It’s time to go the rest of the way with overtime equity

AP

Watching the final minutes of Saturday night’s latest NFL postseason game for the ages, I wanted it all to last a little longer. And but for the still-unfair overtime rules of the NFL, it would have.

Six years ago, after the Saints advanced to the Super Bowl following a first-possession field goal in sudden-death overtime against the Vikings, the NFL finally realized the unfairness of allowing so much to hinge on a coin toss. After Saturday night’s overtime session, launched by a coin-toss misfire, it should be more clear than ever that the team that loses the toss in overtime should get a chance to match any score that the receiving team musters.

Spare me the “if you want to win the game stop them” nonsense. The question of whether a team goes to the next level of the postseason shouldn’t hinge, ultimately, on the outcome of a coin toss. Both teams should have a chance to possess the ball, and the kicking team should have a chance to match any score mustered, field goal or touchdown, by the team that receives the kickoff.

It would be a postseason change only. Sure, some will insist that any adjustment to playoff rules also must apply to the regular season, but there’s already a big difference that needs to be taken into account. After 15 minutes in the postseason, the game continues. After 15 minutes over overtime in the regular season, the game ends.

The possibility that a touchdown drive to start overtime could result in a matching touchdown drive could leave insufficient time for another score, resulting in more ties. For that reason alone, if should be a playoffs-only modification.

Another caveat to postseason overtime should be added. If the team that wins the toss chooses to kick, the receiving team wins with any score. That’s the way it already should be; the team winning the toss has the chance to possess the ball. If that team chooses not to, anything that happens after that should fair game.

Apart from the equity of giving the team that loses the toss a chance to match a touchdown drive, a significant business reality should prompt the NFL to consider making this change. Moments like last night’s are too fleeting; no one wanted that game to end.

For the Packers, who displayed an uncanny ability to get down the field with the game on the line late in regulation, it shouldn’t have ended after a quick-strike score from a Cardinals team that won both the coin toss and the coin drop. For the rest of us, it shouldn’t have ended at that point, either.

225 responses to “It’s time to go the rest of the way with overtime equity

  1. Of course no one wanted the game to end. But, verily, they all do.

    Football is a 60 minute game. Each team has 60 minutes to win. Pretty fair. You don’t get it done, you live or die by the coin (a 50/50 proposition; how can it get any more fair than that?).

    If a team wins the opening faceoff in hockey (roughly 50/50) and scores, is anyone going to demand another chance for the other team? No.

    Score and win. Simple.

  2. Furthermore, the Saints advanced on one of those boneheaded picks from The Gunslinger at the end of regulation. That the Saints were able to score points again was 100% on Minnesota and 0% on the rule book.

  3. I disagree that the outcome of overtime hinges on the coin toss. It doesn’t. It hinges on the offense of the team that wins the toss and the defense of the team that doesn’t, and only for the opening drive. Thereafter it’s just sudden death for both teams.

    Show some real data that it’s still unfair in its current incarnation and I’ll believe it. A gut feeling that this just isn’t right doesn’t cut it.

  4. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it pretty much 50-50 since the new rule on who wins, the team who gets the ball or the team that kicks to start overtime? I don’t see a reason to change.

  5. Go back and watch that game again. Offensive holding on every play. I think the packers got screwed. I’m not sure if it would have helped in this game, but they need full time officials first.

  6. Losing team doesn’t like overtime rules? Then they should have put their opponent away in 60 minutes.

    Sounds fair to me.

  7. As far as the postseason is concerned, screw the if/then stuff. Just make OT and extra period. 7 minutes, 10, 15, whatever. Overtime should just be an extra period.

  8. “Both teams should have a chance to possess the ball, and the kicking team should have a chance to match any score mustered, field goal or touchdown, by the team that receives the kickoff.”

    “Another caveat to postseason overtime should be added. If the team that wins the toss chooses to kick, the receiving team wins with any score.”

    Well which way do you want it, Florio? If you truly believe that both teams should get an opportunity to possess the ball, then it shouldn’t matter if the team winning the toss chooses to kick. That makes no sense at all.

  9. Congrats to the Cards and their fans. I’m pulling for you guys the rest of the way.

    Pack had plenty of opportunities to put them away and didn’t.

    I’m not going to dwell on this one as I did in last year’s NFCCG … I’ve learned my lesson.

    Go Pack.

  10. The coin flip doesn’t decide the outcome of a game. Offense, defense, and special teams do. The NFL doesn’t need to invent more arbitrary overtime rules just because the ending of Cards/Packers didn’t satisfy your particular sense of the dramatic. It was plenty dramatic for the rest of us.

    If you really want to change overtime, just play a full overtime quarter and whoever is ahead at the end wins.

  11. Please. If you can’t stop a team from scoring a TD, you deserve to lose. Fitzgerald made a play just like Rodgers did at the end of the game. That’s what it’s all about. So had the Cardinals been up only 4 and lost on that last play, would we have needed to play OT to get “equity?” I think you and anyone else sane would have said no, which is the right answer in this case as well. Cardinals went and took that win, namely Fitgerald, in overtime.

  12. It is what it is. Considering this Jekyll and Hyde Packer team never defined themselves in the absence of top-tier receivers, they did pretty good and as well as could be expected.

    At least they didn’t embarrass themselves. Videos will be watched of another successful Hail Mary and people will say “wow,” as opposed to the “wide left” dream-killer and say “really?”

  13. Please, enough with this “share the wealth” mentality. After 16 games, if all tie breakers are exhausted, it comes down to a coin flip.

    So sick of hearing about “fair”. There are so many random things that happen during a game.

    So now you want each team to get another chance if the other scores? Let’s go back to when Miami played a multi overtime game. Timed overtimes. Keep playing until someone wins or go back to real sudden death. This current system is like pee wee football.

  14. No, absolutely not, No friggin way! Look at college to see where this ends up. Do not tamper with the sudden death aspect. I like the fact there is a sense of urgency in OT, and a risk taking component as well.

  15. No, you are wrong. Sometimes crazy plays end games that’s the beauty of the NFL. Don’t take that away. Hey the Pack wouldn’t even have earned OT if not for a crazy play.

  16. Whatever, if it was some small market team who got it up he rear this story doesn’t dven see the light of day, but it’s the almighty packers. They got beat fair and square which is a lot more than i can say for another team who had their victory taken away buy an agenda driven nfl.

  17. As they say the NFL stands for no fun league. Adopt the NCAA’s each team gets the ball at least once. This bull of the players get tired or for the safety of the players is crap.

  18. “both teams should have a chance to possess the ball”, yeah ok and we should hand out participation trophies to the losers (or should I say the team that ended the game with the lesser points?). I’m old school, I still think that after 60 minutes of football, if you go to overtime, first team that scores.. wins.

  19. I agree. I hate the overtime rules the way they are now. The more touchdowns that are scored in a game the more likely that the team winning the coin toss will get a touchdown on the first possession.

    Opponents like to trot out the fact that the team winning the coin toss only wins 50% of the time. But there has to be a big difference based on the score of the game: a 14-14 tie isn’t going to favor the team winning the coin toss; a 35-35 tie definitely favors the team winning the coin toss.

  20. Why are you bringing this up now that it was Aaron Rogers on the losing end? Why not bring this up during any OT game since the rules were changed for Brett Favre?

  21. If the Packers didn’t trust their defense to get a stop they should have just went for the win in regulation. The chance of converting a two point conversion is higher than winning a coin toss.

  22. The current method is arguably unfair to the team that does not receive the ball to begin overtime. However, the method you’re proposing is likely to be unfair to the team who _does_ receive: the other team will know exactly how many points they need to score to tie or take the lead on their possession.

  23. Yeah yeah. And then when THAT change is made, bitter losers (and sports writers) will still find a way to complain that their team got robbed and demand yet another change to ‘make it more fair’. We live in an imperfect world with imperfect rules.

  24. They had a chance to win it with a defensive TD.

    In your proposal, what happens if the packers D scores a touchdown? Game over? Or to the Cardinals D get a chance to ensure a coin toss doesn’t lose them the game?

  25. I agree. Allow both teams an equal chance to score on their first possessions in overtime. A very simple and fair solution.

  26. Nope, keep it just the way it is. Defense wins championships. The defending team at the beginning of OT has an opportunity towards a win: don’t let the other team score. If you can’t keep a team out of the end zone to save your season, you are not the best team in the league. Simple.

  27. In the NFL, defense should have the same importance as offense. If you can’t stop a team from going 80 yards on the first drive, you don’t deserve to win.

  28. I liked overtime when it was truly sudden death. The guys have 60 full minutes to score points. Giving them overtime equality is soccer mom/everyone gets a chance mentality IMO.

    On a side note, Clete Blakeman BUTCHERED that game last night. The non-flip toss was the cherry on top

  29. I’m sure Collinsworth feels the same way. Maybe both teams can get a participation ribbon too. If you want to win the game, put a body on the best receiver on the field. Not that hard.

  30. So you are saying you had 60 minutes to win the game and could not, you lose the coin toss and kick-off then you give up a touchdown on the first possession. But you still deserve a chance to keep playing? No, go out and win the game in regulation and then you are not at the mercy of whatever the football gods throw your way.

  31. It’s fine as is. I’m not a fan of getting closer to college overtime rules which is horrendous.

  32. Not a Cards or Packer fan so I have no bias here. Absolutely agree that no playoff game should end because of a coin toss. Absolutely stupid to have a rule like that. The NFL and it’s brain trust seem to expose themselves every game lately with rules that need to be changed like the hits to the head they don’t call because a guy is running after a catch and now this OT garbage rule. Wake up commish!! The OT rule should be changed during the regular season too because an OT loss might cost you a playoff spot.

  33. No, it’s not time to turn the NFL into college football, complete with every game ending 49-42. You just want to perpetuate the cycle of Ben, Peyton, Tom and Aaron playing in every championship game and you’re crushed that Rodgers isn’t on the others’ level. How about we cut to the chase and give everyone a trophy for playing?

  34. You have to break a tie somehow. It’s never going to feel fair or equitable to the losing team. I’m in the camp of keeping it like it is. When you build a team and spend most of your cap space on the offensive side of the ball it’s your fault if the defense can’t stop the other team. And how amazing is the Fitzgerald catch because of the sudden death aspect of the OT rules? If you just hand the ball back to the other team it robs it of all the magic. I’m not a Cards fan, but I’ll still remember this game for a long time because of that. There are so many other things I would worry about before messing with the OT rules (pass interference and what a catch is or isn’t top the list). That game was special. And one of the reasons it was special was because of the way Fitzgerald won it in OT. Leave the rule alone please.

  35. Whats the over-under on refuting arguments on this thread that will be deleted? I’ll put it at 27. I’m going to be the first I guess.

    I totally dissagree. The drama added by having a TD end the game is fantastic. The current OT rule is perfect the way it is. If you lose the toss and you want another possesion, then you have to stop them .That’s not “nonsense”. That pressure should be there. That drama should be there. It’s fantastic!

  36. It’s fine the way it is. Ridiculous to try to keep prolonging the game. Maybe the teams need to have some guts and go for 2. Packers had a great chance to win by going for 2. Cardinals were on their heels!

  37. If the Packers wanted to, they could have gone for two and won after the hail mary. They decided to go into overtime knowing what the rules were, thus “leaving it to a coin flip.”

  38. As long as the NFL doesn’t adopt the three-ring circus that is the college overtime system, I’m fine with allowing both teams to have the ball and calling it a game when one of them can’t match the other’s score.

  39. So what do you propose if the score is matched? Both teams get the ball again? Why not use the College rules for OT?

  40. Youth, HS and NCAA all have the same OT format, placing the ball on the 25. Each team gets a possession until they score or run out of downs. Play continues until there’s a winner. The only difference is the NFL should start at the 40 instead of the 25.

  41. Just make it a timed OT period, whether a full 15 minute quarter, or one shortened to 7 minutes. Whoever has the highest score at that point wins, and if neither team does, then the game goes into OT 2, and so on. Sure it extends the game, but it makes more sense, if you are advocating to change, to simplify the rules, not complicate them by making it sudden death in one case, and the ability to match scores in another. Besides, the argument of “just stop them” is a fair one, especially since what you are stopping it a TD, not a field goal. The NFL has enough complicated, confusing rules that they often misinterpret or interpret differently depending on the ref and the day… No need to further complicate OT with craziness. Leave it as is, or simply switch it to a timed OT period, and let it go from there.

  42. The only thing that’s nonsense is saying the outcome rested on the flip of a coin. The Packers let Larry Fitzgerald get wide open in OT – no defender within 10 yards of him – and that’s why they lost. To argue the Packers should have played better defense is legit. Ultimately, your post just sounds like you were enjoying the game so much you didn’t want it to end. That’s great, but really has nothing to do with fairness of the system.

  43. Tough to argue with your position, Florio.
    But at the end of the day, it’s important that we focus on what really matters. The bad guys lost. And for that we should all be thankful.

  44. While we’re at it, why stop here? Why not give an opposing defense a chance to match a safety? The rule did what was intended. It stopped 50 yard drives from deciding games and stopped offenses from quitting at the 20.

  45. I can hear the new liberal montra of “NFL overtime equity” reach the U.S. Supreme Court with the 13th Amendment used out of the blue to justify a full 15-minute quarter. After all, “overtime lives matter”!

  46. Under your reasoning, each team should continue to get a chance to score until the last team stops scoring. You say the team winning the coin toss has an unfair advantage. Well, even if you continue letting teams score, they’d continue to have that advantage because they always get the ball “first”. Under your suggestion, Team A wins the toss, marches down the field and scores a TD. Team B then gets the ball, marches down the field and scores a TD. Now Team A gets it. They march down the field and score. Game over. But that scenario isn’t fundamentally different than the way the rules are structured now.

    In OT, both teams have a chance to win and since less than 50% of all drives end in scores, it absolutely is fair to say “then just stop the opposing team”.

  47. Spare me the coin flip misfire nonsense. Fabricated drama plus actual drama does not equal more drama.

  48. The COIN TOSS DID NOT DECIDE THE GAME…..The coin toss decides who gets the ball first….the packers defense didn’t do it’s part….besides if they change the rule to give each team the ball the team that gets the ball second has a distinct advantage in my opinion….
    1. If the first team scores (either a TD or FG) then the offense possessing the ball second will ALWAYS get four downs and they know they will use them….4 downs to get 10 yards is different than 3 downs to get 10 yards and then maybe a punt – which first team possessing must consider punting in certain situations.
    2. If the first team to score – scores a TD and then kicks the PAT – the second team to score knows they can score a TD (again after using all four downs this time) – and then they can win the game with a 2 yard play – by going for two.
    3. Defense – like it or not – is a part of the game and must be considered…..if the Packers make a tackle instead of missing Palmer twice in the pocket and Fitzgerald two or three times (at least) in the open field the outcome may have been different.

    The only way the outcome of the game is decided by a coin toss is simply if the coin toss is the end of the game…in other words – they don’t even play overtime – just go out toss the coin and who ever wins the coin toss is determined the winner…..no need to keep playing.
    The numbers – a quick search of a couple sites yielded these statistics – indicate that the team that wins the coin toss wins about 54% of the team – these numbers are not out of the ordinary in my opinion when compared to some teams winning percentage if playing at home – another quick search showed that only 6 teams (in 2014) had winning percentages under 0.500 at home……so should rules be added to make some teams play their games on neutral sites because they win to much at home??

    Bottom line – the old “if you don’t want to get beat stop the other team argument is VALID”

  49. Spare me the “if you want to win the game stop them” nonsense. The question of whether a team goes to the next level of the postseason shouldn’t hinge, ultimately, on the outcome of a coin toss.

    This sentiment is really sad to me. How is the idea of stopping them “nonsense?” There are 3 phases of football, offense, defense and special teams. Why do we want to diminish the importance of the defense?

  50. Couldn’t agree more a change is needed-
    Regular season play 15 minutes-if tied so be it
    Postseason play 15 minutes-if tied then sudden death

  51. How about you spare US the “rules must change” nonsense?

    How about you also share some stats to back up that the game is “decided by the coin toss?”

    If it is such a big problem, the numbers will show it’s a very unfair advantage. If you cant stop the other team, you have no room to complain.

  52. Should be for regular season as well. The Cowboys lost 2 OT games this year because their Defense was awful and they lost the coin flip. They had comebacks to tie the game and then it ends. Tebow won for the Broncos against the steelers on the first play of OT 4or5 seasons ago. Much like last night, the steelers got no chance to comeback in a game that was an exciting, close game
    I would love to see college OT. It runs quickly and is extremely exciting to watch. Put the ball on the 50 so a field goal wouldn’t be guaranteed

    Now feel free to give thumbs down because I mentioned the Cowboys

  53. The “fairness doctrine” should NOT apply to sports, especially professional sports. Your team thinks that the overtime rules are “unfair”? Well then STOP the other team if your team is on defense first….AND if your team scores a TD first then you “fairness hypocrites” should risk your win and DEMAND that the other team gets a shot on offense.

  54. Stop. Just stop.
    If the Packers didn’t want that outcome, they could’ve attempted a 2 point conversion in regulation.
    Or, they could’ve tried defending Fitz….

  55. While I don’t agree with you on the Redskins name, I certainly do agree with you on this. Playoff OT should give both teams a shot – match the first score to force sudden death or beat the first score for the win. The lone exception, of course, would be a defensive score (pick 6, fumble return TD). It’s a rare scenario, but that Packers – Cardinals game deserved it.

  56. I think a bigger issue would be replay reviews. They should be able to call penalties. How many interceptions are a result of pass interference? The cards go ahead touchdown would have been called back.

  57. I loved the fight the Packers showed last night, but I’m sorry …… their defense collapsed not once, but TWICE on that final drive.

    Arizona DESERVED that win. The rule is fine the way it is.

  58. Packers put up a great fight with a make shift receiving group after losing Cobb, nobody expected to see a game like this, at least the Packers didn’t miss a chip shot field goal, and their running back didn’t fumble at a critical time, imagine if a game could end like that ? , that sure has to hurt ouch!

  59. Always good to see that packers lose in heartbreaking gdasion, but I agree. It would be nice to see the other team have a shot to tie.

  60. The only reason the overtime rules changed was because Brett Favre lost yet another playoff game. Just change it back to sudden death overtime like it used to be.

  61. If the other team scores a touchdown first, your team now automatically has 4 downs to work with since it’s touchdown or go home. That’s a huge advantage to possessing the ball 2nd because you essentially know you have an extra down to work with vs. traditional play calling/game situations.

    If. as you suggest, the team that ‘wins’ the coin toss elects to kick, and the next score wins the game, you would be penalizing the team that wins the toss because no team would ever kick in that situation and you would be forcing the team that ‘wins’ the toss to receive the kick, and lose the advantage of knowing if they have an extra down to work with.

  62. Obviously anyone who disagrees with the needed rule change is a Cardinal fan. I’m neither a fan of either team in fact I’m a Bills fan. Until your team loses that way you will like the current rule. Stupid. With that kind of logic baseball is getting it wrong. First to score in extra innings wins? Nonsense.

  63. Mathews should go back to the Bears proposed rule change that gave both teams a possession regardless of whether or not the first team to score scores a TD or safety. Greenbay voted against that rule so Mathews should be silent on this and just go visit his barber.

    Live by the sword then also die that way or something close to that.

  64. The rules for OT were changed for the same reason rules for receiver contact were changed (looking at you Colts & Polian), whiny crying losers.

    Stop trying to manage the end of games. 15 minute OTs until someone wins. You know, like when men played football.

    Also don’t want to hear about players being hurt in OT. Players get hurt on 1st plays of games. This is football baby.

  65. Wrong wrong wrong. I could not disagree more. What happens after both teams score tds then the team that won the toss scores again. Should the other team get another chance to match? Pretty soon you have the college football ot nonsense that is definitely entertaining but is not real football. It’s not like you win the toss and they put you on the one yard line. The team has to score a legitimate Td to win. It’s not unfair bc the losing team also had plenty of opportunities in regulation.

  66. The PATHETIC and embarrassing Rodgers defending is getting ridiculous. You have 4 quarters to win a game. If both can’t do that that you have to do it in OT. earning home field advantage gives you the right to pixel the coin toss. You want to get the ball first in OT? Win the unbiased coin flip or get home field advantage and guess the coin flip. Life sucks doesn’t it when you don’t win. Move on

  67. The double OT Division playoff game between Miami and KC was one of the best games ever played. I wish we could go back to that system but player safety is the rule of the day, or at least that’s what the NFL want’s us to believe.

  68. I’m not buying your argument that everyone wanted the game to go on. The fans cheering for the Cardinals were glad the game was over and their team won.

    Yes, it might have been nice to see the Packers also have another chance on offense, but they had plenty of chances in regulation. The rules are fair as written.

  69. Couldn’t Agree More. Next Year They Will Play 3v3 Overtime or Have A Shootout !!! It’s Football Play Football 15 Minute OT Then Go Both Teams Get a Possession In 2nd OT

  70. Play a full extra period, 15 minutes for an OT. Football is not a game like hockey where the possession changes all the time back and forth. Play a full extra period last night would have been epic whoever would have won the war…… Not the coin toss.

  71. I agreed with everything you said, until you said if the team that wins the toss chooses to kick, any score should end the game.

    That means winning the toss no longer gives teams a choice. It means everyone who wins the toss will receive with zero strategy involved.

    There is a valid strategy to choosing to kick off in overtime with the current rules. It’s something like 53% of the teams that start out overtime on defense win the game. So there is some strategy involved. I hate taking that choice out of coaches hands.

  72. All of these “you don’t like the OT rules, you should’ve won in regulation” comments are completely misguided.

    The team that benefits from the unfair OT rules didn’t put their opponent away in regulation either. So why should they get an advantage in OT?

  73. Packer fans were saying this last year after the Seahawks’ opening drive TD ended the NFCC and my take was, “you wouldn’t have a problem with the status quo if the Packers won with an opening drive TD.”
    Now that I’ve seen their season end for the second straight year in the same fashion, I have enough empathy to say that I’m on board with your proposal – for postseason only as you said.
    An additional caveat should be that a defensive TD ends the game, which I’m assuming you agree with, but just failed to mention. Sticking with the Packers as my example team, they would have won a game this way (the Al Harris “we want the ball pick 6” against the Seahawks in 2004) as well as lost a game this way (when Karlos Dansby of the Cardinals returned a strip-sack for a TD against them in 2010).
    I’m also assuming that if a team answers an opening drive TD with a TD, it is sudden death after that. If this is included in your proposal, then I’m buying what you’re selling.

  74. Bad tackling by the Steroid Machine led to their demise. As said before go for two after the Hail Mary. Momentum was on their side after that wing and a prayer.

  75. I’m a Packer fan who lived through 25 years of futility before Brett Favre came to town. The outcome is the outcome. The Packers just have to go out and play better next year. We’ll be in the mix again. We’ve had over 20 years of great quarterback play. We shouldn’t feel sorry for ourselves at all.

  76. I was fine with the old overtime rules. I’m against anything that would extend the game any longer than it already is. There are enough injuries in a 60 minute game, and by OT guys are spent.

  77. The answer is so simple and staring us right in the face:

    If the game is tied at the end of regulation, you just keep playing until someone scores. The key is you don’t force a new kickoff, you just keep playing wherever the ball was and whoever had it.

    Simple and fair.

  78. 10-6 and 1 playoff win was a successful season for that lackluster squad. Would have been 9-7 if not for a Hail Mary against Lions.
    Below average wide receivers.
    Zero depth on average o-line.
    Fat RB with no dedication.
    Best defensive player playing out of position half the time.
    Nothing special secondary.
    Below average special teams.
    A hall of fame QB that got the yips do to bad play around him.
    And a coach and GM that believe their QB will just “fix” everything.
    Just getting Jordy back makes that team 9-7 next year. Major upgrades needed all over.

  79. Packers could, and should, have gone for 2 at the end of regulation. Game was in their hands, just needed one good play to win. They CHOSE to leave it to the flip of a coin.

  80. I am a Packer fan and I am fine with the rule. Can’t keep the game going forever. If you score a TD right away in OT you win. How many times are you going to give the ball back to the team that just got scored on? Do you do it a 3rd time if they both score the first 2 times?

    This system is better than college’s because it uses all phases of the game.

  81. Another issue to consider is that the games were back to back. What if that was the early game? Pretend the Cards had a long drive for a td, and then the Florio Fairness Rule allowed another long drive for a td, followed by a couple punts back and forth…. You could wind up having to miss the entire 1st quarter of the late game…..

  82. lp5710 says:
    Jan 17, 2016 9:44 AM
    Packers put up a great fight with a make shift receiving group after losing Cobb, nobody expected to see a game like this, at least the Packers didn’t miss a chip shot field goal, and their running back didn’t fumble at a critical time, imagine if a game could end like that ? , that sure has to hurt ouch!

    It really is hard to admit that your team choked isn’t it? Keep spinning it, so you feel better. Play neck and neck, and lose on a chip shot field goal, or play neck and neck and lose on a defensive breakdown, and not put a body on the best receiver in the playoffs….. So by your account, your team lost with honor, in an acceptable way? Get over it. Your team choked, in epic fashion, and you can’t come to terms with it. Oh wait, the zebras swallowed their flags, your receivers are hurt, your team is too young, the coin flip was botched…… The excuses are endless. Just stop. They choked under pressure, live with it. Maybe you can give Collinsworth a call, and he can console you.

  83. I believe the team on the losing end of a Hail Mary play deserves another chance to score at the end of the game. What do you think? That way it’s fair.

    And spare me “if you want to win, stop them” nonsense. Hail Mary’s aren’t fair.

    This activity is way better than talking about what happened on the field last night.

  84. Defense wins championships!…Don’t give up the touchdown and the game continues….stop crying about your team not having a chance with the ball!….go back to your useless dribble about the Redskins name change

  85. Pack needed to stop the Cards and couldn’t do it. Game over. Congrats Cards. My only gripe with the failed coin toss attempt was an explanation should have been given by the ref before he quickly re-flipped the coin in an apparent attempt to hide his embarrassment. That would have cleared up a lot of the confusion for both teams.

  86. This is buried, dunno if anyone will read it 😦 sd for me.

    If you are of the “if you dont want them to score, stop them” – then lets go all the way with that. 1 drive. if the offense scores, they win. If the defense stops them, they win.

    So if you win the flip and are playing the browns with Manziel, you give them the ball, make them go 3 and out, and you win the game. IF you are playing tom brady, you take the ball, score, and win the game.

  87. Though they are the closest team to where I live (and I live in Texas!), I am not a Cardinals fan (though that can change)…but I am glad they won! Folks complain about the same teams winning the AFC every year (Pats, Steelers, Broncos) but you gotta realize it’s pretty much the same in the NFC (Packers, Seahawks) and hopefully the Panthers beat the most arrogant team in the laegue, the Seahawks (and I’m not a Niners fan, either! Really I have no team, just like football).

  88. “Another caveat to postseason overtime should be added. If the team that wins the toss chooses to kick, the receiving team wins with any score. That’s the way it already should be; the team winning the toss has the chance to possess the ball. If that team chooses not to, anything that happens after that should fair game.”

    Why? This is completely arbitrary and adds nothing to the game. In fact, it removes an element of strategy. Under this rule, you would be better off losing the toss, because you get the ball regardless of what happens on the other team’s first possession, and you get to pick which direction you go.

  89. What’s unfair about it? If you don’t want to lose then stop the other team….. Florio must be the world’s biggest participation trophy enthusiast. Your bleeding heart liberal views are what makes the world so soft.

  90. The people disagreeing with Florio’s point are fans of teams that seldom make the playoffs.
    The main reason that the overtime is not extended to give both teams a possession is because the TV networks don’t want the games to run too far into their following shows or newscasts. The NFL has enough clout through advertising that it could change that, and it will eventually.

  91. A coin flip benefits an offense. There are two impressive offenses, but only one can show it? An offense in overtime can pull out the stops and do things no defense can defend. It’s easy to say “just stop them” OK. Why not make both teams stop it? The winner is determined from a coin flip? From a coin flip?

  92. Nope. A coin toss didn’t decide that game. Busted coverage and a failure to tackle by the Packers lost the game. They left Fitzgerald WIDE open, my 103 year old grandmother would have caught a pass.

  93. I thought the flip went badly, not the process of calling the flip? Why would you have to double check a teams answer to that when it was clearly understood and confirmed? It’s flipping a coin for pete’s sake, not deciding on life altering surgery.

  94. I understand the OT rule cannot allow room for a tie. I hate the argument that we need different rules for the playoffs. Silly. The game is the game. The playoffs heighten the stakes.

  95. Overtime is a like starting a new game at 0-0. If the current OT rules were fair, then it would also be fair to change the rules so that all 1st possession TD drives in the regular season would be game walk-off game winners.

  96. Want to eliminate the coin flip? Do the XFL style race to the ball to begin overtime. Or is that unfair, too, because one team’s players aren’t as fast as the other’s?

    It’s fine how it is.

  97. If you’re going to worry about what’s fair to each team, you’re probably going to argue it all the way to a 15:00 overtime period. I don’t think anybody, other than the networks really want this, but that’ll be the only way to be “fair” to both teams.

  98. They only changed the rules in the first place because their golden boy Favre didn’t win, now you want them changed again because golden boy Rodgers didn’t win? If this happens to Brady next week, it’ll be changed for sure.

  99. The best thing to do is after the game ends in a tie, everybody in the stadium hugs it out. After all, we’re all winners

  100. Blaming any loss on a coin toss is utter nonsense, Florio. Nobody has ever lost a football game because of a coin toss.

  101. Cm’on man. Some of the circular logic being used would make all NFL playoff games unfair Why not best 3 out of 5, or 5 out of 7? One team could cry that they lost 50% of starters. And the BS goes on and on…
    It’s called sudden death for a reason, and somebody gotta draw a line somewhere.

  102. No no no. The current change was good because it eliminated a “cheap” win with the offense getting a few first downs and kicking a FG to win. There was nothing unfair or cheap about Arizona’s win last night.

    BTW, I hate college football OT, wish they would adopt the NFL rule.

  103. Pack fan here. I have no problem with the outcome. They put up a good fight against a much more talented team. They should have realized they Cardinals were better and tried to put them away by going for two. The longer a game goes, the odds get better for the more talented team.

    If anything, treat OT like REAL sudden death. Just continue the 4th quarter without a new coin flip. Turn the clock off (or switch ends after 15:00) and let whoever has the ball keep playing until somebody scores.

    Having said all that, how do you screw up a coin flip? Blakeman must have trained under Phil Luckett.

  104. Yes ……..OT ending with out both teams getting a shot should be addressed but before the NFL starts tweaking any overtime rules they need to first start applying the current rules properly and fairly. Lets work on not having bad calls or no calls effecting the outcome/determining of games. Nothing is worse then watching your team battle for 59 minutes to only have the ref’s blow a call that decides the game. Get it right.

  105. Please spare me the “lets tilt this league even further to the offense by instituting another rule that ignores the defense.” If you want to win, stop ignoring the defense and build one that can stop the other team’s offense.

  106. What if both teams score a TD and extra point? Shouldn’t both teams get a second possession?

    What if both teams score a TD but the second teams goes for 2? Maybe the first team should get to go for a 2-point conversion too?

    And a 15:00 overtime? Clearly favors the team who gets the opening kick.

    There is no “fair” OT rule – but IMHO this one is pretty close while not unnecessarily extending games. Leave it alone.

  107. Go cry packers..you know whats unfair?.. The gift you got in the playoffs last year when Dez clearly caught the ball and took 3 steps then dove with the ball..thats unfair..you want some wine with your cheese head

  108. “Spare me the “if you want to win the game stop them” nonsense. The question of whether a team goes to the next level of the postseason shouldn’t hinge, ultimately, on the outcome of a coin toss.”

    This is the EXACT same argument used for decades when all it took was a field goal to win overtime.

    Nothing will ever make you happy, Florio. Then again, we’re talking to a lawyer, so it should be expected…

  109. jerry944 says:
    Jan 17, 2016 1:18 PM
    Go cry packers..you know whats unfair?.. The gift you got in the playoffs last year when Dez clearly caught the ball and took 3 steps then dove with the ball..thats unfair..you want some wine with your cheese head
    ///////////////////////////////////////

    You’re talking about the correct call over one year ago…….and WE’RE the ones crying?

    Fitzgerald had possession, took some steps, and lost control when he hit the ground. Dez bobbled it the whole time. Big difference.

    It’s time to let it go. As a Packer fan, I don’t really care.

  110. Bring a second ref crew out, start both teams at the 40. No clock, just the first offense to score wins.
    A race to the end zone.

    Or play an entire second game.

    The game has changed a lot in the past 30 years. I’m curious to see if it will have any resemblance to the sport in another 15 years.

  111. touchdownelvis says:
    Jan 17, 2016 8:29 AM
    I’ve never understood why they don’t just use the college overtime rule.

    ——–
    Because the college system is a stupid scrimmage.

    I loved Sudden Death overtime. I tolerate the modified sudden death compromise. But of course, it’s still not good enough for the whiny “fairness police.”

  112. When you get right down to it, the fairest solution is to play another 15 minute period. As has been stated above, under the proposed change, the team that gets the ball 2nd, would have in effect another down to keep a drive going assuming the team that had the ball 1st,scores a TD. Making it a whole 15 minute period removes this advantage.

  113. As far a vikings saints game went if just maybe bounty gate was justified then I’d been happy with results but after they illegally took out farve I am sure the ole beat down body he was using and the concussion he was working didn’t help his decision making skills…but with that being said hey I hate the rules in a game where freak blown plays turn into busted coverage and that one play decides who’s the best team and that isn’t always the best team winning ..I love my vikings but I like watching the best teams play in the play offs in the cardinals game the best team did win but that don’t always happen

  114. There is no stop them and win nonsense. If you did this throughout the game then overtime wouldn’t even be a factor. Simple fact is there is three engines to a football team, offense, defense, and special teams. When one of these engines fail, the team usually loses. That is a football game. To keep giving chances to those that do not score first in overtime pretty much wipes out the point of overtime. If you are going to keep giving the other team chances to score you might as well just add another quarter instead of a sudden death overtime. I personally like it the way it was before. Its simple, stop the coin toss winner, get the ball for your special teams and offense, score and win.
    On another note, if you want to keep giving the losing team another opportunity to score, then you might as well start handing out participation trophies as well…….

  115. Will you guys quit with your man-crush on Rodgers?!?! If this happened to RG III you wouldn’t have an article. You’d completely ignore it.

    Besides, it’s stupid to change the rules any more. The OT rules are meant to provide a way to break a tie, not a way to continue to provide an opportunity to see which team is better. After 60 minutes, that question is moot. Just break the damn tie. The way it is now does that.

  116. Somebody explain to me why so many people think it’s fair that one team has to play both offense and defense to win and the other team only has to play offense to win.

  117. We all know everyone would be jumping on Florio’s bandwagon and crying foul if the Packers had won the coin toss and scored a touchdown on their first possession.

  118. First the rule should go back to sudden death. This is not college football. Second I am a Packer fan. Third we are not Vikings fans so quit whining fellow Packer fans. Fourth I doubt McCarthy plays for overtime EVER again. Finally last nights game is why the Packers are always in the playoffs and have lots of fans. They ALWAYS provide an entertaining game.

  119. Vikings Trolls How Many Super Bowls Have You seen Your Team Win???? says:
    Jan 17, 2016 11:35 AM
    Common sense says that if you have to re-flip the coin, the team calling it should also have to re-call their selection. Especially when the coin is flipped with the opposite side up the 2nd time.
    _____________________________________________

    No it doesn’t. Its a 50-50 proposition which side it lands on. You’re just crying over spilled milk to think the side the coin is on would really determine the outcome that much. If it had landed on heads, would Rodgers be whining he didn’t get to suddenly change it to tails? I’d bet not..

  120. The Packers are 0-7 in overtime, they should have gone for two after their last touchdown in regulation–they’d have had a better shot, apparently the coin flip gods hate them. As for overtime, I think it should be a full quarter (or whatever amount of time the NFL decides–5, 10, 15 minutes). If you want to win, and you lose the coin toss, you still better stop your opponents to get the ball; but, at least, you’d get a chance even if they score a TD.

  121. Florio, you usually go to great lengths to explain your opinions, fleshing them out in a way that, even when we disagree, we “get” it. But this just comes off as a gut reaction, and honestly, if you think about it long enough, you have to agree it’s at the very least emotional and not logical. You’re doing what the NFL has been trying to do for the last couple of decades and reduce defense to a sideshow to the main attraction; big play offenses. By saying you think the idea of “if you want to win stop them” doesn’t apply, you’re feeding the beast of unfairness the league has been building. The rules already HEAVILY favor offenses over defenses; do you REALLY want it to continue moving in that direction?

    If you want to beat them, stop them. That applies to how the league is slowly but surely tipping the balance of the game, too.

  122. Do love the continuing illogical conspiracy mongering with no statistical basis that football fans fall for with the coin toss was the difference. The article doesn’t present one valid reason that Green Bay deserved the ball back when their TEAM defense allowed the opponent to go 100 yards for a TD. The logic seems to be to stir up Packer fan into thinking he was cheated out of victory by the rules that both teams have to play under. Next time Packers should try to actually not leave Fitzgerald completely wide open and make an 80 YAC play.

  123. As a Packer fan, I have absolutely no problem with the rule, nor with the coin flip last night. Actually, when they lost the coin toss, I looked at it from the perspective of “hold them to a field goal, and you have the instant advantage of always being in four-down territory,” which the Packers seem to do better at. As rugolin mentioned though, I have a huge problem with the Packers’ defense leaving the only person on the field who had really hurt them all game long all by himself, no matter much it seemed that they might get to Palmer. Fitzgerald was the one player they could not let beat them, and they left him all alone. All in all, a much more competitive game than I expected.

  124. So Mr. Florio……so let me see if I got this right. You want the team who gets the ball first to abide by the standard rules of having 3 downs to get a 1st or punt, whereas if they score, the other team “trying to respond” with their own score has the ability to use all 4 downs to get a first to continue to score. YEAH THAT SEEMS FAIR to the team who scored without using 4 downs to drive all the way down.

  125. O no could never do the college OT..it would seriously mess up the record books..you could easily have a qb throw 3 or 4 extra TDs in OT..thats just stupid..its fine how it is..i could only see 2 fan bases crying about this or anything in general because thats all they do it cry..and thats packers fans and colts fans

  126. For those who think the ot format is just fine, you are foolish. In a league where the game is called to protect the offenses and rules are implemented or adjusted to put those offenses in more favorable situations, saying that winning a coin toss doesn’t give you an advantage in the extra time is just silly. It does. Fact. Each team gets one possession with sudden death following that is balanced. Simple as that. It would be nice that a league with a more convoluted set of rules than the IRS tax code makes at least one thing easier to understand.

  127. It is fair..it used to be 1st score wins..nfl changed it to the format it is now to make it fair..those who think its unfair also agree with participation trophies

  128. Umm… What? Firstly, the participation trophy remark makes little sense – nobody is advocating that games fail to end in a recognized winner. Maybe that was an attempt at a joke – fail either way. Next, the league went from an ot system that was clearly ridiculous and took a half measure to fix it. The time has come to go all the way. Previously, if the NFL didn’t acknowledge an issue they wouldn’t have made an adjustment to the format in the first place. Simply put: they, in their typical conservative manner, lacked the conviction to totally rectify the problem. Finally, it is a league where offense is the primary focus. That being the case, it is simple logic to proceed under the notion that both offensive units should have at least one possession out of equity.

  129. Florio, the stats show that there is not much a statistical advantage to getting the ball first in overtime. Belichek understands that, at is why he chose to defer earlier in the year. The rules are fine the way they are.

  130. Football goes on way too long with all of the commercial breaks already! If the game gets to OT, honestly, it needs to just end ASAP. I don’t want some score/score/score/score over and over and over again like in college. I hate that!

  131. Under your proposed rules then it is advantageous to lose the coin toss, because then you will know if you have to go for it on every fourth down you encounter on your possession if the opposition scores a TD on their opening drive. To me that seems unfair. Keep the rules as they are.

  132. Whaaaaaaaaaa!

    Thank goodness football is not like baseball. Screw symmetry.

    The Cheese Packers just needed to play defense – they committed a significant error just like the Cardinals did at the end of regulation – there is your symmetry.

    F to you Cheese Packers fans – you know your QB is a fraud when he can’t run a basic offense without resorting to getting free yards off of penalties. I’ve lost all respect for this horrific team and their gimmick offense. When it comes to playing on equal turf, this Green Bay team is nothing but whiners with a dirty player called Dirt Matthews.

  133. Mike, you’re making this an offensive game only. Lose the toss or defer and the defense “plays” first. They are as much about winning the game as the offense. Don’t want the score, shut them down. Same as the original 60 minutes. Don’t pretend it is a showcase for how high a pair of offenses can go.

  134. Here’s a tip, win the game in regulation or at least have your defense stop the other team. Giving up a TD on 3 or 4 plays from the 20 yd line, you deserve to lose not another chance to win. Whiny Rogers and Packer fans need to stop complaining.

  135. Mike,
    I believe your right. it all should be fair. Now it is not. in a normal game both teams get a shot at the ball. both teams get to go both ways on the field. then there are some teams that have a better Offence than Defense and they may be at a disadvantage in a “touchdown you win” game.

  136. In truth, baseball has it right. Basketball is next, but what’s with the 5 minute period? Why not a full 12? The NHL goes with a short 5 minute sudden death and then a “skills” competition that might as well be a bowling. Personally, I prefer the sudden death for 20 minutes and additional periods until a winner is decided. A winner takes all and none of this lose in overtime or a shoot out and you get more points than if you lose in regulation. You still lose!

    As for the NFL, the current rules seem ludicrous. And it’s even more absurd to allow a ref to determine whether a coin toss is good or not where two different refs could make different decisions with the same set of facts. And there is no rational basis for allowing the opposition to get an opportunity to have the ball if the first to score only kicked a field goal instead of scoring a TD. The only thing that can be said is that both teams know the rules ahead of time. The same can’t be said of the coin toss.

  137. I could support this change.
    One other I advocate is to keep the two challenges rule throughout the game and OT, and also stipulate that if you win a challenge, you keep that option to challenge again. You only lose an opportunity to challenge if you lose one. It is not fair to propose having three incorrect calls, and the ability to rectify only the first two. Really.

  138. Eliminate the coin flip. Home team kicks off and defends to start the game. Visiting team kicks off and defends to start the second half. If a team ties the game with a placekick (Field goal or extra point), they kickoff and defend for overtime. If they tied it with a two-point conversion or a safety, they receive.

    Quit crying, Aaron. There was no need to have overtime. You crybabies could have decided the outcome from the 2yd-line with the ball in your hands. What more could you want? Go for two next time.

  139. If we start talking about changing other rules I would like to change some others.
    If a penalty happens on a change of possession, the penalty yardage should be tacked onto the normal 1st & 10 yds. so it might be 1st and 20. Why should the receiving team get a “free” ride. If it happens on a normal the yards get tacked on.
    There are so many others.
    Maybe the NFL should relook at all the rules top to bottom and simplify the Rule book down to ten pages. That in itself would make things more fair and easer to ref.

  140. How was the coin toss messed up? There is no rule that says it must flip to count. The packers actually had two chances to win the toss. But because they lost in ot we must now change the rules? Whiny babies. Play defense next time.

  141. Mike’s point is spot on here. In a sport with two distinctive & separate units of players (offense & defense), it just seems wrong that both units of a team don’t have a say in the outcome of the game.

    My solution for playoff games: Each team gets an offensive possession. Winner of the coin toss elects to play offense or defense first. I would not use a kickoff and possession begins at the offensive team’s 20-yard line. Whether or not the team on offense scores, the other team’s offensive possession will also being at their own 20 (thus eliminating punting the ball as an option). The game moves to a sudden death format if the game is still tied (i.e. each team scores a touchdown, field goal, or neither team scores).

  142. Another caveat to postseason overtime should be added. If the team that wins the toss chooses to kick, the receiving team wins with any score. That’s the way it already should be; the team winning the toss has the chance to possess the ball. If that team chooses not to, anything that happens after that should fair game.
    ______

    Why should the team winning the coin flip be put at a disadvantage? If the team getting the ball first scores, the other team gets a huge advantage by being able to go for it on fourth down. The second team gets four downs to get a first down but the first team only gets three.

  143. It’s funny, after that Vikings-Saints game, I didn’t hear any Packer fans saying the OT rules should be changed. Now that the rules have been changed considerably, Packer fans want it to go even further. I guess my feeling is that, if you can’t stop a team from driving 80 yards in three plays to score a touchdown with the season on the line, maybe you don’t deserve to win.

  144. I think the system is fine the way it is. As others have stated, Florio’s suggestion is full of problems worse than the current system. IF they went to that system I’d be praying to lose every coin flip, not only do you likely end up with better field position if your defense stops them, but if they don’t you get an extra down to go 10 yards on every set of downs.

    If there is to be a change to the system, the only one that makes sense is to play another quarter, and that would be for PLAYOFFS ONLY. Noone would complain about player safety as all those players would gladly risk another quarter of football for the chance to win the game and take another step toward the superbowl. The can delay the kickoff of the second game if necessary to avoid losing viewers or viewers missing game play.

    Again, that rule would only make sense for Playoffs, current system to stay in effect for regular season.

  145. OT rules were changed to create a more equitable OT. Pack could have allowed a FG and still had their chance. Fact of the matter is they allowed an 80 yard scoring drive in 3 plays. Want to know what really sucks? When the rules are changed the season after your team loses the championship game in OT by sudden death field goal. Those are sour grapes for you.

  146. The overtime rules were never balanced when an instant field goal won the game, just as they’re not balanced when an instant TD wins the game. If they were, all games in the regular season would be played this way.

    It’s a team game, not a half a team vs the other half team game. Just like in every other game, overtime should involve the offenses and defenses of both teams, not just half the team.

  147. You’d quite literally need to be an unthinking slave to the bandwagon effect to not want overtime to be balanced.

    A balanced overtime is as essential as a balanced start to any NFL game; especially in the playoffs.

  148. Normally not one for comments, but found something kind of interesting. Given I was in the minority, apparently, that the old rules weren’t broken or unfair to begin with, I decided to actually look into how accurate it is to think winning the coin toss under the old rules basically earned you the win in OT.

    Admittedly a limited sampling size, but in 2010 and 2011 – the last years of the old system – teams that won the coin toss and got the ball first were 15 – 23. They had a losing record… And of those 38 OT games in those two years, they were only won on the opening possession of OT 15.8% of the time.

    Comparatively, the last two years of the new syste saw teams that won the coin toss and got first possession go 19 – 13. And of those 32 OT games, scores on the opening possession won the game 43.8% of the time.

    Of course, this statistical correlation does not equal causation, obviously. But it backs my theory that it’s always been a li’l more complicated than just winning the coin toss and getting the ball first. Football has three phases, not one.

    So, while I agree fully that it would be more entertaining (for me at least) to see an entire extra period played, only going to sudden death if it’s still tied at the end of it (which is how I personally feel postseason OT should be, purely for entertainment purposes), I do have a really, really hard time figuring out how either the old system OR this new one are “unfair.” It’s plenty fair. Green Bay has a defense too. It’s not the system’s fault that they gave up a 75 yard catch and run.

  149. Sorry Florio, you’re wrong on this. Your stance reeks too much of a “participation trophy” mindset.

    Here’s a thought: maybe next time play some defense and don’t leave the opponent’s best WR open for a 75-yard pass play in OT.

    The rule is just fine the way it is now.

  150. Okay, I was seriously not going to read/address ANYMORE comments on this subject, but when I listened to the Monday “talking heads” (I know, BIG mistake) I just had to say something. Several actually said, and I am paraphrasing, but they didn’t back away once when asked to clarify: “you just have to give both teams the chance to have the ball. When you see a qb of AR’s stature, sitting on the sidelines and NEVER getting the ball, it’s just criminal!” Okay, so, if it were any of the other say, 28 QBs out there, they wouldn’t care, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion, right??? That is the MOST DISRESPECTFUL thing, really, really, really!!!!!!
    I cannot tell you how glad I am that GB did not win that game for so many reasons. And no, not because I am a Vikings fan, believe it or not. Because I am so tired of how the media kisses the asses of certain teams and their QBs, that’s WHY!!! DO NOT TELL ME THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!

  151. Here’s the difference between the Vikings-Saints and the Cards-Packers. In the Saints game, they got a decent play, and a “lucky” PI call. They then half-a…played a few more plays to just kick the field goal.

    The Cards-Packers game was played full fledged until the end.

    2009 – two mediocre plays = win
    2016 – two great plays = win

  152. How many big games did the Saints lose over the years because of the pre-2011 overtime rules? More than a handful to my memory. But, whoaaa, let the Saints win a game in the same fashion and suddenly IT’S A MAJOR PROBLEM. NFL is run by biased clowns.

  153. It is such an illogical argument. Games all come down to opportunities. Some team will get the last touchdown and the game will end without the other team getting another opportunity. That is the nature of having a clock for goodness sake. To suggest that overtime is going to somehow be different is silly. Does that mean other systems couldn’t improve upon the situation? Perhaps, but they all come with their own set of advantages and disadvantages. But, we tend to ignore them when focusing on the one thing we don’t like.

  154. So if the Cardinals (Palmer) had thrown a pick 6 or fumbled and returned for a touchdown, the Packers would have won. This discussion would not happen even though the “great” Aaron Rodgers would have been sitting on the sidelines and never touching the ball.

  155. For those of you who advocate the status quo, I would say to ponder for a moment the following: the last offensive play of the season for the Green Bay Packers resulted in a hail mary game tying TD with the ensuing point after….and yet they lost!

    What other sport does scoring result in losing the game without having recourse to at least attempt to score again based on archaic OT rules…the current OT rules for Football are completely arbitrary and look ridiculous to the outside casual observer.

  156. Something tells me if the Packers had won the way the Cardinals had won, there would be a bunch of butt hurt whiney jerks wanting OT to be two possessions. Just to have a chance to beat the Pack and their fans, who dont have anything else to do other than cheer on the Packers.

    And the fans follow what team?

    They wear purple and urine.

  157. Let’s just have every team get a Super Bowl trophy, we’ll hand out the 32 SB trophies at the end of the season. I’d hate for anyone’s feelings to get hurt.

    Stupidest idea yet, Florio.

    The NFL lasted 75 years without overtime changes, but I guess Florio and Jerrah Jones know what is best for the league.

  158. The packers defense can’t stop a team from scoring a TD in OT so now we have to change the OT rules.

  159. If both teams got a possession no matter what, nearly 100% of the time teams would defer, because suddenly it becomes a real strategic advantage (because you’ll know if you should go for every 4th down, etc). The only exception would be extreme winds.

    So what’s wrong with playing defense? What is so wrong about expecting a team to hold the opponent out of the end zone? Thee rules are fine. Defense and special teams are part of the game too.

Leave a Reply