After seeing two NFL games end with game-winning field goals in overtime, I wondered what it would be like if the NFL changed its overtime rules. For instance, what if you HAD to score a touchdown? How about if both teams got a chance with the ball? How does a half-quarter of extra game-time sound? With all of these possibilities available, I thought it would be a good idea to weigh all of the options within all of them. Here they are:
In my opinion, scoring a touchdown is the real goal of an offense. With that being the case, why should an overtime be allowed to end on a field goal? Teams should have to score a touchdown in overtime to earn a victory. This is, of course, different from ending regulation with a field goal because regulation is timed. If you are running out of time, getting into field goal range is something that is harder because you need to use timeouts properly, stay near the sideline, and run certain types of plays that are conducive to saving time. However, in overtime, time is USUALLY not an issue. Teams have all plays available to use without real pressure of the clock, and that makes it a lot easier to get into field goal range. Because a defense is a lot more vulnerable in the current overtime system, the team that starts with the ball wins a greater percentage of the time. This leads me to my next idea; Both teams should get a chance with the ball.
As was just mentioned, the team that starts with the ball wins a greater percentage of the overtime games. Since that is so, the coin toss has a greater baring on the game than it should. The only way to be fair to both teams, and to offense and defense, is to have both teams get a chance to score. This is the way that overtime is run in college, and it is very exciting and successful. Also, I feel that since the entire team is responsible in regulation, they should also be responsible in overtime. If a team has a great offense, and they never see the field in overtime, it is not fair. What about a team with a bad defense? What if their offense scores, and they never have to defend? As I see it, the only way to have the whole team involved in the outcome of an overtime game, would be to have both teams play offense and defense.
Another effective way to be fair, would be to have a timed half-quarter. Adding an extra seven and a half minutes to a game is tiring, but it is shorter than the current format, which can go all the way to fifteen. By having a timed half-quarter, both teams will likely get to have a possession, and everything is available on offense. It would be just like the last seven and a half minutes of regulation, and the entire team will have to play well to get a victory. If the opening kickoff of the overtime is returned for a touchdown, the opposing team will get a chance to match it, and if they do, there might be some time left over for the other team to score yet again. This overtime approach is comparable to the NBA and MLB overtimes, which work fine as they are. Teams do not feel like they were slighted by the tipoff or homefield advantage, like football players feel they are sometimes slighted because of a coin toss. Whether you win or lose in this particular format, your team never has to wonder, ”What if?”
The odds of the overtime format changing in the NFL is slim to none. The NFL likes to keep things as they are unless there is a recurring problem that they feel needs to be addressed. However, that does not mean that the alternatives cannot be mentioned and thought about for pure entertainment. As long as things remain the same, people will continue to wonder.
Filed under: NFL
[...] I am certain that it will be a complete success. How can it not be? Now, how about changing those overtime rules, Mr. [...]