NFL Should Change Overtime Procedure

Jun 2018
4,452
575
Florida
#1
I'm not sure how long this coin toss procedure has been going on, but I think it could be counted in decades. Seems amazing to me that there's not more of an uproar over this. Giving all important possession of the ball to one team, and the opportunity to win the game from that possession (as was the case in the AFC Championship game) is ill-advised.

Sure, the coin toss losing team has an opportunity to get possession from top quality play from their defense. But if/when that doesn't happen, the whole OT period is one of a contest between the winning team's offense, and the losing team's defense. The winner team scores a touchdown, and wins the game.

The point here is that, in this scenario (as in the Patriots/Chiefs game) the OT period has zero minutes of play with the losing team's offense on the field, and the winning team's defense. In a sense, the game is decided by only half of each team's rosters. I found it unsettling that the game (and the season) was decided by a brief time in which Chief's quarterback, Mahomes, never got a chance to touch the football.

A better way of having an overtime would be for it to be set up in 2 halves, each one 10 minutes. One team receives a kickoff in the first OT half, the other team receives in the second OT half. Then, all of the teams' players would play in the OT, instead of just half of them.

I found not seeing Kansas City's offense on the field at all, even more distressing than the no call at the end of the NFC championship game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nov 2006
53,608
19,672
#2
I'm not sure how long this coin toss procedure has been going on, but I think it could be counted in decades. Seems amazing to me that there's not more of an uproar over this. Giving all important possession of the ball to one team, and the opportunity to win the game from that possession (as was the case in the AFC Championship game) is ill-advised.

Sure, the coin toss losing team has an opportunity to get possession from top quality play from their defense. But if/when that doesn't happen, the whole OT period is one of a contest between the winning team's offense, and the losing team's defense. The winner team scores a touchdown, and wins the game.

The point here is that, in this scenario (as in the Patriots/Chiefs game) the OT period has zero minutes of play with the losing team's offense on the field, and the winning team's defense. In a sense, the game is decided by only half of each team's rosters. I found it unsettling that the game (and the season) was decided by a brief time in which Chief's quarterback, Mahomes, never got a chance to touch the football.

A better way of having an overtime would be for it to be set up in 2 halves, each one 10 minutes. One team receives a kickoff in the first OT half, the other team receives in the second OT half. Then, all of the teams' players would play in the OT, instead of just half of them.

I found not seeing Kansas City's offense on the field at all, even more distressing than the no call at the end of the NFC championship game.
They had every opportunity, all they had to do was stop Brady.
 
Jan 2016
47,957
43,911
Colorado
#3
I'm not sure how long this coin toss procedure has been going on, but I think it could be counted in decades. Seems amazing to me that there's not more of an uproar over this. Giving all important possession of the ball to one team, and the opportunity to win the game from that possession (as was the case in the AFC Championship game) is ill-advised.

Sure, the coin toss losing team has an opportunity to get possession from top quality play from their defense. But if/when that doesn't happen, the whole OT period is one of a contest between the winning team's offense, and the losing team's defense. The winner team scores a touchdown, and wins the game.

The point here is that, in this scenario (as in the Patriots/Chiefs game) the OT period has zero minutes of play with the losing team's offense on the field, and the winning team's defense. In a sense, the game is decided by only half of each team's rosters. I found it unsettling that the game (and the season) was decided by a brief time in which Chief's quarterback, Mahomes, never got a chance to touch the football.

A better way of having an overtime would be for it to be set up in 2 halves, each one 10 minutes. One team receives a kickoff in the first OT half, the other team receives in the second OT half. Then, all of the teams' players would play in the OT, instead of just half of them.

I found not seeing Kansas City's offense on the field at all, even more distressing than the no call at the end of the NFC championship game.
It used to be even worse. It used to be that ALL you to do to win an OT game was to march about 40 yards down the field, and kick a winning FIELD GOAL. They did change that, although I don't remember exactly WHEN they changed it------maybe about a decade ago.

I like the way they do overtimes in college much better, where EACH team's offense gets a chance.
 
Likes: rwb72
Jun 2018
4,452
575
Florida
#5
It used to be even worse. It used to be that ALL you to do to win an OT game was to march about 40 yards down the field, and kick a winning FIELD GOAL. They did change that, although I don't remember exactly WHEN they changed it------maybe about a decade ago.

I like the way they do overtimes in college much better, where EACH team's offense gets a chance.
Sure. Fans wanna see both teams compete in full, where they ALL determine what goes on, not a coin.
 
Likes: BigLeRoy
Sep 2014
4,531
1,338
South FL
#7
I'm not sure how long this coin toss procedure has been going on, but I think it could be counted in decades. Seems amazing to me that there's not more of an uproar over this. Giving all important possession of the ball to one team, and the opportunity to win the game from that possession (as was the case in the AFC Championship game) is ill-advised.

Sure, the coin toss losing team has an opportunity to get possession from top quality play from their defense. But if/when that doesn't happen, the whole OT period is one of a contest between the winning team's offense, and the losing team's defense. The winner team scores a touchdown, and wins the game.

The point here is that, in this scenario (as in the Patriots/Chiefs game) the OT period has zero minutes of play with the losing team's offense on the field, and the winning team's defense. In a sense, the game is decided by only half of each team's rosters. I found it unsettling that the game (and the season) was decided by a brief time in which Chief's quarterback, Mahomes, never got a chance to touch the football.

A better way of having an overtime would be for it to be set up in 2 halves, each one 10 minutes. One team receives a kickoff in the first OT half, the other team receives in the second OT half. Then, all of the teams' players would play in the OT, instead of just half of them.

I found not seeing Kansas City's offense on the field at all, even more distressing than the no call at the end of the NFC championship game.
I agree, flat out KC really is the better team and the home team, by rule, should simply be awarded first possession.
 
Jun 2014
45,510
44,843
United States
#9
It used to be even worse. It used to be that ALL you to do to win an OT game was to march about 40 yards down the field, and kick a winning FIELD GOAL. They did change that, although I don't remember exactly WHEN they changed it------maybe about a decade ago.
They changed the rule in 2012. The NFL didn't have OT at all until 1974. Ties were just ties.


I like the way they do overtimes in college much better, where EACH team's offense gets a chance.
I like that better, but it's still not real football. At least the OT can't end in a tie though.

What would the NFL do if a semi-final game ended in a tie?

EDIT: Or for that matter a Super Bowl?
 
Last edited:
Likes: BigLeRoy
Jan 2016
47,957
43,911
Colorado
#10
I agree, flat out KC really is the better team and the home team, by rule, should simply be awarded first possession.
Don't know how you can say that. I wanted Kansas City to win very badly, but New England DOMINATED that game, in almost every phase. The statistics don't lie.....
 

Similar Discussions