The NFL needs to change the OT rule...

[LT Profits]

Thinking of other major sports' overtimes, in basketball and baseball say, no question the team which wins the tip in OT basketball must have a clear long-term edge in winning the game. And in baseball, surely the home team has an edge there as well (ok the home team has that inherent edge the whole game of going second, but it clearly magnifies itself in extra innings when one run often wins the game). That said, I don't hear people complaining how OT in basketball is unfair since one team happened to get the ball first despite the fact that that is almost certainly a bigger edge statistically than getting the ball first in NFL OT.

My point is, in MLB, both teams bat and in basketball and hockey, having possession is considered being on offense. NFL is only sport where team could lose without ever being on offense in OT.

[ArunSh]

My point is, in MLB, both teams bat and in basketball and hockey, having possession is considered being on offense. NFL is only sport where team could lose without ever being on offense in OT.

Yeah, I get it, and I totally understand that would lead to a feeling of dissatisfaction when it works against you. I'm sure I would feel the same way if I were on the Chiefs/rooting for them. That said, I don't think it necessarily warrants a changing of the rules when by the #s, this system seems pretty fair in the long-term.

[ikid2groove415]

Have 10 minutes in OT - teams with the most point at the end wins

[k13]

They should change it so you can actually play football.
It was not a hard thing to stop a team from getting a TD, if you can't you deserve to lose.

[ikid2groove415]

They should change it so you can actually play football.
It was not a hard thing to stop a team from getting a TD, if you can't you deserve to lose.

You don’t think if KC had the ball first in OT? Game would be over? Both defense was preety much done heading into overtime

[MrSink]

agree. when 2 good offenses playing , winning coin toss is such an advantage. you are worse starting in defense , but sudden death after TD is just too much . I would prefer to see full 15mins of play

[44 Mag]

My point is, in MLB, both teams bat and in basketball and hockey, having possession is considered being on offense. NFL is only sport where team could lose without ever being on offense in OT.

But, if the home depot hits a homer and wins, does the game still go on, and on, and on????

[44 Mag]

Same bullshit. The Patriots won so everyone now wants the rules changed.... Please, all crybabies leave this thread.

[LT Profits]

But, if the home depot hits a homer and wins, does the game still go on, and on, and on????

Irrelevant, the road team had its chance in the top of the inning.

[LT Profits]

Same bullshit. The Patriots won so everyone now wants the rules changed.... Please, all crybabies leave this thread.

You know me better than that Mags. Granted, the OP was specifically talking about Pats game, but I am talking in more general terms using Pats game as an example because it was a great one. I would be echoing the same sentiments if Chiefs won toss and scored TD.

[pavyracer]

Same bullshit. The Patriots won so everyone now wants the rules changed.... Please, all crybabies leave this thread.

They tried the golden goal in soccer for 10 years but fans didn't like it and they went back to two fifteen minute halves for OT.

Every sport is different but they can try some different ideas in the future.

For example here is an idea:

Instead of a coin toss, to determine who gets the ball in OT which is based on luck, they can try a 57 yard FG or a 2 point conversion. Each team gets to kick one or tries for a 2 pt conversion. Whoever makes it gets the ball first, or defers.

Therefore it won't be based on the luck of a coin toss.

[44 Mag]

You know me better than that Mags. Granted, the OP was specifically talking about Pats game, but I am talking in more general terms using Pats game as an example because it was a great one. I would be echoing the same sentiments if Chiefs won toss and scored TD.

Yes Boss, I do. Just a little disgusted with most of the folks who want to change the rules because their team didn't win. As always, I respect your opinion, and believe a compromise could be met by the league and the teams competition committee.

[MrSink]

Yes Boss, I do. Just a little disgusted with most of the folks who want to change the rules because their team didn't win. As always, I respect your opinion, and believe a compromise could be met by the league and the teams competition committee.

whole thread is about rules in general ...

[SharpAngles]

Unfair? News flash: Life is unfair! Just ask the Saints.

If the KC secondary played better they would’ve held Brady to 3 points and gotten their “fair” chance.

[Slipknot26]

Jesus Christ...Participation Trophies needed everywhere
All a team has to do is not give up a TD , they can actually give up points and still win the game
No need for a rule change , because if it does , then it'll never pacify everyone .
Wanting more NCAAF playoff teams ? ✓
Change the NFL OT rules ? ✓
Nobody will be happy unless it gets to the point their team never loses another game .

[TheMoneyShot]

They should just play an extra quarter

I agree with this.

Especially in the playoffs.

If people aren't satisfied with the current OT structure... no other choice but to do a full qtr... do a 2-minute warning.... and give each team 2 timeouts. Of course... possibly we'd all be bitching about this... lol

Can't make everyone happy.

[DMB40]

I love how everyone complains about this. The saints won the overtime coin toss. They didn’t win.

[Ratpack]

but does it really matter lets say chiefs got the ball and scored a td then the pats scored a td right after that same results are we going to keep playing until someone makes a stop come on

[dfinn21]

Extremely simple way to fix this by using the college setup with a few tweaks:

1) Each team gets the ball at the 25 yard line.

2) No field goals allowed.

3) No XPs allowed. Must go for 2.

4) Repeat until one team is winning after an overtime period.

You end up with 3 options: Loss of down, TD missed 2 point conversion, TD made 2 point conversion. The odds of each team ending with the same result multiple times is fairly low.

This eliminates the problem with college football (2nd team has the advantage). This eliminates the pro problem (1st team has the advantage).

[LT Profits]

I love how everyone complains about this. The saints won the overtime coin toss. They didn’t win.

Right so that is not an issue. The issue arises when one team does not get the ball in OT.

[LT Profits]

but does it really matter lets say chiefs got the ball and scored a td then the pats scored a td right after that same results are we going to keep playing until someone makes a stop come on

No. If each team scores a TD, then it becomes sudden death. Just like it is now when each team scored a FG.

[SharpAngles]

They don’t get the ball but the loser of the coin flip has the advantage if their defense isn’t horrible. Force a punt or at least hold them to 3 points you know exactly what you need to do. The NFL overtime rules are fine.

[LT Profits]

They don’t get the ball but the loser of the coin flip has the advantage if their defense isn’t horrible. Force a punt or at least hold them to 3 points you know exactly what you need to do. The NFL overtime rules are fine.

So why should the second team not get a chance to mach a TD either, that is the problem I have. To me, either it should be sudden death from the get-go (which I HATE) or each team should be guaranteed one possession (unless the opening possession leads to a defensive score). What they have now is a hybrid which makes no sense to me.

[ArunSh]

Extremely simple way to fix this by using the college setup with a few tweaks:

1) Each team gets the ball at the 25 yard line.

2) No field goals allowed.

3) No XPs allowed. Must go for 2.

4) Repeat until one team is winning after an overtime period.

You end up with 3 options: Loss of down, TD missed 2 point conversion, TD made 2 point conversion. The odds of each team ending with the same result multiple times is fairly low.

This eliminates the problem with college football (2nd team has the advantage). This eliminates the pro problem (1st team has the advantage).

This actually seems like quite a reasonable idea to me - at least I can't think of any immediate reason why this should be unfair to either side.

[pavyracer]

So why should the second team not get a chance to mach a TD either, that is the problem I have. To me, either it should be sudden death from the get-go (which I HATE) or each team should be guaranteed one possession (unless the opening possession leads to a defensive score). What they have now is a hybrid which makes no sense to me.

It also leads to more game fixing with the current format. Lets say a team is +5.5 in the Superbowl (Falcons) and the books have lopsided action on the Falcons and are about to lose their asses and then the Patriots score a TD in OT and the books and the NFL who are in bed together are happy.

[ArunSh]

It also leads to more game fixing with the current format. Lets say a team is +5.5 in the Superbowl (Falcons) and the books have lopsided action on the Falcons and are about to lose their asses and then the Patriots score a TD in OT and the books and the NFL who are in bed together are happy.

Come on, do people really think they are changing the rules so that the bets people are making will pay off more for them in the long-term (kind of the same way people said the NFL should not change to college rules OT because of its potential impact on totals - again do people really think they are considering that when making the rules)?

I mean from all the cries of rigged that we hear about calls/non-calls due to its impact on certain bets, now the conspiracy theories are stretching even deeper, people believing that the rules are designed in a specific manner in order to have a positive impact for the sportsbooks in regards to bets long-term? I mean seriously?