NFL Overtime: Coin Toss, Or No Coin Toss, That Is The Question
I’ve heard countless football fans give excuses of why their team lost in OT and most of the reasoning boils down to the overtime system. The randomness of the coin toss really leaves a large percentage of the final quarter to luck, however there really haven’t been many viable solutions suggested. I was reading an article on YardBarker today that really breaks down a new idea of how to run the overtime. It may seem preposterous at first but, nevertheless it works.
The silent auction method involves both coaches deciding where they would accept the ball at the start of overtime. They slip their decisions into an envelope or something and give it to the refs. The coach that is willing to accept the ball at the least advantageous field position is granted possession. So if the Giants are playing the Jets, and Tom Coughlin is willing to accept the ball at his own 15 yard line and Rex Ryan is willing to accept the ball at his own 10, the ball will then be given to the Jets at their own 10. No complaints necessary because if he doesn’t like that field position, he shouldn’t have out it down, and if Coughlin is upset he didn’t get the ball, he should have taken a bigger risk.
This is a wild solution but it does indeed work. When I consulted a professional opinion on the matter, Mr. Joe Mitnick said “I think it has too much of a Price Is Right feel to it“. His solution which I too agree with is to keep the coin flip, but to let both teams have one possession and if it reamains a tie after both teams touch the ball, then it goes on to sudden death. To be quite honest, I believe both of these solutions are better than the current method, but lets see if either plan gets anywhere.
That’s actually a cool idea, but I don’t think they’ll do it - adds a weird new element to the game. I, too, hate the current system, and the college system as well. I also think each team should have at least one possession. It will take the importance away from the coin toss and give the team with the first possession incentive to score a touchdown. After each team has had possession of the ball once, which can include a play where there is a fumble after an interception, the game would enter sudden death.
The team that “earns” it should get the ball first; it should be based on some determining factor from regulation time. Maybe the team with the most yardage, most first downs, etc.
It should be treated as any other quarter change, whomever has possession at the end of the quarter (forth quarter for this argument) should retain possession.
My two cents
Steve
The NFL Playoffs: (to me) one the most exciting times of the year in the world of sports along with the NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Tournament. Twelve teams battle for the right to clinch a spot in the Super Bowl and bring home the Vince Lombardi Trophy.
But there’s just one small problem, that weighs heavily on my pigskin-overdosed mind as the NFL playoffs take place: it’s how games are settled if the game goes into overtime: It’s settled by sudden death. The team that scores first wins. I want that rule changed. At least for the playoffs.
Peter King, Sports Illustrated’s NFL scribe, doesn’t like sudden death either because games can be won by the team who got the ball first without the opposing team getting the ball. Even though only 29 percent of teams who have gotten the ball first in overtime win the game, King feels both teams should be guaranteed at least one possession. However the NFL competition committee sees no reason to get rid of sudden-death overtime and probably won’t do so until the number of one-possession-only games passes the 50 percent mark.
However, my problem with sudden-death overtime is that once a team scores (regardless if they got the ball first or not), the game is finished.
It’s no way to settle an important playoff game (I don’t like sudden death in the regular season either but I can tolerate it) like this last year’s Giants-Packers showdown in the NFC Championship game.
As a fan of the Big Blue, I was obviously ecstatic to see them emerge victorious. However, I was not as ecstatic about the way the won it. The G-Men won it in overtime with just one score: a field goal. Just one field goal. A 47-yarder from Lawrence Tynes. It was like watching the Sopranos series finale: it left me feeling cheated and wanting more. And I say that as a fan of the victorious team.
Last Saturday, we all saw the San Diego Chargers take down the Colts in the first AFC Wild Card game. But an important factor being that they won the currency flip. After the kickoff, the Chargers offense steadily drove the ball 76 yards down the field, capped off by a Darren Sproles 22 yard-gallop into the end zone to give the Bolts the win–without ever letting Peyton Manning ever touch the ball in OT.
The Super Bowl has never gone into overtime (although there have been several close calls in recent years), but if and when it does, I dread seeing it settled by using sudden death. So I would like to see sudden death overtime in the NFL go the same route of eight-track cassettes, rotary dial phones and record players. Toss it aside. Forget about it. Never use it again.
I am from the school of thought that ex-Pittsburgh Steelers coach Bill Cowher has endorsed: play a full overtime period that lasts, let’s say for ten minutes. Let both teams touch the ball more then once. Let multiple scores by both teams take place. Let a team rally from a deficit in overtime. Let drama really unfold.
Those that favor sudden death overtime, argue that it’s the best and most exciting way to determine the winner of a game. At the annual league meetings at Palm Beach, Fla. in 2004, the competition committee and team owners struck down the idea of replacing sudden death overtime. Afterwards, current Atlanta Falcons’ president Rich McKay, who at time served as co-chairman of the competition committee stated “People do like in our league that it is true sudden-death, One play can end the game, and that’s unique to our league.”
But Mr. McKay because its unique, doesn’t mean its better for the NFL.
Now consider if a full overtime period existed for last year’s classic Giants-Packers clash. After Lawrence Tynes connected on his three-pointer, imagine Brett Favre getting to atone for his ill-fated pass (picked off by Corey Webster, setting up Tynes’ game winner) by driving the Pack down field and finding Donald Driver in the end zone to give the Pack a four point lead.
Imagine Eli Manning now leading a Giants drive down field and finding a leaping Plaxico Burress at midfield then racing past Al Harris to hit paydirt. The Giants are back up 30-27.
Imagine Ryan Grant, rushing up the middle fighting for yardage inside Giants territory to set up a Mason Crosby field, which ties the game.
Imagine a ten-play Giants drive capped off by Brandon Jacobs rumbling off right tackle and running over A.J. Hawk to cross the goal line and decide the contest.
Now wouldn’t such a scenario be even more electrifying and trump the current one-score-and-done sudden death system?
I rest my case.
Roger Goodell, if you are reading this please pass this idea along to your competition committee at your next meeting, so we don’t ever have a Super Bowl (or any other playoff game) decided because one team correctly called heads and then drove sixty down yards field and had their kicker boot a ball into the uprights while the other team didn’t ever get to run one single play.
I’d so appreciate it. I’m sure many other football fans would too.
Yeah.. one possession each and then if it is still tied.. then sudden death! Very fair indeed!
I think there is something being overlooked here. You have all the stats and numbers and you both (the original poster and the poster above me) make a fine argument.
My problem is that sometimes you have to let your defense win games for you. In the Colt Charger game you discussed above the Colts defense was unable to stop the Chargers and that is the Colts’ responsibility. It’s not he NFL’s duty to make a system that innately protects teams that can’t stop an opposing drive.
Even in the case of the Green Bay Giant contest it was a testament to the importance of quarterback discipline and skill. In an overtime playoff game a quarterback can’t make the mistake that Brett Favre did without some type of repercussion.
The current system favors the most balanced team; one that can both attack and defend with equal ability. It is like you say though; a team that has a proclivity towards making mistakes or lacks defensive consistency are leaving their own odds to a coin flip. Personally, I don’t need another whole quarter of potential back and forth scoring with more injury potential when the statistics come out to almost a fifty-fifty win loss ratio for coin flip winners.
Here’s my idea. Basically keep it the same as now, with one major change. To end in sudden death, you have to win by 4 pts. Bascially 2 or 3 first downs and a field goal won’t cut it. You have to go all the way for a TD to win on an opening drive. If you settle for a FG, then the other team does still get a chance too. If they score a TD PAT to go up by 4, they win. Otherwise play continues until 1 team leads by at least 4 or time runs out. If its still a tie, then do it again.
Another alternative is the first team to score 4 points in OT rather than just win by a margin of 4.