is it time for the "sudden death" of the NFL overtime rule? college rule too?


JaguarNation99 said:
The rule is fine as it is.
Click to expand...

Co-sign. This same subject came up on sports radio here today. Several current and former players were interviewed and they all had the same opinion of the NFL rule: They like it the way it is because there is not enough gas left in their tanks for an entire 5th quarter.

The numbers say that only 53% of the time does the team that gets the ball first win the OT and only 36% of the time on the first possession. So, it really ain't broke.
 
I don't like the rule as is now. It's too hard on the heart. :lol: However, I don't have a fair suggestion. There are pros and cons to all that have been given.
 



dacontinent said:
Co-sign. This same subject came up on sports radio here today. Several current and former players were interviewed and they all had the same opinion of the NFL rule: They like it the way it is because there is not enough gas left in their tanks for an entire 5th quarter.

The numbers say that only 53% of the time does the team that gets the ball first win the OT and only 36% of the time on the first possession. So, it really ain't broke.
Click to expand...

And on top of that, these discussions are always reactionary. I don't recall sports radio being ablaze a few weeks ago when the Cardinals beat the Packers in OT without getting the ball first.
 
I think they should use the college overtime rules. The only change should be that they start on the 40 or 45 yard line.
 
kendrick said:
Yes, a full 15 minute quarter. However, I am only suggesting this be done in the postseason and not in the regular season. OT games a pretty rare. There are an average of one or two played in a given year.
Click to expand...
iF i GET THE BALL FIRST, I do my best to run that clock down to 2 seconds and be in field goal range.
 
There are a lot of great responses to this topic. I will say this: The NFL tries to be a league of fairness and neutrality. You know, promoting parity, having a salary cap, every team sharing the TV money.

Green Bay, a relatively small market has just as good a shot to win the Super Bowl as the Jets or the Giants, which play in the largest TV market in the country. That was the dream of Pete Rozelle. To create a socialist system if you will, to have every single fan base--even the Saints--believing that it was possible to win a championship each season.

If officials are going to review every questionable play in OT of the NFC Championship Game to make sure neither team gets the short end of the stick, why can't both squad have the opportunity to score in OT?
 
For those of you who advocate "equal possession," how would you handle the situation of the team kicking off successfully executing an on-side kick? If they then scored, would they still have to kick off to the opposing team again, or would that still be considered equal possession since the opposing team was to receive the ball the first time around.

This is no knock on your position, I'm just curious as to how that circumstance would be deemed in an equal possession situation.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Mac said:
For those of you who advocate "equal possession," how would you handle the situation of the team kicking off successfully executing an on-side kick? If they then scored, would they still have to kick off to the opposing team again, or would that still be considered equal possession since the opposing team was to receive the ball the first time around.

This is no knock on your position, I'm just curious as to how that circumstance would be deemed in an equal possession situation.

Regards.
Click to expand...

I would say about 99.9 percent of coaches would not try an on-side kick because the risk is too great in terms of giving up field position.
 
Dr. Mac said:
For those of you who advocate "equal possession," how would you handle the situation of the team kicking off successfully executing an on-side kick? If they then scored, would they still have to kick off to the opposing team again, or would that still be considered equal possession since the opposing team was to receive the ball the first time around.
Click to expand...

Dr. Mac, excellent question.

I believe that when most people say "equal posession", what they really mean is "equal opportunity" for an offensive posession. In other words, if you're about to receive a kickoff, and the other team kicks it onside and recovers, then you've had your "opportunity" for an offensive posession. In fact, BOTH TEAMS will have had their opportunity for an offensive posession once the recovering teams goes on offense.

If the recovering team does not score, re-flip the coin and play by the sudden death rule from there.
 
Deuce said:
Dr. Mac, excellent question.

I believe that when most people say "equal posession", what they really mean is "equal opportunity" for an offensive posession. In other words, if you're about to receive a kickoff, and the other team kicks it onside and recovers, then you've had your "opportunity" for an offensive posession. In fact, BOTH TEAMS will have had their opportunity for an offensive posession once the recovering teams goes on offense.

If the recovering team does not score, re-flip the coin and play by the sudden death rule from there.
Click to expand...

Okay...so the team on offense first throws a pick-6. Is the game over?

If the game is over, then why doesn't the team that was on offense first not have the opportunity to score a defensive touchdown?

If the game is not over, does the the team that scored now get the ball? Where? How? Do they have to throw the ball to give the other team a chance for a pick-6? Do they have to fumble? Will there be a scrum like rugby? Can they go into a genuflect offense?

Both scenarios make no sense. Why? Because each team - whether playing offense or defense - can score on any play.
 
dacontinent said:
Okay...so the team on offense first throws a pick-6. Is the game over?

Yes.

If the game is over, then why doesn't the team that was on offense first not have the opportunity to score a defensive touchdown?

Because the object of the rule would be to give each team an offensive possession IF NEEDED. If you scored a defensive TD when the other team has exhausted its offensive posession, then there is no need for you to have an offensive posession.
Click to expand...

:cool:
 
jag4life said:
They showed a stat yesterday that the team winning the toss for OT was 7-6 this season. That's pretty even.
Click to expand...

This is where most that are pro-current-TO-rules go wrong. Most don't care about that stat. They don't care how even it looks. As I do.....They want a chance to see both teams get the chance to score with the ball. And, a coin flip that's controlling only ONE sudden death quarter ain't cutt'n it for most that don't like the current format.

To me, that's why the NCAA's system is better than the NFL. Far from perfect, but still better than the NFL.
 
Last edited:



FIrst, their is no perfect solution, all have flaws or drawbacks.

I love the excitement of the college system, but I don't see that for the pro's.

At the end of the day, the game ended in a tie in regulation, so that says a lot right thier. Win the damn game in regulation. But take the game sunday, saints vs Vikings.

The Saints had 13 offensive possessions in the game. Let take away the end of half and end of game so make it 11. They scored on 4 possessions (28 points) and the Vikings defense held them on 7 of them.

Bottom line, they held the Saints almost twice as many times as they scored in regulation. It was there for them to do, they just didn't get it done. It was a tie, so step yo game up.
 
FAM4lyfe said:
I would make sure that both teams touched the ball in Overtime, but it would still have a "sudden death" rule.

Ex. Team 1 wins the coin toss, Team 2 kicks the ball off, Team 1 scores a Touchdown, Team 1 will kickoff to Team 2, but Team 2 must score a Touchdown or the game is over.

It's not perfect, but it's better than the "regular sudden death" format, IMO.
Click to expand...

Basically like college, but with a kickoff instead of starting in the redzone.
 
dacontinent said:
Okay...so the team on offense first throws a pick-6. Is the game over?

If the game is over, then why doesn't the team that was on offense first not have the opportunity to score a defensive touchdown?

If the game is not over, does the the team that scored now get the ball? Where? How? Do they have to throw the ball to give the other team a chance for a pick-6? Do they have to fumble? Will there be a scrum like rugby? Can they go into a genuflect offense?

Both scenarios make no sense. Why? Because each team - whether playing offense or defense - can score on any play.
Click to expand...

Actually, it would be just like college. If the team with the ball first throws a pick-6, the game would be over because team 1 had the ball, and team 2 scored during team 1's possession, thus meaning they don't have to try to score again. It is about both teams getting an offensive possession, but if your offense turns the ball over, then that is on you.

On-side kick would be the same way, if you let the team recover the ball on the kickoff, then you just lost your possesion. Or you could just do it like the college game and take away the kickoff altogether.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top