Re: Football overtime
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the NFL's current system is poor. What % of OT's does the team that won the toss win?

[/ QUOTE ]

Historically (the history of the OT system) it's a shade over 50%. In recent history (last 6 years or so IIRC) it's a shade over 60%.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't find a source to back it up, but I distinctly remember seeing the following numbers recently:

Historically, it's 47% coin toss winners, 48% coin toss losers, 5% tie.

Re: Football overtime
 

[ QUOTE ]
For the nfl I think they should play a full quarter. If they're still tied after that play another full quarter. After that go with a quarter of sudden death. The death part might be literal after playing an extra half hour. It would also be acceptable to make OT ten minutes instead of 15 and play it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're forgetting one thing. TV. They need to get the games done in 3 to 3 1/2 hours.

Re: Football overtime
 

Yes, but they recently moved the kickoff back to the 30 yard line which changes things.

Re: Football overtime
 

i'm all about the extra period being played until completion. 10 minutes would be sufficient. this allows each team to have at least one possession, is actually similar to normal football (unlike current CF), and brings endgame strategy into play.

Re: Football overtime
 

[ QUOTE ]
i'm all about the extra period being played until completion. 10 minutes would be sufficient. this allows each team to have at least one possession, is actually similar to normal football (unlike current CF), and brings endgame strategy into play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. And if it's tied after the overtime period, so be it. A tie isn't the worst thing in the world.

Re: Football overtime
 

In a regular season game, a tie should be left as such. Nothing wrong with two teams being equal on a day and each taking something from the result. In the playoffs, however, I like the old Canadian Football League overtime rules. I'm not sure about all the details, but something along the lines of:

Coin toss as though a new game is being started. Play two 5 minute halves (with changed ends and a new kickoff at halftime) to completion. Whoever is winning at the end is the winner. The halves may need to be lengthened a little as the clock runs more slowly under CFL rules (in the last 3 minutes of each half the clock stops every play until the ball is spotted). If the game is still tied at this point, it becomes sudden death.

The CFL have since moved to the NCAA rules, but I still like this old way.

Re: Football overtime
 

I propose ties, however ties have a disadvantage:
1) In week 17 all games MUST, MUST and MUST be played at the same time.( dont make me explain why)
2)Its not as exciting.

However it has the advantage that is more pure. If no team can win the game on regulation I think a tie is better.
( I dont like unfair systems of any kind)
If we want excitement give the ball to the home team but please dont flip a coin, please dont.
On playoffs we should simply give the ball to the home team.

Re: Football overtime
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'm all about the extra period being played until completion. 10 minutes would be sufficient. this allows each team to have at least one possession, is actually similar to normal football (unlike current CF), and brings endgame strategy into play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. And if it's tied after the overtime period, so be it. A tie isn't the worst thing in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually voted to leave regular season games as a tie, which means that someone thinks that my idea should be used in the regular season, but not in the playoffs.

Re: Football overtime
 

[ QUOTE ]
In a regular season game, a tie should be left as such. Nothing wrong with two teams being equal on a day and each taking something from the result. In the playoffs, however, I like the old Canadian Football League overtime rules. I'm not sure about all the details, but something along the lines of:

Coin toss as though a new game is being started. Play two 5 minute halves (with changed ends and a new kickoff at halftime) to completion. Whoever is winning at the end is the winner. The halves may need to be lengthened a little as the clock runs more slowly under CFL rules (in the last 3 minutes of each half the clock stops every play until the ball is spotted). If the game is still tied at this point, it becomes sudden death.

The CFL have since moved to the NCAA rules, but I still like this old way.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is pretty much what i meant when I said two overtime periods played to completion, and if TV is willing to put up with the long games it creates (I thinkl that each "half" would need to be at least 7:30), I would be in favor of it. However, I think that TV wouldn't like it much.

Re: Football overtime
 

[ QUOTE ]
I propose ties, however ties have a disadvantage:
1) In week 17 all games MUST, MUST and MUST be played at the same time.( dont make me explain why)
2)Its not as exciting.

However it has the advantage that is more pure. If no team can win the game on regulation I think a tie is better.
( I dont like unfair systems of any kind)
If we want excitement give the ball to the home team but please dont flip a coin, please dont.
On playoffs we should simply give the ball to the home team.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not give the ball to the visiting team.

I've thought of just about every football overtime possibility, and one that I thought of once was:

If the game is tied at the end of regulation, the visiting team wins.

also said

The game begins with a score of
Visiting team: 0.5
Home team: 0

Afterall, shouldn't a team be able to win on its own home field? And a team that goes on the road and matches the hometeam is clearly the beter team.

I'm sure that everyone (including myself) thinks this idea is terrible.