More details on the possible overtime changes

Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports has some more details regarding the potential changes to the NFL overtime procedures.  (Thus the title to this blurb.)

Word of the possible tweaks comes from the Thursday meeting between the Competition Committee and players to discuss possible rule changes.  And Seahawks receiver T.J. Houshmandzadeh, whose past propensity for using his vocal cords has convinced us that he thinks “discretion” is new brand of Calvin Klein cologne, has gone on the record with Cole regarding the content of the meeting, which the veteran pass-catcher attended.

“It’s just something the league is looking at to make sure the playoffs go as good as possible,” Houshmandzadeh said. “I don’t think it’s going to get passed, but they’re thinking about it.”

Others think it’s coming.  But it makes plenty of sense for the league to be talking to the union, given that any change to the rules would expose players to more snaps, and thus more chances to suffer injury.

As Cole explains it, the somewhat convoluted tweak to the sudden-victory protocol would not be quite as simple as “first one to six.”  If, as Cole explains, the first team to get the ball fails to score and the other team gets only a field goal, the game would end.

But the team kicking off wouldn’t be guaranteed a possession; if the receiving team scores a touchdown, the game would be over.

Thus, we still prefer a system that gives each team one possession regardless of whether the first team scores a touchdown, and that then converts the format to sudden-victory if the game is tied after each team has had a crack at scoring.

Some have complained that this would give an unfair advantage to the team that kicks off, since that team would essentially have four cracks to gain ten yards if the receiving team scores.  We’re not sure that we agree with this — and we think that any benefit the kicking team derives would be balanced out by the fact that the team that receives the kickoff to start overtime would get the ball again once the game shifts back to the current first-to-score-wins-it format.

Bottom line?  The NFL looks to be working its way into the right church.  We simply now need to guide the powers-that-be to the correct pew.

35 responses to “More details on the possible overtime changes

  1. Each team gets at least one possession is the fairest way to go – if the first team scores, the other team gets a crack at it. If the second team doesn’t score – or ties it up and the first team scores on its next possession – the game is over. Simple, clean, fair – which means the NFL will look for another solution.

  2. It is a change in the right direction, but why not just make it mandatory for each team to get one attempt with the ball in OT.
    This is my suggestion. It basically takes what the NCAA does, but instead of starting at the opponents 25-yard line, you start at your own 25-yard line.
    http://bit.ly/duY5jd

  3. Its simple really.The OT rules right now are unfair to both teams. Atleast give the team the ball, whoever doesnt win the coin toss in OT, so they have a chance to tie or win the game

  4. Nothing is wrong with OT as it is right now. Football teams are made up of offense, Defense and special teams. If one part of that team is not working, you deserve to lose.
    Being a Raider fan, I understand about having to take the game out of the referee’s hands. Your team loses in OT, they didn’t take the game out of the referee’s hands.

  5. Maybe they should declare all teams winners no matter what the score was, and everybody can go out for hot dogs and pizza afterward.

  6. Whats funny is Houshmanzadeh talking about playoff games…..As if he knew anything about them….It’s like me talking about dating super models….

  7. Only a pansy-ass bitch would want the overtime rules changed!
    No coincidence that Florio fits that description…..

  8. I don’t understand why they can’t go to a system where each team is guaranteed at least one offensive posession. After each team has the ball on offense it is sudden death.

  9. I like the idea of the first team scoring six ends it. You need incentive to get the game over. Otherwise you might as well just play a clocked extension and then go to sudden-death. Why is the defense the ugly step-child all of sudden come overtime? In the end it shouldn’t be changed. If you lose the toss play some defense. It’s not that hard.

  10. Since I believe Mike Florio is the only person alive that thinks the OT rules aren’t fair and should be changed, I will admit that Florio has gained too much power should OT change. This is going to open a can of worms that isn’t really needed.

  11. you simply need to shut the hell up about it! of all things that football fans talk about overtime is not one of them unless your a whiney bitch named florio or peter king.it sucks when your team loses but hey that’s the way the game is deal with it! it comes down to one simple thing,you want the ball back then stop the other team!

  12. The current overtime system in the NFL is perfect! If a team’s defense can’t stop the other guys from scoring before they get the ball, then they don’t deserve to win.
    The only other feasible alternative is to do what the NBA does, and simply play another period of football. Maybe an abbreviated period, if not an entire new 15 minutes. And keep playing periods until somebody wins outright. That way, strategies don’t change much from any 4th quarter strategy.
    Either sudden death or a full new period. Anything else is bush league.

  13. I’ve been watching the NFL for 30+ years (as long as I can remember). I guess I am old school in my way of thinking, if you don’t want to go to sudden death overtime, score more than your opponent in the 60 minutes of playtime that precedes O.T. Leave the O.T. format alone!

  14. This makes sense. If I read you right than you are saying that the team that starts with the ball can come down, score a TD and the game is over. If they score a FG than the other team gets a chance to get thier own FG or win with a TD. If that’s what it would be I like it. I like that OT can still end on one play, and the game is still less likely to last for hours. But at the same time, a team can’t get the ball and penalty their way to the (Saints) and score a field goal and win. Makes perfect sense to me.
    To be clear I hate the Vikngs and thought it was so funny when they lost after that Favre pick.

  15. If this is the solution, please leave it as is. If a team is upset about the current setup, beat them in 60 minutes. If it goes to overtime, and you lose the toss, stop them… one time. Please don’t play the game one way for 60 minutes, then change all the rules.
    Why not just settle it with a dance-off?

  16. If this rule is only playoff related why was Housh invited? What the hell does he know about the playoffs?

  17. FLuoride, you really are the Bill Polian of the overtime rules, sheez.
    So what happens when the team that gets first possession gets intercepted and the defense makes a pick six, does the team that got intercepted get another chance?
    Once again people, THE DEFENSE CAN SCORE POINTS TOO!

  18. What if first team to receive the ball marches down the field and throws an interception that is made at the opponents 5 yardline and the defensive back then tries to turn it into a long return but runs back into his enzone after eluding two tacklers and is tackled there for 2 points? The other offensive team has not ever had the ball and less than 6 points were scored?

  19. Start at the 10 yard line going in. Both teams get a chance. No kickers allowed so you have to go for it on 4th down. This would break the game down to it’s most fundamental parts.
    You were looking for everyone’s ideas on this, weren’t you?

  20. “First to six” is perfect. It keeps a team from winning with an overtime-opening drive that ends in a field goal. If a team takes that opening kickoff for a TD or takes the opening overtime drive the length of the field , then game over (as I believe it should). Despite Florio’s dreams of ‘each team gets a possession no matter what’, I prefer the “first to six” scenario. But I’m one small voice…….

  21. ANY changes to the current overtime system in the NFL would be good changes. It pains me to see teams not get a chance to have the ball just because they lost a coin flip.
    And I’m sorry, but the argument “Well…the Defense should stop somebody” just doesn’t fly. The fact remains you put the circumstances into a flip of a coin and take it away from the players and coaches.
    There is a coin flip at the beginning of the game, but both teams reap similar benefits from it, whether it is at the beginning of the game or the start of the second half. In overtime, one team always gets screwed as very few teams elect to kick (I can recall one time).

  22. MacDaddySpeed says:
    Start at the 10 yard line going in. Both teams get a chance. No kickers allowed

    how about make it with no quarterbacks allowed?

  23. WORD HAS IT THAT AARON RODGERS HAS A HUGE PUD. APPARENTLY, HE HAD AN ERECTION DURING THE FINAL MOMENTS OF THE PLAYOFF LOSS. SUPPOSEDLY IT CAUSED HIS LEG TO RISE, HENCE HE KICKED THE ROCK TO A DEFENDER…GAME OVER!!!
    RODGERS, EVER HEAR OF TAPE???

  24. I don’t see anything wrong with the current OT system.
    If you want to change it, why not just make it a true fifth quarter. Eliminate the coin toss altogether. Whoever had the ball last, keeps possession at the spot where the game ended. Next to score, wins.
    I think that the two-minute drill is unfair. If a team manages the clock and goes down the field to score a go ahead touchdown or field goal in the last two minutes, the other team should be given the same two minutes to try to match the score. It’s only fair.

  25. This is the perfect way to do it. first team needs a TD, after that a FG is fine.
    So, you win the toss, what do you do? Thats the point, its not a 100% decision to receive. Yeah, its still better to win the toss and have the choice, but its not a given what to do.
    plus, it ads a little bit of strategy/decisions for coaches to make heaading to OT

  26. Let’s try this:
    The first player from his respected conference, AFC or NFC, to kill someone, outside of football, by shooting, stabbing, vehicular homicide, or kills his girlfriend, whom he will be ‘ Baby Daddy to’ plays defense first, forefits their right to the ball, and we can eliminate the coin toss. That way, maybe these thugs will respect the game, and Florio can find better subjects to write about !
    Gives new meaning to ‘ Sudden Death’ !

  27. The current OT rules suck. And it really has nothing to do with the idea that both teams deserve a “fair chance” to get the ball. It has nothing to do with Peter King’s view that it’s a crying shame if a game is decided with Peyton Manning or Brett Favre stuck on the sideline.
    The reason the current OT rules suck is that the current rules suck in general. In an effort to make the game more fan-friendly (ie, pass-happy) each week we see a raft of controversial calls, many associated with pass interference or some sort of illegal contact or roughing on the defense.
    What that means is that it is simply too easy to heave the ball half the length of the field and collect a controversial PI call. Trot out the field goal kicker and game over.
    Any change to the OT rules that get it closer to the First To Six concept is a good thing.
    I hear supporters of the current OT rules claim that defenses should shut up and just stop the team that wins the toss. If a defense allows a team to march the length of the field and score six, then I agree, the game should be over. But if the defense gives up a couple of questionable penalties and then loses the game on a field goal, that’s a bad outcome.
    Unless the league can get officiating under control in a way that doe not overtly favor offenses, then the current OT rules must be overhauled.

  28. No need to change the ot rule. Current rules work. A winner is decided, rather quickly, game over. Is this a ploy for more advertising? A way for the rich boys union to scam for more $$$$. Both teams are on the field. Both have a chance to score first. Both have a shot at posession of the ball, fumbles, interception,penalties, mental mistakes, etc, etc. Go look at the rules. Both teams, offense AND defense on the field at the same time. I have heard that 54% of coin toss winners win the game. 46% loose. 46% of coin toss winners win the game. How close is this to 50/50??

Leave a Reply

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