Friday's UFL's championship game produced what the most recent NFL championship game nearly produced -- a contest decided in overtime.
But the UFL has adopted a more equitable version of bonus football, with each team guaranteed one possession of the ball. Then, if the game is tied after each team has had the ball once, the game converts to sudden death.
On Friday, Florida Tuskers coach Jim Haslett opted to take the ball after his team won the toss at the end of regulation, when the Tuskers and the Las Vegas Locos were tied at 17. And that was the smart move.
"[W]e don't want to defer, give them possession, have neither team score,
and then all of a sudden they get possession and it's sudden death now," Haslett said after the game, according to the Orlando Sentinel.
Unfortunately for Haslett, quarterback Brooks Bollinger threw an interception on the first drive of overtime. The Locos then secured the title on the toe of kicker Graham Gano.
The NFL should seriously consider adopting the UFL version of overtime. Though it would result in more ties during the regular season, a sense of equity would be restored to the notion of overtime football, especially in the playoffs and the Super Bowl.
NFL should adopt UFL overtime rule
Posted by Mike Florio on November 28, 2009 1:57 PM ET
Permalink
76 Comments
Latest stories in: Latest News and Rumors, NFL Mobile Exclusives - Rumors, Top Stories
Leave it the way it is. If your team is on defense first in overtime, they get paid to stop the other team's offense. If they don't......too bad, they lose.
No.
The only way to fix overtime is to play an additional full quarter of football. 15 minutes. None of this trading possession or sudden death nonsense. Play overtime the way you play the first four quarters - don't change the way the game is played just because teams are tied. And if a player or two whine about increased chances of getting hurt, the coaches are welcome to sit them during OT and give playing time to someone else who appreciates it.
I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
How would this result in more ties, if it still goes to sudden death after each club has a possession?
An NFL game should never end in a tie, regular season or otherwise. Just let them play until a point is scored.
That's the same rule the Arena teams use. Personally, I think they should go to the College system of overtime games and place it at the 25 to 30 yard line, and have at it with equal possessions until one comes out on top.
Fair shot for everyone, exciting, and keeps the edge of what overtime should mean.
Sorry, but the NFL rule is perfectly fine. Both teams get 60 minutes to "beat the other guy" as Vince Lombardi would put it.
I don't want the rule to change (Pats fan, Pats lost the Playoffs last year against the Jets in OT when they never got the ball). The NFL should not support coaches who coach like girls. If you don't manage to beat the other team within 60 minutes, you don't deserve much more than a coin flip.
Bad Idea. I don't understand why there's not a 10 minute quarter played with 4th Quarter rules. If one team gets the ball none or three times it has the same consequences as the rest of the game that is on a time restraint. At the end of 10 mnutes, its just a tie.
I'm so sick of people saying there's no equity or fairness in sudden death overtime. In order to win a game in the NFL, your team should be able to play defense as well as offense. If your team cannot make one defensive stop, you don't deserve to win. The defensive players in the NFL make as many $$millions$$ as the offensive players do.. They should be expected to help with a win once in a while too.
One Touch Sudden Death
I think that would be a good title. I'd like to emphazize that my concept of OTSD would also mean that if the defensive team gains possession (intercption or fumble) and subsequently loses possession on the same play that would count as "one touch" so it would be possible for a team to win in OTSD without the other teams offense coming on the field.
Not only No! But HELL NO!!
NFL overtime is the best overtime!!
No second chances
No monkeying around on an east coast game while a good west coast game is being missed.
No halfhearted efforts.
NFL overtime means any one play can end it.
No one leaves their seats during NFL overtime.
Why would it result in more ties during the regular season?
Also, how is this any more "equitable" than the NFL version? You said if both teams score, then it goes to sudden death. So a team can get 2 possessions and win the game while the other team only got to have one possession. Sounds like the same gripe as the NFL.
For me, the best way to do it is to just keep it the way it is now. If you want to win, get it done in regulation or make a stop on defense after you lose the coin toss in overtime. OR they could adopt a hockey-style system where in the regular season a loss in overtime isn't as damning as a loss in regulation (that'll never happen, though).
OR, just make it to where the first team to get more than 3 points in OT wins. OR make it to where in OT you can't kick a field goal unless you've made it to at least the opponent's 20-yd line.
Yes and make every play reviewable. Ref-ego is the only reason we don't.
Leave the NFL alone....if your defense can't hold'em you deserve to lose
Give me a break about being fair.....geeez whiz!
Your team had 60 minutes to play better than the other team. They put themselves in a position to "lose" the coin flip. Defense needs to make a stop, if not, too bad, shoulda, woulda, coulda played better earlier. That was your time for equality, fairness, etc.
First team to score 6 points wins the game is most fair.
If you allow the 2nd team to have the ball - then they should not be given a 4th down to tie it up. Thats not fair that they know they have to go for it 4th and 2 at the 50 instead of punt.
First team to score 6 points wins is the most fair idea I have heard. So teams cant drive 35 yards and kick a FG to win. If your D gives up a TD on the first drive - tough S**T. You lose.
The NFL should adopt the guaranteed-possession, sudden death conversion rule.
It would add a little more strategy to overtime, and reduce the importance of the coin flip. Once each team has had possession or a chance to get possession, it is sudden death, and the tension ratchets up a notch.
With this rule, games could end on: turnovers that don't result in touchdowns, successful onside kicks, and failed 4th down conversions.
For example, there would be a "walk off win" when on 4th down a linebacker tackles a running back one-yard short of a first down, after the linebacker's team had scored on the first possession of overtime.
Another scenario would be if the team with possession first scores 7 points, and then on defense gets an interception and scores a touchdown. That would be a 13-point overtime win. Pretty rare, but possible.
This is better than the college overtime rule, because special teams in kickoffs and punts still matter.
There would be a few more ties with this rule, but the onset of sudden death in the middle of overtime would mean that any score after that would end the game.
Go to a college overtime, but start at the 50 or it will turn into a FG fest in the NFL.
The only people that seem to have a problem with the current overtime rule is Costas and Lord Florio.
Wonder who is the pitcher and who is the catcher......
What is more popular the UFL or the NFL?
Why would the most popular professional sport in the USA change any of it's rules based on a less popular league?
Has it occured to you that maybe the EXISTING RULES may have something to do with the popularity of the NFL?
Is that possible?
I don't see how anyone can agree with NFL sudden death overtime. It's the worst part of the NFL by far. they have salary cap, pretty decent drug testing, challenges and etc. but the OT rules are ridiculous.
To all the OT apologists, I don't see how your logic works. Like that guy (forget who he was) said at half-time of SnF last week, a defense holding a team to a field goal is often seen as a defensive win (especially against a high powered offense). but in OT it's a fail. and seriously it's not that hard for a decent offense to get to the 35 yard line even against a great defense. it's ridiculous.
the best way is to trade possessions. this is such a better way, because it's so much more interesting. imagine where the first team kicks a field goal, and then has to stop the other team from scoring. and they would actually be interested in scoring a touchdown (how many OT games actually end in a touchdown?). I hope this is changed because it's such an anticlimax after a brilliant game of football. I'm not sure how anyone can't see that at this point. I'm not even sure how anyone could have brought this rule into being but there you go.
the play another quarter idea is cool, but the coin flip is still kind of important in that the first team would have a big of an edge of time of possession. I think each team having just one possession is the best. and just keep adding possessions until the game ends. imagine how cool that would be, knowing you need a TD to have a chance. I'm glad commentators are getting on the NFL with this.
First team to score 6 points wins. 2 FGs or 1 TD. That is the most fair. Why cant anyone figure that out!!
what about just doing the coin flip and whoever wins that wins the game
OMG drop it already
Just because it is the current rule does not mean it can't be improved upon. Current OT rules suck! Somehow the "luck" of the coin-flip needs to be eliminated. Awarding equal possessions and then turning to "sudden death" would be a step in the right direction.
All about TV, folks. Any other system would lengthen the games. It's annoying enough already when the early game screws up the late ones with the overtime rule as it is.
Man up and play some D, ladies. Can't play defense? Then you're going nowhere anyway.
If there's anything to tweak, it would be the yardline of the kickoff. If it's true that the team with 1st possession wins 55% of the time (as claimed), then move the kickoff up a couple yards.
Should be first team to score six points wins.
"But the UFL has adopted a more equitable version of bonus football, with each team guaranteed one possession of the ball. Then, if the game is tied after each team has had the ball once, the game converts to sudden death."
I don't know how anyone can think this isn't the only logical playoff rule. I really don't.
Even those who say "Your defense should stop them"....and they probably would, if, you know, the defense had the entire field to stop them. They don't. With possession starting at the 20, and needing to get to the 35 yardline for a solid kicker to convert, they offense only has to move the ball 45 yards to be able to end the game. That is ridiculously unbalanced.
@ Dan.. thats the worst idea ever
Yep, I'm just waiting for the N.F.L. to be embarrased like they nearly were last year when a Superbowl goes into O.T. and someone loses a game on the flip of a coin.People who think the rule should stay should also think of the rule changes that were made over the years that made the N.F.L. what it is today. The rule change will come.
# I_Hate_Yams says: November 28, 2009 2:09 PM
Leave it the way it is. If your team is on defense first in overtime, they get paid to stop the other team's offense. If they don't......too bad, they lose.
=====================================
That argument worked about 5-10 years ago. Now, the rules are so set up in favor of the offense, it's not simply a matter of "stopping the offense". You also have the rules to beat (bullshit 5 yard chuck rule that results in an auto 1st down, this years Tom Brady's Pussy Hurts Rule), and those top notch officials that get EVERYTHING right.
It's unfair to leave things up to an official, everything should be reviewed in real time in the booth, and it's unfair to leave the outcome of a game up to a coin flip. Both teams should get a crack at the ball.
College overtime, to me, is by far the most exciting overtime in sports. Both teams have to play offense and defense, and it's a very fair and even condensed version of the game, which is perfect for overtime.
High school does it the same way, only the teams start on the 10 instead of the 25.
The NFL should do it this way, but maybe put the teams back as far as the 50. Now that's an overtime I would look forward to watching. As it is now, I hate it. I feel like it's just the NFL saying, "Well, dammit. This didn't get solved in 60 minutes, so let's just give someone the ball, let them kick a field goal, and get outta here."
Either this way or a 5th quarter (which I like to refer to as baseball style overtime) would be the best and most logical ways to solve this.
"First team to get 6 points" would not work well.
What happens at the end of overtime if one team leads by 3 points?
This rule would make safeties meaningless in overtime. If you are pinned deep on your own side, just take a safety instead of trying to punt it.
Bad idea.
That is retarded. This isn't college ball. What the eff was the first 60 MINUTES for? For both teams to fight for the result at the end of the competition. What's next, we bring out a soccer goal and have linemen block kicks by the kicker? WTF? Why don't we just have the owners chase each other with supersoakers or water balloons to determine the Super Bowl... That would greatly increase the credibility of the league as Roger Goodell tries to increase global interest of the NFL around the world...Get real....
another problem with the "defense should stop them" idea is that it completely ignores the different skills/forms of the teams. for example, imagine the cardinals of last year losing a coin toss. their defense is pretty average. say they were playing the colts with an outstanding offense. that's a pretty good chance at a win for the colts, and the strength of the cards: a high-flying, fantastic offense, is completely ignored and not given a chance to compete.
if the rule is not changed then yes, this will embarrass the NFL at some point in the post-season, or the superbowl. I hope it doesn't come to that. plus, OT now is pretty boring. omg a 50 yard field goal... like that proves anything
Does anyone really think Shanny would have went for 2 in last years Houchuli game if the NFL had the stupid UFL overtime rules?
"Two mice and a bucket of cream."
If a team is ahead at the end of OT by 3 points DUH they win. The game ends after 15 minutes.
Have some common sense.
If you want safeties to matter - first team to score 5 points wins. Either way it shouldnt be 3 points with kickers that can kick 50 yard field goals. A team returns the kick to their own 35 - they only need 32 yards to win the game.
to Mike Tyson: the first 60 minutes were to try to win. but great games will end in ties after 60 minutes, that's just how it works out sometimes. and if it does then we might as well give the teams an equal chance. I don't get it, the current OT rules are not only bad but so much more boring than it could be.
There's no problem with the way they currently do overtime in the NFL. I'm sick of people saying it's unfair. The team that wins the toss wins the game ~40% of the time. That means that the team that loses the toss has a better than 50-50 shot at winning. Pretty good odds.
The NFL should adopt the UFL uniforms, then the Teletubbie them can become real.
Steelers got the ball first and still ended up losing to the Chiefs.
.... the 2-7 Chiefs.
Florio you read my mind I was saying that you would write an article in support of the NFL switching to this style of OT and you're right it would work well
Lol, Gano the kicker that we let go makes a kick, nice.
I am so fed up with the constant whining about the NFLs overtime rule. It works, leave it alone. Until current players and coaches complain (which they aren't) leave it alone.
C'mon Florio. You are better than this. One of the things that I have liked about this website is that you tend to do your homework. Alas, you dropped the ball on this one.
Since the NFL moved the kickoff yard line back a few yards (10 or 15 years ago), the team that wins the OT coin toss wins the game 59% of the time. An advantage to be sure, but not the "guarantee" that you and Costas seem to think it is.
Before the NFL moved the kickoff back, the winner of the coin toss won the game in OT 50% of the time. That's right, winning the coin toss made winning the game a coin toss.
If the NFL is uncomfortable with the current OT system, just move the kickoff yard line forward to where it used to be. That should correct the win/loss from 59/41 to 50/50.
Hey Florio, are you stumping for this cause because Costas did so on TV last week and you guys are now co-workers????? Say it ain't so!!!!!!!!!
I agree with Florio.
A coin flip and one bogus pass interference call can put a team in position to kick the winning FG. Or even a decent return and a completion or two.
The college rule is silly though. Too contrived.
NFL should go with the UFL's overtime rules.
Those that disagree with the defense should stop them- they should, just like your offense should score when it has the opportunity. Its football, just get it done.
No more lawyers telling us how football should be played or people monkeying around with what works.
pretty boring. omg a 50 yard field goal... like that proves anything
Except who wins.
College Overtime is the worst of all the systems in use. A hard fought 20-20 tie can become a cray 65-62 shoot-out.
Strategy, Defence and Special Teams matter - that's why the NFL's current system is perfect. You can't let each team have a possesion as that means the team getting the ball second has an advantage, the know if a FG is enough or if they need to go for the TD, they can go for it on 4th Down etc etc.
Changing the NFL's Overtime rule would be barmy.
Change to this system, go to sudden death after each team has a possession, play untimed period until a team scores to eliminate ties.
The first team to score 5 points wins the game. The game ends after 15 minutes of play. Whoever is ahead after those 15 minutes wins the game.
This way - a safety can be one of the 2 scores to win it.
This should satisfy everyone.
"elduderino13 says:
November 28, 2009 4:46 PM
There's no problem with the way they currently do overtime in the NFL. I'm sick of people saying it's unfair. The team that wins the toss wins the game ~40% of the time. That means that the team that loses the toss has a better than 50-50 shot at winning. Pretty good odds."
You're joking, right?
The team that wins the toss wins the game something like 53 or 54% of the time, historically, however they win on the opening possession without the other team seeing the ball quite frequently.
Actually, here's a quote from Time:
"In fact, in 44% of the overtime games since 2006, the team that won the coin-toss has gone on to win the game without the other team even getting the ball, according to the Elias Sports Bureau; overall, the coin toss winner eventually won 64% of the games."
(http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1859490,00.html)
It's stupid and needs fixing.
If we cannot agree that a defense should be able to stop the other team's offense or you do not deserve to win, then how about this:
both teams line up on offense at the 35 and keep playing until one of them scores an offensive TD
that's about as logical as some of the other suggestions here
I love the college overtime system and would love for the NFL to adopt it. However I know this will never happen so this would be the 2nd best answer i've heard to what is a horrible way to end a game. They would be better off just removing the current OT system.
With the talk of the removal of 2 preseason games I believe a switch to the college OT rule would actually work out well and should be given more thought.
Leave it the way it is. Each team has offense, defense, and special teams (not just offense).
"The team that wins the toss wins the game ~40% of the time. That means that the team that loses the toss has a better than 50-50 shot at winning. Pretty good odds."
Lies http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/10/how-important-is-coin-flip-in-ot.html
---
"Those that disagree with the defense should stop them- they should, just like your offense should score when it has the opportunity. Its football, just get it done."
but man, a FIELD GOAL can win it. a 50 yard field goal. that's hard to defend against. that makes it like a 45 yard field (own 20 to their 35). with strong kickers today it is quite common to hit 50 yarders. I mean, sure there's a "just get it done", but it's pretty hard to do that when the offense is the colts, pats, saints. especially on a short field. what's so hard about two possessions? do you SERIOUSLY think that the current method is more exciting than a possible replacement?
all we want to do is make random chance less important. I'll summarize the article with this: "receiving teams won 60% of the time [vs ~40% for the kicking]."
so basically what you're saying is that you don't care that there is a 20% swing because of a coin flip. we'll see about that once your team loses because of a completely random outcome.
Great stats TF. Maybe they should just leave the game a TIE.
Nothing wrong with Ties. Id rather have ties than the stupid college tie breaker system
"spyboots says:
November 28, 2009 6:53 PM
Leave it the way it is. Each team has offense, defense, and special teams (not just offense)."
Fine. Then shouldn't both teams have an opportunity to show what they can do on DEFENSE then?
You guys that support the current system also seem to be completely ignoring the fact that the defense wears down a LOT easier than the offense (which is why time of possession is such a big deal).
So after playing 60 minutes, the defense is a shitload more gassed than the offense, and whichever defense is having to come out first is at an even greater disadvantage. Especially if, say, they were just on the field for a game ending tying score.
It's the dumbest overtime procedure in professional sports. Imagine if baseball or basketball ended as soon as one team scored. Doesn't the same rule apply? Those sports have defenses too.
actually, the more I think of it, the more I like the idea of just playing another quarter. that would get rid of probably most of the "chance" involved in the coin flip, and would deviate the least from the way the game is regularly played
"Fine. Then shouldn't both teams have an opportunity to show what they can do on DEFENSE then?"
couldn't have said it better myself.
"YUHaiwing says:
November 28, 2009 7:56 PM
actually, the more I think of it, the more I like the idea of just playing another quarter. that would get rid of probably most of the "chance" involved in the coin flip, and would deviate the least from the way the game is regularly played"
The problem with playing a full quarter is a team can completely drain the clock. Granted, the game ends in the same time, but if one team is controlling the ball for 9 minutes, they still have an avantage.
The good thing about one possession each if that 1) the team will be more likely to go for a TD knowing a TD could beat them if they settle for a FG, also leading to more 4th down attempts once they cross the 45 and 2) the offense that wins the toss will be more likely to score quickly, to leave themselves time if the other team ties them up and it does go to sudden death.
It is a million times more exciting then watching a tired defense being dragged down the field for 45 yards, and then boom, a kick and it's over. There's also a lot more strategy involved.
The problem I have with each team getting a possession is that the team that gets the ball 2nd knows they have to go for it on 4th down if the other team scores. That is a huge advantage.
"The problem I have with each team getting a possession is that the team that gets the ball 2nd knows they have to go for it on 4th down if the other team scores. That is a huge advantage.".
It's hard to say how much of an advantage is. I bet it's way less than 60/40. They still have to get the TD. That's also another strategy that coaches would have to account for when settling for a FG
---
"The problem with playing a full quarter is a team can completely drain the clock."
Sure, but if they can drain the clock for more than 10 minutes, giving the other team no time at all, then they probably deserve to win. As said above, there'd be some advantage, but way less than 60/40.
"Dan says:
November 28, 2009 8:47 PM
The problem I have with each team getting a possession is that the team that gets the ball 2nd knows they have to go for it on 4th down if the other team scores. That is a huge advantage."
When you are down on the scoreboard, it's not really an advantage.
Really, the team that gets the opening kickoff kind of has to go for it on 4th down too in their zone, because at that point, once they turn the ball over, they are defending a short field because the other team can win on a FG.
But at least they can pin them inside the 10 with a good punt, making it a bit different than a team winning the toss and starting between the 20 and the 30.
There should never be a tie in the NFL. Period. If that means double overtime, triple overtime, whatever, then so be it. But players should not have to deal with 75 minutes of gameplay without feeling like they accomplished anything.
And the UFL overtime is way better
Leave it alone. Its fine just the way it is. Like the BCS.
The problem with the "first team to five points or a lead when overtime ends" is that you are almost completely getting rid of sudden death. Sudden death made the NFL a lot more exciting. The "5 points" rule would result in a lot of ties. Do you really want to see a team with a record of 7-3-3?
The problem with playing an entire overtime period is that you get rid of sudden death completely. That would lead to a lot more ties. Why not just get rid of the overtime period, like in the "good ol' days"? Because that was boring.
leatherneck, I don't think a team has gone to 3 overtimes in a season before.
As for sudden death making the NFL more exciting. Yeah. Totally. Nothing more exciting than a 30 yard kick return followed by 40 yards of offend and then a 47 yard field goal.
The other factor is overtime in the playoffs. If it's the playoffs, you can't have a tie. Thus, 2nd, 3rd and more overtimes are a possibility.
With the "one guaranteed possession" rule, sudden death begins once each team has had a chance for one possession in the first overtime. Sudden death continues on from that point until the game is over. Thus, if there is a playoff game that goes into overtime with the rule of "one guaranteed possession," and there is no score after one overtime, the second overtime starts and is sudden death from the beginning. If a team scores right away in the 2nd or 3rd overtime period, the game is over. There is no "guaranteed possession" in the 2nd or later overtimes.
TF, the "guaranteed possession, then sudden death" rule would improve on the NFL overtime by making it more exciting. That's what I've been talking about in this thread.
"leatherneck says:
November 29, 2009 11:43 AM
TF, the "guaranteed possession, then sudden death" rule would improve on the NFL overtime by making it more exciting. That's what I've been talking about in this thread."
Yeah. I got you now. We're on the same page. When I wrote before I thought you were arguing to leave it as it was.
TF, the 2001 Chicago Bears played four overtime games.
Cool, TF, we agree.
As for whether it should be possible to tie in the regular season, the answer should be "yes." It just should be rare. The advantage of the possibility of a tie is that games won't go on forever. The horrifying possibility of a 5-overtime regular season game should be enough to keep the possibility of a tie.
Summary:
Preseason: scrap overtime. If the game is tied at the end of the 4th quarter, the game is over and it is a tie.
Regular season and postseason: adopt "guaranteed possession, then sudden death" rule. In the postseason, there would be no guaranteed possession in the 2nd overtime or in later overtime periods.