For whatever reason, the NFL is a league that is constantly looking to change the rules, so it shouldn’t be a surprise the the NFL is considering changing the overtime rules. It seems to me that every time the NFL makes an “upgrade” to its rule book it diminishes the history of the game and I never agree with it.
I keep asking myself how changing the overtime rule would help Tom Brady. Isn’t that why all rule changes are made in this league?
If you don’t know how overtime works in the National Football League, it’s pretty simple. Regulation expires, a coin is tossed, the winner elects to get the ball first, first team to score wins.
This week the league decided to consider alternatives to the rule, though I haven’t heard anything appealing.
Some popular myths are:
The NFL wants to change it to the first team to score a touchdown. To that I ask, “why would you want to take the kickers out of the game, how is that fair, how is that football?”
The NFL wants to change to a college style over time. “How will statistics work with this change?”
Start a team on “X” yard line, you must score six points. “Once again, you’re eliminating the special teams play, which is just as much a part of football as offense or defense.”
Critics say that the game is determined by a coin toss, but that is not an accurate statistic. Since the rule was adopted in 1974, 52% of coin toss winners end up winning the game. To me, a coin toss is the most fair option available. If you get the ball, you can score first and win, if you don’t, your defense has to stop your opponent’s offense.
Keep the NFL overtime the way it is. It’s one rule that doesn’t need changing.
Look, if two high scoring teams are facing one another, it stands to reason that the coin flip is going to have a huge impact on the outcome of the game if both teams don't get a chance to get the ball. I think your stat is off somewhat. Teams that win the coin toss at the beginning og the game might win 52% of the time, but teams that win the coin flip in OVERTIME win at a much higher rate:
"From the 2000 through 2007 regular seasons, there have been 124 overtime games. In every single game except one,the team that won the toss elected to receive. And those receiving teams won 60% of the time (and tied once). That's a relatively large advantage, particularly when compared to home field advantage."
There is an easy solution- each team gets the ball at least once. The team that wins the toss can receive if they want, but each team gets teh ball once. If both teams are tied after each team has had a possession, you keep playing. If one team gets a FG and then the other gets a TD, that team wins, game over. It seems the most logical, and both teams get the same # of times on offense and defense.
Ex,
52% is the coin toss in overtime according to my research.
I am for changing the rules. I think sudden death should go away and they should play a proper overtime like in soccer.
How long of an overtime period (you can't call it a quarter) would you play? 10 minutes? Another 15? Fatigue sets in and then you are putting your multi-million dollar players at real risk. Suppose it's tied after that OT period, then what? Does it end in a tie?
If Indy is playing the Ravens and Indy wins the toss in OT and drives down the field for a game-winning Matt Stover field goal, I say shame on Mattison for not stopping them. The game is offense, defense, and special teams, strive to be the best in all phases.
The whole thing stinks. The stats would be a nightmare if they adopt a college type OT. What's next a NHL shootout? Maybe a game of H-O-R-S-E?
So, riddle me this Batman…
If Team X kicks off to Team Y, Team Y fumbles the kickoff, Team X recovers, and kicks a field goal, what's the ruling? Both teams have "touched the ball"…I haven't looked at the rules
The whole thing is stupid. It's all about the offense in the NFL. Make teams play defense and special teams for God sakes. Football is all about the offense.
I was hoping that the QBs would come out to mid field to play horse shoes.
Would have to be the QBs playing horseshoes because that would allow the NFL to continue to legislate OFFENSE.
Football is NOT all offense, even though the NFL has tried to legislate it that way through the ever changing rules to protect and promote offense.
Football is made up of three elements – Special Teams, Defense, and Offense. If your sorry a$$ team can't stop the other team's offense or if your Special Teams allow a big run back, too bad.
Leave the rule the way it is and stop trying to legislate two-thirds of the game away.
But what if two teams have really good offenses and really bad defenses and they go to overtime? Wouldn't the winner of the coin toss then have an undue advantage? Let both teams have an equal number of chances, that's all. It wouldn't change much, just give both teams a chance to use their offense, defense, and special teams. With the rule as it is now you get ONE team's offense, ONE team's defense, and ONE team's special teams. That sounds like legislating a LOT of the game away to me…
X,
If you go into any game, regardless of whether it goes into overtime or not, and you are weak in that phase, you're probably going to get exposed.
I just think the NFL wants this to be all about the offense. Build a solid team in all three phases and you shouldn't have to worry.
Supposes two teams are tied with 2 minutes to go, team X is on offense, team Y on defense. If team X drives down the field in their two minute offense and wins the game, should team Y get the ball and get "one more chance" because their offense couldn't stop them?
STG,
I try not to comment more than a couple times on a thread, so this is the last I can say on this- in the current system it is not a matter of being flawed in one phase or not. In the current overtime system, it only matters WHICH flaws you have. If both teams have potent offenses and bad defenses, then the team that gets the ball will probably win. In this case you have identical teams- the only difference is the coin flip that essentially decides who wins. If the team that gets the ball first has an awful defense it doesn't matter- that flaw is never exposed or addressed.
I just want a system where, like you said, a team can be exposed. In the current system, one side of each team is never tested or exposed. That's 50% of each team- so it doesn't matter whether you are flawed, it just matters if your flaws are on the field at the time. It is incredibly unbalanced that way. Give each team a chance to answer and you get BOTH defenses involved and BOTH offenses. I want an entire team to be tested, not just a part.
X,
I enjoy the "back and forth" of the threads and find this a great topic. The debate is what continues to grow this thread.
You guys are doing a great job, keep up the good work. I am constantly searching for more bloggers for the thread.
Let me try this again…
f you go into any game, regardless of whether it goes into overtime or not, and you are weak in that phase, you're probably going to get exposed.
I just think the NFL wants this to be all about the offense. Build a solid team in all three phases and you shouldn't have to worry.
Suppose two teams are tied with 2 minutes to go, team X is on offense, team Y on defense. If team X drives down the field in their two minute offense and wins the game, should team Y get the ball and get "one more chance" because their defense couldn't stop them?
Zach
The issue is how those numbers are pretty much now 60-40 the way the current game is set up.
Kickoffs were moved back to the 30 in 1994 I believe.
Many more facilities are climate controlled which enable the kickers to have a much easier time.
The problem I have is I don't see a way to do it any other way besides sudden death. I think this idea that if a team scores a TD they win but if they kick a FG the game goes on sounds like the XFL.
Mark,
I guess I'm an old school guy. I hate the plastic grass, indoor dome football that the NFL continues to become. I wish every stadium was Solider Field or Lambeau.
I like the tradition and think the NFL should adapt to keep its heritage strong. Sure they've expanded the schedules and the teams in the league, but don't change rules that don't need to be changed.
Umm soldier field sucks.
I think the fake grass is a good thing. Watching those field decimate in New England and Giants Stadium was not pretty. This is not baseball where there is some sort of historic sentiment needs to set in….. This is football and it is peaking now more than ever.
Brydman – I believe statistics show more injuries as a result of playing on turf, than on grass. I know surfaces like the Sportex that the Ravens play on is a nice surface that the players like, but it's still hard and unforegiving.
Brydman, I think football sees itself exactly as you see it. Invincible. If the NFL has a lock out in 2011 and they continue to soften the rules and change them to make more money people will go away. It's hard to imagine because football is on top, but they have to maintain their fan base.
It's stupid. Why would they change a rule for only the playoffs? If the rule sucks wouldn't they want to find out before someone's season is on the line?
This new rule is terrible.
The "new" Soldier Field is horrendous. I was there last season.
I've run on the Ravens field and I didn't think it was hard or unforgiving at all.
The NFL better be careful.
I was using Soldier Field as an example. I've never been there. Just thinking old school football fields.
The artificial fields are probably softer than they were in previous years, but I doubt it's anywhere near as forgiving as actual grass.
Youre right though, the NFL needs to be careful. Couldn't agree more.
Mark,
I've been on the field too…actually shanked two field goals on Fanfest day…two years in a row. Plenty long, but wide left two times. Also my daughter plays field hockey at Washington College which has Sportex as well. While they are miles ahead of the old "Astro Turf", you cannot simulate real grass.
Here's what pi$$es me off…When they built this stadium with our tax dollars, I was in the minority of those who wanted a dome. I wanted a shot for the Super Bowl (see Indy), a shot at the NCAAs, and didn't want to sit out in the rain/snow…I'm old. All I heard was "Baltimore wants an open air stadium with real grass" Well the freaking stadium is on such a high water table (it's playing surface is considerable higher than OPACY) that they could not get grass/sod to take. Then they figured out if they put an artificial surface in, they could host more events…wow!? Really?!? We could have been in line for the other things I mentioned too.
Im with you on the field.
It's amazing how they pay out the ass for these architects etc…. to design something and then it not be able to keep a natural grass field.
And they could've made it a retractable roof. Best of both worlds.
What about a safety?
Just ready that Bisciotti was one of four owners that voted AGAINST the rule change…
I heard and interesting OT proposal on Dan patrick this morning. What if the team that wins the coin flip has the choice to start with the ball on their own 15 yard line, or give it to their opponent on their opponent's 15? It could bring new strategy to deciding whether or not you want the ball to start an OT. If you are weak offensively you may not want to start at your own 15 and have to go such a great distance to score, lus if you are three and out you are potentially giving away field position. Strong defensive teams might be willing to let their opponent start with the ball in order to gain teh field position. Seemed like an interesting idea.
That is an interesting idea. I just feel like it's a pretty big change for this game to under go. My issue was that everyone felt like they had the solution, but it just didn't feel like the game I'm used to watching.