Overtime rule change?

The proposed change sucks.

They should just play a quarter. If it's still tied after that, in a playoff game, then just play sudden death from where the ball is.



If a team drives on you for 15 minutes and you don't get a possession, you deserve to lose.

 

I would loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove this.

They should just do what the NCAA does... kinda.

But first to score wins? That's stupid.

 

Well, in the proposed change, if the first team scores a TD they win and the other team doesn't get the ball.

Still looooove it?

 

IMO the % increase of the team winning the toss winning the game coincides with the rule changes the NFL has made to get more offense into the game. It just makes sense that when you amp up the probability of the offense scoring in general you also amp up the chances of scoring with the first possession in an over time. Add to the rule changes the fact the offense seems to have an even more of an advantage in overtime because the defense is tired it simply sways the probabilities the wrong way.

I think the OT rules should be simple. If one team scores on their first possession the other team gets one shot at the football. It shouldn't matter if the first team scored a FG or TD. Just let both offenses have at least one shot.

 

I'm for playing another quarter all together. Or keep it; the first to score wins. Simple, but I've seen us get the raw end of the current system.

 

I actually like the current OT and I think any change to OT for offensive possessions takes away a lack of respect for the defense in football. If you go to OT, it shouldnt matter wether you win the coin toss or not because your defense should be able to come up with a stop. Granted that sometimes teams feel cheated by the coin toss, every team plays by the same rules and you have 60 minutes to win the game. Wether or not they implement this change, if you dont have a good defense you will loose, and I think this change actually will hurt some teams that have a poor defense if they cant keep up with the other team. I like it the way it is and don't think it should change but I am definetly open for making overtime better. I do like the idea of playing a whole extra quarter, and I think that would be the best way to go.

 

Except as I noted above, the rules favor the offense so much that the offense has an unfair advantage amplified by the fact the defense is tired after 4 qts. This crap about not having a good defense you lose is ridiculous because some team could have the crappiest defense in the NFL but if they get lucky under the current system (AND WIN A FLIPPING COIN TOSS!) their defense doesn't even have to take the field. It seems only fair that both offenses and both defenses should play at least some in over time.

Quite honestly I can't understand the irrational thinking that thinks a football game should be decided in any part on a stupid arse coin flip. These guy work their arses off to get prepared for a football game and saying a moronic coin flip should give any one team a decisive advantage is unfair, stupid and asinine. Have a nice day.

 

This is a good way to change it. If the team that wins the toss goes down and scores a TD it's game over. If they kick a FG then the other side gets a chance. If they also kick a FG it's back to sudden death.
I like that better than the college format, which can sometimes turn into a marathon...

 

I think this is crap ... both teams have had 60 minutes to win the game ... there shouldn't be a "qualifier" on how a team wins a playoff game ... forced to score a TD is crap