OT rules discussion

[Captaincoop]

So there are really two competing ideas here. There is the idea of what "feels" fair, and what system produces something close to a 50-50 outcome i.e. is mathematically fair.

The college system feels fair, because both teams get the exact same opportunity. It's like baseball extra innings, both teams get the same number of outs. But mathematically maybe it's not perfect since the coin toss winner wins about 55% of the time.

The NFL system fails at both. It doesn't feel fair to the average fan, and the math in the playoffs doesn't seem to be working out either. What are the odds that the coin toss winners would go 10-1 just based on pure chance alone assuming the system is fair? 0.5% They can do better.

I understand those who say that Buffalo should be able to get a stop. But the simple truth is that if the coin had simply landed tails, it's virtually certain that KC fans would be whining about the rules today.

If the goal is simply to achieve a 50/50 outcome, just end the game after the coin flip.

The NFL system is fine. We're talking about a sample size of 10 games in the playoffs - and in those, the game ended on the opening drive at most 7 times. Even deciding the game on a coin flip isn't going to result in a 5/5 head/tails split in every 10 game sample.

 

[tims4wins]

What's wrong with my idea? Play OT like baseball in that the road team gets to receive the kickoff first, and they get one possession (assuming the home team doesn't onside kick or the road team doesn't fumble the kickoff). If they get a TD, they have to go for two. Then the home team gets their chance. If they tie, they play another "inning". Plenty of drama, yet the odds of it going on and on and on past, say, a 15-minute period, are slim (not that it couldn't happen, but it's not too much more likely really than the current system).

It satisfies the "fairness = each team gets a chance" criterion.
It satisfies the "drama" criterion.
It does give the home team a little advantage, if you think that going second is beneficial, but that's ok because in the playoffs, they've earned it.

What's the downside to this idea?

It's a pretty big advantage to get 4 downs instead of 3.

Also, it takes the clock entirely out of the equation.

 

[tims4wins]

If the goal is simply to achieve a 50/50 outcome, just end the game after the coin flip.

The NFL system is fine. We're talking about a sample size of 10 games in the playoffs - and in those, the game ended on the opening drive at most 7 times. Even deciding the game on a coin flip isn't going to result in a 5/5 head/tails split in every 10 game sample.

It's 5 times out of 11 that it ended on the opening drive, I think. The coin flip winner has won 10 times, but it's <50% where they just go down the field for the winning TD.

The games that ended on one drive:
- Tebow to D Thomas. Hardly inevitable, in fact with the Denver offense and Pittsburgh defense Pittsburgh may have wanted Denver to have it first
- Brady SB51. Inevitable, didn't face any 3rd downs.
- Brady 2018 AFCCG. Converted 3rd and 9+ three separate times on this drive. This was difficult.
- Last night. Pretty much inevitable.

Not sure what the 5th game was that ended on the first drive of OT (help?), but I think this is a SSS situation more than anything else. 2-3 times out of 11 it was pretty much guaranteed the coin toss winner would win the game (seemingly)? I'm ok with that %.

 

[BaseballJones]

It's a pretty big advantage to get 4 downs instead of 3.

Also, it takes the clock entirely out of the equation.

The road team gets 4 downs too if they want to use them. It's more of a calculated risk, but hey, Buffalo went for two fourth downs on their opening drive yesterday.

 

[BigJimEd]

It's 5 time out of 11 that it ended on the opening drive, I think. The coin flip winner has won 10 times, but it's <50% where they just go down the field for the winning TD.

At least 6. The 4 since 2015 mention in the Baltimore proposal. The Tebow-Thomas bomb mentioned earlier and yesterday's game.

 

[Rudy's Curve]

Not sure what the 5th game was that ended on the first drive of OT (help?), but I think this is a SSS situation more than anything else. 2-3 times out of 11 it was pretty much guaranteed the coin toss winner would win the game (seemingly)? I'm ok with that %.

The 2014 NFCCG.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Outside the red zone? Now they give it to them at the TWO.

Shows you how much I watch college. I thought they got it at the 25 or something.

 

[Rudy's Curve]

Shows you how much I watch college. I thought they got it at the 25 or something.

They do for the first and second OTs, and in the second they have to go for two. The third and on are just alternating two-point tries. Up until this year, it was always at the 25 and they didn't have to go for two until the third.

 

[Captaincoop]

Shows you how much I watch college. I thought they got it at the 25 or something.

Sounds like we were both wrong. But still...we had the college football championship impacted by a game Alabama won on alternating 2-point conversations.

Anyway, instead of changing OT rules, how about if we look at giving defensive backs a fighting chance to defend passes again?

 

[CFB_Rules]

If the goal is simply to achieve a 50/50 outcome, just end the game after the coin flip.

The NFL system is fine. We're talking about a sample size of 10 games in the playoffs - and in those, the game ended on the opening drive at most 7 times. Even deciding the game on a coin flip isn't going to result in a 5/5 head/tails split in every 10 game sample.

Based on the outcomes you might as well end the game after the coin toss anyways.

The sample size is why I put the odds of us getting a result this skewed. 0.5%. There is a one-half percent chance that the current system is equitable.

The intuition is that the current system is unfair. The data overwhelmingly agrees. It's a slam-dunk result.

 

[Captaincoop]

Based on the outcomes you might as well end the game after the coin toss anyways.

The sample size is why I put the odds of us getting a result this skewed. 0.5%. There is a one-half percent chance that the current system is equitable.

The intuition is that the current system is unfair. The data overwhelmingly agrees. It's a slam-dunk result.

What data are you looking at? What are the total numbers for regular season and playoffs? Also, how are you defining "equitable" and "unfair" here?

 

[DJnVa]

If each team is guaranteed a possession that's a big advantage for the team that goes second as they'll know whether they need a FG or TD before receiving the ball. They'll essentially be playing with 4 downs while the first team plays with 3.

I mean, that's kind of the case now. At least this gives each team a possession and they can't complain they never touched the ball.

 

[8slim]

It's fine the way it is. There doesn't need to be some noble pursuit of "fairness" for overtime. Each time has 60 minutes to win a game. If you can't manage to do that, then you need to make at least one defensive stand where you don't give up a TD. That's not exactly Herculean (January 2022 Patriots defense excluded).

This is entertainment. The current OT rules make for an entertaining end to a game. It's fine.

 

[cshea]

2012- Denver/Pittsburgh- Tebow bomb on first possession
2013- Baltimore/Denver- Baltimore received opening kick, punted, then Denver punted, then Baltimore won with a FG. Won toss but didn't win on opening drive.
2014- Seattle/Green Bay- Seattle opening drive TD
2016- Arizona/Green Bay- Arizona opening drive TD
2017- New England/Atlanta- NE opening drive TD
2019- Los Angeles/New Orleans- New Orleans win the toss, turn it over, Rams win with FG
2019- New England/Kansas City- NE opening TD drive
2020- Bufflao/Houston- Houston won the toss, both teams punted once before Houston won.
2020- Minnesota/New Orleans- Minnesota opening TD drive
2021- Kansas City/Buffalo- Kansas City opening TD drive

6/10 ended with a first possession TD.

 

[wilked]

The change I like

Coin toss to determine first possession.

Same rules as current, with the following exception:
-If opening team scores a TD, other team gets a possession.
-If other team comes down and scores a TD, they must go for 2 (no PAT option). (note, the first team still has the option for going for two themselves)

This ensures the game doesn't last forever, and ensures each team gets a chance to win it.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

The times when it seems most unfair are when pretty much everyone in the stadium knows that the coin flip is the game, because both defenses have nothing left. I think that maybe tends to happen more in the playoffs because the games that end up going to overtime are often crazy with hectic endings and the teams really are leaving it all out there. Or maybe it's just small sample size weirdness.

But I don't think the idea that it is 10-1 in the playoffs is a small sample size weirdness thing. It meets the eye test.

To me one of the imbalances is the 25 yards line touchback. It seems like it distorts it too much.

Ending tied games vexes all sports. It's so much harder in games where teams alternate possessions. Where possessions change rapidly it's relatively easy, except in soccer because there are so few goals scored. But football is sort of a unique game. I just don't think there's a great solution and I have a feeling that pretty much anything proposed would end up revealing Murphy's Law unintended consequences at the worst possible moment. I think at some point you just need to decide that like penalties in soccer there is never going to be a perfect solution.

 

[tims4wins]

The change I like

Coin toss to determine first possession.

Same rules as current, with the following exception:
-If opening team scores a TD, other team gets a possession.
-If other team comes down and scores a TD, they must go for 2 (no PAT option). (note, the first team still has the option for going for two themselves)

This ensures the game doesn't last forever, and ensures each team gets a chance to win it.

This is interesting. Advantage of having 4 downs partially offset by having to go for 2. Also introduces strategy on whether the first team must go for two. Preserves the sudden death piece. I think I like this.

 

[Fishercat]

I do think that some evidence is stacking, in terms of playoff results, to show that at least in the playoffs this may not be an equitable system as it seems to be in the regular season. I do think that supports a playoff specific OT rule set-up that may be untenable in the regular season but okay in the playoffs when adding excess time to a game may not be as problematic. I also think what CFB_Rules is saying is right: you ideally want a system that feels fair and produces a mathematically fair outcome. I think in the regular season with standard NFL teams you get the mathematic option with the NFL but in the playoffs where your best offenses will likely hang out, I don't think that's true when you also have very tired defenses on the field.

I kind of like the idea of just continuing the game as it was from where it was if it's tied at the end of regulation in the playoffs. No new coinflip or kickoff or change of possession. Basically if a game hits 00:00 at the end of the 4th, the game takes a timeout as if it were the end of the first or third quarter (swap sides of the field), and continue down and yardage from where it was. The downside I see to this is that a team can absolutely manipulate that and remove end of regulation drama where a team might try a 60 yard field goal with :03 yet to get into OT, drive closer, and get a better spot to try it with. If that's a concern you could make OT start at x yard line (like the possessing team's 25) and make those teams make a tougher call on whether to try a low/mid percentage play at the end regulation or send it to OT to try again. Yes, you might still get a situation where Mahomes doesn't get to touch the ball in OT but I don't personally feel like that people would have as much an issue with that given they had the decision to go for the TD to win or FG to tie at the end of regulation. The inherent unfair feeling to me was that Allen didn't get a chance to respond, basically KC got back to back possessions.

For something more elegant i do like wilked' idea, though I do wonder about forcing the second team to go for two if the first team chooses to go for two and fails.

 

[lexrageorge]

If there really is a fairness issue that people feel needs to be fixed, how about OT in the playoffs becomes sudden death after 8 total points are scored.

So, in the KC-Buffalo game, the Bills would have needed to score a TD or punt on their drive, since 7 points had already scored. If the Bills punt, a FG for KC would end it. If the Bills had held KC to a FG on the opening drive, a TD would win it for the Bills. After 7 minutes, team with the most points wins if sudden death hasn't been triggered.

 

[tims4wins]

If there really is a fairness issue that people feel needs to be fixed, how about OT in the playoffs becomes sudden death after 8 total points are scored.

So, in the KC-Buffalo game, the Bills would have needed to score a TD or punt on their drive, since 7 points had already scored. If the Bills punt, a FG for KC would end it. If the Bills had held KC to a FG on the opening drive, a TD would win it for the Bills. After 7 minutes, team with the most points wins if sudden death hasn't been triggered.

So if KC kicks a FG and the Bills don’t score the game isn’t over yet? Not sure that makes sense.

 

[CFB_Rules]

What data are you looking at? What are the total numbers for regular season and playoffs? Also, how are you defining "equitable" and "unfair" here?

See my earlier post. You would define equitable as the coin toss winner trending towards winning the game 50% of the time over the long haul.

So this is a pretty simple statistical test right? Let's assume that the coin toss winner is 50% to win the game. Now take the data we have, where the winner of the toss has won 10/11 games. What are the odds that we would get that distribution assuming that our null hypothesis (coin toss winner = 50%) is correct? 0.5%. Evidence that the climate is changing doesn't have a p-value that low. Mathematically the evidence is beyond overwhelming. The system is broken.

 

[Jungleland]

I’m thinking about the proposed two point solution and I’m wondering if one of the easiest changes to make would be that the game can still end with the first team to possess the ball scoring, but only if they get the td + 2 point conversion. Kind of like lexrageorge’s idea, but simpler in terms of what happens once we get to the second team’s possession.

I don’t think that would be my proposed solution, but I’m almost certain it would be better than the current system.

 

[BaseballJones]

I’m thinking about the proposed two point solution and I’m wondering if one of the easiest changes to make would be that the game can still end with the first team to possess the ball scoring, but only if they get the td + 2 point conversion. Kind of like lexrageorge’s idea, but simpler in terms of what happens once we get to the second team’s possession.

I don’t think that would be my proposed solution, but I’m almost certain it would be better than the current system.

That would be great. You take a chance to end the game right there. If you go for two and convert, you win, period. If you go for two and don't convert, the other team then gets the ball and can win it with a TD (knowing they will use all four downs if needed every series) and regular PAT.

That's a hell of a gamble by the first team. Fun idea. I like it.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I'd be fine with getting rid of regular season OT and letting games end in ties, or leaving the system the way it is.

For playoffs, each team should get one possession, regular rules, sudden death after the first possession. So the only change I'd make would be not to end it after an opening drive TD.

If each team is guaranteed a possession that's a big advantage for the team that goes second as they'll know whether they need a FG or TD before receiving the ball. They'll essentially be playing with 4 downs while the first team plays with 3.

I don't think it is that clear who gets the advantage. I'd rather receive first because if I score a TD I either win outright (because the other team fails to score) or win with a FG after it gets tied up.

 

[uncannymanny]

A 50% result assumes that the teams are equally matched to begin with, no? I'd guess that's why the number evens out in the regular season.

Keep it the same, but you only get 3 downs and shorten the play clock in OT.

 

[tims4wins]

I'd be fine with getting rid of regular season OT and letting games end in ties, or leaving the system the way it is.

Agree on this.

Also on board with TD+2 wins, TD+1 gives another possession. At least that way the starting D not only has a chance to stop the offense from scoring a TD, they get one additional “last chance” for a stop on a 50-50 (in theory) play.

 

[Dahabenzapple2]

Only chance I’d recommend is to start on the 10 or 15 yard line

 

[Manuel Aristides]

In my scheme, if you score a TD you have to go for two. So it eliminates this PAT decision.

But to your other point, yes I wonder just how big of an impact it would have going second. But that's why I don't leave it as a coin flip. The home team gets that advantage. Which, in the case of the playoffs, they've earned.

That's fine, I suppose, but I don't personally love the outsized importance that would put on 2 point conversion plays. But that's a strategic and taste issue not a fairness one, so, reasonable, just not for me.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

The problem with all of these solutions fixated on giving each team a chance to possess the ball is that it has the potential to get really drawn out, especially if we are operating on the theory that these defenses are completely gassed at this point and the offenses are dictating the play (which as far as I can tell is one of the underlying reasons people think the current rules are unfair). Unless you do something like the college system, at some point it has to convert to a sudden death situation, which brings back into play all of the arguments about fairness.

 

[BaseballJones]

The problem with all of these solutions fixated on giving each team a chance to possess the ball is that it has the potential to get really drawn out, especially if we are operating on the theory that these defenses are completely gassed at this point and the offenses are dictating the play (which as far as I can tell is one of the underlying reasons people think the current rules are unfair). Unless you do something like the college system, at some point it has to convert to a sudden death situation, which brings back into play all of the arguments about fairness.

Why wouldn't offenses be gassed too? Aren't the WRs getting tired running routes all day long? I don't see this as a problem.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Why wouldn't offenses be gassed too? Aren't the WRs getting tired running routes all day long? I don't see this as a problem.

The argument for the current rules being unfair seems to hinge on the fact that (in the playoffs at least) the team that wins the toss is inevitably going to score because the offenses are unstoppable or defenses are too tired or something. If that is not the case there's nothing unfair about the current system. Playing defense is a fairly integral part of the sport. If you lose the toss and want to win the game stop the other team from scoring a touchdown.

And it is indisputable that your suggestion is going to cause games to go longer, by at least one possession. And likely longer in many cases as the teams trade scores (or stops). Letting that play out indefinitely doesn't seem in anyone's best interests.

 

[Mystic Merlin]

The problem with all of these solutions fixated on giving each team a chance to possess the ball is that it has the potential to get really drawn out, especially if we are operating on the theory that these defenses are completely gassed at this point and the offenses are dictating the play (which as far as I can tell is one of the underlying reasons people think the current rules are unfair). Unless you do something like the college system, at some point it has to convert to a sudden death situation, which brings back into play all of the arguments about fairness.

9-10 percent of all playoff games dating back to 99-00, including about ten percent since 09-10, if you want to exempt the 00s, have gone into OT, so what is the concern with the off chance of a second OT?

I actually think the more the game progresses, there’s also a higher chance of an offensive mistake due to fatigue that buries as team, and it’s rare for any playoff game to get to OT, so the marathon game concern seems odd to me. Much like the thousands of NBA and MLB games that go into extra periods, the game will end, I can promise that.

With the cheap, facile straw men of alternate OT proposals aside (‘the game has to end sometime!!’), which you obviously aren’t espousing but has crept into some of the posts in this thread, we are all really trying to strike balance here. The pivot from sudden death to modified sudden death a few years ago seems to not concern those in favor of the current rule, after all.

So what are the basis(es) for that concern, exactly? Player health?

 

[Jungleland]

I don't really see an issue with lengthening playoff games. The system can't have room for a full extra game, but if you have a small handful of 75 minute games when it's for all the marbles, I think that's worth it. I imagine the Bills players would probably rather last night's game end an hour later than they would their season being over right now.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

The problem with all of these solutions fixated on giving each team a chance to possess the ball is that it has the potential to get really drawn out, especially if we are operating on the theory that these defenses are completely gassed at this point and the offenses are dictating the play (which as far as I can tell is one of the underlying reasons people think the current rules are unfair). Unless you do something like the college system, at some point it has to convert to a sudden death situation, which brings back into play all of the arguments about fairness.

I don't think giving each team one chance to possess the ball has that problem. Giving them equal chances might.

In my suggestion: TD-TD-FG ends the game, even though the first team got an extra possession. In this scenario, the second team even had a chance to win outright by going for 2.

 

[BaseballJones]

The argument for the current rules being unfair seems to hinge on the fact that (in the playoffs at least) the team that wins the toss is inevitably going to score because the offenses are unstoppable or defenses are too tired or something. If that is not the case there's nothing unfair about the current system. Playing defense is a fairly integral part of the sport. If you lose the toss and want to win the game stop the other team from scoring a touchdown.

And it is indisputable that your suggestion is going to cause games to go longer, by at least one possession. And likely longer in many cases as the teams trade scores (or stops). Letting that play out indefinitely doesn't seem in anyone's best interests.

Well if the teams trade stops then it's no different than it is now. And I don't think you'd find too many overtimes being really drawn out, especially if you have to go for 2 every time you score a TD.

 

[Humphrey]

It's a pretty big advantage to get 4 downs instead of 3.

Also, it takes the clock entirely out of the equation.

Those things are what I hate about the college system as well. I also don't like that field goals are still valuable for the first 2 overtimes, but punting and kickoffs; both offensively and defensively; are not.

 

[Marbleheader]

The current system is fine for regular season. Post-season should be a 10 minute quarter.

 

[Ferm Sheller]

The current system is fine for regular season. Post-season should be a 10 minute quarter.

For playoff games, I like the idea of playing two 7.5 minute halves (like a "mini-game" with one team getting the ball to start the first half and the other team getting it to start the second half, but with no 2:00 warnings whatsoever).

 

[Jungleland]

For playoff games, I like the idea of playing two 7.5 minute halves (like a "mini-game" with one team getting the ball to start the first half and the other team getting it to start the second half, but with no 2:00 warnings whatsoever).

I love this, but the game being tied after these 15 extra minutes is a potential real issue, I think. And I do agree with whoever said the NFL is probably averse to losing sudden death.

 

[Ferm Sheller]

I love this, but the game being tied after these 15 extra minutes is a potential real issue, I think. And I do agree with whoever said the NFL is probably averse to losing sudden death.

Well, it would only be for playoff games, and you could revert to the present structure for a second OT in the rare cases that a game is still tied at the end of the first OT.

 

[tims4wins]

Here's the data

View: https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/1485674487425155076/photo/1

 

[reggiecleveland]

The Tebow-Thomas bomb

Don't bomb's usually travel more than12 yards in the air?

 

[tims4wins]

Anyway, instead of changing OT rules, how about if we look at giving defensive backs a fighting chance to defend passes again?

Been thinking about this all day.

It took the Chiefs 52 seconds to score after Buffalo's TD with 1:54 left. They used 0 timeouts.

It then took Buffalo 49 seconds to score, using 1 timeout.

It then took KC 12 seconds to go 44 yards, using 2 timeouts.

I get that these offenses are very good. I get that the viewing public likes offense.

But that is just stupid, comical, video game ridiculous. It shouldn't be that quick and easy to score.

 

[Captaincoop]

The current system is fine for regular season. Post-season should be a 10 minute quarter.

How about no OT at all in the regular season, 10 minute quarter in the postseason?

 

[Captaincoop]

Been thinking about this all day.

It took the Chiefs 52 seconds to score after Buffalo's TD with 1:54 left. They used 0 timeouts.

It then took Buffalo 49 seconds to score, using 1 timeout.

It then took KC 12 seconds to go 44 yards, using 2 timeouts.

I get that these offenses are very good. I get that the viewing public likes offense.

But that is just stupid, comical, video game ridiculous. It shouldn't be that quick and easy to score.

That was like watching a flag football game. I enjoyed it. But it was ridiculous, the defenses don't have a chance against a good quarterback with reasonable receivers.

 

[Fishercat]

Here's the data

View: https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/1485674487425155076/photo/1

So, I'm a dummy, but it never occurred to me that a tie and loss was considered the same as "not winning" for these calculations. So the regular season percentage is

Win the Toss

Win: 52.8%
Loss: 41.1%
Tie: 6.1%

I'd think that makes a bit of a stronger case that the coin toss is more of a factor. It's probably close to 56-44 if you remove ties and just divvy it up, or if you want to keep ties, it's a +12% difference or so. Not that it changes a ton but I think it changes a little, I know when I hear "oh they only win 52% of the time", my mind assumed a loss the other 48% as opposed to a tie being a reasonable possibility as well.

 

[j44thor]

I don't think giving each team one chance to possess the ball has that problem. Giving them equal chances might.

In my suggestion: TD-TD-FG ends the game, even though the first team got an extra possession. In this scenario, the second team even had a chance to win outright by going for 2.

This is what I'd be in favor of. Even if team scoring first goes for 2 and gets it second team can still match but after that it is sudden death. Let each team possess the ball in OT once but don't draw the game out for hours.

 

[Justthetippett]

How about no OT at all in the regular season, 10 minute quarter in the postseason?

I think this is perfect.

 

[tims4wins]

Yeah I too would be fine with no OT in the regular season. So we end up with a bunch of ties, it's not like it would make the playoff tiebreakers any more or less complicated.

 

[djbayko]

How about no OT at all in the regular season, 10 minute quarter in the postseason?

But people love OT games. Don’t get rid of the extra drama which is good for the league. Maybe just don’t worry so much about changing format during the regular season, especially since the numbers show the current format is close enough to being equitable.