OT rules discussion

[cshea]

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

I think all this does is shift it from who has the ball first to who has it last, and the coin toss winner still has a significant advantage. Maybe I’m wrong, but 10 minutes feels like ~3 total possession. Coin toss winner gets 2 to the losers 1. Say last night Allen answers the Mahones TD with a TD of his own. Then Mahones gets the ball back with a few minutes left, milks the clock and the Chiefs kick a last second FG. Is that any fairer than what actually happened?

Seems like people equate fairness to having an equal number of possession. The only way to ensure that is to take out the game clock and literally just have one team possess the ball then the other.

 

[WheresDewey]

It ain't broke. Don't fix it. Put me in the minority that favors the current rules.

Also, the full sample size of regular season OT games is far more robust than arguing from the 11 game playoff sample. No solution is going to get perfect 50/50 fairness without potentially lengthening overtime to dangerous outcomes. Football is not baseball, where the occasional 12+ inning game only puts a strain on the pitching staff.

 

[snowmanny]

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.


6/10 ended with a first possession TD.

Just to remind everyone:

Baltimore punted on 4th and 9 from own 49
Denver punted on 4th and 1 from own 39
Baltimore punted on 4th and 3 from own 34
Manning intercepted
Baltimore FG

 

[BigJimEd]

It ain't broke. Don't fix it. Put me in the minority that favors the current rules.

Also, the full sample size of regular season OT games is far more robust than arguing from the 11 game playoff sample. No solution is going to get perfect 50/50 fairness without potentially lengthening overtime to dangerous outcomes. Football is not baseball, where the occasional 12+ inning game only puts a strain on the pitching staff.

The full sample does show a fairly significant advantage for winning the toss.

From @Fishercat:
Win: 52.8%
Loss: 41.1%
Tie: 6.1%

 

[tims4wins]

The more I think about it the more I like the idea that the first team with the ball can win it if they score and get 2. If they score and fail, the second team wins with a TD + PAT. If they score and get the PAT, the second team can win with a score + 2 PT conversion; if they decide to kick the PAT to tie it, it immediately goes to sudden death.

 

[CaptainLaddie]

I like the idea of "first to eight points wins" for OT. No minute clock, just play clock. You can score a TD and opt to go for 2 to try and win.

 

[Ferm Sheller]

So one team scores a TD but falls short on a two-point conversion try, and the other team scores a TD and manages to convert the two-point try and they get the W because they were able to gain two yards on one particular play? Hmmmm . . . I guess that's better than the current system, but not by much.

 

[BaseballJones]

So one team scores a TD but falls short on a two-point conversion try, and the other team scores a TD and manages to convert the two-point try and they get the W because they were able to gain two yards on one particular play? Hmmmm . . . I guess that's better than the current system, but not by much.

Well wait a minute. One team gains 500 yards and scores 13 points. The other team gains 97 yards and scores 14 points. I mean, the name of the game is POINTS, not YARDS. So yeah, if one team manages to convert a two yard play that scores two points, while the other fails, yeah, they deserve the win (if those points are the difference). Nothing remotely unfair or bad about that.

 

[BaseballJones]

The more I think about it the more I like the idea that the first team with the ball can win it if they score and get 2. If they score and fail, the second team wins with a TD + PAT. If they score and get the PAT, the second team can win with a score + 2 PT conversion; if they decide to kick the PAT to tie it, it immediately goes to sudden death.

I'm with you. I only wish this was my idea, because I think it absolutely rocks.

 

[Jungleland]

First to 8 is flawed to me because stop + kick is definitely win worthy, as is a safety. But if it’s first team can win with 8, but doesn’t have to go for 8, there’s some fun strategy.

The biggest flaw I see is that I think there’s a decent chance it wouldn’t make sense to ever kick the extra point and so the fun strategy element is moot. (Exception - first team scored 6 points, second team scores and decides to kick.) If you’re first, it’s probably worth the gamble that you can get the 2 or get the stop. If you’re second and for some reason the first team went for 7, your odds of converting the 2 pts are probably higher than stopping the other team from getting into field goal range so you might just go for 2.

I still like it because it’s basically the current system but with at least a little less advantage to winning the toss, which is the point of the exercise.

I’m also pretty open to the idea that just both teams should get one guaranteed possession, but home team gets to decide whether to kick or receive. That way if there’s any advantage, it was earned by being better over the course of the season.

 

[simplyeric]

Here’s the thing that gets me about all of these variations: they’re all trying to constrain the wrong variable.
what is constrained in an nfl game:
Possessions? No.
Being first, or going second? Not really.
Scoring math (independent of time)? No.

it’s just time. That’s it.
Specifically, the constraint of time, split into halves that are connected to possession.

overtime should just be a symmetrical extension of the game. Add two ‘halves’….but obviously not as long as regular halves.
And what time in football is the best time, in close games? The final two minutes!

So, add sets of two-minute ‘halves’. Each half would have as many possessions as happen, and as many scores (or none). The teams trade off starting each two minutes by receiving the ball. But if they get a three and out, or if they score a TD, play continues until the clock ticks down.

over the weekend we saw short sequences with multiple fumbles or interceptions, muktuple
TD’s, and multiple three and outs. You could see 5 TDS a field goal in 4 minutes of play…or see a series of punts with a field goal in there. It’s regular football, just shorter.

I figure give each team one time out…maybe two?

Doesn’t matter who does what on any particular score…just matters that you have more points at the end.

its the most recognizable extension of regular football play. No ‘if/then’, no special rules or requirements.

 

[Ferm Sheller]

Well wait a minute. One team gains 500 yards and scores 13 points. The other team gains 97 yards and scores 14 points. I mean, the name of the game is POINTS, not YARDS. So yeah, if one team manages to convert a two yard play that scores two points, while the other fails, yeah, they deserve the win (if those points are the difference). Nothing remotely unfair or bad about that.

I didn’t say it was unfair or bad. I just don’t think it’s nearly the best alternative to the current system. The name of the game in regulation is to score more points than your opponent within a specific amount of time. I think overtime should be the same way, and not based strictly on which team is first to achieve certain events.

Edit: Yes, Eric has it. And as per my post earlier, I propose two 7.5 minute halves with each team getting the ball to start one of the halves.

 

[BigJimEd]

Yes, I think if you are looking for most "fair" and like regular football then two halves is the way.

I do like the wrinkle that instead of coin toss the home team gets to choose. Gives slight advantage to higher seed.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

If we're going to start making the regular season like soccer and allowing ties, let's make the playoffs like the (old) FA Cup, where if you tie the first game you have a replay a week later at the other team's stadium.

But seriously, I like a 7-and-a-half minute quarter played to a finish, or until one team takes a two-score lead (9 points or more). And then if they're still tied, switch ends and start again, with the other team getting the ball first in the second OT. And then, after the equivalent of one full quarter of overtime, you go to penalties (i.e., something like the current college system). I also think you could monkey around with the timing rules so that e.g. only the last five minutes of each OT go to the full stopped clock rules; also, one way to somewhat equalize any playoff format would be to award differing numbers of timeouts to each team. Maybe if you get the ball first in OT you don't get any timeouts, but the other team gets two timeouts?

 

[lexrageorge]

The NFLPA would never agree to anything that further extends OT in the regular season. I don't think the owners really want to do so either; it does nothing to help their bottom line.
I like the 8 point rule in the playoffs. Still could be a single possession, but a tired defense is less of a factor in the 2 point conversion play. Buffalo would still find a way to lose.

 

[cshea]

I don't think the first to eight thing works. It is essentially a drawn out 2-point conversion contest. A team could throw a pick-6 on the first play of OT and still win the game. A steam could begin overtime with a stop and score, fail on the 2 and then lose.

The problem with a lot of these proposals is they extend the time it takes to play which the NFL and NFLPA won't want to do.

 

[simplyeric]

I didn’t say it was unfair or bad. I just don’t think it’s nearly the best alternative to the current system. The name of the game in regulation is to score more points than your opponent within a specific amount of time. I think overtime should be the same way, and not based strictly on which team is first to achieve certain events.

Edit: Yes, Eric has it. And as per my post earlier, I propose two 7.5 minute halves with each team getting the ball to start one of the halves.

I should have replied to your previous post the first time. I liked your idea of two shorter halves, but I think 7.5 minutes is too long. So instead of skipping the 2 minute warning, I thought only use the two minute warning. It would create instant drama. Now that I think of it, only 1 time-out per two minute half would make sense. If forces the game to speed up because teams will need to clock the ball. Two minute is a lot..but if you leave time on the clock (KC was scoring so fast!) then Buffalo would have had a very limited time to respond in that half.

I don't think the first to eight thing works. It is essentially a drawn out 2-point conversion contest. A team could throw a pick-6 on the first play of OT and still win the game. A steam could begin overtime with a stop and score, fail on the 2 and then lose.

The problem with a lot of these proposals is they extend the time it takes to play which the NFL and NFLPA won't want to do.

The extension wouldn’t be that much. Skip the coin flip to avoid TV time (just continue to alternate like previous halves), but that’s not game time I realize. But the current rules propose as much at 10 minutes of OT. The number of games that would extend past the initial set of OT halves would be vanishingly rare.

 

[tims4wins]

First to 8 doesn’t work because in theory that could take forever. That’s not what’s being suggested. What’s being suggested is if the first team to possess scores + 2, game over. Or if first team to possess scores + 1, and second team scores + 2, game over. If tied after first possession for each team, immediate sudden death.

 

[DJnVa]

From an Athletic email newsletter:

Easy fix: One possession per team.
Simply guarantee that both teams have the ball in overtime, then make it sudden death after that. No one needs a big briefing on rule changes after this tweak.

Medium fix: Spot and choose.

This was proposed by the Ravens recently. In this scenario, the team that wins the coin toss (Chiefs) would select the yard line of where to place the ball. The toss loser (Bills) would then decide whether to play offense or defense, depending on the ball placement and faith in its offense or defense.

It’s a little confusing but fun once you process the possibilities. Say the Chiefs put the ball on the 10-yard line. Does Buffalo have confidence in driving 90 yards for a game-winning touchdown, or faith in its defense that it could hold the Chiefs and get good field position on a punt?

Chaos fix: Silent yard auction.
The auction concept has been around for more than a decade at this point, with myriad permutations. It even reached the halls of academia (NYU published a study, as did Cal). I prefer the Cal edition, which proposes that each team submit a bid at the beginning of overtime on the yard line where it would like to start. The team with the closest bid to its own end zone wins and receives the ball first, at that yard line. Overtime is sudden death from there.

The auction system successfully eliminates the randomness of a coin toss while adding a fascinating layer of strategy. The closer you get to your own end zone, the more you compromise potential field position. The farther away you get, the higher the chance of the other team getting the ball first.

A fun wrinkle the researchers include: giving the ball to the team that bids closest to its own end zone, but making the yard line the average of the two bids. Interesting, but maybe a little complex.

 

[EvilEmpire]

I think the current rules for the regular season are fine. For the playoffs I'd give each team one possession whether they score a TD or not.

I also wouldn't mind if (for the playoffs) they just played a full additional quarter at a time until there is a winner.

 

[CFB_Rules]

Here’s the thing that gets me about all of these variations: they’re all trying to constrain the wrong variable.
what is constrained in an nfl game:
Possessions? No.
Being first, or going second? Not really.
Scoring math (independent of time)? No.

it’s just time. That’s it.
Specifically, the constraint of time, split into halves that are connected to possession.

overtime should just be a symmetrical extension of the game. Add two ‘halves’….but obviously not as long as regular halves.
And what time in football is the best time, in close games? The final two minutes!

So, add sets of two-minute ‘halves’. Each half would have as many possessions as happen, and as many scores (or none). The teams trade off starting each two minutes by receiving the ball. But if they get a three and out, or if they score a TD, play continues until the clock ticks down.

over the weekend we saw short sequences with multiple fumbles or interceptions, muktuple
TD’s, and multiple three and outs. You could see 5 TDS a field goal in 4 minutes of play…or see a series of punts with a field goal in there. It’s regular football, just shorter.

I figure give each team one time out…maybe two?

Doesn’t matter who does what on any particular score…just matters that you have more points at the end.

its the most recognizable extension of regular football play. No ‘if/then’, no special rules or requirements.

I love this suggestion. Logical, fair, and easy to implement.

 

[TheGazelle]

I think the second two suggestions from the Athletic article are wonky and unnecessarily complicated. I don't like changing the rules significantly in OT. I would just get rid of OT in the regular season (at least half the time a game goes to OT because it's two shit team in a slapfight) and play a 10 minute quarter in the playoffs - I think this was CaptainCoops suggestion upthread. There are few enough playoff OT games, and the stakes are high enough that it merits playing more without watching coaches engage in weird game theory exercises.

 

[Jungleland]

2 additional quarters would be fairest, but there’s like 3 things to figure out:

-what’s the minimum “quarter” length that makes sense? (Imo two 2 minute drill is essentially giving each team 1 possession and requires such a specific style of offense it doesn’t feel right to me.)
-what’s the maximum quarter length that makes sense? Two 7.5 minute periods adds a lot of game time, which I think is fine for the playoffs, except…
-what happens when it’s still tied after the two additional periods?

 

[uncannymanny]

From an Athletic email newsletter:

Medium fix: Spot and choose.

This was proposed by the Ravens recently. In this scenario, the team that wins the coin toss (Chiefs) would select the yard line of where to place the ball. The toss loser (Bills) would then decide whether to play offense or defense, depending on the ball placement and faith in its offense or defense.

It’s a little confusing but fun once you process the possibilities. Say the Chiefs put the ball on the 10-yard line. Does Buffalo have confidence in driving 90 yards for a game-winning touchdown, or faith in its defense that it could hold the Chiefs and get good field position on a punt?

Nm

 

[Awesome Fossum]

I support the "just keep playing into sudden death" concept.

However, my pet idea is to "give" one team 4 points and give the other team the ball with 1:00 on the clock and no timeouts. Single possession. We determine who gets what by each head coach submitting the yard line on which he would be willing to accept the ball rather than the points. If Team A is willing to start with the ball on their own 25 and Team B is only willing to start on their own 40, Team A gets the ball on their own 25.

You can tweak the points (maybe we can make it 1 point and let teams drive for a field goal), the time, etc. But this brings the game to a swift end, has high drama, and is completely fair. If you wanted the ball, you could have had the ball with a more aggressive bid.

The biggest downside is "gifting" a team points -- that just feels wrong. And would probably screw up gambling systems.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

First to 8 doesn’t work because in theory that could take forever. That’s not what’s being suggested. What’s being suggested is if the first team to possess scores + 2, game over. Or if first team to possess scores + 1, and second team scores + 2, game over. If tied after first possession for each team, immediate sudden death.

I think these ideas are too complicated. Each team gets one offensive possession (unless the team that starts with the ball throws a pick six), then sudden death. Only change from the current rules is that a team cannot win by getting the ball first and scoring a TD.

 

[moretsyndrome]

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

I've always been in favor of no OT in the regular season. You get 60 minutes to win the game. If you can't, too bad. Enjoy the tie. I think it would make for more exciting end of game scenarios, especially late in the season (going for 2, not playing to tie with a FG, etc.) and is better from a player safety standpoint.

It'll never happen, but I like it.

 

[Super Nomario]

I think these ideas are too complicated. Each team gets one offensive possession (unless the team that starts with the ball throws a pick six), then sudden death. Only change from the current rules is that a team cannot win by getting the ball first and scoring a TD.

Isn't this like moving first base back to get rid of the close plays? If the issue is it's not fair one team gets 1 possession and other team gets 0, how does it fix things to give one team 2 possessions and the other only 1?

 

[Captaincoop]

One point in regards to any proposed rule that starts overtime with some additional regular playing time and then moves to something else (e.g. sudden death, alternating possessions, arm wrestling, etc.): let's just skip to the second thing. We just played 60 minutes of football and that didn't settle it.

Why is sudden death ok after 67:30 of football but not after 60:00?

 

[Royal Reader]

I've always been in favor of no OT in the regular season. You get 60 minutes to win the game. If you can't, too bad. Enjoy the tie. I think it would make for more exciting end of game scenarios, especially late in the season (going for 2, not playing to tie with a FG, etc.) and is better from a player safety standpoint.

It'll never happen, but I like it.

I'd happily go back to the 'Just win it with a field goal' OT if no regular-season OT isn't possible.
For the playoffs: I'd advocate for "Play the full period. If there is any scoring at all, and the scores are tied at the end of OT, the team which tied it up last loses." If you are driving in position to kick a tying field goal, you now need a TD. If you're driving for the game-tying seven, you now need to go for two. It might be arbitrary that one team is forced to run the lower percentage option, but the alternative under current rules is that you'd just not get the ball again at all. (You could decree the game would end if a team gets an eight point lead. but I'd probably rather leave open the possibility of a zany quick score/onside combo).

 

[tims4wins]

I think these ideas are too complicated. Each team gets one offensive possession (unless the team that starts with the ball throws a pick six), then sudden death. Only change from the current rules is that a team cannot win by getting the ball first and scoring a TD.

That’s fair, I’d be fine with this.

Isn't this like moving first base back to get rid of the close plays? If the issue is it's not fair one team gets 1 possession and other team gets 0, how does it fix things to give one team 2 possessions and the other only 1?

Well the second team could go for 2 and the win. Or if the first team goes for 2 and converts, and the second team does as well, the first team gets rewarded for their unnecessary risk taking by getting the ball first in sudden death. Plus that will have given team 2 three chances at a stop: first OT drive, 2 pt try, second OT drive. If they fail to stop any of them then whatever.

At some point it’s going to take a stop to win the game, be that on a drive, 2 point try, whatever. There literally can’t be a winner if we just let the teams keep matching scores. So really this is an exercise in determining what the optimal cut off point is for giving defenses a chance at a stop. I would argue that if a D gives up multiple scoring drives plus a 2 point try, that is a good cutoff point.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Isn't this like moving first base back to get rid of the close plays? If the issue is it's not fair one team gets 1 possession and other team gets 0, how does it fix things to give one team 2 possessions and the other only 1?

I don’t think any fix is ever going to be perfect, and I think the biggest most obvious problem with the current setup is one side never getting a possession. One team getting 2 possessions vs the other getting 1 isn’t “fair” per se, but it is a lot closer to fair than 1 and then 0.

 

[simplyeric]

One comment on ‘fairness’: people are saying ‘why should the. Bills have gotten a ‘fair chance’, they couldn’t stop the Chiefs so it’s not like they deserve it’
But the same is true for the chiefs. They could have stopped the bills near the end and they didn’t.

2 additional quarters would be fairest, but there’s like 3 things to figure out:

-what’s the minimum “quarter” length that makes sense? (Imo two 2 minute drill is essentially giving each team 1 possession and requires such a specific style of offense it doesn’t feel right to me.)
-what’s the maximum quarter length that makes sense? Two 7.5 minute periods adds a lot of game time, which I think is fine for the playoffs, except…
-what happens when it’s still tied after the two additional periods?

It’s quite common for there to be multiple possessions and even multiple scores in a two minute drill. We saw a lot of that this weekend. Running a two minute drill, with only one timeout, down to basically zero is really hard. It’s kindof too much time unless you’re really specific about clocking the ball. You have to make sure you score, and in the first mini-half you can’t just rely on a FG because the other team gets it back too. And if a team want to be conservative and chew up the clock with runs, well, maybe they stall at the 40 and that’s not an automatic 3. Or maybe they punch it in with second left. Good for them. Then they have to play D.

7.5 minutes is too long. I honestly don’t want to have to watch another 45 minutes of football with a million ads. I want to watch 10 minutes of football with a lot of action. (Make the ‘half time’ two minutes…just enough for a bathroom break and send some ‘WTF!’ texts).

if two minute is too short, the make it like three minutes…or even 2:30 (but will all 2 minute rules applying).

it’s simple, it’s exciting, and it’s ‘regular football’.

 

[tims4wins]

So case closed after today or what?

IT’S. NOT. THAT. EASY.

 

[jsinger121]

So case closed after today or what?

IT’S. NOT. THAT. EASY.

It’s called play some defense something Buffalo obviously didn’t do at the end of the 4th and overtime.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

So case closed after today or what?

IT’S. NOT. THAT. EASY.

Why would it be "case closed?" Each team had a possession and a chance to win. A key complaint (the one I agree with) is that this doesn't happen with an opening drive TD.

 

[tims4wins]

Why would it be "case closed?" Each team had a possession and a chance to win. A key complaint (the one I agree with) is that this doesn't happen with an opening drive TD.

Because the entire argument for both teams getting a chance is that it's too easy for good offenses. The Chiefs got the ball first, at home, with the best offense in the league, and didn't score. Everyone was acting all week like it was a guaranteed win for the first team with the ball.

We've now seen Mahomes, Brees, and Manning all get the ball in OT, at home, at the peak of their powers, under the new system, and not win.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Because the entire argument for both teams getting a chance is that it's too easy for good offenses. The Chiefs got the ball first, at home, with the best offense in the league, and didn't score. Everyone was acting all week like it was a guaranteed win for the first team with the ball.

We've now seen Mahomes, Brees, and Manning all get the ball in OT, at home, at the peak of their powers, under the new system, and not win.

your argument might rest on “too easy for good offenses” but not mine. For me is is just basic fairness.

 

[BigJimEd]

Now the winner of the coin toss is 10-2 in the playoffs. I'd say far from over although I doubt the NFL changes it.

 

[Silverdude2167]

Now the winner of the coin toss is 10-2 in the playoffs. I'd say far from over although I doubt the NFL changes it.

Who cares who won after the first possession?

After yesterday, the team that won the toss has scored on the first possession 7 times and failed to score 5 times.
If one more of those games saw the defense get a stop we would be sitting at 50%.

I do not see how you can complain about the above.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Who cares who won after the first possession?

After yesterday, the team that won the toss has scored on the first possession 7 times and failed to score 5 times.
If one more of those games saw the defense get a stop we would be sitting at 50%.

I do not see how you can complain about the above.

Why not? I think a playoff team that has played even for a full game deserves to get its offense on the field at lest once during OT. It’s just fair.

 

[BigJimEd]

Who cares who won after the first possession?

It has to do with what is "fair" which goes beyond the first possession. Now, this could very well be small sample size. @Fishercat had the complete data earlier:

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

Still an 11.7% advantage. Is that significant? Seems it to me but I'll admit I am not a stats guy.

Personally, I'd prefer two short halves in playoffs or at least one complete period. However, I acknowledge there is some downside there and honestly, don't feel as strong about it as others.

No matter what the format, I do like the idea of the home team getting the choice. If one team is going to get a potential advantage than it should be the team that earned it over the regular season.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

It has to do with what is "fair" which goes beyond the first possession. Now, this could very well be small sample size. @Fishercat had the complete data earlier:

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

Still an 11.7% advantage. Is that significant? Seems it to me but I'll admit I am not a stats guy.

Sorry if this has been mentioned (didn't go back to earlier pages of this thread) but I heard Ross Tucker on the radio the other day and he said that in college, the teams winning the toss had about a 52% win percentage by taking the ball second because they know what they have to do to win.

 

[Toe Nash]

I don't think it's broken.

But I do think some of the solutions ignore the tiredness factor. I don't think we really want completely gassed teams out there for safety and watchability reasons, and in the playoffs you're leaving it all on the field in every play. The difference between offenses and defenses, I think, is the offense is likely going to be subbing out receivers and backs all game, while the defense isn't going to rest someone like Jalen Ramsay or Tyrann Mathieu or even their second and third starting CBs unless they cramp up or something.

The Bills had 7 defenders, including all their secondary, play 76 snaps in the game vs. the Chiefs, in the Falcons Super Bowl the Falcons defense famously had 6 guys with 90+ snaps. You're not going to rest someone in the 4th quarter obviously. So, if the game goes on and on you could get more and more gassed and just time a tackle wrong and really get someone hurt. Maybe this isn't a really big deal, but it seems noteworthy. We all love more football but I really think you need a hard and quick limit, which the current rules are.

The ways we could address some of the supposed issues outside of a rule change:

• As mentioned above, revise the DPI rules / interpretations to give pass defenders a better shot. I'd like to see OPI called more often for one thing.
• Coaches could account for the likelihood of winning a game overall in their decision-making on conversions and 4th down tries, rather than just trying to tie the game to get to overtime as they often do. Go for 2 or go for the 4-point lead instead of playing for the tie. It doesn't have to be a complicated analytical decision -- sometimes it's as simple as "I didn't think my defense was in a good place if I lost the coin toss" or "I have Josh Allen / Lamar Jackson / Derrick Henry and I like his shot at getting into the end zone from two yards out more than winning a coin flip." To some coaches' credit we are seeing better decision-making here recently.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Who cares who won after the first possession?

After yesterday, the team that won the toss has scored on the first possession 7 times and failed to score 5 times.
If one more of those games saw the defense get a stop we would be sitting at 50%.

I do not see how you can complain about the above.

Why should the goal be to finish the game as quickly as possible if the first possession results in a TD? That's what I don't understand. Are people upset that games take too long and they don't want OT to extend the game more than necessary? Why not play a 10 minute 5th period instead?

 

[cshea]

What happens if the game is still tied at the end of the 5th quarter?

 

[lexrageorge]

If McDermott tells his kicker attempt a squib kick that KC is forced to field, it's quite likely that Mahomes would not have enough time to get his team in FG position to tie it. Then we don't have this thread. McDermott knew the OT rules and the possibility of losing the coin toss when he had his kicker boom the kick out of the end zone.

 

[tims4wins]

I forget who brought it up, but playing two extra "halves" but with only 2 minutes on the clock and 2-3 timeouts would solve the issue of games going to long / too many plays. Everyone loves the two minute drill anyway, right? So give each chance a shot at the two minute drill. Then if it's still tied, you can either go to sudden death (so each team will at least have had a shot), or play another 4 minute "game".

That said, I'm fine with the current rules.

 

[glennhoffmania]

What happens if the game is still tied at the end of the 5th quarter?

You play another one.

 

[glennhoffmania]

If McDermott tells his kicker attempt a squib kick that KC is forced to field, it's quite likely that Mahomes would not have enough time to get his team in FG position to tie it. Then we don't have this thread. McDermott knew the OT rules and the possibility of losing the coin toss when he had his kicker boom the kick out of the end zone.

The OT rules were dumb before McDermott fucked it up.