Football overtime
 

NFL overtime: Starts just like a new game with a cointoss and ends with the first score. (In regular season games, if the overtime period goes the full 15 minutes without anyone scoring, the game ends in a tie.)

College Overtime: each team gets on position from their opponent's 25 yard line. Team with the higher score wins. If there is still a tie, do it again.

NFL Eurpoe / Arena League: Starts like a new game, but doesn't become sudden death untill both teams have had the ball at least once.

XFL: One team (determined by the choice of the team that won the scramble to start the game) gets four plays to score starting from its opponents 20 yard line (field goals are not allowed untill the fourth play). The other team then gets as many plays to score as the first team took. If both teams score the same number of points, they do it again.

jstnrgrs' idea: One team (detrmined by a coin toss) gets the ball on its own 5 yard line. The game then proceeds as normal (4 downs to get ten yards, punt on 4th down, etc.) and is sudden death.

Re: Football overtime
 

I think the NFL's current system is poor. What % of OT's does the team that won the toss win? I imagine it's high. I think first to 6 points would be better.

Re: Football overtime
 

[ 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%.

Re: Football overtime
 

I like your idea a lot. But, instead of the 5, make it the 10 yard-line. That should be good.

Re: Football overtime
 

I'm so glad you posted this. I almost did after yesterday's ND/MSU game. A shame such a great game had to end in such a phony fashion. The college OT is the worst imo.

Re: Football overtime
 

I think that the college system is worse than the NFL system. It reminds me of deciding soccer games with penalty kicks.

First to six wouldn't be bad because at least field position would still be a factor, and field postion is really what football is all about.

Re: Football overtime
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm so glad you posted this. I almost did after yesterday's ND/MSU game. A shame such a great game had to end in such a phony fashion. The college OT is the worst imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, and I think is is also dumb that in college football, the ammount of thime that the clock runs between plays is dependant on how quickly the officials spot the ball. I wish MSU had bee forced to play 4th down form their own half yard line (at the end of regulation).

Re: Football overtime
 

As far as your idea is concerned, why the 5-yard line? IMO, this wouldn't be any better than the current system. Most likely it would be a disavantage to the team that "won" the coin toss. Football is such a field position game -- starting so close to their own goal line would hamstring an offense to the point where they'd be wasting a series just getting into position to punt. The team receiving the punt would most likely wind up with ridiculous field position at that point, needing only a field goal to win.

Re: Football overtime
 

I like how college does it. Except I kinda wish they started on the 30 or 35 instead of the 25.

Sudden death overtimes blows.

Does anyone else get over-distracted by Clarky's avatar?

b

Re: Football overtime
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like how college does it. Except I kinda wish they started on the 30 or 35 instead of the 25.

Sudden death overtimes blows.

Does anyone else get over-distracted by Clarky's avatar?

b

[/ QUOTE ]

I do.

http://x4.putfile.com/9/25211051440.gif http://x4.putfile.com/9/25211051440.gif http://x4.putfile.com/9/25211051440.gif http://x4.putfile.com/9/25211051440.gif

Re: Football overtime
 

You're one to talk bernie. I nearly wacked it to yours yesterday.

Re: Football overtime
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as your idea is concerned, why the 5-yard line? IMO, this wouldn't be any better than the current system. Most likely it would be a disavantage to the team that "won" the coin toss. Football is such a field position game -- starting so close to their own goal line would hamstring an offense to the point where they'd be wasting a series just getting into position to punt. The team receiving the punt would most likely wind up with ridiculous field position at that point, needing only a field goal to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 5 was just what I thought would be best. The exact yard line should be such that it would be a dificult choice for the team that wins the coin toss (they choose to start on offence or defence).

I suppose that a better system would be a bidding system:

Team A: "We can win starting from our own 20 yard line"

Team B: "We can win starting form our 15 yard line"

Team A: "We can win from our 10 yard line"

Team B: "We can win from our 8 yard line"

Team A: "Take the ball on your 8 yarld line"

but I think this seams to silly, and might take to long.

Re: Football overtime
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're one to talk bernie. I nearly wacked it to yours yesterday.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you're really lucky we can't combine the two. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

b

Re: Football overtime
 

How about this idea? We keep it the same, except a field goal doesn't win the game anymore. You need to score a TD (or safety) to win, anything else doesn't count. And also, having something like more equitable field position would be better.

Re: Football overtime
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as your idea is concerned, why the 5-yard line? IMO, this wouldn't be any better than the current system. Most likely it would be a disavantage to the team that "won" the coin toss. Football is such a field position game -- starting so close to their own goal line would hamstring an offense to the point where they'd be wasting a series just getting into position to punt. The team receiving the punt would most likely wind up with ridiculous field position at that point, needing only a field goal to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 5 was just what I thought would be best. The exact yard line should be such that it would be a dificult choice for the team that wins the coin toss (they choose to start on offence or defence).

I suppose that a better system would be a bidding system:

Team A: "We can win starting from our own 20 yard line"

Team B: "We can win starting form our 15 yard line"

Team A: "We can win from our 10 yard line"

Team B: "We can win from our 8 yard line"

Team A: "Take the ball on your 8 yarld line"

but I think this seams to silly, and might take to long.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is AWESOME

Re: Football overtime
 

I think college football style but starting out at midfield would be better for college.

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.

Re: Football overtime
 

I think this idea is an excellent idea that would greatly improve quality of OT, and I can't believe it hasn't been thought of yet:

You need to get a TD to win the game (or a safety). No more drive to the 30-yard line, get in field goal position, and kick it for the win. You need to march down the field and get 6 points to win.

Again, very simple idea: field goals don't count in OT. Only TD's do.

Combined with more equitable field position to make both sides equal, I think we have the makings of an excellent OT system.

Re: Football overtime
 

[ QUOTE ]
How about this idea? We keep it the same, except a field goal doesn't win the game anymore. You need to score a TD (or safety) to win, anything else doesn't count. And also, having something like more equitable field position would be better.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is close. First to 6 points wins. If that's two field goals, fine.

OP's idea is awful.

Re: Football overtime
 

I think the bidding idea is great.

Re: Football overtime
 

[ QUOTE ]
The college OT is the worst imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's worse than shootouts in hockey/soccer.

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.

Re: Football overtime
 

I much rather have a tie.

Re: Football overtime
 

I think that football overtime needs to be:
1) Football (this eliminates college and XFL)
2) Fair (this eliminates NFL, NFL Europe / Arena, and single period (non-sudden death) overtime)
3) Over in a timely manner (this eliminates single and double period (non-sudden death) overtime)

Re: Football overtime
 

Why is the NFL Europe / Arena unfair?

Re: Football overtime
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the NFL Europe / Arena unfair?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if both teams score on their first posession, then it becomes sudden death which means a big advantage to the team that had the ball first.

Re: Football overtime
 

change it so that each team must have an even number of possessions, including after the 1st possession. There's your answer. Arena League it is.

WJ

Re: Football overtime
 

I'm almost sure the coin toss winner's have historically won over 50% of the time, although only slightly, less then 51% I think. 5% ties sounds about right.

Re: Football overtime
 

Also, I've never seen a stat on it but I think winning the toss in college (being able to go second) has got to be a pretty big advantage too.

Re: Football overtime
 

[ QUOTE ]
jstnrgrs' idea: One team (detrmined by a coin toss) gets the ball on its own 5 yard line. The game then proceeds as normal (4 downs to get ten yards, punt on 4th down, etc.) and is sudden death.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is close to the idea that I like, but the 5 yard line is too far back -- that close to their own endzone, the team on offense is less likely to score next than the team on defense.

Instead, have one team decide where the ball will be placed to start the overtime. Then the other team decides who takes possession at that spot.

In effect, this would lead to most OTs starting at around the 15 yard line, though there would be some interesting exceptions if a team feels it has a great advantage on one side of the ball or the other. It would also be interesting to see teams trying to goad their opponents into taking a -EV play by starting the ball at or inside the 10 and hoping they'll take possession anyway.

Re: Football overtime
 

How is this much different then NFL overtimes? You are basically suggesting that they move the kickoff line up 5-10 yards for overtime.

Re: Football overtime
 

[ QUOTE ]
How is this much different then NFL overtimes? You are basically suggesting that they move the kickoff line up 5-10 yards for overtime.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main reason for changing the overtime rules is that the receiving team has an advantage because they will very seldom start their drive inside the 20, which means that they are more likely to score first than the kicking team.

However, the point at which the defensive team is more likely to score next is discoverable with enough data. Starting overtime in the way I suggested would ensure that, in general, neither team would derive an advantage from getting the ball first because that advantage would be nullified by field position.