Mike Brown might have shocked only the sherpas in the Himalayas when he objected to the new overtime rules. His reasoning is that under the current rules the overtime situation is more "dramatic." True, it’s very dramatic, but how can the NFL justify allowing at least one half of the starting members of a football team — for both teams — not to possibly play at all when the game is on the line?
Granted, the new rules seem to be the wimpy way of making a true overhaul of overtime. I would’ve voted against it too, but then I would’ve lobbied for a new change in rules, not sticking to the "same old same old" like Mike Brown.
First off, when a rule applies for just the postseason, that means that all the regular season games — the games which teams played their guts out just to reach the playoffs — mean less. That’s just total bull crap. Okay, maybe a regular season game means "less" than the postseason, but what if the last regular season game of the year goes into overtime and those teams don’t have the new rules? And what if those two teams are fighting for a playoff spot, where whoever wins goes to the playoffs and the other one goes home? Under the current rules, if one team scores after the coin flip, that team wins. Touchdown, field goal, a safety dance, whatever. And the other team doesn’t even have a chance to have the other half of its starters on the field.
That’s just stupid.
Either have the rule for all games, or don’t do it at all. It’s the pansy way of doing it. I can’t really add my own two cents about the overtime rules, because Cincinnati Enquirer writer and Si.com contributor Paul Daugherty gives an excellent argument about how overtime rules should be revised. It’s pretty simple: Each team gets a possession in overtime, whoever has the most points at the end of the second possession wins. If it ends in a tie, it will end in a tie.