often.

The real sad part about this is that it's the ESPN's of the world that are driving this change. Anytime one of there pretty boys get 'jobbed' (Favre, Manning, etc) they cry the blues like some great injustice has been done. I've never heard a player complain about it. The only coaches that complain about it are the ones who recently lost an OT game in such a fashion. None of my friends that are NFL fans care about it. So why does the NFL?

I have a different take on this. I don't see why the game ends and we need to have a flip of a coin and start all over. When the clock strikes 0 at the end of the 4th quarter and the game is still tied, treat it like an end of the 3rd quarter. Change directions and keep playing. If it was 3rd down then the OT starts on 3rd down. This eliminates the need to decide to play for OT. You have the ball with 40 seconds left then start your drive now.

How about a really radical idea? Get rid of OT entirely (except for the playoffs). If it's a tie, both teams get a loss. The 4th quarter would be more dynamic, with the trailing team unable to to play for the tie. If a team is up, they'll want to play for a two possession lead instead of playing a conservative field position strategy.

The best way to solve overtime would be have Commish Goodell privately flip a coin. That would be certain to keep half the people in New York City happy with the outcome?

Leave OT alone. I love it the way it is. The OT coin toss is riveting precisely because we know it may decide the game. The game was tied after 60 minutes, so neither team has any room to bitch if they don't win the toss.

The best solution I've ever heard by far in the over time debate is to just give the ball to the team that wins the toss (if they want the ball) on the twenty yard line and keep the rest of it the same. It's as simple as that.

Just make it that you need 6 points to win in OT. Problem solved.

Expanding to 18 games dilutes the product. Amen.

I usually like Mike's perspective, but these points seem very weak to me.
1) if you lose the toss, you lose the game. However, that’s just my perception and the data doesn’t support that theory all the time.
Yes it does:
The discrepancy in winning rates is statistically significant (last decade: 158 OTs, 61% won by the coin winner. There is no way that is consistent with a 1/2 probability. For the nerds, the p-value of a 1sided test is 0.004 or 0.4%. It means (loosely) that if the true probability of winning when you win the toss were 1/2, you would have a 0.4% chance of observing 97 wins in a 158 OT sample)

2) The other aspect of overtime that must be taken into account is how playing an extra quarter will affect the concussion problem that’s going on right now. More time played means more potential for concussions.
OK, I get why concussion is the big issue right now. But let us have at least a try at evaluating the expected impact. So let's grossly overstate the experiment: ADD 5 minutes to OT duration (overstatement) . Say you can expect to play 2 OTs per season (again, the true value is less than that). That still means you play less than one extra quarter per season. If we think this is a red flag that genuinely colors the OT debate, by all means, let us remove OTCs and force teams to pull starters out of meaningless end of season games, too.

Similar to Karl's arguement. I'd have it the first team to score 6 points wins. HOWEVER, if no team scores 6 points in the 15:00 minutes of overtime, then the team ahead (either 3-0, or 3-2, ect) wins. If they are still tied at the end of OT in a regular season game, then the game is a tie. If it's tied after one OT period in a playoff game, then you'd play sudden death (I'd figure a full 15 minute period is enough to offset the loss of a coin toss).

Don't fix what ain't broke. The last thing we need is some interminable OT like college has. Played by a different set of rules. Some things in football, like life, will be decided in a somewhat random manner. Deal with it.

If you must tinker with OT, I say go for chris's solution. Just call the friggin' game a tie and mark it as a loss for both teams for tiebreak purposes. Maybe it will convince some of these idiot coaches to stop going for FGs on fourth and goal from the one.

I heard it weeks ago, and it is by far the best proposal. This, or nothing.
_________________________________________________________

First team to score at least 6 points in OT wins.

Why not drop the overtime period altogether except for the playoffs? Overtime is an extension of a game already played, just have it finish in its allotted time. There are ties in the NFL already, not that frequently, but they do happen. Coaches and staffs would have to place greater emphasis on clock management, offense and defense schemes to avoid a tie. Or a team might play the game in an attacking, riskier style like the Saints did in the Superbowl. Some of the week 16 and 17 games in the last few years haven't had much meaning in the standings. A team at 9-5-1 may not have the luxury of sitting its starters towards the end of the season. Non playoff teams would have a greater incentive to play harder at the end of the year. As far as the playoffs go, each team will have equal amount of possessions. Coin flip to see who gets the kickoff, play until they score or lose possession. The other team then receives and has the same opportunity to score. After the teams have completed their possessions, if one team is ahead, they win. If it is still tied, do it again until one team leads.
The networks would be happier if games don't go into overtime because they would have their normal programming schedule intact. They don't sell advertising for overtime at the same rate they get it at for 4 quarters. It minimizes the risk of more concussions because the players aren't on the field longer when they are tired and banged up. It also plays more into an 18 game schedule, which the NFL seems bent on.

To all the whining coaches that lost without getting a possession in OT:

You had a chance to win in regulation. You failed. (You may well have been lucky just to get the game tied up.)

You had a chance to spend those cap dollars on defense instead of offense. You didn't, knowing that these situations -- occasionally -- arise, where your prized player(s) won't get a chance to take the field and win the game for you. You didn't.

Quit snivelling, take it like a man, and play better football next time out. The rules don't need changing.

I sure hope they do change the way OT works. I believe the most equitable way to change it would be to have what I call an equal opportunity red zone challenge. This would have the team that received the first kickoff of the game start with the ball on their 10. They get 4 downs. They score however they can, if they can. The other team then gets the ball on the 10 and they get the same chance. This keep going until 1 team has more points than the other, and both teams have had the same number of attempts. Each team would start out OT with the same number of time outs, perhaps 2, and the play clock is in effect. It's fair to both sides and it doesn't have to take too long. I believe this system should be in place for both regular season and playoff games.

I sure hope they do change the way OT works. I believe the most equitable way to change it would be to have what I call an equal opportunity red zone challenge. This would have the team that received the first kickoff of the game start with the ball on their 10. They get 4 downs. They score however they can, if they can. The other team then gets the ball on the 10 and they get the same chance. This keep going until 1 team has more points than the other, and both teams have had the same number of attempts. Each team would start out OT with the same number of time outs, perhaps 2, and the play clock is in effect. It's fair to both sides and it doesn't have to take too long. I believe this system should be in place for both regular season and playoff games.

Instead of the first possession of overtime being determined by the randomness of a coin flip, the team that last had a lead should be the ones receiving the kickoff. Here's why this is the best possible solution

1) More natural continuation of the game
This solution doesn't involve any artificial scenarios like each team requiring a possession or starting each drive at the 25.

2) Adds strategy and drama to the end of the game
Games that go to OT frequently involve a late score by one of the teams. If that team knew they wouldn't be receiving the OT kickoff then they'd be more aggressive in trying to win the game in regulation. A team that ties the score with a TD might go for two more often. A team that could tie with a FG may be more aggressive trying to go for the TD instead.

3) Removes the randomness of the coin flip
I think one of the reasons why the first possession of OT results in a score so frequently (likely more often than the first possession of the game) is because of a team being deflated at losing the coin flip. It seems to take the wind out of the sails of the team that lost the flip and emboldens the team that won it. The more often that OT games are won on the first possession, the more deflating it becomes to lose the filp, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

4) More logical than using any other statistics to decide who gets the ball
Some people have proposed using stats like who has more yards or first downs to determine OT possession. The only object of the game is to score more points than the other team. It shouldn't matter how you got those points (whether by TDs or FGs on offense, defense, or special teams) or how you kept the other team off the scoreboard (whether by red zone defense, turnovers, or limiting yardage). Therefore the only thing that should matter is which team had more points than the other, closest to the final whistle.

Instead of the first possession of overtime being determined by the randomness of a coin flip, the team that last had a lead should be the ones receiving the kickoff. Here's why this is the best possible solution

1) More natural continuation of the game
This solution doesn't involve any artificial scenarios like each team requiring a possession or starting each drive at the 25.

2) Adds strategy and drama to the end of the game
Games that go to OT frequently involve a late score by one of the teams. If that team knew they wouldn't be receiving the OT kickoff then they'd be more aggressive in trying to win the game in regulation. A team that ties the score with a TD might go for two more often. A team that could tie with a FG may be more aggressive trying to go for the TD instead.

3) Removes the randomness of the coin flip
I think one of the reasons why the first possession of OT results in a score so frequently (likely more often than the first possession of the game) is because of a team being deflated at losing the coin flip. It seems to take the wind out of the sails of the team that lost the flip and emboldens the team that won it. The more often that OT games are won on the first possession, the more deflating it becomes to lose the filp, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

4) More logical than using any other statistics to decide who gets the ball
Some people have proposed using stats like who has more yards or first downs to determine OT possession. The only object of the game is to score more points than the other team. It shouldn't matter how you got those points (whether by TDs or FGs on offense, defense, or special teams) or how you kept the other team off the scoreboard (whether by red zone defense, turnovers, or limiting yardage). Therefore the only thing that should matter is which team had more points than the other, closest to the final whistle.

I personally never minded ties in the regular season. So just go back to that. You stlll have them from time to time and they always factor into tiebreakers for getting in the playoffs.

In the postseason, play either a period or half a period and when it's over if someone's ahead it's over. If no one's ahead go to sudden death. By that point both Ds will be so exhausted that you might as well give the win to the coin flip winner, but hey, everyone had ample opportunities.

How about this: NO FIELD GOALS!

Keep playing until someone doesn't score a touchdown or turns the ball over.

Personally I like ties better but this could work.

Question: When looking at the list of team FA signings, what's the difference between "agreed to terms" and signings or re-signings?

Good idea BB. Unless of course it ends 0-0 (which hasn't happened in the NFL in eons) then you'd have to flip a coin. That or first one to six (with the team ahead after 15 minutes the winner) Either one beats what they have now

I'm with those that want to go back to the old way of it just being a tie. It would make the end of a close game more exciting and it will come down to what many coaches say it comes down to - the players executing plays. Playoffs are another story. I'd like to know what the players might think abount the overtime strategies.

How about this? No OT at all. Game results in a tie.... but retain an OT system for the playoffs by playing an extra quarter. Ties aren't so bad. Just ask a soccer player.

HERE IS THE ANSWER :

1) Have the team with the tallest Qb automatically get the ball on their opponents 5 yard line.

2) Give them 7 downs to get into the endzone , but they have to play with only 10 guys ( No center )

3) First team to score exactly 18 points wins

IT'S SO SIMPLE ~ I AM SHOCKED NOBODY HAS THUNK OF IT

The NFL will never adopt the 5 minute overtime- that will wreck havoc on their tv scheduling, which is what pays the bills.

I like continuing a drive in ot. Add that to the td or else other team gets a possession idea, and it sounds like a winner to me.

Overtime - I would tweak an earlier suggestion. Winner of coin flip has the option of having the ball at their own 15 yard line at the start of overtime.

A study should be done of NFL coaches to determine where the line of scrimmage should be at the start of overtime. Determine the yard line where 50% of coaches say they will take in on offense and 50% of coaches say they will be on defense first. Adjust this line at end of year, as needed.

This scenario will lead to a lot of analysis/second guessing after an overtime game, which will be great for fans, tv, and radio, but bad for head coaches.

Overtime - I would tweak an earlier suggestion. Winner of coin flip has the option of having the ball at their own 15 yard line at the start of overtime.

A study should be done of NFL coaches to determine where the line of scrimmage should be at the start of overtime. Determine the yard line where 50% of coaches say they will take in on offense and 50% of coaches say they will be on defense first. Adjust this line at end of year, as needed.

This scenario will lead to a lot of analysis/second guessing after an overtime game, which will be great for fans, tv, and radio, but bad for head coaches.

I couldn't agree more Michael.

"I noticed that the Cowboys are going to sit down with wide receiver Dez Bryant to learn more about him as a person, which is a smart idea. "

Lombardi,

Name the last time Jerry Jones gave a damn about the character of a football player? Betcha can't even name the first time. It's never happened.

Jones giving a rat's ass about whether a player is a nice guy, doesn't beat his girlfriend, and/or make's his support payments to his nine children by six different women in five states.

Jones is all about on-field performance.

And money. Always money with Jones.

The late-Wellington Mara he ain't and never will he be. More's the pity.

But that's Texas and that's Jerry Jones.

Simply move all kickoff touchbacks to the 10 yard line, and also move the kickoff line 5 yards forward. This removes a big percentage of the gain from winning a coin toss. Without touchbacks, the average starting position is moved from the 28 to perhaps the 20, and most kickoffs will be run out of the deep endzone..

Mike,

THanks for the shout out to those of us living in Fargo on the Red River! We will survive like we always do! This ain't nothing like the flood of last year and we won that war too!

I think ur purist form on OT is a good one. The game must not be changed, and a tie just cannot be an option to me.

You think Chan Gailey and Tim Tebow could work in Buf?

As an avid sports better, I am in favor of an expanded season.

To all those saying first to 6 points you're forgetting the possibility of a safety. So really it should be first to 4. Still a touchdown or 2 scores to win however you look at it.

Personally I don't think the idea of a tie is all that bad. Indeed last year it made the tiebreakers for the Eagles a lot easier after their tie with the Bengals. Obviously OT is needed in the postseason which is where I like the 4 point system. If teams don't think their defence is up to the job they have to at least try for a touchdown rather than settle for a 40yd field goal after 3 runs straight up the middle.

Kickers are more accurate and stronger now than they were when the rule was put into effect. Moving the kickoff to the 35 accomplishes 2 things: creates more touchbacks (20 yard line is a fair starting point), and more touchbacks equals less concussions.

Historically, since '85, there are an average of 12 overtime games per year, less than 1 per week. Playoffs or not, overtime games are exciting. For football, guaranteeing a possession if a FG is kicked, but not if a touchdown is not natural to the game. Hockey's overtime (5 minutes) is a decent reference because it ensures many scoring opportunities for each team. For football, since many drives eclipse 5 minutes, i suggest a 10 minute overtime. Since less than 3% of all drives (a guess - stats anyone) last 10 or more minutes, this will almost certainly allow each team at least one possession . Plus if you can maintain the ball for 10 minutes in overtime, you deserve to win.

If the networks really have a concern about the games dragging into prime time, here's a novel solution: in overtime, lay off the commercials - even a little (the commercials after the kickoff are ludicrous). Since we know that will never happen, the extra 20 minutes of TV and the ratings, (everyone will be tuned into the action and it's not hard to add 30 minutes to the DVR to get the primetime programming anyway) should easily result in a win for everyone.