Skip to content

It’s time to fix the overtime rule (and not by chopping it to 10 minutes)

Getty Images

As the league’s owners gather in Arizona to consider potential rule changes, one proposal that will soon be on the table would reduce overtime in the regular season for 15 minutes to 10.

Here’s some free advice for the owners (money-back guarantee): Don’t do it.

It definitely will result in more ties, and that’s the last thing fans want. Yes, it’s important to reduce the total number of snaps, and a 10-minute overtime would do that. But an uptick in ties will be good for no one.

Fans (and coaches and players) want resolution. Investing more than 3.5 hours and ending up with an 0-0-1 on the regular-season record of two teams won’t provide it.

So here’s the proposal that the owners should adopt, in a nutshell: A two-point conversion contest.

One offense and defense goes to one end of the field, and the other offense and defense go to the other end of the field. A two-point conversion attempt occurs at each end of the field, three times per team, with either two points or zero points being scored. To keep things moving along, the snaps occur 25 seconds apart. (The officiating crew would be split, with four on one end of the field and four on the other end.)

If the game is tied after each team has three chances to score, the teams go back and forth, one chance each, until there’s no tie after both teams have had their chance to score.

It would be exciting, frenetic, compelling, and it would involve as few as six extra snaps. And we’ve yet to hear a good argument against it.

Permalink 160 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories
160 Responses to “It’s time to fix the overtime rule (and not by chopping it to 10 minutes)”
  1. nsawins says: Mar 28, 2017 11:39 AM

    Are you kidding me???????? That’s what mickey mouse leagues do. Not the top football league in the world. Give me a break.

  2. seabrawk12 says: Mar 28, 2017 11:40 AM

    I’d be okay with this.

  3. omegalh says: Mar 28, 2017 11:40 AM

    I have no issues with ties.

  4. thegronk87 says: Mar 28, 2017 11:41 AM

    So the pats win the super bowl in OT and now everyone wants to change the rules. What’s next? The owners pass a rule that Tom Brady can’t play football anymore?

  5. kenmasters34 says: Mar 28, 2017 11:41 AM

    How about the NFL fix the Overtime Rules by…. leaving them alone.

    Its fine the way it is. If your Defense cant stop the other team from scoring a TD… too bad.

  6. benh999 says: Mar 28, 2017 11:42 AM

    Holy hell, that sounds like a moronic circus.

  7. sellingadream says: Mar 28, 2017 11:42 AM

    Ugh. Sudden Death Overtime is the most exciting clocked moments in all of sports. Don’t turn it into a middle school yard game.

  8. ee00ee says: Mar 28, 2017 11:42 AM

    I have to say, I LOVE THIS IDEA!!

    This really would be an exciting and equitable way to settle a tie. The problem is it makes entirely too much sense to be embraced by the league.

  9. Della Street says: Mar 28, 2017 11:42 AM

    In my best Michael Scott voice, “No….No, God, NOOOO!”

  10. harrisonhits2 says: Mar 28, 2017 11:43 AM

    There was never anything to fix in the first place. Sudden death was fine and almost always exciting.

    You lose the toss and want the ball? Stop the other team, period.

  11. mbg8977 says: Mar 28, 2017 11:44 AM

    This is the stupidest thing I’ve heard today.

  12. dchetz says: Mar 28, 2017 11:44 AM

    … exciting, frenetic, compelling… and horribly officiated! (with only 4 on each side.)

    yeah… that won’t be frustrating at all.

  13. cacheesehead1237 says: Mar 28, 2017 11:45 AM

    While interesting, that idea just doesn’t work. It focus’ on smash mouth football. The game today is a passing league. This idea punishes teams that have an offense built on the mid range to deep passing game.

    How about just going the college route.

  14. winningisabrees says: Mar 28, 2017 11:46 AM

    WAYYYYYYYYYYY

  15. kevinlawrencecantor says: Mar 28, 2017 11:46 AM

    A two point conversion contest is not football. And that’s more dangerous. You’re talking about every play being an an all-out blitz and/or goal line defense. The likelihood of injury is strong.

    It’s clear field goals are a bug a boo for Roger Goodell, so how about we take them out of the equation. First touchdown wins. Period.

    10 minute overtime frame. If the team that gets the kickoff ends up 4th and 3 on the 30, they can either choose to go for it or punt. A field goal does nothing.

    I think this would lead to a more exciting conclusion to the game, and if it ends in a tie tough luck.

  16. evrybdyhas1 says: Mar 28, 2017 11:48 AM

    Wow I completely disagree. Teams play for a tie and the chance to go into overtime because it is there. Get rid of overtime altogether in the regular season or make it simply another timed period without the sudden death or possession rules. Limit it to ten minutes and at the end, it is the end, no gimmicks, just football and yes in the regular season there will be ties.

  17. malgorthewarrior says: Mar 28, 2017 11:49 AM

    yes, let’s play a game of football for 3.5 hours then settle it with a skills contest.

    why not just have a punt, pass, kick contest to settle it?

  18. redsoxu571 says: Mar 28, 2017 11:49 AM

    Here’s a good argument against it: wins are too precious in the NFL to leave to a gimmick.

    The fundamental assumption of this article is that fans don’t want to see ties. I think fans want a gimmicky tiebreaker (e.g. a FG contest) even less. If the NFL decides it doesn’t want to deal with the additional snaps of an overtime anymore, let’s just do away with overtime entirely and go with ties. If ties become commonplace, fans would probably stop hating them so much, and at least a team won’t be handed a HUGE loss on a razor’s margin after playing the other team to a deadlock. It would be far from ideal, but at least it wouldn’t be shoving a loss down a team’s throat.

    Beyond that fact, imagine the controversy of constant “scoring” plays. There would be so many disputed penalties or non-calls, it would make our heads spin. No thanks.

  19. billymutt says: Mar 28, 2017 11:49 AM

    No. Please, not this. Ever.

  20. touchdownelvis says: Mar 28, 2017 11:51 AM

    What if there’s a strong wind? Makes it unfair again. Obviously.

  21. justbegbaby says: Mar 28, 2017 11:51 AM

    Way too gimmicky. Give each team one guaranteed posession. Following that, who ever takes the lead first, wins. Let them play 15 minutes if needed. After 4 quarters of evenly contesteD play, don’t turn OT into a Clown Show.

  22. Packernet says: Mar 28, 2017 11:52 AM

    I’d rather see a five on five or something if you are going to turn it into a circus.

  23. jag1959 says: Mar 28, 2017 11:54 AM

    Seven officials can’t seem to properly police 22 players but somehow 4 are going to manage it adequately with the game on the line down where things get tight?

    BTW, you still haven’t heard a good argument against it but you have now heard a great one.

  24. bigdogsolec says: Mar 28, 2017 11:54 AM

    uhhhmmm most fans only have 2 eyes , what end of the field are we supposed to watch “the offenceive end , the defenceive end”? think alot of people will be cross eyed at the end

  25. panteracfh3 says: Mar 28, 2017 11:54 AM

    This is essentially what the NHL did with the shootout by making it a skills competition. Why not have the NFL play 7 on 7 in overtime? Why not 5 on 5?

    Either that or keep everything the same and tell your defense to stop the other team…

  26. uppacker says: Mar 28, 2017 11:54 AM

    Guess why soccer sucks. (0-0)

  27. kickinpuppies says: Mar 28, 2017 11:55 AM

    I think we should have the owners do a decathlon like they did in revenge of the nerds.

  28. whatwouldlombardido says: Mar 28, 2017 11:56 AM

    Dumbest. Idea. Ever.

  29. bigdaddy44 says: Mar 28, 2017 11:56 AM

    Sounds more like XFL than NFL. Maybe they could chip the balls so they flash color across the screen like the NHL tried. Or they could have the cheerleaders come out and armwrestle to break the tie. Or maybe we should just let adults who have played or coached this game make decisions instead. Leave the pencil necks out.

  30. justchuckn says: Mar 28, 2017 11:57 AM

    Honestly just do college overtime rules

  31. jefbob says: Mar 28, 2017 11:57 AM

    With this idea if the game is still tied after 3 chances, it’s time to have each teams defense score on the other teams offense with the middle linebacker talking snaps.

  32. monkeesfan says: Mar 28, 2017 11:58 AM

    No. Leave it alone.

  33. steelmn says: Mar 28, 2017 11:59 AM

    There are a few reasons this proposal would not run as smoothly as you think it would.
    1. Officiating. There will inevitably be plenty of penalties which will require game stoppage to explain the penalty to the stadium crowd. This will delay and gum up the whole process.
    2. Turnovers. What happens when there is a fumble or INT? The other team obviously can’t return the turnover.
    3. Whistles. When the officials at one end blow their whistles for penalties, stoppage, etc…. it will be heard at the other end of the field and cause confusion.

  34. champs794 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:00 PM

    Why not a dance off or pickup basketball game? Why not use fantasy points to break the tie?

    No sense in playing actual football…

  35. dcpatfan says: Mar 28, 2017 12:02 PM

    so…. The Greatest Sporting Franchise in History, The New England Patriots, win a toss and plant the dagger and a rule change is forthcoming???

    same as it ever was.

  36. arzcardinals says: Mar 28, 2017 12:02 PM

    USE THE COLLEGE SYSTEM!

  37. richmondbolt says: Mar 28, 2017 12:03 PM

    Werst idea everrr.

  38. tndiver says: Mar 28, 2017 12:03 PM

    So both teams will have their team on each end of the field. Here is your big problem, what happens if the offense fumbles or throws a pick that can be returned. How does that work? Stupid idea.

    How about if you score a TD you have to go for two in overtime. Otherwise I think it is fine

  39. pftreader69 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:06 PM

    “Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target.”

    What a lame XFL-ish idea. Not exciting at all. If I wanted to see a shootout I’d go watch NHL. Leave OT alone, reduce commercials and flag time which will improve overall game length. If you don’t want to lose, stop the offense.

    And for gods sake, don’t make OT rules even more convoluted. It’s already embarrassing enough that I have to draw a freakin diagram to explain it to my kids.

  40. FinFan68 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:08 PM

    The officials have a hard enough time detecting blatant infractions with a full crew covering the field and your master plan is to have them do it wit HALF while the game is definitely on the line? Seriously? Think harder because that idea is worse than the 10 minute plan.

    Scrap the 10 minute idea also. If each team must get a possession to be fair then do this…

    Eliminate the coin toss. The last team to score kicks off. That allows a spent defense a couple minutes of rest before being thrown back into the fire. Everything else remains the same.

    Someone should tell the league that every time a referee says “replay ___ down” an extra play is run. And while you are at it, tell the coaches and players that if they do not commit penalties there will be less flags, less snaps and faster games.

  41. roberteddy says: Mar 28, 2017 12:08 PM

    I love how everything is fine until the Patriots exploit something to their advantage. Then we get headlines like: “It’s time to fix the overtime rule.”

    The next thing we’ll hear is that the same team can’t play in back-to-back Superbowls because that would be unfair.

  42. fwippel says: Mar 28, 2017 12:08 PM

    This is either a weak attempt at sarcasm, or a VERY bad idea.

  43. lscottman3 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:09 PM

    Why not as Belichick what to do and get it right from the beginning

  44. MichaelEdits says: Mar 28, 2017 12:09 PM

    Replace the coin toss with an XFL-style scramble for the ball, and make the coaches do it.

  45. selldannysell says: Mar 28, 2017 12:10 PM

    Why can’t they do it like college, give the ball to each team on the opposition’s 30-yard line and have them try to score in a “shootout”-type setting? That would eliminate ties altogether and guarantee a “resolution.”

  46. brianh992 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:10 PM

    God is this dumb. Ncaa style and be done with it. Grown millionaires can’t figure this out? Smh.

  47. billsfan25 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:10 PM

    Can’t believe I just read this.

  48. briandorry55 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:11 PM

    Sounded like a good idea until you talked about both sides playing at the same time. How the hell is a head coach supposed to keep track of that?

  49. ballistictrajectory says: Mar 28, 2017 12:11 PM

    panteracfh3 has the right idea…

    This smells a lot like the NHL’s “solution” to ties. It stinks.

    The three on three 5 minute OT, however… Great!

    Let the NFL figure out how to reduce the number of players and let them go a full period. Most points is the winner. Then let them kick field goals from progressively longer distances if there’s still a tie.

  50. briandorry55 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:12 PM

    Really hard to understand why it is so complicated to see that the college system is fantastic. The NFL could find ways to modify it. Maybe start at the 50 yard line instead of the 25…force teams to attempt 2pt conversions from the first possession…

  51. 1590t says: Mar 28, 2017 12:14 PM

    OMG!

    This has got to be one of the most ridiculous suggestions I have heard in regards to overtime.

    This is nothing more than a “re-packaging” of the NHL shootout rule and the NHL is looking to get rid of it as hardcore fans no longer see anything positive with this “gimmick” ending to a hard fought contest.

  52. otheirony says: Mar 28, 2017 12:14 PM

    I actually believe overtime should be a set amount of time, I’m good with 15 minutes, and you play until the clock reads zeroes. If it’s a tie, it’s a tie. Big deal.

    FG or playoff games, if tied after 15, you play a 10 minute session. But the clock, not who scores first, ends the game.

    As it should be.

  53. rob471773 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:14 PM

    What a hokey stupid idea.

    There is nothing wrong with overtime as is. It’s a great improvement over the old “sudden death/FG wins it” format.

    Just because the Atlanta defense was out of shape and the Falcons as a whole got out-played and out-coached when it mattered the most, doesn’t mean we need a knee-jerk rule change.

  54. buckswig says: Mar 28, 2017 12:15 PM

    I’ve been reading your stuff a long time, Florio, and this is the very first time I’ve thought, “he’s out of his mind.”

  55. reddzen says: Mar 28, 2017 12:15 PM

    Hey Florio – you got me on this one. I kinda like it 🙂

  56. goooooobrowns says: Mar 28, 2017 12:16 PM

    I vote for pants-off dance-off!

  57. briguy5 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:16 PM

    Here’s a good argument against it:

    That’s one of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever heard.

  58. pauldeba says: Mar 28, 2017 12:17 PM

    I say no point afters

    and the team to possess the ball 2nd can not go for it on 4th down, unless the first team did, and the same number of times.

    If neither team scores after one possession, 2 point conversion based on a coin flip, winner chooses defense or offense

  59. veddermn8 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:18 PM

    2pt conversion contest? ugh. Ask Hockey how fun shootouts are now. So you play 60minutes of football with one set of rules and then abruptly change them (and the length of the field) at the end of regulation to determine who is the better team that day at regulation football?

    Why do some pro sports leagues like to take a well fought game under one set of rules and determine a winner by having the teams play a related but significantly altered version of the same game to determine a winner? Why not have an 40 race or a punt pass and kick contest? If a playoff game ever was decided like this it would be a travesty.

  60. finsrule2222 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:18 PM

    I don’t think I could come up with a worse idea if you gave me all of eternity to think of one.

  61. TheDPR says: Mar 28, 2017 12:18 PM

    This idea is right up there with a Zoolander style walk off competition. That Hansel, he’s so hot right now!

    Overtime isn’t broken. There is no need to fix it.

  62. peytonwantsaflag says: Mar 28, 2017 12:20 PM

    what? seriously?

    yeah cause going to a Pop Warner practice game and trying to keep up with the action on both sides of the field is so much fun.

  63. bullcharger says: Mar 28, 2017 12:20 PM

    That is a terrible idea.

    I actually like it as is. I always thought first team to 6 points would be good too.

  64. mrdarkness13 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:21 PM

    How bout we go old skool 15 minutes quarters and duke it out? Ya know like the 71 playoffs with 2 OTs (Dolphins vs Chiefs).

  65. harryglyphics says: Mar 28, 2017 12:21 PM

    I can’t believe that no one is offering a very simple solution:
    Team X kicks off. Team Z gets ball. No matter WHAT they do (score, fumble, int.,) the minute Team X gets to touch the ball, from THAT point on it’s Sudden Death.

    Simple

  66. skinsdiehard says: Mar 28, 2017 12:21 PM

    It’s a hockey shootout. If you are basing it on that, then still play the 10 minutes first, just as hockey plays a 5-minute overtime. Then, it goes to the shootout portion. Thus, then go to your 2-point shootout.

  67. adjwar says: Mar 28, 2017 12:22 PM

    Have officials only be able to call two penalties in overtime. Off sides and delay of game.

  68. meadowlandssports says: Mar 28, 2017 12:26 PM

    There have been exactly 9 ties in the last *20* seasons. Why is it now a problem? Just leave OT alone.

  69. charger383 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:26 PM

    Just play full extra quarter, reward team in best shape

  70. weepingjebus says: Mar 28, 2017 12:27 PM

    Things are already a mess due to constant meddling. Peyton couldn’t win on the road if anyone was mean to his WRs so the league had to free up the passing rules. And now you’re upset that defense can’t stop drives anymore. So we need to go to soccer rules? At this point it is duct tape on top of duct tape.

  71. crik911 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:27 PM

    I am not a fan.

    3 phases to the game, one of the reasons why I love this game so damn much.

    If you want the ball back in OT? Play defense. Win the toss? Go and score.

  72. boobsmcgoo says: Mar 28, 2017 12:27 PM

    This is a dumb idea. College system is also a dumb idea. I’ve got two better ideas. 1. Leave it alone. 2. Go back to sudden death.

  73. friedmike says: Mar 28, 2017 12:28 PM

    Player safety? Is this a joke? If you are trying to reduce snaps, eliminate a pre season game or expand active rosters by a few slots. Bill Polian floated this stupid 10 minute rule just like he spews revisionist history every time someone puts a camera on him. League and owners need to ignore worthless proposals. Focus on getting replay right first.

  74. halfcentaur says: Mar 28, 2017 12:28 PM

    If you can’t stop a team from driving the entire length of the field on the very first drive, then YOU DON’T DESERVE TO WIN. This entitlement of “wah we both deserve the ball even if we can’t make a stop and get it ourselves” thing is bogus. I had money on the Falcons, i lost it because they didn’t get a chance to score, but i’m not sitting here crying about the rule. They couldn’t make a stop on one single play, they didn’t deserve to win. If you can’t get the ball on your own merit, then you lose. If you can’t win in the first 60 minutes, then too bad. Make a stop.

    Handing teams opportunities on a silver platter that they can’t otherwise earn on their own cheapens the game. This isn’t about being fair to everyone, it’s about competition. Either get the ball and don’t give it back, or make a stop and take it. If you can’t do either of those things, YOU LOSE.

    Simple as that.

  75. wcman says: Mar 28, 2017 12:32 PM

    Why don’t we just put nicknames on players jerseys and call it the XFL while we’re at it? The league has already diminished itself with some of the changes it’s made. This one would be ridiculous.

  76. pau49ers says: Mar 28, 2017 12:32 PM

    That idea is almost as bad as having a field goal kicking contest and make it a shoot out.

  77. burndownhottopic says: Mar 28, 2017 12:32 PM

    The league & you guys are really trying to solve problems we didn’t even know we had. Other than the Bengals (and maybe one more rando game) each year, ties are really no sweat. Play the 15 minute period. First score wins. That’s it. Sudden death.

  78. RegisHawk says: Mar 28, 2017 12:32 PM

    Fix it back to sudden death or nothing.

  79. kane337 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:34 PM

    This idea would be as good as having a FG kicking contest for overtime.

  80. johnjackguy says: Mar 28, 2017 12:34 PM

    Well that is a stupid idea.

  81. honalulublue says: Mar 28, 2017 12:39 PM

    The current format is fine. If they shorten it, that’s fine too. This a football game, there are winners, losers and yes, ties.
    The outcome should be decided by actually playing the game. Anything less is just stupid.

  82. Bob says: Mar 28, 2017 12:42 PM

    “And we’ve yet to hear a good argument against it.”

    Then you’re purposely not listening. It’s a gimmick. It’s as bad as college OT, and college OT sucks because it’s not a regular part of the game.

    Go back to the old 15-minute, sudden-death OT. Just because “everything in life must be fair” snowflakes like Peter King think everyone should have a chance to have the ball doesn’t mean it has to be done. They allowed you to play defense in sudden death. Stop someone.

  83. jbraider says: Mar 28, 2017 12:42 PM

    I strongly favor the old sudden death rules. All this “we have to let both teams have a chance to possess the ball” is all nothing mode than subsidizing teams that don’t play good defense. But if you don’t want players taking all the extra hits (a very valid concern) then either call it a tie (I think the level of public disdain for ties is way overstated) or just flip a coin to see who wins the game

    I say it again – if your team didn’t score more points in regulation than their opponent, then they haven’t earned diddly squat. Don’t come crying to me about what is fair

  84. ihavenoeyedeer says: Mar 28, 2017 12:43 PM

    I think it’s fine the way it is.

    To say that the winner of the coin toss has the advantage is hogwash. The defense is just as much part of the game as the offense and special teams.

    If the winner of the coin toss scores a TD then they deserve to win.

  85. grayone77 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:44 PM

    What’s your back up plan? A freaking dance-off? Maybe a talent show? Academic decathlon a la Billy Madison?
    (Actually that last idea sounds like it could be fun)

  86. joebaronich says: Mar 28, 2017 12:48 PM

    And to add to the frenzy cheerleaders from both teams will go to the 50 yard line and fight to the death!

  87. somehomer says: Mar 28, 2017 12:53 PM

    Can we change all rules every year ?
    We could have a mail in contest ?
    Maybe a rule that rules change ?

  88. dwarftosser says: Mar 28, 2017 12:53 PM

    This is a terrible idea. College OT sucks, and this is even worse. Stop trying to ruin something that is great.

  89. streetyson says: Mar 28, 2017 12:54 PM

    Ugh! Awful! Firstly, ties are fine in regular season as they make for great tie-breakers come seeding for playoffs. Secondly, your 2-point system punishes teams that are built more for the deep game and punishes teams that mix O and D players on certain goal-line packages (eg., when Pats used D-man Vrabel on offense goal-line packages) how can they sprint the field and take part the other end? And it rewards teams built around short-yardage/bigger-lines.

  90. raidersredsdubsnyrliverpool says: Mar 28, 2017 12:54 PM

    Additionally, if OT were reserved only for the playoffs, then the rarity of it would make it that much more special. Think Kellen Winslow after the Chargers/Dolphins classic, the Ghost to the Post, etc. Don’t Mickey Mouse the greatest game in the world with bush league ideas like this.

  91. packers291 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:54 PM

    If you are going to recommend a rules change based on a safety outcome, you need to calculate out the decrease in injuries that you anticipate prior to making the change.

    THE DATA EXISTS, there is no excuse for you to suggest this change without perusing the evidence to determine the actual benefit we can expect to derive.

    Without such an analysis, this suggestion is nonsense.

  92. philtration says: Mar 28, 2017 12:55 PM

    You can have a faster overtime by not allowing ANY commercial breaks after the end of the 4th quarter.

    Extra football should not mean extra truck commercials and stupid robots.

  93. a1b24312 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:55 PM

    Take it back to the original – sudden death – and leave it alone.

    Same with all of the other insane ideas floated recently except for the ones to cut down on outside advertising.

  94. ocmd124 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:55 PM

    Use the college system but require two-point conversions immediately.

  95. packers291 says: Mar 28, 2017 12:57 PM

    “We have yet to hear an argument against this idea”

    “It definitely will result in more ties, and that’s the last thing fans want.”

    You provided an argument against it yourself. You need to make a stronger case in favor of the idea, instead of falsely claiming there are no arguments against it.

  96. Insomniac says: Mar 28, 2017 1:00 PM

    Start with, what’s the purpose of regular season OT now? To maybe decide a winner.

    What are the current constraints?
    1. Can’t go on forever
    2. Remain as true to the game they played in the first 60 minutes as possible

    Their additional constraint:
    3. Less opportunity for injury/snaps

    What do you actually want?
    1. A winner/loser no matter what
    2. Less opportunity for injury/snaps

    You’re throwing out two of the original constraints with your plan. Winner/loser no matter what is at odds with limiting snaps, regardless of the probability.

    Many coaches/fans hate the college OT, and this plan is college OT on steroids.

    Cutting the time will not change the number of snaps dramatically because the teams for the most part control the tempo. For that same reason, it probably wont change the number of ties much.

    They should go back to the old rule of pure sudden death. Following a touchback, you need to move the ball 43 yards to try a 50 yard field goal which is ~60%. The average drive was 30 yards. If you lose, it’s not because of a coin flip. You had 60+ minutes to affect the outcome and failed.

  97. veretax says: Mar 28, 2017 1:01 PM

    The problem with OT rules, is that the 2 Minute offense is now often used for the last 5-7 minutes of the 4th Qtr by the team behind. Once they tie it up, the opposing defense is gassed, and if they get the ball first in OT too, having already been gassed, its hardly ‘fair’ if you ask me. I think there needs to be a longer break between Regulation and Overtime, and then you play it in five to ten minute increments, swapping ends of the field, and doing kickoffs AGAIN, when you switch till someone pulls ahead before the clock expires.

  98. dezertdawg says: Mar 28, 2017 1:01 PM

    How would you deal with players like William the refrigerator Perry who might have to be on both ends of the field?

  99. imyourhuckelberrythatsjustmygame says: Mar 28, 2017 1:12 PM

    “I know, let’s have a spelling contest.”

  100. shurmanblog says: Mar 28, 2017 1:12 PM

    Only think missing from this beyond stupid plan is the cheerleaders having a danceoff for extra points .

  101. bostonsportsfan111 says: Mar 28, 2017 1:12 PM

    “…it’s important to reduce the total number of snaps”…??? According to who?? Fans go to the game to watch real action and have the game decided by ‘snaps’, not some made up gimicky rules that only apply at the end of the game. And why is it important to reduce the total number of snaps?? Because Atlanta’s defense was exhausted from not being able to get off the field the whole game and couldn’t perform at the end after playing 90+ plays?? Maybe show up in top condition like the Pats did…

  102. blackqbwhiterb says: Mar 28, 2017 1:13 PM

    I think the changes a few years ago to the current format were sufficient. If I had a vote, I’d vote to keep it the way it is now. It sucks once in a great while but it’s fair. The Falcons, for example, had chance after chance to put the game away, and couldn’t do it. They needed one more score, or one more stop on defense, and had MANY chances to do both. The Patriots were better that day, despite their early struggles. 98% of OT games are fair to both sides.

  103. cheetasnevaprospa says: Mar 28, 2017 1:15 PM

    “So the pats win the super bowl in OT and now everyone wants to change the rules.”

    No, but stopping THE CHEATING would be nice

  104. bjwbrown2011 says: Mar 28, 2017 1:18 PM

    The system is fine as it is.

    This solution is probably the worst I’ve heard.

  105. eastcoast49ersfan says: Mar 28, 2017 1:19 PM

    thegronk87 says:
    Mar 28, 2017 11:41 AM
    So the pats win the super bowl in OT and now everyone wants to change the rules. What’s next? The owners pass a rule that Tom Brady can’t play football anymore?

    That rule is already in place. Non Patriot fans are just waiting for Father Time to enforce the rule.

  106. cheetasnevaprospa says: Mar 28, 2017 1:19 PM

    “so…. The Greatest Sporting Franchise in History, The New England Patriots, win a toss and plant the dagger and a rule change is forthcoming?”

    You mean THE CHEATINGEST?

  107. wk1234 says: Mar 28, 2017 1:24 PM

    My plan: Overtime should just be a continuation of the game. First score in overtime wins the game. Simple. This way, you don’t have teams kneeling down or playing it safe to play for the overtime. If regulation ends and it is 3rd down… Overtime begins at third down. It is such a simple solution that I never hear anyone mention it.

  108. texaspistoleer says: Mar 28, 2017 1:25 PM

    Would love to see the chaos of a fumble, INT, or chasing the QB back for a sack — happening simultaneously on both ends of the field, with 44 players converging at the 50 yard line. That would be a crazy fun free-for-all.

    I mean, it’s not football, and it shouldn’t determine the winner of a football game, but it would be entertaining.

  109. screamingyellowzonkers says: Mar 28, 2017 1:30 PM

    Look.

    Its not difficult.

    Each team gets the ball once.
    After that, its sudden death.

    That’s not complicated is it?

  110. dickroy says: Mar 28, 2017 1:34 PM

    Does each team have two offenses and two defenses? That is the silliest thing I ever heard.

  111. jeagan1999 says: Mar 28, 2017 1:36 PM

    I’ve always hated the OT rules. Just spot the ball on the 50 and give BOTH teams at least 1 drive. That way BOTH teams have an opportunity to play on offense and defense. If one team scores more than the other…game over! If neither score or a tie…keep going till one team wins! Don’t let something as arbitrary as a coin toss play a major role in a hard fought contest…it cheats both the players and the fans!

  112. thedoctlc says: Mar 28, 2017 1:42 PM

    NO gimmicks.

    It was necessary to modify the original sudden death overtime as it was getting too easy for the OT coin toss winner to get a couple first downs and kick a FG. Modified sudden death prevents such a cheapened (and unfair) result.

  113. twinfan24 says: Mar 28, 2017 1:43 PM

    OT is fine. That said, I am fine if it goes to 10 minutes, so it causes teams to hustle a little to try to score. I also don’t mind ties, as it actually helps sometimes with playoff tiebreakers because it narrows the options.

    As far as both teams getting the ball, there are three phases of the game and use your defense or special teams to either take the ball away, or at least hold the other team to a FG so you get your chance. If you can’t, you don’t deserve to win.

    The “plan” outlined above should only have been posted this coming Saturday, since it is obviously a poor attempt at an April Fools Day joke.

  114. perscientist says: Mar 28, 2017 1:43 PM

    To make it completely fair, shouldn’t both teams pick the direction they want to drive towards? That’s only fair, right? Fair and equal opportunity for all. We should eliminate any and all coin flips as the winner has a clear advantage, should a game be decided by such an archaic ritual?

    The rule as it stands is fine. Defense and special teams are part of the game, I know, shocking right? It’s American Football, pansies need not apply. Strap up and deal with it.

  115. gmen05 says: Mar 28, 2017 1:44 PM

    NLL

    National Liberal League

    The game is fine as it is. Stop trying to think up ways to modify it to appease some people, since in all likelihood a move as stupid as this would be a big deterrent. It’s incredible the direction this country has been going these past few years. Every one gets a trophy or else their feelings are hurt. Now we’re moving on to professional sports. The grass isn’t always greener on the other side.

  116. asgrimsnorrison says: Mar 28, 2017 1:48 PM

    My version:

    If the game ends tied in regulation, the game is over. Both teams get a loss.

    The end.

  117. samadams14 says: Mar 28, 2017 1:53 PM

    It’s a ‘Jump to Conclusions Mat’.

  118. directdriver says: Mar 28, 2017 1:58 PM

    I like a 2 point shootout. I would not even give each team three chances. Both teams take however many rounds to score and the team doesn’t answer the score, game over. Quick and simple. But the real reason is that it forces the team to end the game in regulation instead of going for a tying extra point after a touchdown. If they don’t win it with a 2 point conversion, they have to do it in overtime anyway so they are more likely to win the game out right in regulation. Quick and simple!

  119. torgow says: Mar 28, 2017 1:59 PM

    Maybe they could lay down some ice and put on skates, then do a hockey shootout with the defensive tackles. Ngata v Wilfork

  120. sgmjerry220 says: Mar 28, 2017 1:59 PM

    Well allow me to retort. Here are a couple of reasons why it should not be accepted.

    1) It doesn’t allow for the defense to score to win the game in overtime.
    2) It doesn’t allow for Special teams to score to win the game.
    3) It doesn’t resemble the game of football that was just played over the course of 60 minutes.

    BL-If we want to watch the college version of the game, or Arena Football, or the CFL, they would be the premier form of football in the world, but they aren’t. Don’t ruin the game by making OT be decided by just the offense scoring. If the defense can create a turnover and return it to score, good bye, game over as it should be.

  121. directdriver says: Mar 28, 2017 2:00 PM

    Another reason I like 2 point shootout is that it takes out the special teams. I hate seeing a game decided by a special team play.

  122. samadams14 says: Mar 28, 2017 2:07 PM

    The reason for the change to how it is now was because Kickers are so much better in the modern game. Without the change, teams will settle for reaching the 38 and kicking a 55yarder into the 1st row of seats. With that, the stupid coin toss was deciding games.

  123. bkostela says: Mar 28, 2017 2:09 PM

    halfcentaur says:
    Mar 28, 2017 12:28 PM
    If you can’t stop a team from driving the entire length of the field on the very first drive, then YOU DON’T DESERVE TO WIN. This entitlement of “wah we both deserve the ball even if we can’t make a stop and get it ourselves” thing is bogus. I had money on the Falcons, i lost it because they didn’t get a chance to score, but i’m not sitting here crying about the rule. They couldn’t make a stop on one single play, they didn’t deserve to win. If you can’t get the ball on your own merit, then you lose. If you can’t win in the first 60 minutes, then too bad. Make a stop.

    Handing teams opportunities on a silver platter that they can’t otherwise earn on their own cheapens the game. This isn’t about being fair to everyone, it’s about competition. Either get the ball and don’t give it back, or make a stop and take it. If you can’t do either of those things, YOU LOSE.

    Simple as that.
    _________________________

    The only reason I disagree is that the only reason the Patriots got the football is that they won a coin toss. For that reason alone, I think both teams should get the ball once, even if the first team scores a touchdown. Aside from that, I’m fine with ties.

  124. tim8450 says: Mar 28, 2017 2:19 PM

    Every time there is OT or an OT tie, the losing sides want to change the rules to get “more chances”.

    In the case of the Pats, there are a lot more supporters of the “losing side”, understandably. But still, it’s not like the teams’ offenses are on the field by themselves, the defenses have to play too.

    Just leave it and accept the fact that about half the fans are going to be disappointed no matter what.

    Rex Ryan had a great competitive attitude about it, after any loss you ask him and he was ready to take the field right then and fight it out again. Unfortunately, not everyone gets a ribbon or hangs a banner just for showing up.

    If everyone gets “three chances” again, then the first two chances are boring and add nothing. Watch the last five minutes of almost any pro basketball game… timeouts, fouls, free throws.

    NFL playoffs are all about “sudden death”, not “best of 7”. I say keep it that way.

  125. ozzman64 says: Mar 28, 2017 2:33 PM

    The best thing to do is just continue the game into a 5th quarter and pick up the game right where it left off and end of the 4th quarter. No kickoff, no coin toss just continue playing. If a team has the ball at its on 18 yard line with second and 5 at end of 4th quarter pick up the game right there and first team scores wins.

  126. kenmasters34 says: Mar 28, 2017 2:34 PM

    “bkostela says:
    Mar 28, 2017 2:09 PM

    The only reason I disagree is that the only reason the Patriots got the football is that they won a coin toss. For that reason alone, I think both teams should get the ball once, even if the first team scores a touchdown. Aside from that, I’m fine with ties.”

    The only reason the Pats got the ball was the coin toss?????

    The Pats got the ball by scoring 25 unanswered points and they won the game by scoring 31 unanswered points.

  127. motown81 says: Mar 28, 2017 2:34 PM

    What a ridiculous idea. The current overtime rules are poor.

    Every other sports league has an overtime format that actually makes sense, but not the NFL.

    If a game is tied at the end of regulation then play the “entire” over-time period and take those results. The whole deal with each team gets a possession if they kick a field goal, but only one team gets a possession if there is a touchdown is silly. Play the entire 15-minutes. If the concern is about players getting tired then expand the rosters.

  128. samadams14 says: Mar 28, 2017 2:36 PM

    How about:

    1. Both teams get the Ball

    2. Road team 1st (no coin flip, saves 2 mins or 12 in game spots for CBS’s ‘The Mentalist’)

    3. Only 2 PT attempts (reduce ties)

    4. Permanent Hurry Up offense (25 second play clock, reduce ties)

    5. Touchbacks start on 20

  129. pastabelly says: Mar 28, 2017 2:39 PM

    The coin toss is fair. The team with the ball first actually has more pressure. The team with the second possession knows exactly what it needs to do and knows that they either have four downs to work with or three downs. They know if they need a field goal to win, etc. All they really NEED to do is to prevent a touchdown.

    If the Falcons were to get a second possession after a touchdown, that STILL would not be good enough for some because the Patriots could win the game on a field goal. You can always find something to complain about.

    Everything being equal, no gimmicks to win games like two-point conversions. Winning with a real touchdown like the Patriots did is the best way to end a game.

  130. mibengal says: Mar 28, 2017 2:42 PM

    Maybe only a minimum of six extra snaps but since all scoring plays are reviewed, you’ll also have six extra reviews which would be at least 10 -12 minutes of time while nothing is happening except more commercials. No Thanks.

  131. metaldream7 says: Mar 28, 2017 2:44 PM

    Not in love with the 2 point shoot out. But how about a Kick-Off. The kickers trade kicks starting at the 25 yard line and going back 5 yards at a time until one kicker makes it and the other does not. If the first kicker makes and the second doesn’t, game over. If they both miss, they just re-kick from that spot again. This for the pre-season and regular season. That minimizes injuries. For the playoffs, just change the rules slightly from now which would give the team not winning the coin flip a chance to answer a touchdown. If they do, then the next team that scores wins. Although, I’m one that thinks it should still be sudden death, kick it off and first team that scores, regardless of how, wins.

  132. wib22 says: Mar 28, 2017 2:48 PM

    polian whines to the league
    falcons whine

    everyone hates the greatness of the pats.

    Sad!

  133. hardspun says: Mar 28, 2017 2:50 PM

    Why not an old fashioned cat’s cradle string competition ?

    If it is still tied, a dance contest.

  134. LyinRogerMustGo says: Mar 28, 2017 3:02 PM

    wk1234 says:
    Mar 28, 2017 1:24 PM

    My plan: Overtime should just be a continuation of the game. First score in overtime wins the game. Simple. This way, you don’t have teams kneeling down or playing it safe to play for the overtime. If regulation ends and it is 3rd down… Overtime begins at third down. It is such a simple solution that I never hear anyone mention it.

    —-
    No. Regulation time has to mean something. You don’t want anything to reward teams that don’t try to win in regulation.

  135. buckybadger says: Mar 28, 2017 3:02 PM

    You don’t decide a game by playing something different. This is a dumb idea I don’t see any good argument for it. OT is fine the way it is.

  136. stipez says: Mar 28, 2017 3:04 PM

    Isn’t every scoring play reviewed? I can’t imagine all the holdups, challenges and disputed calls.

  137. dangguy says: Mar 28, 2017 3:06 PM

    Let me get this straight: If the superbowl end in a tie bothe teams will get and Indianapolis Colts type participation trophy, flag and ring.

    Goodell is clearly too small for his job.

  138. grumpysal says: Mar 28, 2017 4:00 PM

    Life is sometimes hard, you don’t always get a trophy.

    Football is a team game and defense is part of that team. If your D can’t stop them from driving 75 yards and scoring a TD in overtime, your team didn’t deserve the opportunity to play offense.

    It’s not about fairness, it’s about competition. You didn’t do enough to win, it happens, move on.

  139. justintuckrule says: Mar 28, 2017 4:00 PM

    If you do that, you need to weigh wins and OT wins differently. Like the NHL.

  140. sariff420 says: Mar 28, 2017 4:28 PM

    Maybe we should just make it into a three point contest or a penalty kick shootout …that’ll fix it

  141. dsheik says: Mar 28, 2017 5:58 PM

    I like it the way it is now. It rewards aggressiveness and playing to win the game. Team that receives kickoff has to stay aggressive to score a TD to win. Going conservative and settling for a FG gives the OTHER team a chance to play aggressive and steal the game with a TD of their own.

    First team on Defense, hey you got to stop them from scoring a TD. Theres no second chances. STOP them from getting a FG and your Offense is rewarded by only needing a FG to win. And if that happens no one other than Mike Florio feels sorry for the other team. They had a shot on offense and failed, and a shot on defense and failed. They deserve to loose.

  142. richabbs says: Mar 28, 2017 6:05 PM

    Maybe they can have both team’s kickers arm wrestle for the win at the 50 yard line.

  143. tncheese says: Mar 28, 2017 8:11 PM

    I say eliminate all scoring except TDs in OT. First to get one wins. Aside from that, I actually like this. I do not want the college system.

  144. misterwtf says: Mar 28, 2017 10:47 PM

    My biggest issue is that the coin flipmstill holds all the value toasted OT. I’d like to see each team guaranteed to get the ball at least once. It’s still a bit unfair that if the team who wins the toss & scores a TD….game over. The other team should be allowed tomat least match the score.
    Or even just another quarter, screw it. Make it a 10 minute quarter, whatever. But each teams deserves a fair crack on offense. Coin toss is still too big a factor in OT.

    GO BILLS!!!!

  145. madddogg365 says: Mar 29, 2017 11:58 AM

    Whatever Dictator Goodell wants…as long as the owners see a profit…………..

  146. pcmacbob says: Mar 29, 2017 3:10 PM

    Let’s have the best Xbox players from both teams play a game of NFL on the Xbox and the winner wins the game. LOL

  147. filthadelphiadirtybirds says: Mar 29, 2017 5:06 PM

    They should all stand around and whoever gives the nicest compliment to the opposing team at midfield should be awarded 6 points to win the game……No? OK then that makes 2 terrible suggestions here.

  148. taintedsaints2009 says: Mar 29, 2017 10:52 PM

    You’re joking right? you said you have yet to hear an argument against it? Who exactly have you proposed this to?

    Here’s an argument against it: you’re essentially turning over time into a shootout like hockey and soccer do when they go beyond overtime. That is the most meaningless ending to a game you can think of.

    Here is a better idea:

    Go back to sudden death. That is what overtime always was and always should be. No more of this UNFAIR crap because it’s all in the hands of a coin toss.

    If you don’t get the ball first, tell your defense to man up and stop the other offense. simple as that. if they don’t, too bad. you lost. i thought it was a TEAM game. Only snowflakes don’t like sudden death overtime.

    And I’m a vikings fan. Sudden death OT has ruined 2 chances for the Vikings to go to the superbowl in the last 20 years.

  149. taintedsaints2009 says: Mar 29, 2017 11:03 PM

    Oh, and in your so called genius proposal, what the hell happens if there is a fumble or an interception returned the other direction?

    Just all out mayhem?

    Good lord. I just can’t get over how you thought this was a good idea and claimed YOU HAD THE ANSWER… HAVE NO FEAR MY INTELLECTUAL MIND WILL SAVE THE NFL!

    In the words of Apu from The Simpsons after he went on a tirade against Principal Skinner’s so called novel idea of writing a book about dinosaurs in a park…

    WHAT WERE YOUR THINKING?!?!?!?!?

  150. likuidsmoke says: Mar 30, 2017 10:32 AM

    This is a very dumb idea. It’s not like soccer or hockey where you can have a shootout style thing, football doesn’t work like that, and it’s dumb to rely on a few of these plays. Teams could just put their DT at RB or something and run these 2 pointers in, the better team would not always win and that’s the problem. Let them play it out like a normal game, that’s the only way it’s fair to the whole team.

  151. madddogg365 says: Mar 31, 2017 11:46 AM

    taintedsaints2009

    You need a sedative…& a life.

  152. hishighness says: Mar 31, 2017 4:03 PM

    This is only a problem because the Patriots won the Super Bowl with the current rules. If we had lost in overtime the current rules would be hailed as infallible.

  153. aj66shanghai says: Apr 1, 2017 9:51 AM

    Pats fans like to think their team is in a league of their own. The rest of NFL fans wish they were.

    The worst, complaining, ungracious, immodest loudmouth poorsports imaginable.

  154. frankstoeknife says: Apr 2, 2017 12:37 PM

    Go back to sudden death. You had 4 quarters to win. You need just one more possession in a 5th period for it to be fair? Give me a break…welcome to professional sports played by grown ups…not everyone needs a trophy and not everyone gets a turn.

  155. 3wordanswers says: Apr 2, 2017 3:17 PM

    Overtime fix easy……

    Abolish it altogether !!!!

    New points scoring method…..

    1 point = extra point conversion
    2 points = two points for a run or pass conversion
    3 points = FG try from the 30 or closer
    4 points = FG try from behind the 30
    5 points = safety
    6 points = TD score
    7 points = TD score from your own half……

    Then, if you add the rule that if the scores are tied @ the end of regulation, the ‘road’ team has first shot at a winning XP try, OT would be eradicated, and would put the emphasis on the home team to win the game outright to avoid the prospect of a tied game.

    Easy……

  156. dreemeagle says: Apr 2, 2017 9:28 PM

    so, didn’t like my comment about this last super bowl smelling like a Jake LaMotta fight?

    and the simple fact of the matter is even something called a super-model figured it out;

    only three changes needed for OT:

    1. the clock runs continuously just like soccer, with one minute maximum added for injuries;

    2. malingerers faking injury or otherwise stalling to waste clock time will be ejected and cost their team a down and fifteen yards;

    3. the first team to score TWICE in any manner wins, save for the last 5 minutes where if no team has scored in OT, the first team that scores wins;

  157. dreemeagle says: Apr 2, 2017 9:43 PM

    Patriots “greatness”?

    ANY true dynasty team from the pre-salary cap era would DESTROY the little candy-bottom Patsies;

    not even WWE-style officiating and the current flag football rules could save Brady from extinction and stop the score being run up mercilessly by a vastly superior athletic team man for man;

    this so-called NE “dynasty” is nothing more than smoke and mirrors conjured up by superior management of financial books via rules established by the bean-punters who now rule the NFL, reducing it from a game to a mere franchise business like McDonalds;

  158. elvoid says: Apr 3, 2017 10:36 AM

    Sudden death is fine. Always has been. And it’s just as “fair” as a team driving for a winning score in the last two minutes of regulation: it’s up to your defense to stop them if you want to win. Your team does know how to play defense, right? And if it can’t make the stop, you don’t win. Simple.

    However, if you want to change it, I’d say go to an extra quarter that you play out in full – no “sudden death” about it. But the NFLPA isn’t likely to go for that, so I’m betting it’s a non-starter.

    So sudden death it is.

  159. jluckow says: Apr 3, 2017 11:18 AM

    Sorry Mike, not a fan of this idea. There is a much simpler solution that gives essentially everyone what they want (both teams get a chance and NO TIES):

    First team to receive the ball:
    1 – If they don’t score, it’s sudden death from there on out. (like it is now)
    2 – If they score a field goal, the other team gets one possession but MUST go for a touchdown. No matching field goals to extend the game.
    3 – If they score a touchdown, they automatically get the extra point. The other team gets one possession to match the touchdown, but must go for two.

    If neither team can muster up a field goal in 15 minutes, then start drives at the opponents 25 yard line and do it again.

  160. supersuckers3 says: Apr 3, 2017 9:51 PM

    directdriver says:
    Mar 28, 2017 2:00 PM
    Another reason I like 2 point shootout is that it takes out the special teams. I hate seeing a game decided by a special team play.

    ==

    Yea all of those last second field goals (made or missed) that we see on some of the most historic of NFL Films, they just don’t belong

Leave a Reply

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