While the NFL holds its annual meetings in Orlando, a hot topic being discussed is the possibility of changing the overtime rules during the Playoff rounds. As it stands today, the overtime rules are very simply: you score first, you win the game. In recent years these rules have come under some fire as we have seen teams fighting for their playoff lives get sent home without even touching the ball in the overtime period. An example of such controversy can be found as recently as this past year’s NFC Championship game in which the Saints won the coin toss, and then kicked a 40 yard field goal not even 5 minutes into OT to win the game.
Granted this is not the reason the Vikings lost the game (Minnesota had 5 turnovers that day), but I think it’s a little unfair that the fate of a team’s season be decided on the flip of a coin. Now some people will say it’s up to the team that loses the toss to play defense, but I’m not sure I agree with that. Field goal kicking accuracy has greatly improved which means that the defense has to be close to perfect to hold their opponent out of field goal range. For the first 20 years of overtime, the team that won the toss, won the game 46.8% of the time. However in 1994, the NFL moved the overtime kickoff from the 30 yard line to the 35 and, since then, the team that wins the toss has won 59.8% of the games which is pretty stark.
The new OT rules proposed are as follows:
If the team that wins the toss scores a touchdown, the game is over. However if the team that wins the toss kicks a field goal, the opposing team will get the ball with an opportunity to tie or win the game. If the game is tied on a field goal, the remainder of the OT period will be sudden death and the first team to score again wins. I like it. I think it eliminates teams losing on long field goals without even touching the ball, and it gives both teams a shot to play defense without having to force a three and out. I’ve heard some pretty crazy ideas so far from other fans on how to fix OT (an “auction” system where teams would negotiate starting field position for ability to receive the ball.) What do you think? If you were in charge, how would you resolve the OT controversy? Let us know your ideas!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am OK with both teams not getting a posession, but it seems that the logical way to decide posession would be just like at the start of the game and the start of teh 2nd half. If the game starts and I win the toss, I decide to take the opening kick, then the other tean will get it to open the 2nd half AND OT. Gives me somthing to think about when I decide to take the ball or defer. OR the only other idea I have been OK with is in OT it is the first one to 6 points. So you can win with 2 fgs or a TD. Honestly I can live with it teh way it is also. FUnny how one game with the great Peyton Manning not getting on the field in OT started this whole bananza! Nice job on the blog.
ReplyDelete