Skip to content

Saints' win brings overtime rule back into focus

We’ve long believed that the NFL needs to change the overtime rules.  And we’re convinced that it will happen only after the sudden-victory concept operates to permit a team to win a high-profile game without the opponent getting a crack at the ball.

That moment possibly came last night, when the Saints won the toss in overtime and marched (with the assistance of three very questionable officiating calls) into field-goal range.

Last year, after the Chargers beat the Colts in a one-possession wild-card overtime, we made the case for the NFL to change the rules before the sudden-victory procedure delivers a one-drive Super Bowl win.  Our proposal at the time was simple — the team that doesn’t get the ball to start overtime gets a chance to match any score generated during the first possession.  After that, the game converts to sudden victory.

Even if the approach were used only for the playoffs, it would be a huge improvement over the current protocol.

As we’ve more recently pointed out, there’s an even simpler fix.  The first possession should be based on some statistical edge achieved during the game, like most net yards or most first downs or fewest turnovers.  With a coin flip being the absolute last resort after at least ten tiebreakers to determine who gets in to the postseason tournament, it shouldn’t be the first option for determining who’ll get a chance at advancing to the next round or, ultimately, winning the championship.

Sunday night’s game provided, at a minimum, another warning shot to the NFL.  If/when the team that wins the toss parlays its good fortune into a single-drive Super Bowl win, the outcry will be deafening.  It therefore makes far more sense to fix the problem before it gives the NFL a black eye that wouldn’t quickly fade.

Permalink 170 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Minnesota Vikings, New Orleans Saints, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
170 Responses to “Saints' win brings overtime rule back into focus”
  1. ledtear says: Jan 25, 2010 8:09 AM

    Your solution does not make much sense – it just delays what is already happening – the team that wins the toss can still get more chances… at the very least – give them equal chances… I like the NCAA overtime – very exciting…

  2. 4ever19 says: Jan 25, 2010 8:10 AM

    I’ve got an ever better idea. Each team gets the ball once. If the game is still knotted after each team has had the ball once, then you have sudden death.

  3. alewatcher says: Jan 25, 2010 8:10 AM

    Auction off the ball in terms of field position. The team willing to take the worse field position gets the first possession. Coaches submit sealed envelopes to the referee, which are opened at the beginning of OT.

  4. last starfighter says: Jan 25, 2010 8:13 AM

    That is the dumbest rule change idea I have ever heard in my life. Get off it. The stats show it doesn’t matter who gets the ball first. I’m sorry the team you were pulling for lost but jeez. Remember when the packers won the coin toss against the giants in the playoffs? Oh yeah, that’s right.

  5. euryman says: Jan 25, 2010 8:13 AM

    the current system stresses the importance of defense. who cares if it’s a shootout? your defense needs to be held accountable. year after year, the team the receives wins right around 50% of the time. you cannot ask for anything fairer.

  6. credit_score_rapper says: Jan 25, 2010 8:16 AM

    The PI call was obviously a blown call, there wasn’t even contact and the ball was uncatchable. The worse call was the 4&1 “conversion. Every angle they showed and not one showed the ball passing the sticks. Funny how both the Packers and Vikings seasons ended on bad calls by the officials.

  7. ftomeo says: Jan 25, 2010 8:16 AM

    What flippin’ controversy? How ’bout the Vikings not choke with a minute remaining in regulation?

  8. dboom92 says: Jan 25, 2010 8:16 AM

    If you don’t realize by now that YOU STILL HAVE TO PLAY DEFENSE! You’re either an idiot or some lawyer with a website.

  9. God's Own Silver and Blue says: Jan 25, 2010 8:17 AM

    Mike, there is no crying in football. And nobody except you is bawling about this.

  10. StevePhillipsLikesFat/UglyChicks says: Jan 25, 2010 8:17 AM

    The OT rule is solved easilly for Viking fans… your 40 year old QB shouldn’t have made a dumb throw my 9 year old cousin wouldn’t have made in Madden. There problem solved.

  11. Runnin' outta fingers says: Jan 25, 2010 8:18 AM

    How bout you win the Fn game in the first 60 minutes?!
    Lets be real, you have a lot of time to win the game in regulation. If anything, OT should continue like the game does from the 1st to the 2nd quarter, rather than stop like at halftime

  12. BenRapistberger says: Jan 25, 2010 8:18 AM

    Go back and read the details of Florios idea. The main concept behind it is that it makes the first team with the ball not content with just getting a FG, because settling for one may cost them the game.
    But yes, there were some GOD AWFUL calls on that last drive.

  13. albaNY Hawker says: Jan 25, 2010 8:21 AM

    that game highlights that there IS NO NEED to change the OT rules. The VIkes blew their opportunity to win it in regulation. Why should they be given a crack at winning it in overtime?
    Life is not fair. For 60 minutes, teams get their fair shot at winning the game. In OT, the rules change. Deal with it.
    It’s like the complaints about “running the score up” – if you don’t like it, stop the other team from scoring.
    If you don’t like OT rules, don’t let the game get to that point.

  14. Swag11 says: Jan 25, 2010 8:21 AM

    I agree with the first two, but isn’t that what the article said at the beginning? Or am I reading it wrong?
    “the team that doesn’t get the ball to start overtime gets a chance to match any score generated during the first possession. After that, the game converts to sudden victory.”

  15. JohnC says: Jan 25, 2010 8:22 AM

    So what happens if the Saints intercept the ball in OT and run it back for a TD? Do the Saints get another drive?

  16. C-Student says: Jan 25, 2010 8:23 AM

    WAAAAHHHH!!! our lord and savior favre didn’t get to go to the super bowl so now we need to change the rules. WAH WAH WAH.
    you sold your soul vikings fans and this is your reward. cry me a river.

  17. danyay says: Jan 25, 2010 8:25 AM

    You’re going to try to use a game where the Vikings had 7 fumbles as your poster cause for why they should have had a possession in overtime?
    The only thing missing from this article is how the Rooney Rule could solve this problem, if the teams lived up to its intent.

  18. wally_a7 says: Jan 25, 2010 8:25 AM

    the “each team gets a possession” concept also has a flaw. It gives an advantage to the 2nd team. They know if they need a TD or FG. If the first team scores a TD, then the 2nd team gets an extra down (4th) to continue moving the chains b/c they know a FG does them no good.

  19. Cowboy22 says: Jan 25, 2010 8:27 AM

    Your new rule may have screwed up the best-ever career-ending interception toss. There is no more fitting way to end a career for the ALL-TIME interception leader! Apparently Favre thought beating the Cowboys for the first time in the play-offs automatically got him in the Super Bowl. PERFECT. Now the Vikings fans get to experience what he put the Packers through for the last 5 or six off-seasons he was there. “Pants on the ground” or “ass on the couch” which one will it be?

  20. CBed81 says: Jan 25, 2010 8:27 AM

    Agreed with the horrid officiating that happened in last night’s OT drive, but the OT will not change..those who think they should go with NCAA OT rules, its not happening simply because games could go on for 5,6 or 7 OTs and that would tire out so many players (like Favre) and cause more injuries for the NFL

  21. JimmySmith says: Jan 25, 2010 8:28 AM

    I don’t hear any deafening outcry, if there is any noise at all it’s coming from Minnesota and they bitch about everything so this would hardly be news.
    Most knowledge football fans (thereby eliminating almost all of the Biqeen fans) realize that the Vikings had 475 yards of offense, doubled the time of possession, held the Saints to under 260 yards of offense and was (for the evening at least) the much better team..
    But the OT rules or referees did not send the twelve man into the huddle in the last 30 seconds of the game or cause Brent to throw that INT. That’s why nobody else outside of Mpls is the least bit concerned the OT rules robbed the Biqueens of a Superbowl appearance. They did it to themselves. Hey, maybe Prince could write a song about it, a cover of B. Spear’s, Oops!…I Did It Again

  22. Hong Kong Phooey says: Jan 25, 2010 8:28 AM

    Sure, give Favre the ball in OT too. He’d just throw another pick so who cares?

  23. RaiderRJ99 says: Jan 25, 2010 8:28 AM

    You know what??
    If you are the better team, you take the game out of the hands of the officials. You make sure it doesn’t get to overtime. The Vikings wasted many opportunities to score. Let’s not forget Lord Favre could have ran for the first, but refused too.
    Being a Raider fan, I felt the sting on being on the wrong side of a one and done OT. But I feel the rule is better left alone. It’s work so well for so many years.

  24. Smoking Joe says: Jan 25, 2010 8:29 AM

    The coint flip is just fine. The only change I would like to see would be for the team to score 6 points to win. Either 2 FG’s or 1 touchdown.

  25. dakotah says: Jan 25, 2010 8:29 AM

    The translated version of Florio’s story is as follows, “My favorite team lost in overtime. Lets rewrite the rules”.

  26. Brohamma says: Jan 25, 2010 8:31 AM

    I fully agree. Something has to change! A coin flip to decide the fate of a team is rather lame.
    I would like to see each team get possession of the ball once. Each team has the chance to make a scoring drive down the length of the field. If the score is still tied after each teams drive then the game goes into sudden-death.
    First possession of the ball after the initial drives goes to the team with the most net yardage during the first four quarters.
    Wow! I’m in full agreement with you Florio.

  27. lawdjayee says: Jan 25, 2010 8:31 AM

    There’s never been a rational case for changing the OT format. The team that loses the coin toss loses OT without possession 30% of the time (2000-2007). The other 32% of instances, the team that loses the coin toss fails to score in its first possession. Or, to put it another way, 70% of the time each team gets at least one possession.
    Even so, the “statistical edge” method of deciding who gets the ball first would be a disaster; and elevates relatively meaningless numbers into potential game-deciders. There’s no reason why a coin flip is any more reasonable or “fair” method of determining possession than awarding it to the team that, say, couldn’t win even though the other team turned the ball over 4 times, or that couldn’t turn an edge in first downs to points, etc. etc. It would actually be “fairer” to give the ball to the team that managed to keep the game close despite sucking big-time, if that’s the logic you want to use.
    The college system is silly and generates meaningless stats, but would actually address that 30% problem which stresses people out for some reason.

  28. Bucforever says: Jan 25, 2010 8:32 AM

    I am a football fan first and a Buc fan second, That being said , last nights Vikings / Saints contest should have been won buy the team with the best stats not the best luck in the coin flip. Did the best team win or the luckiest one?

  29. Gbp123 says: Jan 25, 2010 8:35 AM

    Why is it when the Vikings lose, that a rule change needs to be examined? This is the way the NFL is set up. If you don’t want the game to be decided by the flip of the coin then WIN THE GAME IN REGULATION! Simple as that.
    Instead of complaining about PI, 4th and 1, officials Viking fans, how about not turning the ball over 6 times.

  30. Complete Fan says: Jan 25, 2010 8:36 AM

    Why not change the rules to minimize the possibility of ties.
    A single point for a missed field goal, perhaps?

  31. JoeStrummerLives says: Jan 25, 2010 8:37 AM

    One less fumble or INT, or for that matter penalty on a critical third down, and this is not even a topic of discussion. Minnesota had more than a good crack at it in regulation.

  32. lichnor says: Jan 25, 2010 8:38 AM

    Don’t like OT rules? Don’t fumble the ball 5 times.
    Don’t like OT rules? Don’t throw an unnecessary INT with less than a minute to play while your team is already in game winning field goal range.
    Don’t like OT rules? Have your defense do it’s job.
    _____________
    On a side note, anyone else notice a pattern here?
    Farve’s last pass for the Packers? INT
    Farve’s last pass for the Jets? INT
    Farve’s (will be) last pass for the Vikings? INT
    A legend indeed.

  33. Tyler says: Jan 25, 2010 8:39 AM

    I would change the OT rules too. Lets review every penalty called in OT. Like last year, the refs made mistakes this time too.

  34. Merriman's Dealer says: Jan 25, 2010 8:39 AM

    You have 60 minutes to win the game. You cant bitch about one possession in an extra quarter.
    Sorry. No sympathy from me. Play D.

  35. pubobby2004 says: Jan 25, 2010 8:40 AM

    Congrats to New Orleans. I’m a native Hoosier and a Colts fan, but my family is from Metairie, LA. you certainly deserve the win, and the trip to the superbowl. Enjoy the ride, and of course the extra 2 weeks of hearing about your team!
    good luck and see you in Miami!
    GEAUX COLTS!

  36. mfclock says: Jan 25, 2010 8:41 AM

    here’s an idea, how about favre should have ran for a few yards or thrown the ball away instead of forcing that awful interception.

  37. JayBot says: Jan 25, 2010 8:41 AM

    “And we’re convinced that it will happen only after the sudden-victory concept operates to permit a team to win a high-profile game without the opponent getting a crack at the ball.”
    The Vikings had a “crack at the ball”. It’s called defenst, and Minnesota was supposed to have a great one.
    They failed. Now, they go home.

  38. Seeryer says: Jan 25, 2010 8:41 AM

    Cowboys 22 is a better little puke like all the other Brett Favre haters on this site. Brett Favre is bigger than any one team in the League and that is why he is hated. More people care about Brett Favre and whether he plays next year than care if the ‘Boys play next year. Maybe that is becasue everyone knows Brett’s season will not be ending as soon Tony’s will.

  39. redsquare says: Jan 25, 2010 8:47 AM

    Despite all the whining above, these changes are a good idea.
    The idea that the current system is somehow valid because it shifts the emphasis to defense is flawed. Defenses get more tired as the game wears on (playing defense is harder), and by the time overtime arrives, they’re mostly exhausted.
    So pitting a tired defense against an offense that only needs to get into field-goal range isn’t really a fair way to end a game. Add a little bad officiating (which seems to be an annual tradition these days) and you get an unsatisfying ending.
    And YES, retard commenters above, fairness is important. Life isn’t fair, but this isn’t life–it’s a game where people can control the rules to create fairness. That’s one of the big reasons people like to play & watch games.
    The Vikings screwed themselves last night AND were robbed by bad officiating. It can be both, not just one or the other. The Saints played a much more disciplined game and earned their honor. But that doesn’t mean the ending wasn’t spoiled by bad officiating. Again–it can be both of those things. With a rule change, we could have the good without the bad. Why not?

  40. Pervy Harvin says: Jan 25, 2010 8:50 AM

    Forget it Mike. I know it sucks,I bleed purple. To get beat down is one thing but to outplay the Saints in all facets of the game and hand over 5 turnovers is sickening.Especially since a bone headed penalty kept Longwell from sealing the deal. Vikings are by far the best team in the NFC,just can’t shoot yourself in the head. Over and over.Sucks to lose that way.

  41. eoj trid says: Jan 25, 2010 8:50 AM

    …and while wer’re at it why don’t we just give everybody a particpation trophy, graham cracker and juice box so no body goes away feeling like they lost. Get over it Mike.

  42. GiantsDefenseRules says: Jan 25, 2010 8:51 AM

    Not a Favre fan – but I have a ton of respect for the guy. He got pounded into the ground last night and still rallied the team to tie it up.
    Needless to say, he caused the game to go into overtime. He had plenty of room to run and pick up 5 – 10 yeards…he had at one open receiver for less yards than Rice. But, he fell back into “Old Favre” style of play….just throw it, and hope something good happens.
    As it was said earlier, if you don’t like the overtime rule, then play harder for the first 60 minutes and DON’T LET IT GET THERE! They had the win, and literally threw it away.

  43. Strick says: Jan 25, 2010 8:53 AM

    OK. One more time. Really simple.
    Change the rule so that the team that doesn’t score first in over timegets ONE possession to BEAT the team that scored first.
    Examples:
    If Team A kicks a field goal, Team B gets one possession to score a touchdown.
    If Team A had scored a touchdown and kicked an extra point, Team B would have to score a touchdown and then make a 2-point conversion.
    If Team A scores a touchdown and makes a 2-pointer, the game is over since Team B can’t BEAT Team A with one possession.
    A defensive score for either team ends the overtime immediately.

  44. Slim says: Jan 25, 2010 8:53 AM

    albaNY Hawker says:
    January 25, 2010 8:21 AM
    “that game highlights that there IS NO NEED to change the OT rules. The VIkes blew their opportunity to win it in regulation. Why should they be given a crack at winning it in overtime?”
    ___________________________________
    The Saints blew their opportunity to win in regulation too. Why should they be given a crack at winning in OT?

  45. Joe in Toronto, Canada says: Jan 25, 2010 8:53 AM

    Date & Time Favorite Line Underdog Total
    2/7 6:25 ET Indianapolis -5 New Orleans 56

  46. chief says: Jan 25, 2010 8:56 AM

    ha…could have stayed retired. Nothing changed in 3 years.

  47. LewD says: Jan 25, 2010 8:57 AM

    My proposal for tweaking the overtime rules:
    The first team to score 6 or more points is the winner … eliminate the single field goal as the determining factor on the first drive …

  48. KUALUM15 says: Jan 25, 2010 8:57 AM

    Minnesota lost this game in regulation, with all the turnovers in the game. No one should feel bad for htem. Just as the game was ending they had a chance to win with Farve picking up 5 to 10 yards to set up a FG, but instead he decided to make a dumb throw and it was picked off.

  49. JIM says: Jan 25, 2010 8:57 AM

    The rule could be first team to 6 points……would make teams think about playing for field goal or going for it….easy solution…

  50. yzguy431 says: Jan 25, 2010 8:59 AM

    seriously, get over the overtime non-issue.

  51. Hap says: Jan 25, 2010 8:59 AM

    The opponent could have had a crack at the ball IF they had played D better.

  52. C-Student says: Jan 25, 2010 8:59 AM

    where’s all the hate for favre?
    last week romo was called a choker for losing a game in which he had zero time to throw.
    what favre did was the definition of choking and for some reason there doesnt seem to be much hate. no wisecracks from florio or anything.
    interesting…

  53. Beer Cheese Soup says: Jan 25, 2010 9:00 AM

    Florio dusts off this same article and changes about four words every time a playoff game goes to overtime. It’s very old and tired.
    Two words for you: PLAY DEFENSE.
    My Packers lost in the playoffs this year when they won the toss, they lost in ’08 when they won the toss, and they won in ’04 when they DIDN’T win the toss. The key is to play defense. If you “want the ball and [you're] gonna score”, then go GET the ball, and score.
    Sudden death is one of the things that makes this sport unique. To change the rules now would be insulting.

  54. NFL_1974 says: Jan 25, 2010 9:01 AM

    I dont want to hear about bad calls in this game…For crying out loud!!!! The Saints had 88 yards in penalties to Minn 15 in regulation….give me a break.

  55. Prthegreat says: Jan 25, 2010 9:03 AM

    Ahh… They lost because of that Prince “Fight Song”!!!!

  56. The Family Ghost says: Jan 25, 2010 9:03 AM

    Waaahhhh, Waaahhhh … change the rules to fit your team, Florio/Queens fans !!
    How about not laying the ball on the turf 6 times .. throwing two picks … not covering kickoffs .. etc.
    The Vikings have nobody to blame for this loss but themselves.
    LOSERS !!!

  57. RK says: Jan 25, 2010 9:03 AM

    How ridiculous. The only thing that should matter is points. The team with the most yards or fewest turnovers or most guys on IR don’t deserve any ‘edge’.
    Keep with the coin flip. If teams can’t win in regulation then they have no right to whine.

  58. east96street says: Jan 25, 2010 9:06 AM

    Florio – I’m not aware of anyone complaining about this but you. Can you name one journalist, coach, or player that agrees with you? You would sound A LOT more credible if you could actually name some folks (besides some of the fans of the team that just lost) that agree with you. If it’s your own private rant, that’s fine. It’s your site. But to write about it like the entire country is up in arms about it is ridiculous. No one is shouting from this OT bullhorn but you. If a Super Bowl gets decided by LONG ESTABLISHED rules, so what? Super Bowls have often been decided by the rules, as called by the officials. The guys wearing black and white influence every game every year. Why should the OT be any different?

  59. JAG880 says: Jan 25, 2010 9:08 AM

    Could you imagine the NFL’s OT rules in other sports.
    Baseball – Team scores in the top of the 10th. Game over.
    Basketball – Team takes the tip off down for a lay-up. Game over.
    Golf – Both players make it to the green in two, the first guy puts and makes it in. Tournament over.

  60. pacstud says: Jan 25, 2010 9:09 AM

    I’m sorry, I could have sworn Minnesota was allowed to put their defense on the field.

  61. Krashie2010 says: Jan 25, 2010 9:09 AM

    Waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!
    My name’s Florio and my choke-artist, egomaniac hero didn’t win because he did what he’s done thoughout his entire career.
    C-H-O-K-E when it counts.
    Florio you and Peter King need to be put on a suicide watch now that your me-first, Vicodin-popping hero is done for another year because of yet another braindead play.
    Last week, when Brooking called the Vi-Queens classless (which, they are) you said, “Just play defense.”
    Change overtime??????
    How about, play defense, Vi-Queens?
    There’s a reason why the ‘Queens are a gutless, classless, championship-less organization….and yesterday proved it.

  62. NightTrainNeckTie says: Jan 25, 2010 9:11 AM

    Wait a second, so if football is a game of three phases: offense, defense and special teams; then why is the current overtime format unfair?
    I seem to remember a quite rivoting 4th and 1 sequence during last nights overtime as well. Throw in booth reviews on every friggin play and it was pretty intense. People who think the overtime rules should be changed are childish.
    People who think the officials lost Minnesota the game are retarded.
    The Vikings accepted this exact fate when they talked Favre out of retirement. They sold their soul to come close.

  63. bspurloc says: Jan 25, 2010 9:13 AM

    Florio is bob costas now……
    Keep the soccer mom ideas OUT OF FOOTBALL…..
    People lose the others cry and go home, you can not stop the tears. This is football, people get hit, people get hurt…..
    Go back to Tupperware party Sunday.

  64. Dirk says: Jan 25, 2010 9:17 AM

    … (with the assistance of three very questionable officiating calls) …
    I guess Florio watched a different game than I.

  65. lezmaka says: Jan 25, 2010 9:18 AM

    Florio, you always complain about announcers who seem like they would rather be jabbering about baseball than football. So why would you want to contaminate the NFL with even more talk of useless statistics?

  66. tudefit says: Jan 25, 2010 9:19 AM

    Some of the calls were questionable at the end but Minnesota got questionable calls during the game. The roughing on Favre was one of them. The guy had Favre before he actually launched the ball. Would it have made people more satisfied if they reversed the last 1st down call and gave the ball to Minnesota. Might that have also been a wrong call?

  67. lololnpnp says: Jan 25, 2010 9:20 AM

    Don’t you realize the intent for his in the NFL? For a football blog you really don’t seem to understand all that much. The purpose of the ‘unfair’ coin toss is to somewhat discourage teams from playing for OT. As others have said before in their comments, you have 60 minutes to win the game. If you fail at that then you should probably fail in OT.
    Believe it or not, most folks would rather not see games go into OT. Adding more time to a game already extended by idiotic reviews is not the ideal scenario. Maybe you need to quit trying to make NFL rules more like college. The NFL system is very much an improvement on the NCAA version.
    MORONS

  68. Real Vikings fans wouldn't cheer for Favre says: Jan 25, 2010 9:22 AM

    First team to score 4 points

  69. leatherneck says: Jan 25, 2010 9:23 AM

    Why didn’t the Vikings get a call for running into the quarterbacks knees? That’s what the Saints did. It turned into Favre’s first interception last night.
    The officiating last night was horrendous and wrong and completely in the Saints favor at the end when it mattered most.

  70. stan26 says: Jan 25, 2010 9:30 AM

    Its a non issue.

  71. louisianafootballfan says: Jan 25, 2010 9:30 AM

    Seriously?!? How about the horrible officiating that happened all game long? How about the roughing the passer call when clearly the defender hit Favre as he was releasing the ball?How about the Reggie Bush touchdown that had to be reviewed because the ref was too stupid to know the rules? I know all of you Vikes fans are going to complain because Favre choked again (and everyone told you so), but there were bad calls on both sides of the ball. Maybe your team should learn how to put a game away instead of complaining about how you were robbed. Take it up with Favre.

  72. sugarlips says: Jan 25, 2010 9:33 AM

    Oh yes, PLEASE fix the overtime rule so that Favre never has to go through that again. *eyeroll*
    The overt worship for this man is SO old and tired. He LOST, GET OVER IT.
    Forget about this game and get someone down to Kiln now so the “Is he going to retire” watch can begin now. We need to know every minuscule detail of his every waking moment…Hurry!!

  73. Krashie2010 says: Jan 25, 2010 9:33 AM

    I just read Peter King’s MMQB and I threw up in my mouth a little bit.
    Peter and Florio will likely be spooning each other later today to get over yet another choke-job by Brett.
    You can blame the officials, you can blame the OT rules, you can blame the diva’s alleged injury, but the bottom line is that when the game was in his hands………he blew it.
    Florio, King and all of the douchey Favre (Fa-vruh?) apologists need to realize one thing: his best days were when there was a “19″ in front of the year…….ever since the calendar entered the 2000s he’s been living off 1996.
    And when the most overrated quarterback EVER joined with the most gutless, classless organization EVER, you have the result that Favre (Fa-vruh?) and Vi-Queens fans deserve.
    He’ll be back…….but in another year, we’ll be saying the same thing about him and the Vi-Queens:
    Gutless, classless, overrated and choking when it matters most.
    So, let’s hope that Florio and King drop 14 Vicodins in honour of their shared hero to ease the pain…….while the rest of the NFL and its true fans sit back and smile.

  74. HarrisonHits says: Jan 25, 2010 9:35 AM

    Simple solution. Beat the other team in regulation time. Or have your defense do its job in the first possession of OT.
    No need to change the rules.

  75. bigtrav425 says: Jan 25, 2010 9:37 AM

    Their going to have to change it sooner or later because this is a retarded rule 9 out of 10 people i know hate this rule and think it should be changed.And Why do u give all 3 phases of a team 60 minutes to play and win teh game but only 1-2 phases of the game 1 chance to win or lose the game? it makes NO sense at all…..Goodell needs to get the balls taglibue never had and make a good decision for once and not all these dumb and ridiculous rules he has made for the No Fun League!….another rule he should make is that the QB’s should now wear Tu Tu’s since thats how their being treated

  76. ch19079 says: Jan 25, 2010 9:38 AM

    The vikings did have thier chance. Farce threw an INT. Dont start crying because your team didnt win. They had their show and blew it.
    The main problem in the current OT rules is that a team can score on the last play of regulation, win the coin toss and get the ball back.
    IF you are going to change the overtime rules, take away the coin toss. If the clock hits 0:00 and its tied, just keep playing. Turn the game clock off, keep the play clock, and keep going. If its 2nd and 5 when 0:00 hits, then it should be 2nd and 5 in OT. Bascially extending the 4th quarter until someone scores.

  77. WarrenMoonGOAT says: Jan 25, 2010 9:38 AM

    hahaha, now all the vikings fans want to change the rules…losersssssssssss

  78. slipkid says: Jan 25, 2010 9:39 AM

    no thanx florio. u can quit lawyering up the game u say u love now.

  79. leatherneck says: Jan 25, 2010 9:40 AM

    I strongly support the rule change that Florio advocates in his piece. Give each team a chance in overtime.

  80. Reinholdmessner says: Jan 25, 2010 9:43 AM

    Why not just play out an abbreviated period like most other sports’ overtimes? 10-minute OT and alternate possession from the halftime kickoff

  81. Cowboy22 says: Jan 25, 2010 9:47 AM

    Seeryer:
    Really? Favre is bigger than any one team? Exatcly what has he done? All his records(except the interception one) will be wiped clean by Manning. Favre won ONE Super Bowl. He also now holds the record for most INT’s in the play-offs. What does that tell you? When he is under pressure to perform he does not show up. He selfishly believes he is the ONLY one on the team who can make the critical play and he gives it up. That throw last night was un-excusable and it should have been his second interception. The lazy hand-off to AP that caused the fumble. When it’s all said and done, there have been dozens of QB’s that I would rather have in the clutch than Favre. By the way, if Favre had focussed a little more on the game than ACTINg like his ankle was hurt, he may have pulled it out. His ankle sure seemed ok on that last roll-out.

  82. .VoxVeritas says: Jan 25, 2010 9:47 AM

    “Brett Favre is bigger than any one team in the League and that is why he is hated. ”
    He’s bigger than the Vikings, fo sho.
    He’ll be forgotten 10 years after he retires by everyone not living in the Uff-da Belt. All that crap and drama for one measly Super Bowl win and the most interceptions, ever? Might as well have had Dilfer.

  83. someone_smarter_than_you says: Jan 25, 2010 9:48 AM

    The overtime rules are fine the way they are. Besides, if the overtime rules were different, there would be no poetic justice in Brad Childress’ comments last week about “it’s the Cowboys’ job to stop us.”

  84. loggerhead12 says: Jan 25, 2010 9:48 AM

    The Vikings could have won in regulation if they had played just a tiny bit better. Stupid plays by the whole team, including Favre.
    Speaking of Favre – karma, baby. Have a long, painful offseason. Hope you’re back next year, older, slower, but still throwing back across the middle.

  85. Tdk24 says: Jan 25, 2010 9:49 AM

    Favre always saves his worst for last. I warned vikes fans about this months ago.
    Having NCAA ot rules would be stupid. NFL teams can score and games would go on forever with even more risk of injury.

  86. .VoxVeritas says: Jan 25, 2010 9:51 AM

    “last week romo was called a choker for losing a game in which he had zero time to throw. what favre did was the definition of choking and for some reason there doesnt seem to be much hate. no wisecracks from florio or anything.”
    Of course there’s a double standard. The undrafted guys choke while the highly-touted guys just have really bad games at really bad times, time and time again.

  87. rs691919 says: Jan 25, 2010 9:51 AM

    To determine who gets the ball first, they should take the square root of the total yards by each team, multiply by the QB’s passer rating, then divide by the number of turnovers. Multiply that number by a factor of 3.141592675 (pi to ten significant digits) and subtract by the number of Rooney Rule minority candidates (sham or otherwise) interviewed by teams to that date. The higher number gets the ball.
    Alternatively, as Brad Childress said last week when the Cowboys were moaning about Favre’s last TD pass, the defense could just stop the offense.

  88. kellyb9 says: Jan 25, 2010 9:53 AM

    This comes up everytime a big game ends like this, and quite honestly, this was a bit different since the Vikes had the chance to put away the Saints in regulation. Here’s the reason I like the one possession for each team idea – Each team will get the ball once and maybe instead of scoring a FG, they’ll try to put it in for a TD – maybe the next team drives down the field and scored a TD, maybe they’ll go for a two pointer to win the game. It just makes the game that much more complete then winning it by a goofy FG. Just my opinion – doesnt really relate as much to this game.

  89. .VoxVeritas says: Jan 25, 2010 9:55 AM

    “Forget it Mike. I know it sucks,I bleed purple. To get beat down is one thing but to outplay the Saints in all facets of the game and hand over 5 turnovers is sickening.”
    Uhhhhhh committing 5 turnovers is not, never has and never will be considered “outplaying” anybody.
    I hear that Chilly is thinking about installing the Heimlich Maneuver into the playbook for next year, though. You’re actually lucky that the Vikings won’t be the first team to lose five Super Bowls.
    CHOKE.

  90. Allied Biscuit says: Jan 25, 2010 9:55 AM

    There is no more heartbreaking franchise in sports than the Minnesota Vikings.
    But oh well.

  91. .VoxVeritas says: Jan 25, 2010 9:56 AM

    “Could you imagine the NFL’s OT rules in other sports.”
    Can you imagine tackling in golf?

  92. Viper21 says: Jan 25, 2010 9:56 AM

    I dont like the current OT rules either. However, I would propose another timed period. Say, a 10 minute overtime period. Each team gets one timeout. If it is still knotted at zero after a 10minute over time period. Then go to sudden death, or give each team the ball at their own 20, longest drive wins.

  93. MrHumble says: Jan 25, 2010 10:03 AM

    It’s hilarious to read the posts and quite simple to separate the BF haters. Florio’s article concerned all of the NFL and how the OT rules are bad for the game…..not just last nights game. Any poster who can’t address the issue Florio brings up is one sick dude as their feelings on one BF obviously control their emotions and their lives. The OT rules need to be changed for the good of the NFL and while they are at it, they need to address the issue of FULLTIME officials. I am not a Vikings fan, but high school officials could’ve did better than those clowns last night. They were a disgrace to the NFL.

  94. Hotwaggy11 says: Jan 25, 2010 10:03 AM

    First of all, knock of the complaints about the refs. The Saints were hit with several questionable calls. Even the normally obtuse talking heads agreed that some of the calls against the Saints in regulation were bad ones.
    As to changing the OT rules, there is no need. Fairness is assuring that everyone has the same chance, not the same results. There is little in the world as truly 50/50 as a coin flip. On top of that, the visiting team gets to call the toss. As to each team getting a shot to score, they do. Unlike baseball, the defense can score in football. Just look at the Packers/Cardinals game. In that scenerio, would you give the Packers the ball back to get a chance to score? Of course not, and that is why the rules don’t need to change.
    As to regular game stats, suggesting that one team has a better game, or is a better team, because of stats is misguided. Time of possesion can be based on how fast your offense scores, not how good it is. Yards from scrimmage is as much an indication of field position as offensive prowess and totally discounts the success of your return game (both in special teams and in returns of turn overs). Number of first downs, like time of position, can also come down to offensive types. Throwing teams that average more yards per play and stop the clock a lot with incomplete passes need fewer first downs and eat less time moving down the field then running teams.
    The bottom line is that the Vikings not only had 60 minutes to win this game, but had 16 games to win home field advantage. Noise was definately a factor. Not to mention their inability to hold on to the ball and the lack of focus penalty of 12 men in the huddle.

  95. dboom92 says: Jan 25, 2010 10:05 AM

    Brett Favre = Jim Kelly

  96. Satan's Playboy says: Jan 25, 2010 10:05 AM

    albaNY Hawker,
    Well said, I could not agree more. The Vikes shot themselves numerous times in the foot last night. The game should have never got to OT to begin with. Hard to win a game when you turn the ball over 5 times!

  97. Vikes#28Owns says: Jan 25, 2010 10:08 AM

    louisianafootballfan says:
    January 25, 2010 9:30 AM
    Seriously?!? How about the horrible officiating that happened all game long? How about the roughing the passer call when clearly the defender hit Favre as he was releasing the ball?How about the Reggie Bush touchdown that had to be reviewed because the ref was too stupid to know the rules? I know all of you Vikes fans are going to complain because Favre choked again (and everyone told you so), but there were bad calls on both sides of the ball. Maybe your team should learn how to put a game away instead of complaining about how you were robbed. Take it up with Favre.
    Or how about the Pierre Thomas non touchdown that the Refs were too stupid to call correctly. Or the High/Low hit Favre took that wasn’t called. Or the Pass Interference that had no contact and was uncatchable. Or the incomplete pass ruled complete when it clearly hit the ground. Both sides can bitch about the Refs all day long and it won’t change the outcome. I did think their were some iffy calls on both sides, however, I though a majority of them went against the Vikings in overtime to will the Saints to victory.
    All the people that are saying that Vikings fans are crying and they need to win the game in the first 60 minutes please realize how idiotic you sound because the Saints also did not win in the first 60 minutes. That is what makes Mike’s argument relevant. So keep up the comments that we need to play defense but in fact we help the best offense in the NFL to 28 points when we handed them 5 turnovers. So yeah I thought we played 1 hell of a game on defense. The fact of the matter is that we are one of the 4 best teams in the NFL and I if you aren’t a fan of the Saints, Colts, or Jets you all should just shut the hell up.

  98. mskmadison says: Jan 25, 2010 10:09 AM

    I wholeheartedly disagree. A large part of NFL Football is luck and luck keeps the game interesting. Coin toss, or the randomness with which the ball bounces on a fumble, etc…, these things keep the game exciting and shouldn’t be changed.
    If a team can’t win in regulation, then it should be up to a coin toss. The Vikings still had a chance… their defense choked, and they blew it.
    And they blew it like 6 other times with turnovers and penalties.
    It’s their problem it was left up to a coin toss.

  99. Silverblue says: Jan 25, 2010 10:17 AM

    It was the Saints’ job to move down the field and score points. It was Chilli’s job to stop them. EAT YOUR OWN FREAKIN’ WORDS, CHILDRESS. There is balance in the universe after all.

  100. Patsfansince73 says: Jan 25, 2010 10:19 AM

    All the “this team should have done that” and the “that team could have done this” and also the “refs were asleep and let X get away with Y” all put off to the side I think the OT rules should change. But Florio you need to take a chill pill.
    The best thing (in my opinion) to make things fair would be to have an overtime that has “TIME” not a “do or die” format. I agree that it is not fair for a team not to be able to have a crack at putting up points as well.
    To that end I think the best thing to do is put in an overtime period of a certian time frame – say half of a typical quarter (or 8 minutes to round it up better). Whoever is ahead after that point in time is the victor. If still tied, another OT period and keep going unti there is a victor. This would allow each team an equal shot of winning. It also allows them to play defense or offense to thier full potential and prove they should be the victor. The first shot at it and sudden death aspects are really not fair to both sides.

  101. FUNSHIPM174 says: Jan 25, 2010 10:21 AM

    Vikings didn’t deserve to win with the fumbling and INTs they had. With that being said, the officiating was horrendous. Forget if you are a Vikings or Saints fan, but ANY football fan in general should be outraged at the calls. The most blatant one was the spot of the ball on 4th and inches when the runner obviously did not have control of the ball, which mean the ball should have not been spotted where it was and there is no first down. I love the “then don’t leave the game in the hands of the refs” comments. My answer s then get rid of replay if they can’t get it right with the use of replay.
    As for the OT rules.Everyone says they are fine, just like we didn’t need “2 point conversions”, but only after enough times when thiongs happen, does the NFL realize it was for the better and makes the changes.

  102. pkrjones says: Jan 25, 2010 10:21 AM

    Two better (IMHO) solutions to propose:
    #1. Each team gets the ball, whichever team scores the most points wins. IF it’s a tie after that, the team that scored in the fewest plays wins.
    #2. Minimize the chance of a tie by eliminating the mostly-automatic 1 pt. extra point. After each TD teams MUST try for 2 pts. This not only makes the game MORE exciting, but increases the “chess match” aspect of scoring. Going one step further, as in FFL, why not make 50+ yd. FG’s worth 4 points?
    If the coin-flip is such a travesty, think out of the box for a way to make the game MORE exciting AND finish in 60 minutes.

  103. hineswardcriesafterfumbling says: Jan 25, 2010 10:22 AM

    Complete Fan says:
    January 25, 2010 8:36 AM
    Why not change the rules to minimize the possibility of ties.
    A single point for a missed field goal, perhaps?
    =================================
    Great idea or Greatest idea?
    1 Point for a missed field goal? That would eliminate useless punters. 4th and 12 from your own 20, bring out the FG unit, boot it out of bounds. 1 Point. TERRIBLE!

  104. FLPackerBacker says: Jan 25, 2010 10:22 AM

    Florio, I think the change to the rule you propose is the only one that makes sense, but I still don’t like it.
    Teams that won the OT coin flip were 7-6 this year. Playoff teams that won the OT coin flip were 1-1 this year. Including this season, coin-flip winners have a .556 winning percentage since the inception of sudden death. That’s not indicative of a major advantage.
    Had the GB-Ariz game played out as it was “supposed to,” Green Bay would have scored a TD on its drive, Arizona would have done the same and then we’d be right back to where the game was when OT started under the current rule; GB would have the ball with a chance to win and there was nothing Arizona could do about it. Of course, we all know how it really ended and it was far from the script of the game’s previous 60 minutes!
    I’m glad you recognize the NCAA’s system as a disgusting gimmick, but the reality is that there is no perfect overtime in a game like football. Sudden death hockey makes sense. A shortened regular period for basketball makes sense given the advent of the shot clock. And while your proposal seems like extra innings in baseball, the reality is that you CAN score on defense in football and you have to be able to play defense to win a game. The Vikings failed to do in OT so despite playing pretty well all game. The Cardinals, on the other hand, rose to the occasion despite getting lit up like a pinball machine all day against the Pack and won it for their side.
    Sometimes, that’s just how the ball bounces. You know, like those two phantom late hits on Favre and the not called back-to-back illegal hits on Rodgers.

  105. Billy The Kid says: Jan 25, 2010 10:25 AM

    .VoxVeritas says:
    January 25, 2010 9:55 AM
    “Forget it Mike. I know it sucks,I bleed purple. To get beat down is one thing but to outplay the Saints in all facets of the game and hand over 5 turnovers is sickening.”
    Uhhhhhh committing 5 turnovers is not, never has and never will be considered “outplaying” anybody.
    I hear that Chilly is thinking about installing the Heimlich Maneuver into the playbook for next year, though. You’re actually lucky that the Vikings won’t be the first team to lose five Super Bowls.
    CHOKE.
    ——————-
    Uhhhh, when you outgain the opposition by over 200 yards, you outplayed them.
    If you watched that game and didn’t see the Vikings outplay the Saints, then you were busy crying about your Cowboys you clown.

  106. rpiotr01 says: Jan 25, 2010 10:26 AM

    On a side note: I was wondering how Vikings fans would spin this loss – would they really get it or would there be excuse making? I think I know the answer.
    Get ready for another year of disappointment…

  107. purpleguy says: Jan 25, 2010 10:31 AM

    The Vikes lost. If we had won the toss and had a bunch of close calls, we’d probably be taunting the Saints (and Pack) fans for whining. There were plenty of chances to win that game. The Saints held onto the ball and created turnovers. The Vikes didn’t. Good for the Saints, bad for the Vikes. End of story.
    Well, that and the fact the Vikes won both games against the Pack and lasted 2 weeks longer in the playoffs.

  108. petediddy71 says: Jan 25, 2010 10:31 AM

    Is it ridiculous to suggest they just play another quarter…..in the playoffs only. They should play another full quarter and whoever wins wins. Who wouldn’t want MORE playoff football?? This probably wouldn’t work for the regular season with time issues and televised games, but why not use this for the playoffs?? Is this ubsrud to suggest?

  109. petediddy71 says: Jan 25, 2010 10:33 AM

    Is it ridiculous to suggest they just play another quarter…..in the playoffs only. They should play another full quarter and whoever wins wins. Who wouldn’t want MORE playoff football?? This probably wouldn’t work for the regular season with time issues and televised games, but why not use this for the playoffs?? Is this ubsrud to suggest?

  110. Thorpie says: Jan 25, 2010 10:33 AM

    So, for the first 3 quarters, every call went the Vikes way. Saints had 1 legit roughing call, the other was complete BS. Hey, the refs did everything to help Brett (even helped the old man with his jersey!) and the lopsided ratio of calls shows that.
    I wonder if Florio would have posted this if the saints had lost in OT? I doubt it. I’ve defended that clown on this site over and over, but now I’m done. If he wants to cheer for 1 team, start a Vikes fan board where him, Prince and the rest of the whiners can talk Favre all day.
    Losing sucks. I’m a 20 year Saints fan, so trust me, I get it. However, this blaming the refs and change the OT garbage makes all of these idiots look sad and pathetic. In EVERY NFL game, you can always find a call or two that could have gone the other way. Honestly, how can anyone who watched the Vikes give up the ball that many times and then say the refs cost the game?

  111. .VoxVeritas says: Jan 25, 2010 10:33 AM

    “The fact of the matter is that we are one of the 4 best teams in the NFL and I if you aren’t a fan of the Saints, Colts, or Jets you all should just shut the hell up.”
    hahahahaha
    Suck it, Vikings fan. You had your once every 25 year shot at glory and they blew it.

  112. Dallas831 says: Jan 25, 2010 10:34 AM

    I say : Play an extra 15 min. quarter and after that the current sudden death rules kick in , because fatigue and safety would become an issue by then any way. -Problem solved :-)

  113. Larry says: Jan 25, 2010 10:36 AM

    There are two redeeming factors that make the NFL the most followed sport. 1) It is a TEAM sport. Not an individual sport and thus the best TEAM usually wins. 2) One play or bad call does not cost a victory or loss. It takes the entire array of plays, offensively and defensively to win or lose a game. The Vikes found that out the hard way. I’m neither a Saints nor a Vikes fan, but they lost that game by bad plays thruout…nearly all by the Vikes players and coaches…
    Overtime is fine, Mike. It’s not an issue. You want to point a finger, point it at Favre, Chilly, Allen, Harvin, Peterson, etc…
    Speaking of which, how many fumbles did they have ?? How many INTs ?? There’s where your finger should be pointing…

  114. RayDaMayor says: Jan 25, 2010 10:36 AM

    Florio is a Viking for life with this post.
    Saints SuperBowl 44 Bound!

  115. Len Dawson says: Jan 25, 2010 10:39 AM

    Play an eight minute quarter. No winner play another one until someone wins.

  116. Viper21 says: Jan 25, 2010 10:45 AM

    Favre definately blew his chance to win the game. A scamper & slide for a few yards instead of an ill advised throw would’ve led to a FG opp. Who knows what the result would’ve been. It’s especially ironic for Farve after is pregame interview, he talked about not making bad decisions, when that clearly was a horrible decision, in fact was the play that really puts the blame on Favre for missing the opprotunity to win despite his teams carelessness with the football yesterday.
    I think the Saints did a great job of smashing the ol man. They definately took into account his age, & Im sure he feels much older today than he did two days ago. Having said that, the play he was hurt on, should’ve been a penalty. That is what the Brady rule was trying to prevent. I’ll concede the Saints were called for one roughing penalty that was questionable, but, there were 2-3 that sould’ve been called that werent.
    btw, Im no Vikes fan at all.

  117. Naps says: Jan 25, 2010 10:46 AM

    Sudden death is right but after each team has had the ball once. College OT stinks because each team gets the ball in FG range but they get it right by giving each team a full chance. Don’t let the coin flip be the most important part of OT.

  118. rickofjp says: Jan 25, 2010 10:50 AM

    Stupid rule, basically coin flip decides game.Play “D” argument silly.
    Keep sudden death if game still tied after each team has had a “touch”. Or a complete 10 minute OT, where more than likely both teans will have a possession. At least in championship games.
    Wake up NFL !!

  119. Ralph says: Jan 25, 2010 10:57 AM

    What a bunch of maroons. My team didn’t lose it in regulation. Despite a kazillion fumbles, allowing their qb to be thrown around like a rag doll and a couple of pics, they still had the score tied at the end of regulation.
    They just didn’t do enough to win it. Neither did the Saints.
    I don’t begrudge the Saints the win, they’re a good team and I’ll be pulling for them in the SuperBowl.
    I don’t like the overtime rules and never have. It’s lame and the reason it’s so lame is they just extended a rule they implemented back in the dark ages of the NFL to cover the regular season games and they only did that because the WFL had done it.
    I think the college rules go too far and extend the game far too much.
    When a game ends in a tie, neither team has done enough to win the game and neither team should have an advantage based on a flip of the coin.
    My choice would be to guarantee 1 possession each with the team that had the ball at the end of regulation time kicking off at the beginning of overtime.

  120. lil_bit_special says: Jan 25, 2010 11:04 AM

    Screw overtime.
    The game should be decided by a Field Goal kicking contest.

  121. jbraider says: Jan 25, 2010 11:07 AM

    Mike,
    It is very simple. In any game, the outcome depends on a variety of factors which can be grouped into 2 categories. The first is things you can control (skill of the players, coaching, trainers, equipment, fan noise, etc.) The second is things you can’t control, otherwise known as LUCK (bad calls / no calls, bounces of the ball, weather, etc.)
    To pretend that luck is not a part of the outcome of a game is to deny reality.
    At the end of 60 minutes, if neither team has achieved a higher score than the other, then neither team has the right to claim to be better. If the NFL dictated that the winner of the game would then be decided by a coin flip only (with no further action on the field), no one could claim that is not fair. Both teams had the same chance to win in the game in regulation – both teams had the same chance to win the coin flip.
    The current rules go further than that – granting the coin flip loser at least a chance (and really a pretty good one) to win the game on the field. Furthermore, since the rules are known beforehand – you allow the clubs the option of building their teams to be prepared for these contests.
    All the proposals for changing OT (from min 1 posession for each team up to playing a full extra quarter or more) are designed to decrease the significance of the OT coin flip. You think by doing so you are increasing the probability that the “better” team will win the game (increasing as compared to the current system). This is certianly not obvious.
    To start with, the more OT action you have, the more the coin flip luck is just replaced by game play luck (example – the Saints most likely would have been stopped on their opening posession if not fot the questionable PI call). More significantly, the team that a club fields in the 5th quarter is not the same (due to injuries, etc.) as the team which plays the first 4 quarters. So once again, as in the current system, you are placing an inequitable burden for winning the game on a segment of the team (backups) rather than the whole unit.
    The bottom line is that there is nothing you can propose for changing the OT rules (short of playing out another quarter plus) which is not at least equally dependent on luck – nor is there any logical reason to believe that anything other than luck is warranted.
    This game is the perfect example. The PI call was probably a bad call – and therefore by definition a matter of luck. Without it, odds are Minnesota would have gotten the ball and scored. The bad call therefore was the piece of luck that decided this game – not the OT coin flip.

  122. alexnexus says: Jan 25, 2010 11:08 AM

    Is funny to see how soccer has more fair alternatives than football for OT play.
    Some soccer games are decided in OT by the “golden goal”: the first team that scores in OT wins.
    Others have two shorter OTs back-to-back and the team with the most scores (points) in those periods wins.
    The last resort are the penalty shots: after the OTs the each goal keeper faces off against a single opponent, trying to stop him from scoring (similar to hockey). Both teams compete in a 5 penalty shots round. If it at the end both teams made/missed the same number of shots, then they play a sudden death one-score-one-miss final round. It’s controversial but it has worked in the World Cup.
    I believe that the NFL can implement something similar -or better- to solve the OTs “controversy” for the sake of football.

  123. Eagles2SB says: Jan 25, 2010 11:10 AM

    This is one place where I actually like the UFL more than the NFL. The championship game this year for the UFL went into overtime. The rules in the UFL are exactly the same as the NFL except for small difference, the UFL states that the game cannot end without each team at least having one possesion in OT.
    So with the game yesterday, after the Saints kicked the FG, they would have to kickoff to the Vikings since they had yet to have possesion of the ball.

  124. sdigre says: Jan 25, 2010 11:12 AM

    I think that each team should get one red flag in OT.

  125. Ralph says: Jan 25, 2010 11:37 AM

    Just get rid of the coin flip. Whoever has the ball at the end of regulation has to kick off. That would certainly put an end to teams playing for over-time. If you have the ball you certainly better try to win the game, because the other team would get the ball first in overtime.

  126. Brohamma says: Jan 25, 2010 11:37 AM

    Way to funny here.
    Alot of you guys are missing the entire point. It wasn’t about what Farve should’ve done or that the Saints should’ve done better on third downs.. it’s about an entire season being decided by a coin flip in OT.
    Sudden death should come after each team has had a chance to drive the field and put up points. Who gets the ball if the game is still tied is decided by which team had the most net yards during regulation.
    I’m a fan of neither team discussed here, but think about how you New Orleans fans would be feeling now if that flip had gone the other way.

  127. StevenM says: Jan 25, 2010 11:37 AM

    Borrow from the XFL…use the scramble for OT instead of the coin-toss!

  128. Nate_G says: Jan 25, 2010 11:44 AM

    Some states they put up at the game… Not sure if it was championship history or playoff history.
    Teams that won the coin toss were (prior to the game) 7-6 in OT… Now it’s 8-6.
    Of the 7 teams that won, 5 teams won it on the first drive (now 6)… Don’t tell me that the coin toss isn’t big. If 6 of the last 8 winners took it out on the first drive, then it’s a huge advantage.
    I’ve always been more of a possession for possession kind of guy on this one. Each team should get an equal shot. There are a number of reasons why my Vikings lost yesterday, and while this was not the biggest reason (those 5 TOs were), it certainly compounded it. I do hope that rule gets changed. It’s really a dumb rule.

  129. ochentacinco says: Jan 25, 2010 11:44 AM

    Picking a singel statistic is not much different than a coin flip. It’s a team game so all stats reflect the game. If you want to change the OT to who has the stronger team at the end, get rid of field goals and make the winning team score a TD. You can give each team a turn and back up 10 yards every time both score in OT. Challenge each team’s defense and offense this way.

  130. stetai says: Jan 25, 2010 11:48 AM

    Good porposals florio!

  131. Terry says: Jan 25, 2010 11:55 AM

    Let’s make it real easy; don’t play the game and just flip a coin !

  132. hardjuge says: Jan 25, 2010 12:19 PM

    Simple Ncaa rules except no field goals, got score that touchdown. In fact eliminate the field goal and the kicked extra point from the game altogether. Now that would be innovative. Get rid of kickers that nobody likes anyway.

  133. Kage10 says: Jan 25, 2010 12:20 PM

    So would it be more fair during regulation if each team had the same number of possessions too? The defense needs to do its job; if it can’t stop the offense, then maybe they don’t deserve to win the game. Boo hoo…

  134. moreflagsmorefun says: Jan 25, 2010 12:33 PM

    Get rid of the kicker, ummmmmmmm, so how do you start the game, after your fourth down what do you do, throw underhand…..Get lost.
    What a DUM IDEA!!!!

  135. sherman09 says: Jan 25, 2010 12:40 PM

    I’ve just come aboard and haven’t seen this addressed yet: Why all the talk of OT and how fair or unfair it is? These teams are supposed to be Superbowl quality teams, they scored 8 touchdowns, they both played it safe: touchdown, kick the point; touchdown, kick the point! Each of them at any of these times could have taken their future into their own hands and have tried for a 2-pt conversion. It could have changed the dynamics of the whole game. Instead they wait for the toss of a coin, “NO GUTS, NO GLORY.”

  136. ThePalace says: Jan 25, 2010 12:43 PM

    Taking the suggestion of the folks over at Pro Footbal Talk, the National Football League has decided to do away with defense all together. A firestorm was started when the New Orleans Saints won the overtime coin toss in Sunday’s NFC Championship game and won the game with a 40 yard field goal. Russ, a Vikings fan was furios, “This is an outrage, the Vikings didn’t even have a chance at all to prove that they’re any good. I mean, the Saints’ defense was out there all night long knocking our guys down and stuff.”
    In response to Russ and PFT’s post, the NFL has decided to make a few changes. NFL teams will become much more profitable as they save an enormous amout of money due to the fact that they can now elimitate half of thier staff and roster. Teams will simply take turns seeing how quickly their offenses can score. Revenue is expected to skyrocket as this will be much more exciting than having 11 opposing players on the field at the same time, getting in the way. Universities are expected to follow suit as football programs are already very expensive for institutions that fail to qualify for big-ticket bowl games.
    Randy, a self-proclaimed football enthusiast had this to say. “I mean, everybody knows it. Scoring is what’s fun about the NFL. I’m all for this.” With little-to-no opposition, scores in the NFL are expected to moderately increase. Gary Jones, a policy-maker with the league had this official statement: “…The NFL feels that this slight change to the game will be beneficial to both the players and fans of this great sport…”
    Still, the change does have its skeptics. Mary, a long-time supporter of the San Fransisco 49ers, is in shock, “You’re joking, right?” It is unclear whether Mary was referring to PFT’s post on changing overtime rules or the NFL’s scrapping of defense.

  137. Bill says: Jan 25, 2010 12:48 PM

    It really doesnt matter if you have refs not making calls all game long, and then deciding to change how a rule was called all season long in the overtime. I didnt care who won, but the game was ruined by very inappropriate refing. It was very aparant the Saints had decided to hit high and late until it was called. It was only called once, so they continued to hit high and late. Irronicaly Favre was hurt on a low hit. Same type Brady got put out with. Until refs can call the game in the playoffs the same as they do in the season, it wont matter how you do the overtime. The Vikes got screwed. The Saints overpowering offense, had to rely on refs to move the ball. They performed poorly all game, and its a shame they were given the victory.

  138. Jack 25624 says: Jan 25, 2010 1:10 PM

    Such anger in many of these posts, as in hockey you have shootouts in regular season games. Keep the coin toss in regular NFL games, but in the almighty important playoff games play 15 minute periods until someone wins. Very fair no complicated changes.

  139. kiera620 says: Jan 25, 2010 1:17 PM

    Though I must say some of the calls made by the refs were questionable you people seem to be missing the point that the Vikings pretty much lost the game for themselves. I was starting to wonder if any of them actually knew how to hold onto a football.
    I don’t see anything wrong with the way they do overtime, it’s the defense’s job to stop the offense from scoring. Do i think the refs had made some questionable calls, yes i do, like the pass interference call(clearly that ball was uncatchable, plus there really wasn’t interference really to begin with).
    People can complain all day about how the vikings got robbed by the refs or that overtime is unfair blah blah blah, but when it comes right down to it had they played better they would have won. I was honestly beginning to wonder if any of them knew how to hold onto a football.

  140. CajunAmos says: Jan 25, 2010 1:23 PM

    I will say the low hit on Farve doesn’t fall within the bounds of the Brady rule as I understand it. The Brady rule clarification “specifically prohibits a defender on the ground who hasn’t been blocked or fouled directly into the quarterback from lunging or diving at the quarterback’s lower legs”, which was not the case on the play he was injured.

  141. MikeCLV says: Jan 25, 2010 1:27 PM

    The overtime rule is fine as it is. Like many before have said, STOP THEM!!!!! I do have one suggestion for a rule change that could be for overtime or even during regular time…. You must be at least at the 25 yard line to kick a field goal…. Other

  142. worzo says: Jan 25, 2010 1:28 PM

    Here is the perfect solution to overtime. No kicking. Receiving team gets the ball on the 20 then no more punts and no field goals. Only a touchdown or safety win.

  143. ncsteeler says: Jan 25, 2010 1:42 PM

    A simple fix:
    If you kick a FG the other team gets a shot – if they fail to score or get TD, game over. If you get a TD on first possesion, game over. If you turn the ball over (or punt) without scoring and your opponent drives for a score (TD or FG), game over.
    Most of the objections to the current rule involve teams taking the KO and driving 30 yards or so and kicking a long FG to win.
    This would add some strategy and force the winner of the coin flip to still try to score a TD once they got into the red zone.

  144. Rip says: Jan 25, 2010 1:44 PM

    Good grief, you Vikes fans should ask the Packers for a little cheese to go with that whine. The refs didn’t lose the game for you, the Saints D took the ball away from you time and time and time again. You aren’t the best team in the NFC, you lost to the best team in the NFC. There is a reason that the team that gives up the ball loses 95+% of the time – good teams don’t turn the ball over, and over, and over, and over. Deal with it. The refs made bad calls throughout regulation that were heavily in favor of the Vikings, at least two of which came after stops on 3rd down and resulted in 14 points.
    As far as changing the OT rules, fine, with the caveat that your defense is not allowed to intercept a pass or pick up a loose ball. I mean, you surely can’t think it’s fair that the defense be allowed to score, right?
    Ridiculous.

  145. Eagles2SB says: Jan 25, 2010 1:45 PM

    Many are stating play defense, but understand that with the current rules, offenses play differently. During the course of a game, teams do not play just to kick a FG, they settle for FGs when they cannot score a touchdown.
    In overtime, for the most part, the offenses are not playing for a touchdown, they are playing to get in range for a FG. Granted, the kicker still needs to make the FG to win, but the offense is not taking the risk of calling plays to score a touchdown.

  146. tooamazon says: Jan 25, 2010 1:49 PM

    Ride or Die SAINTS fan here and I say the following: 1st Bret Favre only “had” to try and make something happen because of they were sent back and out of their field goal kicker’s “comfortable” range because there were 12 on the field (my goodness) 2nd there was a total of 60 minutes played before overtime and the Vikings fumbled damn near all game long, 3rd Favre has experience with play offs and superbowls, no one on the SAINTS does. I bring this up to say this, all of you “haters” wanting to change rules and blah blah blah, know that if it were not or the first time success jitters of my team the SAINTS we would have tore the Vikings a new one. Deny it if you want, fumbles, interceptions that will always lead to defeat. Yes, there was poor officiating but on both sides and all through out the season and it will continue into next season. I suggest that if you cannot accept that referees are human and humans are not perfect, you just stick to playing the Madden video game, but watch out, your finger might slip and hit the wrong button which may cause you to throw an interception that leads to the opponents’ victory, ha!

  147. Lukacs says: Jan 25, 2010 2:05 PM

    How about: a touchdown or safety anytime ends the game. On a field goal, the other team gets final possession, and must score TD. That would put some excitement back into the “foregone conclusion” once a team with a decent kicker reaches the red zone.

  148. footballnut says: Jan 25, 2010 2:07 PM

    I used to be on board with the OT rules changing to match something similar to the NCAA, until I stopped being lazy and checked the stats…sans yesterday the teams getting the ball first in OT were 7-6 this season.
    Not very compelling to change the rules.

  149. BILL2021 says: Jan 25, 2010 2:20 PM

    Has a team ever “won” a coin-toss for overtime and decided to play defense??????????????
    This issue is not about how bad the Vikings [or any team] played in regulation time.

  150. Jack0122 says: Jan 25, 2010 2:23 PM

    Okay, no more coin tosses. Just finish the game where it left off — with the Saints in possession of the ball after Brett Favre threw an INT.
    Sorry Vike fans — suck it up!

  151. maroci says: Jan 25, 2010 2:41 PM

    *** “I’ve got an ever better idea. Each team gets the ball once. If the game is still knotted after each team has had the ball once, then you have sudden death.” ****
    Sigh. That’s not a better idea. That’s another way of saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

  152. Jack 25624 says: Jan 25, 2010 3:01 PM

    This is not new, people have been complaining about the OT rules in the NFL for years. Its usually gets brought up by the team that loses in OT on the first possesion.

  153. shazard01 says: Jan 25, 2010 4:22 PM

    The rule is fine, Minny had their chances and so did NO. Minny was able to call to coin toss and lost. I mean that’s how the game is started. Minny fumbled right before the half from the 4 yard line. And for those complaining about when he was hit high and low…look at the reply the offensive tackle release and help that player who hit him low along and that’s why it wasn’t called.

  154. shazard01 says: Jan 25, 2010 4:49 PM

    How about this, use the coin flip and if a team makes it over the 50 yard line it’s 4 down territory NO FG’s….

  155. ToddC says: Jan 25, 2010 4:58 PM

    This really has nothing to do with being a Vikings fan or a Saints fan. For the record, I’m a Drew Brees fan. :)
    This has bugged me for years – two great teams, battling their hearts out for a couple hours, and then a coin toss determines the winner of the game most of the time. That’s just silly.
    In 37 out of 124 overtime games, the team to loose the coin toss never touches the ball. That’s about 1/3rd of the time. That’s just silly.
    The rule should be changed to give both teams a shot at the ball.

  156. AZFinfan says: Jan 25, 2010 6:53 PM

    Why not just add another quarter [albeit 10 minutes instead of 15] and continue play? Whoever has possession at the end of the 4th quarter switches sides of the field and continues possession into the “5th” quarter, just like all the other quarters. At the end of the “5th” quarter, whoever has the most points wins! This isn’t rocket science.

  157. Tomthebombtracy says: Jan 25, 2010 6:59 PM

    In the ’58 Colts-Giants NFL Championship game the Colts drove 80 yards after the Giants went three and out………In the Favre/Packers OT champ it was effectively two posessions because of the INT…..In this one at least the Vikes had a chance to win in regulation and blew it.
    The crap will come when someone drives for the tying score in regulation…..wins the coin toss……and then wins on the first touch of the ball. I think the outcry for Sunday’s game was a bit muted because the Vikes coulda won in regulation.
    But that worst case scenario is waiting to happen…..then, there’ll be a change.

  158. regguy says: Jan 25, 2010 8:19 PM

    This has nothing to do with the overtime rules.
    Favre made a monumental error in that last pass. He could have easily gained 8 to 10 yards on the ground, even banged up, and their field goal kicker is good. Chances are the game would have been over in regulation.
    The Vikings just turned the ball over too much. They should have won the game going away – but turnovers will do that to you everytime.
    The bigger question is who will Florio pick for the Superbowl. He has week after week, predicted the Colts and/or Saints to lose. What to do, what to do………………….

  159. reformed says: Jan 26, 2010 1:20 PM

    This propsed rule change is just more silly assed nonsense. As it exists now both teams have a “crack” at the ball. One crack is called offense, the other crack is called defense. For those of you who are candy assed, fairy, liberal, turd smokers, there are things called interceptions, fumbles, playing defense so the opponent goes three and out, penalties, etc. that allow for both teams a chance to prevail. Again, go look up stats, history, etc to see that a ball that is hiked, put in play is “live” and available to anyone on the field. Quit your bitchin and play football. When you lose it is on your shoulders, no one else. Most of us learn this early in life. Whats next??? Preference for skin color????

  160. reformed says: Jan 26, 2010 1:39 PM

    This propsed rule change is just more silly assed nonsense. As it exists now both teams have a “crack” at the ball. One crack is called offense, the other crack is called defense. For those of you who are candy assed, fairy, liberal, turd smokers, there are things called interceptions, fumbles, playing defense so the opponent goes three and out, penalties, etc. that allow for both teams a chance to prevail. Again, go look up stats, history, etc to see that a ball that is hiked, put in play is “live” and available to anyone on the field. Quit your bitchin and play football. When you lose it is on your shoulders, no one else. Most of us learn this early in life. Whats next??? Preference for skin color????

  161. Dar says: Jan 26, 2010 2:27 PM

    The Saints played dirty! The officials condoned it!
    That said, change the overtime rule to run one add’l 10 minute quarter, then if needed, one possession each team.

  162. JaySilman says: Jan 26, 2010 3:49 PM

    Let’s borrow an idea that is used in Hockey and Soccer: At the start of overtime, the kickers of each team will be kicking field goals starting from 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, etc. yards out from the goal posts. The kickers will have five opportunities to kick a field goal from the distances mentioned above. The team that has a better success rate will be declared the victor of the game. If the two kickers are tied at the end of five tries, then a sixth, seventh , etc. try will be attempted at 45, 50, etc. yards until one team makes the field goal at the respective disance and the other team does not. The kicks can be attempted simultaneously – at least for the first five attempts – at the respective goal posts.

  163. MoralProtagonist says: Jan 26, 2010 5:18 PM

    This year, of 13 overtime games, the team winning the coin toss won 7 and the team not winning the coin toss won 6. Fairly even, but, of the 7 times the coin toss winning team won the game, they did so on their first drive 5 times. Thus, it does seem the rule is somewhat slanted toward the team winning the coin toss. Here’s the rule I would have since it gives both teams a shot in OT while still valuing defense- the second team gets a chance if the team winning the coin toss only scores a field goal on its first possession. If the the second team ties with its own field goal, the game goes on as sudden death, if the second team scores a TD, the game is over. That would make for some interesting decisions on that first drive.

  164. bombsaway777 says: Jan 26, 2010 5:59 PM

    Wow you gotta love the fans who think the idea for a rule change is a matter of an excuse or whining about the outcome.Who ever has played sports knows theres not one player in that locker room complaining about the rules. Everyone knows it was the Vikings who gave away the game.And who cares about Brett Farve.All anyone is saying is there may be a better way to do it and there probably is.Personally I like sudden death but I cant stand jagoffs who always claim the whining or making excuses card everytime a rule or officiation is in question.

  165. Luanasf says: Jan 26, 2010 6:11 PM

    I agree the NFL needs to review the overtime rule. A playoff game is too big for a coin flip. Each offense should have possession of the ball. No field goals allowed.
    Watching Pro football for 40 years, Viking, Saints worst game I’ve ever seen. Vikings out-played the Saints in spite of their mistakes. Then there was the “third” team the Vikes had to contend with, the officials!
    This will be the first superbowl I won’t be watching.
    As for the Pro Bowl, I suspect the NFL wants to make a new contract with Hawaii, but first Hawaii has to feel the tourism loss. And the week before the Superbowl? I won’t be watching that either.

  166. SteelTigers says: Jan 26, 2010 7:08 PM

    1. This article stinks – no change is needed to overtime 2. The referees should be fired for making horrendous calls 3. When a ref makes a bad call it should be challenged and then left up to the public to vote on because I can see from my living room 100 miles away that a) there was no pass interference, b) peirre thomas was on the 1 yard line and did not cross the goal, c)low hit on Brett is clearly a penalty aka “Brady rule” d) etc etc . This was the worst officiated game in the playoffs

  167. slegeir says: Jan 26, 2010 9:26 PM

    I warned when the season began that he would throw an interception to end the Vikings chances to go to the Super Bowl. Please come back and do it again. PRICELESS !!!

  168. SniprKlr says: Jan 26, 2010 10:03 PM

    Fist off. I agree that these refs should be fired. It was bad enough to even suggest that this game was rigged or the refs were paid. The Vikings should have won that game! Very poor refereeing! This brings us back to how the Yankees were put into the world series by the power of the referee! This nonsense needs to stop!
    Next. I believe that they should dump overtime all together and have a kick-off challenge where each kicker has to kick field goals at an ever increasing range! Kind of like a shoot-off in hockey!

  169. SniprKlr says: Jan 26, 2010 10:07 PM

    Slegeir,
    That isn’t why they lost.. Though I also found that amusing, it really had nothing to do with why they lost.. It almost appears that they were told to lose and to make it look good after the refs failed to make enough bad calls to put the Saints in the lead.
    The refs were just as bad as the vikings dropping the ball all game, or as bad as the Saints inability to contend with the Viking Defense. Take your pick.

  170. deemic says: Feb 9, 2010 8:53 PM

    Actually the entire country knows that they the Saints backed in because of poor officiating. Biggest fraud in Superbowl history. Not much to hang your hat on. Still the Aints as in Aint Legitimate. Guess you’ll take it however you can but don’t expect the rest of the country to be happy for a team that couldn’t win on their own merit.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!