[jerseykingpin]

CBSSports.com Senior Writer

When NFL owners meet in Florida next week, one of the hot topics will be a proposal to change the way overtimes are played -- an idea that could be tried on an experimental basis as early as the 2010 playoffs.

I've tried to think it has a chance of making it, but the NFL also concedes it will be an uphill battle. In fact, most put the odds at something less than 50-50.
"I don't think you're going to find 24 clubs that want to change the rule," said one source close to the situation. "The only people who keep complaining about it are the media and the fans. The majority of coaches don't want to change anything."
Maybe, but I ran into a couple at the annual NFL scouting combine in Indianapolis who were at least willing to listen, and that's a start.
Under the proposed idea, the first team to score six points in overtime wins -- thereby eliminating one team receiving a kickoff, driving 40 yards and winning the game on a long field goal.
Some people think that should change, that overtime games shouldn't be decided by field-goal kickers. So they want to do something about it, and what they want to do is make it so you have to produce a touchdown or two field goals to win.
The idea makes sense -- with a touchdown preserving the sudden-death angle and the two field goals reducing the role of kickers and allowing both teams at least one possession. In fact, it makes so much sense, it was endorsed unanimously by the league's competition committee when it first looked at it.
But now it's up to coaches and players to convince their owners and general managers it's a good idea, and I guarantee there will be no unanimity there.
"But at least there seems to be an openness to it," said one executive.
So maybe it passes, and maybe it doesn't. I understand why it is appealing, and I understand why trying it on an experimental basis -- basically, cracking the door to let it in -- could convince skeptical owners who otherwise might vote it down. But I'll be honest here: I still favor an idea which is simpler and less gimmicky.
And that's moving the kickoff up five yards.
"Forget it," said one executive. "We voted that down a couple of years ago."
So what? Two years ago, Tiger Woods was considered a family man. Times change. The thinking here should, too, and I'll tell you why: Look at the first 20 years of overtime when the kickoff was at the 35-yard line. Including the playoffs, the team that received the kick won 99 times, and the time that lost it -- well, it won 101 times.
Forget about ties, because there were some. The compelling message here is that when the ball was teed up at the 35, there was no advantage to receiving the kick. In fact, there was a disadvantage.
Now compare those figures to what's happened since 1994 when the kickoff was moved back to the 30. Including the playoffs, the team that received the kickoff won 141 times, the team that lost won 89 times. That's 61 percent versus 49.5 percent under the old rules, and case closed, people. The numbers speak for themselves.
Instead of a plan that changes strategy and coaches' thinking, you have one very simple, very basic and very understandable idea: You simply move the kickoff up five yards, and let the fun begin.
"I'm glad you mentioned it," said one AFC head coach. "I'm going to bring it up at the meetings."
Good luck. Nothing will happen with it, just as nothing happened two years ago. Frankly, I'm not sure anything happens with overtime, period, and that's OK by me. I'm with coaches who want a minimum of change. But if you're determined to make one, then let's make it minimal.
Move the kickoff up five yards, and leave the game alone.

[icancount2one]

Wow, thought this was tl;dr, but then read and it was worth it.

This makes sense, as does the six point model. One return + drive to try to get to the opposing 30 or so should not be the tiebreaker.