proposed: bizarre new NFL OT rules, what do you think

Ok, every NFL fan knows the OT rules have to change (esp us in MN, we've been tormented by it this season and 98 ), and the NFL is looking into new rules for OT. it just a killer that receiving teams only have to play to the 35 yr line, esp if the opening team get a big KO return.

Here's a summary of the new proposed rule:

each team gets the ball at least once, unless the first team scores a touch down. if both teams score field goals on their 1st possession, then the old rules take effect: next score wins.

Better than current rules, BUT there are some glaring problems:

1) only applies in the playoffs
2) it only eliminates the short field for the first 2 possessions. then it reverts to the old rules which give the coin toss winner the ability to play a short field and win it on a field goal.

check it out here:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d816a29f8&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

here are a couple OT options that i could live with:
1) sudden death, but each team must have equal number of possessions.
2) sudden death, but no field goals. only TDs.

lastly, here is one proposal that i really think is interesting but perhaps too far fetched (i read about it on some other forum, so i take no credit in contriving it):
3) no kick-off. instead starting field position is auctioned: before the start of the game, each team submits the worst OT starting field position they would accept if the game goes to OT. the team willing to take the worst field position starts with the ball at their proposed start position. if the both accepted the same field position, then it's a coin toss. OT then proceeds as it does now: standard sudden death.
3.b) or, in addition to (3), i would add that the team that wins the auction, no only gets the ball, but they would get the ball at the field position the other team said it would accept. this would force both teams to push back their field position, b/c doing so not only increases their chance of getting the ball, BUT if they don't it will at least pin them back more.

For example of (3 + 3.b), Team 1 says it will accept the ball on their own 14yd line, and Team 2 says it will accept the ball on their own 21yd line. ==> Then this means that Team 1 gets the ball first in OT, but they get the ball on their own 21yd line.

your thoughts? for me, the main modification is that the need to get rid of the short field. all three of these options do that, or at least provide that possibility.
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
NFL can't bring itself to admit that the NCAA approach is the fairest. As it is, the team that wins the OT coin toss wins the game nearly 60% of the time.
 
The NFL should use college football overtime rules. It is only fair that both teams get a chance to get the ball.

I think Donovan McNabb got confused about the overtime rules not too long ago.
 

Lakoste

Professional
Isn't this the same thing as saying first one to 6 points? Pretty sure this was proposed and rejected like 5+ years ago.

It isn't that bad of an idea, pretty sure that this new format would make it so the team who gets the ball first wins 49% of the time, compared to the 60% currently.
 
Last edited:
NFL can't bring itself to admit that the NCAA approach is the fairest. As it is, the team that wins the OT coin toss wins the game nearly 60% of the time.
i personally don't like the NCAA rules. i agree the ncaa rules are completely "fair", but it's not really football. there's no flow to the game. it's just a contrived way to end the game. i want the game to flow as normally as possible and to be be fair.

the ncaa rules are like the football equivalent of a hockey or soccer shootout. it's not really "football" at that point, it's just a relatively "quick" way to resolve and outcome.

anyway, i still like my proposed options (1) and (2). =)
 
Isn't this the same thing as saying first one to 6 points? Pretty sure this was proposed and rejected like 5+ years ago.

It isn't that bad of an idea, pretty sure that this new format would make it so the team who gets the ball first wins 49% of the time, compared to the 60% currently.
yes, it is the same as saying first to 6 wins, and indeed this is better than the current system. but for me the issue is that the first shot at a short field goes to the coin toss winner, that's why i like "only touchdowns" over "first to six".

for me, simply doing "sudden death, with equal number of possessions" is the best way. a little of the current NFL rules, plus a little of the NCAA rules.
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
i personally don't like the NCAA rules.
I LOVE the D1 rules. It's not only a shoot-out, but it turns the game into my team's red zone play vs. your team's red zone play, which is the funnest of all.
 
I'd like the NCAA rules, only with a hitch - each team gets the ball at midfield instead of the 25 yard line like in NCAA. This would make the TD harder and make FG position more important.

Or just kick the ball off and each team gets the ball at least once; meaning even if you score a TD you still have to go on defense and make a stop.
 

ALten1

Rookie
I would wager the players like a short overtime. I would almost bet they wouldn't mind the coin flip determing the outcome. They lay it all on the line for 4 quarters, can't see them wanting to play a 5th.
 
I would wager the players like a short overtime. I would almost bet they wouldn't mind the coin flip determing the outcome. They lay it all on the line for 4 quarters, can't see them wanting to play a 5th.
ha! yeah right. that'd be like roddick saying to fed at wimbly 09 "hey, man, we battled for 4 hours over 4 sets, we each gave it our all, lets just flip a coin a shake. i'm just to spent for another set."

athletes are not that way.
 
Last edited:
I LOVE the D1 rules. It's not only a shoot-out, but it turns the game into my team's red zone play vs. your team's red zone play, which is the funnest of all.
in truth, i've never seen an NCAA overtime game, so i cannot speak from experience. i don't follow ncaa football. it may work. i like the idea of equal number of possessions, but i'd rather just see the game played out in full. i would take current ncaa rules over current nfl rules though.
 

ALten1

Rookie
ha! yeah right. that'd be like roddick saying to fed at wimbly 09 "hey, man, we battled for 4 hours over 4 sets, we each gave it our all, lets just flip a coin a shake. i'm just to spent for another set."

athletes are not that way.

No its completely different. The football players are usually f'd up after every game. It becomes one more quarter that has the potential to put them out for the season maybe career.
 

hollywood9826

Hall of Fame
I like the rule as it is recommended.

If the team wins the flip and trots down and scores a touchdown then game over. Your D couldnt stop them you dont deserve to win. It easy to play for an FG in OT. But does the team with the ball want to settle on a FG and give the other team a chance? So the 1st teams strategy will change there.

For Reg season just leave it be.
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
You don't think a system that guarantees equal access to the ball is more fair? I barely know what to say. Rather than resort to nihilism, do you have something in mind that would be more fair? Playing defense first connotes a SLIGHT strategic advantage but it's a hell of a lot fairer than sudden death.
 

r2473

Talk Tennis Guru
You don't think a system that guarantees equal access to the ball is more fair? I barely know what to say. Rather than resort to nihilism, do you have something in mind that would be more fair? Playing defense first connotes a SLIGHT strategic advantage but it's a hell of a lot fairer than sudden death.
I think it is more than a slight advantage to play defense first in college football OT.

The college system is "more fair" than the NFL system.

But, no system will be 100% "fair".
 

hollywood9826

Hall of Fame
The only fair system would be to play another quarter (although now they would be 5ths). I could see this maybe in Super Bowl only. College works for college, but I dont think I would want to see that in the pros.

The way it is aint too bad IMO. Special teams is part of the game, defense is part of the game. If you dont get the ball at kickoff then your team must perform to win. The Colts Special teams and coaching let them down in the SB. Much like Favre let down the Vikings at the end of the NFC championship.
 
They should have a tipoff do determine possession. Like in basketball.

Haha just kidding.

The part about "auctioning off" field position at the beginning of the game....hahaha that was good for a laugh. I admire the idea and creative thinking, but there's no way the coaches/NFL would agree on that. Also, if you had an OT with only touchdown's and no field goals....that could make for some very long overtimes. Teams go quarters at a time without scoring at ALL, even a field goal....the game is already super long, and as exciting as overtime is, as fans, after 3 hours or whatever it takes sometimes, we're ready for it to be done.

I wouldn't mind an NCAA-like approach, but instead of having them both start at specific positions on the field, just play it more like a normal game. Kind of like a pickup game. Kick off the ball like normal, if the team scores, kick it off to the other team. If they don't respond, game over, or if the first team to get the ball doesn't score, and the defending team does, game over. If the first team scores and the second team matches it, keep going. I'm sure there's a bunch of flaws to this, I haven't thought it through real hard, maybe a time limit, then if there's a second OT, go sudden death in that one or make the teams go for 2 in the first OT and call it a tie after that, I dunno. Just some thoughts.
 

pmerk34

Legend
Ok, every NFL fan knows the OT rules have to change (esp us in MN, we've been tormented by it this season and 98 ), and the NFL is looking into new rules for OT. it just a killer that receiving teams only have to play to the 35 yr line, esp if the opening team get a big KO return.

Here's a summary of the new proposed rule:

each team gets the ball at least once, unless the first team scores a touch down. if both teams score field goals on their 1st possession, then the old rules take effect: next score wins.

Better than current rules, BUT there are some glaring problems:

1) only applies in the playoffs
2) it only eliminates the short field for the first 2 possessions. then it reverts to the old rules which give the coin toss winner the ability to play a short field and win it on a field goal.

check it out here:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d816a29f8&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

here are a couple OT options that i could live with:
1) sudden death, but each team must have equal number of possessions.
2) sudden death, but no field goals. only TDs.

lastly, here is one proposal that i really think is interesting but perhaps too far fetched (i read about it on some other forum, so i take no credit in contriving it):
3) no kick-off. instead starting field position is auctioned: before the start of the game, each team submits the worst OT starting field position they would accept if the game goes to OT. the team willing to take the worst field position starts with the ball at their proposed start position. if the both accepted the same field position, then it's a coin toss. OT then proceeds as it does now: standard sudden death.
3.b) or, in addition to (3), i would add that the team that wins the auction, no only gets the ball, but they would get the ball at the field position the other team said it would accept. this would force both teams to push back their field position, b/c doing so not only increases their chance of getting the ball, BUT if they don't it will at least pin them back more.

For example of (3 + 3.b), Team 1 says it will accept the ball on their own 14yd line, and Team 2 says it will accept the ball on their own 21yd line. ==> Then this means that Team 1 gets the ball first in OT, but they get the ball on their own 21yd line.

your thoughts? for me, the main modification is that the need to get rid of the short field. all three of these options do that, or at least provide that possibility.
No coin toss. The home team should get first possession.
 

heycal

Hall of Fame
Why even have an overtime? Just keep playing till one team comes out ahead, game over.
That's basically what overtime is.

Just skimmed this thread, and know nothing about NCAA rules, but I do like the idea of any change that gets rid of current set up where a field goal usually ends the game, which I find boring. Having to a score a TD sounds a simple and fine solution, but some of the others sound good too.
 

hollywood9826

Hall of Fame
That's basically what overtime is.

Just skimmed this thread, and know nothing about NCAA rules, but I do like the idea of any change that gets rid of current set up where a field goal usually ends the game, which I find boring. Having to a score a TD sounds a simple and fine solution, but some of the others sound good too.
Ill some up NCAA rules right quick.

They flip a coin for possesion choice.
Teams start at the opponents 25yd line.
Both teams get a chance to score FGs are permitted.
After the 3rd overtime teams must try for 2pt conversions after scoring the touchdown.

Its not that bad of a system. But there is really not much flow into watching it, it just feels high schoolish to me.
 

topspin

Semi-Pro
They should just adopt the CFL rules that are used in the playoffs. Each team gets at least one possession on the opponents' 35 yard line until one team outscores the other.
 

heycal

Hall of Fame
Ill some up NCAA rules right quick.

They flip a coin for possesion choice.
Teams start at the opponents 25yd line.
Both teams get a chance to score FGs are permitted.
After the 3rd overtime teams must try for 2pt conversions after scoring the touchdown.

Its not that bad of a system. But there is really not much flow into watching it, it just feels high schoolish to me.
Thanks. Seems a bit gimmicky but not terrible.

Watching the Olympic hockey final, I wished they had played one full overtime period instead of sudden death, but that's partly because the game was so much fun that I didn't want it to end, and partly because the wrong team scored.

Am I imagining things, or did the NHL do something like that when I was a kid? Or am I thinking of basketball?
 

btpayne13

New User
The NFL needs to switch to how NCAA Football plays OT. It's surprising now that I think about how college football has something better than the NFL, considering how bad the BCS runs.
 

rosenstar

Professional
I say 10 minute over time, no matter who scores. If it's tied after that, you play sudden death. Whoever loses the coin toss in the beginning of overtime gets first possession in sudden death
 
Top