Overtime proposal must pass

We’ve been at (or at least near) the forefront of the opposition to the current sudden-death overtime procedure, which eventually will result in a sudden-Lombardi for a team that prevails on a coin toss, returns a kickoff 30 or 40 yards, gets a couple of first downs, and kicks a 40-yard field goal.

The notion that only one team gets the ball in overtime simply isn’t fair.  And we’re not saying that with a Veruca Salt-style tantrum, but in deference to basic notions of equity.  We’ve made the point many times in the past; fans who follow football casually throughout the season and who watch the Super Bowl for reasons other than the commercials will react to a team scoring a field goal on the first drive of overtime in the final game of the year by saying, “Why did they shoot the confetti before the other team got the ball?”

The recent comments from Titans coach Jeff Fisher, co-chair of the Competition Committee, confirm this view.  “What we don’t want to have happen in the playoffs is a kickoff return, and then a penalty and a field goal, and have the game be over,” Fisher said.

Of course, that’s already happened.  It’s precisely what happened to the Vikings in the 2009 NFC title game, but it wasn’t just a penalty.  It was a questionable penalty.  And a questionable fourth-down dive play.  And a questionable third-down catch that moved the ball into range for the game-winning field goal.

So why not simply give the Vikings a chance to match or beat the three points?

The dissenting views aren’t persuasive.  “Play defense” doesn’t fly when there’s no guarantee of a chance to play offense.  Besides, if there wasn’t a built-in benefit to getting the ball first, more people than Marty Mornhinweg would have chosen to kick.

And the supposedly reasoned views against the move frankly make no sense.  Consider this column from Terrence Moore of FanHouse.  He claims the proposed rule would have undermined the legendary 1958 championship game between the Colts and the Giants.  You know, the one that ended with a touchdown in overtime. 

The one with the outcome that would have been no different under the new rule.

Then there’s the misguided complaint that the playoff-only modification would create two separate sets of rules, one for the playoffs and one of the regular season.  Well, that was the case in 1958, when there was no overtime procedure at all during the regular season.

Finally, Moore says the proposal is too complicated.  It’s not.  The team that receives the kickoff to start overtime can’t win with a field goal only.  The application of common sense explains the rest. 

Still, there’s a sense that the proposal won’t be adopted. 

“I think there’s no chance that passes,” NFL Network’s Rich Eisen told Dan Patrick on Friday.  “I think a lot of owners need more convincing first.  I’d love for this rule to be passed, but when membership gets around to it I don’t see this thing passing.”

The problem is that, if the outcome of the NFC title game wasn’t convincing enough, the only thing that ever will convince the owners is a Super Bowl that ends on a one-drive field goal.

By then, it’ll be too late.

95 responses to “Overtime proposal must pass

  1. If the rule stated that the winner of the coin toss got to immediately take a chip-shot 20 yd FG to win, people would still defend it. “Those guys are PAID to block those field goals! You gotta play all three phases of the game!”

  2. The return game and not giving up penalties are part of the game as well you know. If you are concerned about the coin toss – then win the freaking game in regulation!

  3. again you and your good buddy peter king are the only people besides viking fans who are calling for this. the game is not broke so why fix it?

  4. Coin flip, play an abbreviated “extra quarter” for 7 1/2 minutes. That way, both teams should be able to acquire at least one possession, and the game won’t lag like MLB games.

  5. I’m a Favre fan and even I can’t understand how people could be disappointed in the outcome of the Saints winning the Super Bowl over the Colts.
    I thought that’s exactly what the masses wanted? Two teams who play no defense and throw the ball all day. Two teams who get every call, and get nothing called against them?
    I don’t care how lengthy of an article you write, there is no reason to change the current format of overtime. If you’re going to take kicking out of the game, then TAKE IT OUT COMPLETELY! Every drive starts on the 20 yard line. No field goals. No extra points. Just simply who can move the ball down the field and enter the other team’s “house” that they are supposed to be protecting.
    And the whole notion of overtime is dumb to begin with. You have a set amount of time allotted to beat the other team. If you tie, then you tie. The only time you continue to play past the end of the 4th quarter would be the playoffs since only one team can move on. And the team with the ball does NOT keep the ball. You simply have another coin flip and continue to play until someone scores.

  6. So let’s see now..what if we change the rules and Favre,Manning or Brady still lose..do we change them again?

  7. People don’t understand SIMPLE MATH.
    If Coin Toss Winners win 60% then the losers win 40%. Therefore 60% is FIFTY PER CENT MORE of a chance to win if you do in fact win said coin toss. PERIOD.
    For you mathematically challenged: To get to 60 from 40 you need 20. 20 is 1/2 of 40 and therefore the 50%.
    Unfortunately the Fans are more into winning than the players and owners…

  8. Disagree. I like overtime rules the way they are. No need to mess around. If you make it to overtime and your defense isn’t stout enough to stop the other team & cause a 3 & out or force a punt, that’s tough.

  9. I think the new rule is more complex then it needs to be. Just make it “first to 6 points wins” and leave it at that.

  10. This is crap. To match or beat the 3 points?? How about this. Each team get’s a chance from the 40 yard line. TD or FG, the other team get’s a chance. If they tie after that, then sudden death. If not, then it is over. Don’t put in the if they 1st team does this they win, unless this other thing happens, or if this happens, BS!!!

  11. If the Vikings hadn’t just lost in this fashion, would you be as passionate as you are on this issue? Something tells me that since it happened to Brett Favre, suddenly everyone is interested in changing the rule.

  12. Florio, Florio, Florio! You sound like a whiney ass kid who doesn’t wanna play by the rules. I ABSOLUTELY can’t stand the “oh, Manning didn’t get to take the field to try to win the game”. You want the ball in Sudden Death, Stop the other team from scoring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That IS the importance of Defense! You make it sound like offense is the only side of the ball.
    They wanna do something different then a coinflip??? How about a tug of war to decide.

  13. The ONLY people who are for this are the pansies in the press.
    REAL football fans are fans based on the history of the NFL. Changing the OT rules in this way only diminishes the finality and degree of competitiveness in every play.

  14. I could not disagree more with needing to change the overtime rules.
    Sorry, but you have FOUR QUARTERS to outscore your opponent. At least 8-9 offensive drives.
    If you’re going to change it, then adopt the college football rules, where both teams get the ball until the other team doesn’t match.
    This is the stupidest discussion since the Jumbotron/punters hitting it debate.

  15. Terrence Moore is an idiot; he wasted space in the AJC for years before they ran him off. The great thing about Moore saying it’s a bad idea means it’s freaking great idea because T-Mo was wrong just about everything he ever wrote about the Atlanta sports scene his entire tenure there.

  16. People have been whining about how unjust it was for the Vikings to not get another chance in the championship game as reason to change the rules.
    Just love how much Favre not getting his SB for his little girl spurs such actions…
    Here’s a suggestion, if you don’t want the game to go to OT, don’t throw interceptions…

  17. WIN THE GAME IN FOUR QUARTERS, point blank! It’s the other team’s defense’ responsibility to prevent the other team from getting in field goal range or a chance to score, period, by actually playing DEFENSE. You suffer the consequences when you don’t by losing.
    The rules has been in place for 5 decades, and all of a sudden when Brett Favre doesn’t win the NFCCG, the rules have to change.

  18. Overtime is fine as is. If a change must be made, move the kickoffs back up to the 35. That will help create more touchbacks and eliminate the chances of a big return.

  19. The reason to change the OT procedure is simple. It’s an archaic rule. It dates back to the days of 13-10 defensive struggles. Over time, many rules in the NFL have changed. Almost all of those rules are to increase scoring (late hit rules, decreasing the threshold of what constitutes roughing the passer, illegal contact in the secondary, helmet-to-helmet hits, horse-collar tackles, defenseless receiver protection, leading with the helmet calls, etc. All designed to protect offenses and increase scoring.
    Now games are commonly resolved around the 30 point mark(as was the NFC title game referenced in the article) or above, making the likelihood of scoring on the first possession of overtime much greater than “back in the day.” Ergo, the importance of winning the coin-flip in overtime has increased as well. Dismissively saying “just play defense” may have had some merit in the 60’s, but has very little today. The NFL has deliberately and intentionally made the game more offensive. Balancing that by letting both offenses take the field in overtime is the only logical, and fair, thing to do.

  20. I prefer overtime the way it is. College is more forgiving and allows both teams to get at least one offensive possession and that is because they are not as talented as the professionals. Sudden death is the way the NFL should be.

  21. I hope I understand the OT problem and can accurately express my thoughts.
    Objection: a team can win in OT without the other team touching the ball on offense, right?
    With the proposed OT change, each team has the opportunity to touch the ball.
    Even under the proposed changes, the team winning the coin toss and receiving the kick-off can run said kick-off for a touchdown, right?
    So how will the kicking team have an opportunity to have ball possession????
    Even the new proposal fails to answer the “problem” with the current rules.
    I can see many scenarios: the receiving team fumbles and the kicking team recovers for a touchdown or field goal; an on-sides kick is successful … well, that’s two.
    While I am not a fan of the existing OT rules, I do not know the solution. But I do know the proposal under consideration is not any better.

  22. Iwell, if it was unfair for the Vikings to not get a possession in OT, then you have to say it was unfair that the Saints ran out of time before the end of regulation at midfield and didn’t get a chance to win the game. That’s why I like Pat Kirwin’s idea the best: At the end of regulation, don’t flip a coin, just continue with the next (fifth) quarter and leave the ball where it was to end the fourth, with possession going to the team with the ball. First team to score wins.

  23. Florio,
    You gotta stick with law and/or writing, because you clearly do not understand simple math!!!! One of your previous articles stated that since 1994, the number of teams winning OT games on first possession field goals was 26%. This means that the game ended on something other than a first possession field goal a WHOPPING 74% of the time.
    You (and your NBC co-worker Costas) are perpetuating a myth — the simple fact of the matter is that the OT rule in the NFL is NOT a problem!!!!!!!
    Other analyses have shown that the team getting the first possession wins 59% of the time (meaning that the team with the second possession wins 41% of the time). A difference to be sure, but not one that warrants the kind of time and space that you are dedicating to it.
    Please post this so that the truth has a chance to be heard.

  24. Overtime would have been fine as is if they hadn’t made all those rule changes to benefit the offense…

    In 1994 the kick off was moved back from the 35 to the 30 yard line. Before this the coin flip was a statistical non factor. After this, it was.
    Move the kick off back to the 35 yard line and everything is fixed!!!!!!!!!
    Also, changing it just for playoff games makes an already crappy idea even worse and it is going to bite them in the ass as soon as next year when, week 17, 2 teams playing each other for a playoff spot, game goes into overtime and it’s a one possession and done.
    Teams will SCREAM that they should have had the ball twice since, after all, they just passed that rule for playoff games. Why did they not include regular season? For all intents and purposes, this was a playoff game.
    DON”T PASS A CRAPPY RULE!!!!!!!!!!

  26. vikings fan here. a team blowing their opportunity to win a game in 4 quarters does not justify a change in rules for overtime. i have seen some great college games turn into real snoozefests in overtime.

  27. Oh no!
    you know what else fans hate? low scoring games. Let’s do away with those too.
    This is beyond lame. It’s clear that when the game gets to overtime, the teams are pretty even. Why over complicate it? Either could win, equity has clearly been served, stop crying.

  28. Awww, poor baby Bwett Fawve didn’t get his chance in OT so now something has to be done.
    He had his chance and he/they blew it!

  29. bucc19 says: March 20, 2010 6:37 PM
    So let’s see now..what if we change the rules and Favre,Manning or Brady still lose..do we change them again?
    Interceptions in the fourth quarter shouldn’t count. They should be just incomplete passes (the Manning rule).
    Speaking of fairness, nothing is as unfair as the two minute drive. if a team merely manages the clock and scores with no time left for the other team to try to score again, that creates an unfair situation. The NFL needs to adjust their timekeeping procedures to make sure that this doesn’t happen again.

  30. heres a better idea,how about the opposing team captains play the “penis” game.whoever yells louder gets posesion…

  31. Overtime is OVERRATED and there is no need for it, sans a Championship situation. Too if NO winner was to be crowned in Championship games, even if it were to result in a tie/co-Champs (think a Notre Dame & Michigan State back in 1966), think of the maneuvering each team would undertake to win it – and conversely lose it – within a regulation time. Alas, too much $ involved and too little scrotum all parties involved to make it viable, though it would be akin to putting your money where your mouth & as such manhood lies.
    The NFL should back to the days when you either won, lost OR tied a game – in regulation – & that’s how the game ended: a W, L or a T.
    If the incentive is not enough of an impetus to win a game in regulation, an extra ‘chance’ any should not be given one or both teams aft via overtime.
    Personally I miss seeing ties as part & parcel team records because it can nicely bollocks up scenarios for post season too – yet another reasons not settle for a tie. Go for the gusto i.e., ‘W’ & reap the spoils, or be wimpy and play for a ‘T’ and an extra chance in overtime. Even if you ‘L’ose, you win the court of public opinion.
    Thank you, and goodnight.

  32. Football is not just about offense it’s about defense and special teams as well hence the word “TEAM.” The overtime rules are fine leave it alone. If you want college rules then watch college games but don’t change the Pros rules to suit college minded interest in the sport.

  33. Yes, so many were offended by what happened in the NFC Championship game that it was the least watched Super Bowl in history. Oh wait, it set a record for the most watched TV broadcast in history. So, YOUR view isn’t persuasive. In fact, you’re talking out your ass. You claimed it needs to be changed to be “fair”. The game is FAIR. The Vikings turned over the ball so many times that THEY destroyed THEIR chances to win. Not the rules. You also claim it alienates casual viewers. WRONG. The Super Bowl suffered NONE of the ill effects you have ranted about and declared inevitable for years. Your reasons for change are wrong and you’re a hypocrite for bashing others for presenting arguments that don’t hold up. Neither do yours! Stop being a self promoting douchebag and trying to get a rule change with your name on it. This is strictly a shameless, self aggrandizing, arrogant power trip. It isn’t about improving the game, it’s about increasing traffic to your site. Period.

  34. The overtime proposal MUST NOT pass. Florio, you are such a pathetic whiner. Covering kickoffs well, playing good defense and not committing penalties are all things that championship teams do well. Losers (like last season’s Vikings) deserve what they get. Winners (like the Saints) find a way to win. Stuff your lame “change overtime” arguments where the sun don’t shine.

  35. It’s quite simple – – make the OT decision part of the opening coin toss.
    Here’s how the NFL Rule book defines the coin-toss and following decisions to be made:
    Coin Toss
    The toss of coin will take place within three minutes of kickoff in center of field. The toss will be called by the visiting captain before the coin is flipped. The winner may choose one of two privileges and the loser gets the other:
    (a) Receive or kick
    (b) Goal his team will defend
    Immediately prior to the start of the second half, the captains of both teams must inform the officials of their respective choices. The loser of the original coin toss gets first choice.
    Now, all they have to do is amend the rule to the following:
    Coin Toss
    The toss of coin will take place within three minutes of kickoff in center of field. The toss will be called by the visiting captain before the coin is flipped. The winner may choose one of two privileges and the loser gets the other:
    (a) Receive or kick
    (b) Goal his team will defend
    Immediately prior to the start of the second half, the captains of both teams must inform the officials of their respective choices. The loser of the original coin toss gets first choice.
    Immediately prior to the start of any Overtime period, the captains of both teams must inform the officials of their respective choices. The winner of the original coin toss gets first choice.

  36. I have an idea. Don’t give up a long return and don’t let them score. Novel concept, eh? It’s not just about the O, Florio. You play three phases of the game. Offense, defense, special teams. If you can’t prevent a score in OT, maybe you don’t deserve to win. This reminds me of the scoreboard thing “OH NOES! Do something before it’s too late!”

  37. “The dissenting views aren’t persuasive. “Play defense” doesn’t fly when there’s no guarantee of a chance to play offense.”
    There’s no guarantee of a chance to play offense, either! Gotta win the coin flip AND field a kickoff cleanly.

  38. Why don’t you tie ObamaCare into the discussion and increase the volatility of this thread.
    While I no issues whatsoever with the current rule, the only logical alternative would be a point threshold. I’d say 1st to 4pts, some say 6. Whateva.
    I don’t get the logic that says: if one team kicks a field goal, and then the other team gets a turn to kick a field goal, NOW we can go to sudden death. Basically what your saying is even though both teams had 60 mins to settle this thing, if each team doesn’t get the chance to touch the ball ONE MORE TIME, then it isn’t fair.
    I guess after Logan and Wesley’s mommies each get to see their little boo boo touch the ball, they’ll feel better and can go back to knitting afghans.
    As much as I DETEST the college OT rule, it makes more sense than this OT proposal. If you’re gonna give the other team a chance to respond once, why would you take it away? Now you’re just back to the current rule.
    To steal a phrase from a guy who broke a curse, “Stupid, idiotic proposal to make!”

  39. OK so obviously I’m a Vikings fan (just look at my screen name) and I have ALWAYS been in favor of changing the OT rule. It’s simply not right for one team to get the ball while one team sits on the sideline. To have a simple flip of the coin carry so much weight is just ridiculous. Both teams should get the ball… not matter what happens on the first possession. If the first team scores a TD then obviously the other team will have to score a TD. Whether that’s a kickoff return for a TD or driving 80 yards. Both teams should have an opportunity to have the bal in OT.

  40. Keep it the way it is as plenty have said each team already had 60 minutes to score or stop the other team from scoring, it’s sudden death and no FGs shouldn’t be obscured. Even if you went to this new approach eventually you end up with sudden death. If the goal is fairness take away the coin toss and adopt the old XFL method, the ball is placed at midfield and each team has one player sprint from their endzone whoever is faster gets posession. And this would also make the underwear Olympic 40 times relavent.

  41. I think that rule change sounds reasonable, but I don’t hate the current way. You make it sound like it will be a tragedy if a SB ends that way. It won’t be.
    But besides you and Peter King whining about it a lot, I don’t hear that many complaints.

  42. Any coach that mindlessly kicks extra points, punts on 4th and short and otherwise makes cowardly decisions that ultimately leads to ties after regulation deserve to have possession decided by a fair 50/50 coin toss.
    If anything, there’s an incentive now to go for two at the end of the game to win from two yards out to avoid the overtime situation. Win the game from six feet out, don’t settle for overtime.
    A change in the rules would make overtime more likely. You wouldn’t fear the coin toss if you knew you’d get possession in overtime.
    On another note, doesn’t the “each team gets a chance to score” argument apply both to the proposed new rule as well as the entirety of regulation?

  43. This is all BS. I hate that coaches play for a tie and overtime instead of trying to win the game in overtime. Wasn’t the 2 point conversion supposed to reduce the number of games going to overtime?
    Coaches are too afraid to lose to actually coach aggressively and go for the win. They all need to balls up and stop whining. First to 6, both teams must have the ball, it’s all GARBAGE!
    I say get rid of overtime completely. It’s a 60 minute game. Overtime is called SUDDEN DEATH for a reason. This is becoming a pansy, politically correct game.

  44. After reading/skimming all the comments, it appears that the vast majority think the rules should stay the same… THANKS TO THE PEOPLE!!!!
    Hey Florio…. Go mess with the soccer rules… maybe you can think of a way to make that game even more boring to watch!

  45. What happens if a team scores a safety?
    Say team a plays good defense and scores a safty by sacking the opposing quarterback in the end zone. They get the ball back on the free kick and move down the field and kick a field goal. Now they have scored offensively and defensively in OT and still will not win. They would have to stop them again and kick another field goal to achieve the 6 points necessary to win.

  46. “I think that rule change sounds reasonable, but I don’t hate the current way. You make it sound like it will be a tragedy if a SB ends that way. It won’t be.

    But besides you and Peter King whining about it a lot, I don’t hear that many complaints.”

    That’s because there aren’t that many complaints. Florio should just rename this blog “wemustchangeovertimetalk.com.”

    “The notion that only one team gets the ball in overtime simply isn’t fair.” — Florio, here’s a hint: Life isn’t fair.

  47. I’ve always felt that the possibility of a tie is a joke, especially when you only play 16 games. In such a popular, physical sport, wouldn’t you want to have a winner determined?
    Forget this different rule thing for playoffs and regular season – implement the college-style overtime. A coin flip to determine only one thing: who gets the ball first.
    Can you get any more fair or diplomatic???

  48. Keep it the way it is for the regular season.
    Make it an entire period for the playoffs. It’s not as if people are going to turn the game off because it’s going a little longer. And the networks pay a lot of money for this package. Their primetime drivel can wait.
    Then again, there seems to be some growing sentiment for being more proactive in regulation, such as going for it on 4 and 2 at your own 28 when a 1st down essentially ends the game.

  49. “The notion that only one team gets the ball in overtime simply isn’t fair” Actually it is! I can’t believe this whining! What the Hell are defense’s for? The only reason these rules come up is to protect the Big names Qb’s, (Farve Manning Brady) every time they make a mistake!
    Maybe if there wasn’t all these stupid rules cutting defensive players at the knee’s this wouldn’t happen? To limit NFL defense’s from doing their job so more points are scored? The NFL makes enough money but their GREED is ruining the game! “Two Hand Touch” anyone?
    Little miss Florio, the Vikings lost because they were stupid! Too many players on the field in FG range? If a team commits penalties like that in those critical moments, they deserve to lose.

  50. No one ever cared abotu Ot rule until Hillbilly Peyton Manning lost to the Chrgers last year, when all you heard was Peyton was on teh sidelines the whole time and never touched the ball. He should have led his team to a score in regulation instead of getting sacked on the 3rd down play!

  51. You all do realize that no matter what you do, the Saints still beat the Vikings and are Super Bowl champs, right?
    LET. IT. GO.

  52. They should just extend the fourth quarter until the tie is broken. It may shorten the game in some instances, but at least down, distance and field position are all earned to that point. Unlike a coin flip which is completely unearned. Hypothetically, it may be 3rd and 9 on your own four yard line, in which case you’d PREFER not having the ball. Its the easiest OT solution, takes out all gimicks (like college’s OT system) and it is completely fair.

  53. Overtime rule should remain unchanged. Under the proposal, what happens if the kicking team kicks an on-side kick and recovers? Does that count as the receiving team’s initial possession? Look, I hear that 59% of the teams that touched the ball first won in overtime. But, I also heard that somewhere in the 60% range of those 59% winning games, actually had the kicking team play offense for one series only to lose on the second series of the receiving team. If that is true, then what we are really talking about is 40% of the overtime games had the receiving team win on their first possession. Sound like an argument to remain things the way they are.
    The PK proposal to just keep playing where the fourth quarters ends screws up the game. Take for instance, why run a 2 minute offense when you know you will keep the ball if time runs out. Why would you need your time outs when time does not matter. Also, it is possible a team on fourth down at the end of the game punt inside the opponents 5 yard line. Overtime would start with a team inside their own five. Lastly, there would ne no more Hail Mary plays at the end of the game.
    Leave the OT rules alone.

  54. Florio:
    “Of course, that’s already happened. It’s precisely what happened to the Vikings in the 2009 NFC title game, but it wasn’t just a penalty. It was a questionable penalty. And a questionable fourth-down dive play. And a questionable third-down catch that moved the ball into range for the game-winning field goal.”
    Questionable Penalty?
    Questionable Third Down Catch?
    Watch the whole game next time, will you!
    Look at the “questionable calls” on both sides. They refs in that game called it pretty much the same way for both teams. (I disagreed with two or three calls for both teams.)
    You know full well that if your beloved Vikings had won the game in the exact same way that you would not be pimping the overtime change to the same degree that you are here. I will grant you that you have wanted a change in the overtime rule for years, but stop with the sour grapes.
    The theme is pretty consistent with you, sour grapes, sour purple Kool Aid, what’s next some “purple drank”? I am starting to think you might need some of this. If not, maybe Ricky Williams could hook you up with a little ganga. It might help with the indigestion you get every time somebody reminds you that……THE SAINTS WON THE SUPER BOWL!
    You know in your heart that if your beloved Vikings had gotten to the game that Lord Favre would have found a way to lose.

  55. “The notion that only one team gets the ball in overtime simply isn’t fair. ”
    The notion that the team on defense can stop the team with the ball is completely fair. The notion that the team starting overtime on defense already had 60-minutes to score more points and failed to do so is completely fair. It’s called football.

  56. i don’t understand and never have understood why there is not a certian amount of time on the clock for overtime it is the way the game was played in regulation and it is only fair to whatever teams are involved. so if the game is not determined in 60 reg. minutes then each overtime period should be say 1/2 of a regulation quarter. why does the way the game is normally played change in overtime? no other sport i can think of changes the rules that apply in regulation for overtime and teams in the nfl that do make the playoffs are few compared to other sports (32 teams 12 playoff spots) so every game is very big and i know i would be very upset if i played my butt off for 60 mins. and some fluke penalty or lucky bounce of the ball allowed another team to win sudden death because the nfl changes the rules reguarding the clock for overtime and my team never got a chance because the clock was took out of the game.

  57. Hey Crykings fans, your precious team will still lose and lose badly. Take it from an ex-fan, your team is still cursed. And you know it.

  58. I like the original way of OT. The problem has that the NFL has made the rules to make it harder to defend because they wanted scoring to go up. When they did this the broke how OT was suppose to be played. In the last few years of OT I have seen a lot phantom or real touchy defensive penalties that keep the offense alive for a 40-yard kick or shorter. Yes, they are paid to block kicks but the other guys are also paid to block the rushing team.
    So im more for changing rules so the offense can’t score so easily.

  59. “but isn’t it fair that each team had 60 minutes to win the game? ”
    yes, but it is not fair that one team has 60+ minutes to win the game. All the same, Florio is a little self-obsessed. PFT was not anywhere near the forefront of anything! just report the news and stop the opinion editorials!

  60. # dakotah says: March 20, 2010 6:43 PM
    Hey Mikey, the game is over, the Vikings lost. Deal with it.
    TRU DAT!!!

  61. When is there ever a “guarantee to play offense”? You can hold the ball the entire game if you want, there’s not reason you shouldn’t be able to stop the other team. There’s also no reason you shouldn’t try harder to win in regulation. Go for two. Go for it on fourth and short. Win the damn game.
    The current overtime is more than fair, because overtime should never be necessary.

  62. Florio, you’re great, but on this issue, you suck.
    Both teams already have 60 minutes to put their stamp on the game.
    Besides, after his rule is implemented, you’ll hate it. You’ll want it for regular season games as well, and then after that’s implented, you’ll still hate the rule and want it tweeked differently.

  63. This is the biggest BS EVER!!! I am a proud member of the WHO DAT NATION but this goes beyond my favoritism for my beloved Superbowl Champs Saints… To my recollection there were 2 OT playoff games this year( Green Bay vs Arizona and N.O. vs Minn). The winner of the coin toss won 50 PERCENT of those games. Everybody talks all this BS, but real FOOTBALL players and fans know that football is made of 3 parts: offense, defense, and special teams. A touchdown counts for 6 points regardless of who scores. So what if the team that wins the coin toss fumbles the kickoff and the other team recovers and scores of TD???? Would piece of feces Florio be crying like a biaaaatch if the Vikings would have done that?? I guess not!!! I have been coming to this site since last summer and I now can’t hold my words any longer: Florio is truly the biggest Saints HATER alive. Its proven.
    Football is a MAN’s game. Your teams defense in overtime needs to MAN up. Period. If they can’t and the other teams special teams and offense makes the plays then that’s it. Period.

  64. Teams already have an equal shot at winning in OT. Football isn’t like a lot of other sports which are turn based (Baseball, Tennis, Volleyball) where the offense is the only side that can score. On any given play both the offense and the defense can score the game deciding points. Sure, an offense can take the ball down the field after a good kick return and score but they can just as easily throw an ill-advised pass against their body and have it pick-6ed to end the game. Sure the offense could just run the ball down the defense’s throat but the defense can also strip the ball and return it for a touchdown to win the game.
    Every play, both teams can win or lose the game regardless of their being on offense or defense. That’s the equality.

  65. How come it’s only pencil necks like Florio who keep whining about OT? Every football fan has stated their case that the game needs to be LEFT ALONE!
    It’s all part of the “me, me, I want, change everything to make ME happy” generation.

  66. geeeeeeeesh vike fans still crying,, they had 4qts to stop the saints,,, did they noooooooooooooooo get over it , it won’t help to change ot rules ,, they have 4qts to stop the offence

  67. the only thing i’d change is move the kickoff tee back to the 35.
    more touchbacks = much less opportunity to start with good field position. an offense would earn whatever they got.
    look at what a mess college OT is…that’s what you get when you tinker too much.

  68. I don’t agree with Florio or Fisher.
    If you give up a penalty, or a kick return, well that’s a problem for your team, not the league. You’re trying to take factors out of the game that need to be accounted for. Just because it doesn’t mesh with how you see the perfect game doesn’t mean it isn’t a huge part of the game of football.
    If you continue to try and ‘fix’ factors that can affect an outcome, you move towards a watered down game.

  69. Whine on Mike. OT isn’t fair. Cry me a river. Instant replay isn’t fair and it already has cost at least three teams the Lombardi. There is of course nothing to stop the kicking team from an onside kick in OT is there? Cry me a river. There is nothing to stop the defense from making a play? Cry me a river. How about kick out like the shoot outs in soccer and hockey. Start at the 40 yard line and have the FG kicker decide it. Move back 5 yards after each kick. I like this idea so much better than this new one. Whine me a river Mike.

  70. Let me first say I don’t have a problem the way it is. The only thing I would change is to just mark a tie a tie and be done with it for the regular season. That’s why there is a “T” in the standings column. But if over time would change here is the only way to make it “FAIR”. Like I said before be done with OT for the regular season. For the Playoffs, all you do is have the coin toss, determine who gets the ball first and who defends which end zone and play 1 quarter at a time until there is no tie. The game resets after each extra period and teams will alternate getting the ball first after the first extra period.

  71. How’s about this: First team to score wins!
    Then maybe some day we’ll have overtime during an incredibly exciting NFC championship game, with a legendary quarterback going against a cindarella story for the ages, and the Cindarella team actually goes for it on 4th down in overtime! Before kicking a game winning field goal from 42 yards out! Wouldn’t that be awesome!
    Oh yeah, god forbid a f^cking football game ends on a field goal, I mean it’s not like that ever happens in regulation time.
    Both teams get the ball on offense? That’s some Obama spread the wealth shiiiiit. Not only is defense part of the game(much to the dislike of Roger Goodell apparently) but so is special teams. Keep your I’m a little baby soft-ass rule change ideas to yourself, Frenchy.

  72. Call it the Brent Favre OT rule. It isn’t good enough for him to choke by throwing an INT in the last 30 seconds of the game, let’s change the rules so he at least an an opportunity to throw an INT in OT as well. Like he has never done that before, well, if you don’t count the NFC championship game or the Eagles playoff game.
    Look Mike, the Vikings lost and you and a bunch of gerbil buying Viking fans seem to have trouble accepting it but why is it a shock that the Vikings didn’t win the Superbowl, they never have in the past and next year isn’t looking too promising either.

  73. come on now. fa real change the rules they are out of their minds and y, because bwett farve got his ass lit up and some people are mad. if the saints would have lost this would not even be an issue so listen to the fans the the only person who would like this thing to pass is the cat who posted the blog.

  74. no, flawrio, no.
    the game is fine. stop trying to turn it into the neverending story.
    and yes obama sucks.

  75. There have been those of us for YEARS who want to see the overtime rule changed, and I think the perfect one to do so is the college rule, while could be modified for the NFL in the following manner:
    1. No clock in overtime, as is the case in college football
    2. Each team starts on the opponents 35 yard line (as opposed to the 25 in college).
    3. If a team in an overtime period going first scores in fewer than four plays, their opponent gets that many plays to equal the score (i.e.: If Team A scores on its first play of overtime, Team B gets one play to match the score).
    4. Teams must go for two after a touchdown starting with the second overtime (as opposed to the third as is done in college).

  76. Florio none of us who are true football fans seem to understand your theory that sudden death isnt fair. You are dilluted if you think that.

  77. Move the goddamn kicking tee back to the 35 and your 60% success rate inches back down to 55% or lower.
    The NFL moved the kicking tees to the 30 several years ago to try to spur more offense. It was a stupid move then and it’s still a stupid move now.
    I get sick and tired of rules changes every year to tweak the game–more than half the time they hurt the game. The game’s been good for a damn long time. Leave it alone.

  78. The advocates of change miss the point. The system is not broken. Football is played (off vs. def, def vs. off) and a winner produced. It is now time to go home. If your pootums is hurt because your celebrity failed, got knocked an his ass, etc. means one thing and one thing only. WORK HARDER NEXT YEAR. If you, as a fan are so heavily invested emotionally perhaps you need to legitimize living by finding other pursuits. Good Luck to you.

  79. People like to continually bring up the games in which a one drive field goal led to a win, but that is not always the case like most are making it out to be. The Green Bay Packers last TWO playoff appearances involved WINNING THE COIN TOSS IN OVERTIME IN THE PLAYOFFS and the opposing defense stepped up and won the game (07 vs. NYG and 09 vs. ARZ). Being a Packers fan, it was horribly difficult to watch. But those are 2 legit examples of how overtime does not need to change.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.