There are many different arguments both for and against the current NFL overtime format. Some people are against it because it doesn't allow for both teams to get the ball most of the time and can usually come down to whoever wins the coin toss in overtime.
With the recent talk and debate of a college football playoff, a la the NFL's system, becoming more and more common thanks to President Barrack Obama's thoughts on the matter, the reverse can be said of the overtime system of the two leagues. With everyone and their brother demanding a college football playoff, it has become all too common for people to also demand a college football-esque NFL overtime.
Dare we hope to get both of these changes soon? And do we even want a college football-esque NFL overtime system?
For the most part, every argument that many of the people who are pro-current NFL overtime system have can be flipped on its head and used to also support the college football version and system. Defense is just as big a part of the game as offense? This is very true, but in the college football version of overtime, both the offense and defense must play at least one set of downs or a drive.
The teams played all game to set themselves up for the sudden death overtime system? Yeah, well that's well and great, but just think of how the college football version of overtime further increases the drama and basically has it so that the game must continue to go on just as it were prior to the end of regulation. Sure, there will be slightly altered strategies since there's no kicking off or punting really, but it certainly feels sudden death worthy and final enough to be called an overtime.
Not to try and step on the NFL's history and legacy or anything, but honestly, sometimes change just turns out to be for the better. Look at instant replay. That was debated up and down for who knows how long until it was finally built into the game and look how much better the game is for it.
Whether or not the overtime system gets changed or is even brought into the forefront any time soon is really of no matter. Sometimes we task our agendas with one side of an argument or another so that we forget just how much we enjoy the game as it is. Will anyone really stop watching the NFL if their version of overtime isn't changed to or kept as it is? Of course not!
So while it's perfectly okay and warranted to have a strong and often times passionate opinion on these subjects, we should all just really agree to disagree on them and ultimately be concerned with enjoying the game no matter how it turns out.
After all, don't we have a Super Bowl to be looking forward to and talking about coming up pretty soon?
January 22, 2009
Kyle Jahner:
I agree and want a college-style overtime more than anyone. Probably should be from the 35-40 since starting at the 25 with better kickers and narrower hash-marks makes a FG too easy. It sets up games to end on failure of a kicker too often rather than offensive success. Make the offense actually earn a FG attempt BEFORE the kicker lets his team down.
I think the most crushing arguement to tradition and the best precedent for a college-inspired change is the two-point conversion. It simply made the game more interesting. Gave teams chances that didn’t have them before. A new OT not only adds intrigue, but also makes the game more FAIR. A no-brainer, and I have yet to see a good argument for the current format of overtime. Over 60 percent of coin toss winners win in overtime. That’s undeniably unfair; chance should not turn you from a 10-6 team to a 6-10 team, which is what that 60-40 percentage roughly equates to.
Bottom line, no one watching a college game in overtime has EVER said, “hey, this game would be a lot better and more entertaining if we settled it like the pros do.”
I’m pretty sure a lot of people watching a 30-yard drive set up a game-winning field goal two minutes into overtime has said the inverse.
January 23, 2009
Anthony Brancato:
The previous commentor has the right idea, but doesn’t go far enough. The 50-yard line is a more logical place for the initial spot.
And what’s so terribly wrong with a few games every year (in either college or the NFL) ending in a tie? Isn’t selecting an 11-1 team over a 10-1-1 team to play in the BCS title game far fairer than relying on utterly subjective criteria - or, in the case of the NFL (as we actually saw this past season) a 9-6-1 team making the playoffs over of a 9-7 team, rather than resorting to tie-breakers that often give the nod to the WORSE team, not the better team? (Example: The AFC won the inter-conference season series this year, 34-29-1. Awarding a playoff berth to an NFC team based on a better record within the conference would have literally rewarded the team that did better against weaker competition!).
The simple solution: Adopt the college format universally, but have a 15-minute clock run - and if the clock runs out with the score tied, that’s how the game ends (except in the playoffs or bowl games, where successive 15-minute periods would be added until a winner is determined).