NFL overtime proposal passes

[go birds]

College has it right.

But i do like Leroy's suggestion.


"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?!?!?!"

[Richie Allen]

I understand football is a very rough sport, but these are grown men. Just let them play the full 15, find out the final score, and if it's tied, it's a tie.

Play the full 15 in OT as well, go to sudden death after 15 if it's still tied.

I would go for this over the newest proposal. Either that, or keep it the same. I don't mind the sudden death and my favorite team has been bumped from the playoffs the last two times they've been in it, after winning the coin toss. Couple problems I see with the idea of both offenses having to have a chance at the ball...what would happen in the instance in which the Packers have lost their last two playoff games...they got the ball, immediately turned it over to the tune of a touchdown by the other defense. Is the game over? With this latest proposal I think the game changes in ways I wouldn't like...first team gets it and kicks a FG...then the other team gets the ball and automatically goes into 4 down offense. No punting at this point, correct? So a team that would have won in the traditional overtime (kicking FG) now has to defend a team playing with 4 downs and no hesitancy like you normally have in football, especially in OT. Just keep it sudden death or go with Mr. Crowes full overtime suggestion.

[st.lewis11]

it still leaves out the other team's offense if the coin toss winner gets a TD. I know defense is supposed to be a big part of the game (and it is) and giving up the TD is a bad thing, but you're not forcing the winning team's defense to not give that TD up.

Give each team equal possessions. First time one team scores more than the other with equal possessions the game is over. Not complicated.

Don't college football games get decided like this? or am I being ignorant here?

It is, but they also do the gimmick where teams start on the 25 yard line, and you have to go for two on the touchdown after your third possession.

Yep, rings a bell...thanks for the clarification.

Why don't they just start another quarter and let them bang it out...they have a week to recover.

I remember hearing discussion on morning sports-talk radio, while driving, (either Cowherd or Dan Patrick?) that television has a big interest in this, not wanting games extended more than necessary, to avoid having to pre-empt the following scheduled programming. Team owners also want to avoid extra exposure of their players to injury. There were other factors brought up, which I cannot remember off the top of my head, but the talk-heads summed it up by attribituting to it all about the almighty dollar.

[KyCardinalFan]

I understand football is a very rough sport, but these are grown men. Just let them play the full 15, find out the final score, and if it's tied, it's a tie.

Play the full 15 in OT as well, go to sudden death after 15 if it's still tied.

I would go for this over the newest proposal. Either that, or keep it the same. I don't mind the sudden death and my favorite team has been bumped from the playoffs the last two times they've been in it, after winning the coin toss. Couple problems I see with the idea of both offenses having to have a chance at the ball...what would happen in the instance in which the Packers have lost their last two playoff games...they got the ball, immediately turned it over to the tune of a touchdown by the other defense. Is the game over? With this latest proposal I think the game changes in ways I wouldn't like...first team gets it and kicks a FG...then the other team gets the ball and automatically goes into 4 down offense. No punting at this point, correct? So a team that would have won in the traditional overtime (kicking FG) now has to defend a team playing with 4 downs and no hesitancy like you normally have in football, especially in OT. Just keep it sudden death or go with Mr. Crowes full overtime suggestion.

I like a timed OT period, as well. However, I'd make it 6-8 minutes instead of a full 15.

[Fat Strat]

television has a big interest in this, not wanting games extended more than necessary, to avoid having to pre-empt the following scheduled programming

Yeah, because God forbid we pre-empt 60 Minutes to watch a close OT games that would likely get ridiculously high ratings.

I'm for a timed extra period (5-10 minutes) followed by a second sudden death period of the same time. Still tied after that? Leroy's suggestion of swords sounds real good.

[redbirdjazzz]

If they can't just play another period, I wish they'd pass a rule where you have to win by more than 3. You eliminate the really cheap field goal wins, but still probably minimize the extra playing time.