Skip to content

Should overtime be shortened?

Getty Images

Regardless of whether you love or hate or otherwise don’t care about the PFT proposal to enhance overtime by adopting a two-point conversion shootout, the issue came up only because the NFL is considering shrinking regular season and preseason overtime from 15 minutes to 10.

So what do you think about that? That’s the PFT Live question of the day.

From time to time I get accused of nudging the results in one specific direction. But since I’ve already made it clear that I hate the proposal, there’s no reason not to mention it again.

I hate it. And I hope enough of you make it clear so that enough of the owners who read this site (and, believe it or not, most if not all of them do) will realize they’re making a mistake, all in the name of scratching from the list of the tangible complaints about short-week football.

So do your thing and speak in a loud, unified voice and we’ll share the results on air if they mesh with my agenda to kill this potential rule change, again.

Permalink 21 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, New England Patriots, Rumor Mill
21 Responses to “Should overtime be shortened?”
  1. cosmicredneck81 says: May 18, 2017 6:52 AM

    Should have a clear winner no matter what if it’s still tied at the end of overtime I’d love to see a field goal shootout it would be exciting and would make your kicker a lil more valuable to the team

  2. motleytrap says: May 18, 2017 6:57 AM

    The majority of overtimes don’t last more than 10 minutes anyway.

    Nothing to love or hate about this proposal. Just a change that won’t make much of a difference.

  3. araidersfan says: May 18, 2017 7:09 AM

    Overtime only belongs in the playoffs and should be eliminated altogether from regular season games. There’s nothing wrong with tie games and they were in fact a natural part of the NFL for the first 50+ years of the league before they introduced regular season overtime in 1974.

  4. anonymousnevermindfishdeath says: May 18, 2017 7:33 AM

    I say this every year – what other sport changes it’s rules every year??

  5. brwmstr says: May 18, 2017 8:03 AM

    ummmm, NO

  6. streetyson says: May 18, 2017 8:04 AM

    Just scrap regular season OT – a tie makes for a better ranking tiebreaker than those dubious strength of opps etc, especially when you only have 16 games and current OT wins still depend quite a lot on coin tosses anyway.

  7. imsomeguy says: May 18, 2017 8:08 AM

    Why would you shorten a teams chance to win a game? If the league is all about offense anymore, why would you want to take that opportunity away from an offense. A shortened OT may cause receiving teams to try to slow down their drive to kill the clock, kick a FG, and take away the other team’s opportunity for a tying/wining drive.

  8. sylvester000001 says: May 18, 2017 8:08 AM

    The problem with overtime is paralysis by analysis.

    We need to stop trying to come up with all kinds of plans and formulas and all these rules with it.

    Instead, when time runs out, the current drive still continues. The play clock between plays is still in effect but the game clock is now unplugged. You play until the tie is broken in whatever way. End of story.

    No rules, formulas or obligations or loopholes. You keep playing regular football just now untimed and next score wins. This will be taken into strategy for the prior drive, so the strategic element is still in play as well.

  9. factschecker says: May 18, 2017 8:36 AM

    To me this would be the perfect time for the NFL to step back and not fiddle with the game in any way. There has been (arguably) too much tinkering of late and the league office is dangerously close to alienating the 40 and up age group to the point of no return.

    I’m clinging on as tight as I can so I don’t drop them like a bad habit. Seems everyone my age that I know feels the same way. “Yeah I’m ready for the season but I’m not nearly as fanatical as I use to be.” It seems to be nearly unanimous with my age group. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

  10. fshman00 says: May 18, 2017 8:46 AM

    For the millions these guys are being paid, play till there is a winner. No Ties!!!! and each team should get the ball at least once in OT no matter who scores on first possession of OT.

  11. proudchowdahead13 says: May 18, 2017 8:46 AM

    If the league shortens over time, I would think that the present rules would have to be adjusted. If it is shortened to 10 minutes, the team getting the kick off might be able to kill most of it by running the ball, kick a FG and leave no time for the other team.

  12. jimmylikesthat says: May 18, 2017 9:25 AM

    Was this Atlanta’s idea?

  13. jimnh1 says: May 18, 2017 9:31 AM

    I believe your idea sucks period. But don’t shorten Ot periods. You need more winners and less ties. These guys get huge salaries and should play and quit complaining or quit the sport. There are plenty of players waiting to play if they can’t do it. Millionaires complaining about earning their pay. We should be able to make their money. As Kevin McHale once said. The public does not want to hear it.

  14. handsatlanta says: May 18, 2017 9:35 AM

    I’d like to see a study of how overtime results changed the standings and playoff positions over the last 10-20 years. If there’s no significant change then I’d eliminate overtime entirely

  15. fjw2 says: May 18, 2017 9:50 AM

    I don’t understand why a tie is not a valid result of a game. It indicates the two teams tried as hard as they could to win but they were of equal ability that day. There is no need to break ties except in the playoffs.

  16. maniacwithaknife says: May 18, 2017 10:38 AM

    This is not rocket science. If the game is tied at the end of regulation, simply play one more 15 minute quarter. If the score remains dead-locked after that in the regular season then the game ends in a tie; in the playoffs the game would then go into sudden death until a winner is declared. This should not be so difficult to figure out.

  17. charger383 says: May 18, 2017 11:39 AM

    one full quarter more and if still tied give both teams a loss

  18. ibillwt says: May 18, 2017 1:16 PM

    Leave it alone. And Florio’s proposal for playoffs is even worse.

  19. sdelmonte says: May 18, 2017 2:36 PM

    I don’t see much of a point to shortening a handful of games by 5 minutes.

  20. anthonyfromstatenisland says: May 19, 2017 5:35 PM

    Have you ever stopped to think that a couple of tie games per year would mean that teams would make or miss the playoffs by a half-game (as Washington did last year, at 8-7-1 to Detroit’s 9-7) rather than going to tie-breakers that at least as often as not give the playoff spot to the wrong team? (Example, say one NFC team has a better record within the conference than another in a year when the AFC won most of the inter-conference games. That’s rewarding the team that did better against weaker competition! Even head-to-head isn’t really fair if one team beat the other team at home).

    Like six tie games a year out of 256 is clearly the lesser of two evils. Merely guaranteeing both teams at least one possession in overtime, even if the first team to get the ball scores a touchdown, is probably alone enough to achieve that, plus keeping the clock running on out-of-bounds plays except in the last two minutes of the overtime (currently, the clock is stopped every time the ball goes out of bounds in overtime).

  21. tincada says: May 24, 2017 2:39 PM

    Say what? Then just flip a coin at the beginning of the game and move on.

Leave a Reply

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