How to Fix the Overtime Rules so Peyton Manning Always Wins
McKay said Wednesday that the Competition Committee has not recommended a change to the overtime format – another hot topic this season because of what happened in a Chargers game.
Many fans and media have been agog since the Chargers won the overtime coin toss and drove for a TD to beat the Colts in the Wild Card round in January. A vocal segment of those groups believe there should be a change in the sudden-death format. According to McKay, coaches and players polled did not agree.
According to McKay, 63 percent of overtime games in 2008 were won by teams that won the coin flip to start the period, with 43 percent of those games won on the opening possession.
“There are statistics that concern us,” McKay said. “At the same time, we don't think there is enough support to change it.”
I've been thinking about the overtime rules and all the hubbub that came about because Peyton Manning didn't get a chance to win the game in overtime. My first reaction is blow it off. I've always liked the NFL overtime rule and the idea of sudden death. I do think that most of this stink is just because the media's favorite QB didn't get a chance to win the game and the unloved Chargers moved to the next round the playoffs while Peyton the endorser went home. So, I'm happy that when the NFL meets this coming week, they won't be changing the OT rules at all.
However, it is possible that change is coming in the next few years, so I want to get my 2 cents in now.
Read on after the jump for descriptions and breakdowns of the options.
I admit that the current system is a bit unfair. However, I don't want a new system that just slightly reduces the unfairness or moves it around a little. I want a system that is as close to fair as possible, or I want stick with what we've got. I read an article by Peter King at SI where said you could tell the current system was weighted too much in favor of the team that won the toss because the team that won the toss always chooses to receive the ball. While not a perfect measuring stick, it's not bad. No matter how good your defense is and how bad your offense is, no team ever chooses to put their defense out there first. I've been thinking of other things that would quickly point out that any proposed system is still too unfair.
One way to identify if a system is unfair is to see how many unusual things happen. For instance, in a normal game circumstance, if your team was driving effortlessly down the field to the opponents 20 yard line, and then they stopped and kicked a field goal on 1st down, you would think that was unusual. If that happened at any point in the game except when time was about to expire you would think it was strange. Yet this happens all the time in overtime games. The game is put in the hands of an undersized soccer player when it is at its most critical juncture and it doesn't need to be.
Another way to identify if a system is unfair is to see if one side has a significant decision making advantage over the other. I think this sort of problem is present in most system where they force at least two possessions. Here is my example: If the first team has the ball and they have driven (drove?) down the field to their opponent's 20 yard line. Then they face 4th and 10 from the 20. Obviously, they will chose to kick a field goal. Now the other team gets the ball and drives down to their opponent's 20 yard line. They now face 4th and 10 from the 20. Down by three, they will also kick a field goal. But suppose for a moment that the first team had actually scored a touchdown instead of a field goal. The second team now faces 4th and 10 from the 20. They will go for it because they know that a field goal does them no good. They have a significant advantage because they know what they have to get and it can significantly alter what they do at critical times. I think this is one of the fatal flaws of the college OT system and the "at least two possessions" NFL overtime rule.
Options
1. Implement the college system: line up the offense at the 30 yard line (or wherever they do) and let them try and score. Then give the other team a shot. If one team ends up with more points they win, if not, repeat the two possessions until someone does. This is bad because not only does it give the second team a decision making advantage, it also removes special teams from the equation and tends to drag on and on. If the NFL were to implement this system, I might never watch overtime again.
2. Play a complete quarter, repeat until someone wins. Fair, very fair. But long and drawn out. I don't think the TV guys would go for it because we might not be able to see 60 minutes until Andy Rooney is on.
3. Move up the kick offs. The idea being that teams typically end up with a short fields and just need a couple first downs to be in field goal range. Moving the kick offs up would give the team a longer field, and they might need 4 first downs to get in field goal range. Not bad, but I don't think it ends the current system's unfairness, it just kind of shifts it a bit. It doesn't solve the problem enough by itself, but it could be used in conjunction with other options. I do like how it preserves the sudden death part of overtime.
4. Each offense gets at least one try on offense (Peter King's suggestion). Gives the second team a decision making advantage. Plus it fails King's own test of fairness. He said you could tell the current system was unfair because everyone chose to receive the ball. In his system everyone would chose to kick off, so they could get the ball second. Doesn't seem to significantly improve the fairness.
5. You have to score at least 4 points to win in Sudden Death. I like this one the best. You can't win on the first possession with a field goal. If you do kick a field goal, the other team might get a touchdown and win. Two field goals and you can win, I'm OK with that. Two safeties wins also. If you get the ball first and march down the field and score a TD without letting the opponent's offense on the field, you deserve to win.
6. Outlaw the kicker in overtime. You can still kick field goals, but maybe your QB kicks them. I'm sure some of these guys were kickers in High School and could handle the job. Kicking field goals with your QB (or maybe NT :-) would be a lot more uncertain and would need to be from closer in. Overall, it would discourage the field goal except as a last resort. I like it, and it fits in with my philosophy that kickers have too much influence in the game and their influence should be reduced.
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Another option
10 (or whatever length) minute quarter played under normal NFL rules with a coin flip to determine kickoff. If the game is still tied, the clock turns off and its sudden death. No kickoffs. You basically have 10 minutes to get yourself in a position to win the game. Defense is important, offense is important, special teams is important and clock management is important. Basically, every facet of the game that is important to regulation is important to overtime. Everything else results in a facet of game being devalued (College: Special teams and most of the defensive and offensive strategy goes out the window. No Kicker: That’s obvious. 4 pts to win and 2 possessions: Change in ST strategies) or makes the game potentially go on too long and may result in more injuries (additional quarters).
1-10-DEN 18 (9:52) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short right intended for 19-E.Royal INTERCEPTED by 93-L.Castillo (95-S.Phillips) at DEN 18. 93-L.Castillo to DEN 14 for 4 yards (62-C.Wiegmann). 6-J.Cutler pouts ob to DEN 25 for 11 yards.
I kind of like it
but its a little complicated. I’m pretty sure McNabb would not get it.
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Mar 20, 2009 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Fine
We’ll add a 2 minute warning style timeout at the end of the clock usage so that Andy Reid can explain the situation to McNabb.
1-10-DEN 18 (9:52) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short right intended for 19-E.Royal INTERCEPTED by 93-L.Castillo (95-S.Phillips) at DEN 18. 93-L.Castillo to DEN 14 for 4 yards (62-C.Wiegmann). 6-J.Cutler pouts ob to DEN 25 for 11 yards.
After further review
I don’t like mine anymore. At least not the overtime period part. Just start the sudden death at the end of regulation. No kickoffs. No coin tosses. Just finish what you started.
1-10-DEN 18 (9:52) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short right intended for 19-E.Royal INTERCEPTED by 93-L.Castillo (95-S.Phillips) at DEN 18. 93-L.Castillo to DEN 14 for 4 yards (62-C.Wiegmann). 6-J.Cutler pouts ob to DEN 25 for 11 yards.
but I hate the cheap FG to win
there has to be a way to avoid that. I cannot in good faith support any candidate who does not support the elimination of the cheapo field goal winner in OT
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Mar 20, 2009 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions
In my opinion...
Anything that increases the chances of a tie is a bad idea.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
I like college rules
However, I think the teams should start at the 50. Teams with good kickers have to get at least 15 yards to have a shot at a field goal. Much harder to score a touchdown.
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
So you decided to say +1
but not Rec the comment.
I’m not sure what to make of that.
1-10-DEN 18 (9:52) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short right intended for 19-E.Royal INTERCEPTED by 93-L.Castillo (95-S.Phillips) at DEN 18. 93-L.Castillo to DEN 14 for 4 yards (62-C.Wiegmann). 6-J.Cutler pouts ob to DEN 25 for 11 yards.
Maybe he’s unfamiliar with the Rec button.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Mar 20, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm very familiar with the Rec button
+1 means I agree, but if I Rec’d everything I agreed with have the comments would be green.
by 'Eaters on Mar 20, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It seems
That the may have upped it to 2.
What’s your excuse now? ;-P
1-10-DEN 18 (9:52) (Shotgun) 6-J.Cutler pass short right intended for 19-E.Royal INTERCEPTED by 93-L.Castillo (95-S.Phillips) at DEN 18. 93-L.Castillo to DEN 14 for 4 yards (62-C.Wiegmann). 6-J.Cutler pouts ob to DEN 25 for 11 yards.
Better options
Spell his name correctly. It’s Peyton, not Payton.
Another option: Become obvious to the fact that no one really wants OT changed. Not even Colts fans. Absolutely nothing wrong with OT. The dumb ass refs who called a lot of phantom crap in OT? That’s a different story. But, when it comes to the OT format (sudden death) there is nothing wrong with it. And I think most Colts fans, and NFL fans in general, would agree with that.
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account and post a diary, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
Fixed
"I did not invent the wheel, I was the crooked spoke adjacent." - Aesop Rock
by John Gennaro on Mar 20, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
you're probably right
I know Dungy himself has said he wouldn’t change the OT rule. But I did read quite a few articles and hear quite a few talking heads on ESPN say how unfortunate it was that OT came down to a coin flip. If you don’t think there was at least some thoughts about changing, then why did the NFL come out and say they were not going to consider it at this time?
Anyways, I like the colts, and I like Peyton, and I don’t think he is a weinie. And I definately don’t hold the fact that he has a girl’s name against him.
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Mar 20, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Bill Polian (Colts' Pres)
has also come out against the OT change…too much of a risk for injury. I agree with him. Leave it as it is, we lost because we didn’t put it away in regulation. Bad calls or no, we should have won that game in regulation.
Now, I understand there are supposed to be talks about playoff seeding and draft seeding.
ie: Colts 12-4 travel on the road to an 8-8 team (doesn’t seem right now, does it)
&
Colts draft 27th after losing to the Chargers in the playoffs and the Chargers draft 16th. (definitely no bueno)
"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007
by peytonsthebest on Mar 20, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions
If you didn't want to travel to us
you should have won your division, and not lost to the Packers or Jaguars (at home).
In regards to draft seeding, I think a good option would be to take the ENTIRE record into account, including post-season. The Super Bowl winner and loser would almost always still end up picking near the end of the pack, and the overall record would be a better indication of who needs the most help.
The proposed rule change that seeds teams based on playoff finish would create new problems.
Say you have a 16-0 and an 8-8 team that each make the playoffs. The 16-0 team has a mental meltdown and loses its playoff opener, while the 8-8 team rides momentum for two games, before losing the conference championship. Under the proposed rule change (with draft seeding for playoff teams determined by playoff finish), the 16-0 team would pick ahead of the 8-8 team. Which team really needs more help?
by Zach (maestro876) on Mar 20, 2009 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Colts draft 27th after losing to the Chargers in the playoffs and the Chargers draft 16th. (definitely no bueno)
This changes next year; the bolts were in three rules change discussions. The Hochuli fumble rule, the OT and the divisional winner with a bad record shouldn’t draft quite so high rule especially if they win in the playoffs.
"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman
by Brian (DaBolts) on Mar 21, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Just to be clear...
Those were only phantom calls if you’re a Colts homer.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Mar 20, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree
Except for the calls. I think you can call them ticky tack for OT in the playoffs, but the calls looked legit to my eyes.
I’m sad that we won’t see the Colts in the regular season next season.
"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman
by Brian (DaBolts) on Mar 21, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I want OT changed.
Its awful. I don’t like seeing the whole game decided by driving 30-40 yards and then settling for a FG. That’s not what football is supposed to be. Not to mention the team that wins the coin flip gets an unfair advantage.
I certainly wouldn’t agree with the statement that no one really wants OT changed, or even that most fans don’t.
by Brendan Scolari on Mar 22, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
My votes
- I love the idea that you have to win by 4 in OT; I haven’t done the stats, but it seems to me that most of these games end on a FG after an uneventful set of downs
- I hate the fact that overtime games have to start over with a coin toss; why not use the same decision that was made at the outset of the game (thus a team who chose to receive in the first half, would receive in OT…. and a team who chose to defer would have to kick off)
- I go back and forth as to whether kickoffs should be from the 30 or 35. In the interest of avoiding injury from too much play time, I suppose it’s simply better to do it from the 30, but boy I hate how quickly those games end… and these are typically the more exciting games to begin with.
- Finally, I agree with peytonsthebest and if you want to win the game, do it in regulation; the Colts had a great run this year but the Chargers exploited their weaknesses. Oh and there were some bad calls, but that happens in every game and none of the calls that night were Hochuli-esque.
“- I hate the fact that overtime games have to start over with a coin toss; why not use the same decision that was made at the outset of the game (thus a team who chose to receive in the first half, would receive in OT…. and a team who chose to defer would have to kick off)”
But then you’re still giving an unfair advantage to the team that decided to receive at the start of the game so how does that solve anything?
by Brendan Scolari on Mar 22, 2009 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think it gives an unfair advantage
The complaint about unfair advantage hinges on the fact that a decision could be made at the start of OT. If the decision were pre-determined, then there is no advantage.
Further, I think locking the decision at the beginning of the game adds a bit of intrigue. If you might otherwise choose to defer, then this would add another dimension to consider. Of course, it might have the unintended consequence that nobody would ever choose “defer” option.
Anyway, I hadn’t fully thought through the idea… came up with it while I was typing my post above. I still maintain that if you want to win, win the darned thing in regulation!
I like a complete additional quarter.
I think that would be the fairest option for everyone.
by Zach (maestro876) on Mar 20, 2009 9:15 PM PDT reply actions
While I don't love the OT rules
the fact that they want to change them because of the Chargers game is ridiculous. It’s as if this was the first time a team didn’t get an OT possession and lost or something.
"If I wasn't Bob Dylan, I'd probably think that Bob Dylan has a lot of answers myself." - Bob Dylan
I like watching college OT a lot
but there are unfair advantages there as well and it takes out special teams, so thats pretty much out.
I think if you just moved the kickoff to the 40 or so, OT woud be fair. When you have the ball at your won 20, I think your opponent is as likely to score as you are. But the problem is teams start at the 27-28 on average on normal kickoffs, so they have the advantage.
by Brendan Scolari on Mar 22, 2009 12:49 PM PDT reply actions
overtime change
How about they play an entire quarter and if it ends in a tie, whoever scored first wins? That way, it would only become “sudden death” in the event it ended in a tie after an entire quarter was played. That way, if one team is down by three, but the other team scored first, they would have to go for the touchdown to win. If they kicked a field goal to tie, they would still lose. Thay way you don’t end up playing more than one overtime period. They could even shorten the quarter from fifteen minutes to twelve minutes or whatever. That way both teams get the ball at least once.
The way I see it
man up and play defense for three plays. Get off the field and let your offense win the game. If you can’t keep your opponent from scoring, that’s nobody’s fault but your own. Play defense.
by Lancers46 on Mar 22, 2009 9:45 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
^This.
Defense and special teams are both part of the game and it’s not like there aren’t ever any defensive scores.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Mar 22, 2009 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions
the media's favorite QB was at home nursing his knee during that game
They say "he's so arrogant, the cocky kind"
but they always lookin', 'cause I'ma shine,
-Lil Wayne & Birdman "Get Your Shine On"
not entirely correct
I believe his smoking hot girlfriend/wife/baby mama was nursing his knee
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Mar 23, 2009 7:55 AM PDT up reply actions
are those three different ladies or just one?
I know about the wife and the baby mama from before, now he gets a girlfriend too? Bastard.
by Lenny Suckerpunch on Mar 23, 2009 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m not keeping up as much as I should. I thought he had knocked up Giselle as well? Perhaps not. I hope I haven’t besmirched him. That would be two QB besmirchings in one week (and that doesn’t even count Cutler who has been self-besmirching). I think we need some sort of social scene correspondent here on BFTB who can keep me in the loop.
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Mar 23, 2009 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions

by 

































