Ravens propose an interesting OT rule change

[RunKC]

This looks like a great alternative IMO:

It works like this: One team picks the spot of the ball to start overtime, and the other team chooses whether to play offense or defense.

If the one team picks, for example, the offense’s own 20 yard line, the opponent would then choose whether to play offense from their own 20 or to play defense, with the other team having the ball on its own 20. This would minimize greatly the impact of the coin toss; under this proposal, the coin toss would be used only to give the team that wins the toss the right to pick the spot of the ball (along with the end zone to be defended) or to choose offense or defense.

"Spot and choose." Get used to that term. The Ravens will be proposing it as a new way to more fairly resolve overtime games than tossing a coin to determine first possession. https://t.co/AQLkBQ6jCJ

— ProFootballTalk (@ProFootballTalk) March 4, 2021

[lcarus]

I like the way the NCAA does it. It's fair. It's fun. Why not.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by crispystl

This is pretty good actually.

I know it's good. Someone needs to give me 5 minutes in a room with Goodell and I'll sell him on it.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by crispystl

This is pretty good actually.

I know it's good. Someone needs to give me 5 minutes in a room with Goodell and I'll sell him on it.

I've had this idea even before the new OT rules. They met me halfway, but need to go the full distance.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Just do my idea:

If the first team to touch the ball scores, the second team gets one chance to beat (not tie) that score. Otherwise OT is sudden death as normal.

So if they kick a FG, you have to score a TD. If they score a TD+1, you have to score a TD+2. If they have the balls to go for a TD+2, they win. But if they miss, they leave themselves open to losing to a TD+1.

Think of how exciting it would have been in the AFCCG - knowing Mahomes had to drive for an TD+2 to win, no ties.

It's debatable if you even want to take the ball in this scenario. I think you do, but it's a hell of a lot closer than now when winning the coin flip is such a gigantic advantage.

Not such a bad idea

[listopencil]

Just play a ten minute quarter with a running clock and no time outs allowed until the last three minutes, each team gets two time outs. Whoever is ahead when the ten minutes is over is the winner. If it's still tied then it's a tie. They can flip a coin to see who gets the ball first.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by alpha_omega

Uhhhh, no.

College rules would be fine. I’d really like to see a full 15 min quarter, but I get why that won’t work.

OT used to be 15 minutes so I don't agree it can't work. It's just the networks don't like it.

If a strong running team like the Titans or Browns win the toss they might be able to put together a nine minute drive and kick a field goal with essentially no time on the clock which almost defeats the both teams get a possession if the first team only scores a field goal.

[kepp]

Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush

Just use the NCAA's OT rules and be done with it.

This

[Shag]

Originally Posted by kccrow

It's stupid.

One team would always pick the 1-yard line and the other team would always pick offense because they'd rather take their chances than give the other team 1st and goal from the 1.

It really does not matter what limitations they give, the spot team will always pick the point furthest from the opponent's endzone.

The only way to make it fair is to go to the college system or some hybrid.

My vote would be to go the exact college system with one exception, start the ball at the 50 instead of the 25.

By my understanding, that's not how it would work. It's not choosing "their 1yd line", it's choosing "the defense's 1yd line". The second team would then choose to play either offense or defense. Regardless of whether team 2 chooses offense/defense, the length of field would be exactly the same.

[Gary Cooper]

The 15 minute (or even 12 minute OT) is the only format that makes sense to me. The college system is too gimmicky. Creates absurdly high scoring games and manufactured situations, unlike in a real game. Screw that.

They're talking about adding a 17th regular season game but don't want to extend overtime to a full quarter. How many overtimes does an NFL team average per season? Usually two or three at most.

Oh and the Ravens should just propose a format where passing is forbidden in overtime. That would suit them best.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by Shag

By my understanding, that's not how it would work. It's not choosing "their 1yd line", it's choosing "the defense's 1yd line". The second team would then choose to play either offense or defense. Regardless of whether team 2 chooses offense/defense, the length of field would be exactly the same.

What would stop them from always choosing the 1-yard line? That's the issue with it entirely, regardless of everything else. Either you play offense starting from the 1 or you start on defense with them starting from the 1.

The best case is to hope to be the team that gets to choose offense or defense. I'd choose defense with them starting at the 1 every time. The odds are in my favor that they won't score from there and I'd get a much more favorable field position.

[SithCeNtZ]

Originally Posted by kccrow

What would stop them from always choosing the 1-yard line? That's the issue with it entirely, regardless of everything else. Either you play offense starting from the 1 or you start on defense with them starting from the 1.

The best case is to hope to be the team that gets to choose offense or defense. I'd choose defense with them starting at the 1 every time. The odds are in my favor that they won't score from there and I'd get a much more favorable field position.

You kind of answered your own question. If you are a bad offense you would never say the 1 because you know you'd be screwed because they will pick you to be on offense.

But to your point I think it would settle in that basically every proposal would end up being somewhere in the 20-10 yard range, depending on the matchup. People saying "OMG so much strategy" just haven't thought it through. You might as well just hold an auction at midfield and say whoever takes the ball farther back gets it to start OT. Start at the 25 and bid down. That's basically the same thing.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by SithCeNtZ

You kind of answered your own question. If you are a bad offense you would never say the 1 because you know you'd be screwed because they will pick you to be on offense.

But to your point I think it would settle in that basically every proposal would end up being somewhere in the 20-10 yard range, depending on the matchup. People saying "OMG so much strategy" just haven't thought it through. You might as well just hold an auction at midfield and say whoever takes the ball farther back gets it to start OT. Start at the 25 and bid down. That's basically the same thing.

Makes sense to me. I didn't really look at it like that. That said, then, you'll always have the best offenses pushing it back the furthest. A team like KC would probably choose the 10. A team like Baltimore or Tennessee might choose the 25. I guess it could work out better than I originally thought.

Analytically, NFL teams score roughly the same percentage of the time as the yards they start from their own endzone. In a one-off situation like this, how much will they throw analytics to the wind? How much will the strength of your punter come into play? I'd hate to choose the 10, be forced to play offense and fail, then have my Punter come in and shank one.

[Hayneplane]

Personally I would scrap overtime for regular season games and allow a draw but for play offs the right of reply is the only equitable system. Give each team minimum of one position and if both have the same number of points move on to next score of any type wins.