Ian Allan
There's been renewed grumbling about the NFL's overtime format after San Diego beat Indianapolis without the Colts ever getting the ball.
One camp of people would like to go to a Kansas-style tiebreaker, like what they use in college, with teams alternating possessions from the 25-yard line until a winner emerges. I don't think that will ever get enough support, because it's not really football -- it's like soccer's penalty kick shootout.
Another group would like to see each team at least get one possession in overtime. When Darren Sproles scored for the Chargers, in other words, the Colts then would have had one chance to drive the length of the field for a tying touchdown. And if they scored there, the game would then become truly a sudden-death affair. I like that with that rule, the Colts (knowing the game was then going to sudden death) could then opt to try for a game-winning two-point conversion.
But there doesn't seem to be enough support for that rules change.
There is, however, also a third option that should be discussed. I think they should at least get rid of the overtime coin toss. Why not instead just tie that to the opening coin toss? If you win the initial toss, then you play the game knowing that if it goes to overtime, you'll have the option of receiving the ball first.
Such a rule would affect (and I say, improve) the way teams played in the final minute of regulation. You would see, I think, more teams attempting game-winning two-point conversions at the end of regulation (like what Denver and Kansas City attempted against San Diego in regular-season games this year).
The Chargers won the opening coin toss in Saturday's game. Had they lost that flip, that would have added a new dimension into their thinking when they kicked a chip-shot field goal when facing fourth down and yard and a half from the 8-yard line with 31 seconds left.
This rule is more of a Band Aid than major surgery. It's not going to solve all overtime problems. But it would be easy to implement and deal with, and it would at least help correct some of the problems associated with overtime. And what added benefit does the overtime coin toss add? None that I can see.
—Ian Allan
- Comments [12]
Readers' Comments
Add a Comment
Already a registered user? Please sign in to add comments.
To add comments, you must become a registered user of our site. To register, please click here.
Posted by Richard Loppnow | Jan. 05 at 06:49 AM
One perfectly fair fix, and one easy 'adjustment'. Fix: The visiting team picks which yard line on which to place the ball going in which direction (say, the 14-yard line, into a moderate wind). The home team decides whether it then wants to start on offense or defense. (this isn't my original idea, tho' I forget where I heard it) Adjustment: Just kick off from the 40-yard line if the overtime coin toss winner chooses to receive. It'll help a little at least. Just how hard is it to make this simple an adjustment??
Posted by ANDY RICHARDSON | Jan. 05 at 08:22 AM
I don't really have a problem with the current setup. In the first place, playing defense is football too -- I get that these guys are tired, but if the Colts had been able to stop the Chargers either at the end of regulation or in overtime, they wouldn't have lost. (Same deal with the Jets-Patriots game during the season -- maybe the Patriots should have stopped the Jets converting a 3rd and 15 on the winning drive.) Secondly, if a team is worried about not touching the ball in overtime, they should do what the Broncos and Kansas City did after last-second TDs in regulation: Go for two. (Or as in the Chargers-Colts game, San Diego could have tried to convert that 4th and 1 rather than force overtime with a field goal. If it's the other team whom overtime is forced against, again, play better defense. I guess it's easy to say, but I don't see the need for a tweak.
Posted by Richard Loppnow | Jan. 05 at 10:46 AM
I believe the team that wins the overtime coin toss also wins the game itself almost 60% of the time. If guessing heads/tails right 'earns' you a 16% or so advantage over your opponent, then that ought to be tweaked closer to 0%.
Posted by ADAM HOLTZ | Jan. 05 at 12:21 PM
My idea for OT is this: A) 10 minutes on the clock B) team that kicked off in 1st qtr kicks off to start OT C) play the OT like the last 10:00 of the game; after 10:00, team with more points wins. If it's tied at that point, play continues without a clock and the next score wins. This proposal would give almost all teams a chance to get the ball at least once in OT, but also force teams to play clock management as well. Considering that OT games already play to an average of 6:00 left in OT before deciding a winner, this doesn't seem like that outrageous of a time to mandate. The only thing I haven't given a LOT of thought to is how the end of 10:00 OT would play out if it would instantly become sudden death afterward. I need someone with a creative mind to come up with some examples of "crazy situations" that could happen with this idea.
Posted by RAY SCHMITT | Jan. 06 at 01:59 AM
My solution follows: (1) have coin flip, (2) Team A (let's say) kicks off to Team B, (3) Team B keeps ball until it scores, punts, or losses a turnover, (4) If Team B scores, it kicks off to Team A and game continues as is normally done, but (5) HERE IS NEW WRINKLE -- If Team B punts or has a TO, Team A has the OPTION to keep ball at point on field where punt play terminated or where TO terminated versus having Team A kick off. The new wrinkle--the option--significantly evens out the advantage teams winning the toss and receiving the ball first have under present system. INDEED, under my suggested system, teams winning the toss would sometimes decide to kick off rather than automatically receiving the ball. My suggested system, I think, (1)reduces the advantage of winning the toss under present system, (2) does not change the basic play of the game (as the college overtime system does), and (3) adds an element of intrigue to the OT. I am very interested in what the FFI staff other FFI readers think. I have not seen this plan previously suggested.
Posted by JONATHAN BELL | Jan. 06 at 03:18 AM
A Simple Solution: Teams must win by at least 6 points in Overtime. That means they either have to score a TD or two field goals. Winning the flip, getting to the 35, running a few safe runs and kicking a field goal won't cut it anymore in my system.
Posted by RAY SCHMITT | Jan. 06 at 03:32 AM
REVISION: (Sudden Death Format With Offensive Option For KICKING Team) Having written out my previous posted format, I saw an important way to improve my suggestion. New format follows: (1) There is coin flip; (2) Team A (let's say)receives ball. If Team A scores any points, Team A wins and game is over. This is sudden death format. (3) However, if Team A punts, has TO, or misses FG, Team B has the OPTION to take ball at point on field where play ended OR to have Team A kick off to them. [For example, if Team B returned a punt to the ten yard line, it would logically have Team A kick off to it. But if Team B returned the punt to midfield, it would logically take the ball at midfield.] (4) Irrespective of what option Kicking team makes, the game continues in a normal fashion until either team scores. This NEW WRINKLE OF THE OPTION FOR THE KICKING TEAM, I believe, (1) substantially negates the advantage the team winning the toss has in present OT system, (2) is basically consistent with the regular play of the game in contrast to the college OT system [The option, in effect, is a PENALTY on the receiving team for not scoring.}, and adds some intrigue to the OT. Will the team winning the toss decide to kick or receive? There is actually a choice to be make in this system. A team does not automatically take the ball. If the team winning the toss receives the ball, it wins the game if it scores points. The opposing team never gets the ball as in present system. However, if the team winning the toss kicks off and prevents the opposing team from scoring, it has an ENHANCED opportunity for getting good field position because of the OPTION built into the system. It is this ENHANCED opportunity that interjects an element of fairness into the present OT NFL system I am very interested in the views of the FFI staff and members to my suggestion. I have not seen it previously made. Respectfully Submitted Ray Schmitt Normal, Illinois
Posted by Joseph Kurz | Jan. 06 at 04:24 AM
My personal opinion is that coinflips should have nothing to do with an overtime situation. Why not give the option to the home team, then home field would actually mean something and 99.5% of coaches would obviously opt to recieve (Marty Mornhinweg excluded). Then, after the 1st score (TD or FG) The non-scoring team would get one drive to either tie or outscore the opposing team, In the event of a defensive TD the team that gave up the TD would just get right back on the field. This way it would be setup pretty much as it is now except that both team would get at least one chance to outscore the other. And, on a side note I think it would make teams more reluctant to accept a FG knowing that even if the other team scores they get one last drive.
Posted by JACK SANDLER | Jan. 06 at 05:00 AM
TOO COMPLICATED. SIMPLE SOLUTION: 1 quarter. 15 minutes. Period. The End. If it's still tied in regular season- tie. If it's still tied in playoffs, 2nd quarter is played, etc. That's it! Also: the interference penalty is horrible in the NFL. Simple Solution: 15 yards unless CLEARLY BLATANT. If blatant, then penalty shall be length of pass. Other than that, the NFL is a perfect game, a perfect league, a perfect business. BY FAR, the BEST run company in the United States. I wish they were publicly traded. FANTASY INDEX is terrific as well. I like when I'm positively surprised by competence -unlike 99% of companies/products sold in the world and 99.99999% of online services with Fantasy Index being lone exception.
Posted by RAY SCHMITT | Jan. 06 at 06:13 AM
Jack: I love the NFL but perfect? Come on. Have you talked to Mike Ditka lately? Do you keep up with the criminal activities of many of the players? Good role models for American youth? I admire Joe Montana but one has to wonder about his health and the quality of life of NFL players later in their lives. Do you think physicians who are employed BY the NFL should be making the decisions regarding the readiness of players to participate in a game? Are both sides of the bread equally buttered? I guess the Pitt QB is going to play this week. I also like FFI but have wondered why they do not provide any weekly correlation coefficients between their predictions and the actual results. These few thoughts are not intended to get anyone mad but to point out that there are no perfect organizations and that there is a downside to the NFL and to the culture of sports in America. Organizations have one job and that is to stay in business. The NFL is no exception. By the way, my suggested scheme is NOT complicated. One sentence sums it up: If the receiving team does not score, the kicking team can take the ball where the last play ended or opt to have the ball kicked to them.
Posted by JOHN MACHO | Jan. 06 at 10:40 AM
Ah Ian, we know you picked the Colts, but you're right, each team getting the ball at least once is more fair and more entertaining to all fans concerned. No shootouts, the farther we are from soccer, the better. Using the home-field advantage, the Chargers overcame having perhaps the leagues worst coach "Burger Flipper" Turner, and got rather lucky. The Colts are an aging, overpaid team, like the Patriots, and the cycle for them is down, if a little prematurely.
Posted by IAN ALLAN | Jan. 06 at 12:04 PM
I agree with the opinion expressed by Joseph Kurz. Why are there any coin flips at all in pro football? I'm not a big baseball fan, but this is one area where that sport has it right -- they just have the visiting team bat first. (Only I go the opposite of Kurz in the order -- I would prefer to have the visiting team get the choice to compensate for the home-field advantage).