NFL should look at changing overtime rules.

by Josh Kirkendall on Nov 15, 2008 3:35 PM EST in Analysis

Sports Illustrated's Dave Heuschkel responds to the Jets overtime win over the Patriots that the NFL competition committee should change the way overtime is played. His point is that overtime is typically determined by luck (coin toss) and in most cases, tainted because the other team in several cases does not get a shot on offense -- defensive accountability notwithstanding.

Heuschkel suggests that the home team (or visiting team) should be given the choice to receive or kickoff, eliminating the coin toss all together. Then the visiting team (or the home team) has the option on which goal to defend. He writes that "once one team scored, the second team would get one chance to do the same." Basically overtime would be infinite until one team scores, and the other team gets an opportunity to counter. While the wording is iffy, I think he means one chance, per team. You don't get a second possession. The game is called a tie after that.

I have a different solution, one that I've harbored several times in the past. I think the NFL should introduce college football's format while keeping sudden death; which we suspect makes the NFL's sponsors and television networks happy.

My suggestion is that a coin toss determines possession. Both teams start on offense from the opponent's twenty-yard line (not at the same time). . If after one possession for each club doesn't determine the winner, then have another coin toss and play with sudden death rules. I would like that the teams in overtime go back and forth (ala college) until a winner is decided. However, we know that advertising dollars and television contracts are the staple of the NFL. Pushing a game past its time frame, I suspect, means that the NFL could irritate the networks programming and its sponsors; plus its empty spots for ads to be sold that probably aren't. It would overlap the following game, or prime time broadcasting. NBC basically has NFL television rights from 7 p.m. until the end of their game, so they'd probably object.

Granted, my point isn't well defined, but it would give both teams a shot with a possession. If you can't score after that shot, then you can't bemoan the fact that overtime is unfair. And it might be the middle ground to make everyone in the world happy.

Tweet Comment 1 comment | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Overtime

I don’t understand NFL overtime rules, either. It’s like going an entire 48-minute NBA game and then if both teams are tied at the end of regulation, the refs just say, “Okay, fellas…let’s jump it at midcourt and, uh…next basket wins!” Makes no sense not to give both teams a shot at the end zone. I don’t care how many studies you show me that say, statistically, you still have around a 50-50 shot of winning even if you win the overtime toss…you can’t tell me the game ain’t decided by a coin flip!

Starting both teams on the 20, however, may not work in the NFL. Where do they start ‘em in college…like, the 25 or something? I think it makes more sense to start ’em in the NFL at least out of (easy) field goal range…say, the 40-yard line. Nobody’s going to start at 1st and 10 from the 40 and immediately line up for a 57-yard field goal attempt. Starting from the 20 already puts ’em inside field goal range.

I say you make the overtime period 10 minutes, flip the coin, winner gets ball, loser gets to pick which end, etc., then you go sudden-death until either A.) one side scores and the other side doesn’t; or B.) the 10-minute period is up. If the one side that scored is ahead with the other side trying to score and time expires…too bad. If they’re tied at the end of that 10 minutes (except in the playoffs, of course), then it’s a tie.

by TheWalrus1971 on Nov 15, 2008 10:58 PM EST reply actions