Thumbs Down on the New Overtime Rules

Well, Brad Oremland foretold of it, and verily it has occurred, in just the format he said it would. There will be a new overtime format in the NFL next year for playoff games only.

There will be a coin toss and then a kickoff, as usual. And if the receiving team scores a touchdown, the game is over, just as it is today. But if they can only muster a field goal, then the other team will get the ball with a chance to win with a touchdown of their own, or force a second overtime with a field goal of their own.

Although I hate the new overtime format a great deal more than Brad, who is only nominally against it, our reasons are very much the same, so I apologize in advance whenever I parrot him.

First, the main complaint against sudden death as it exists today is, ostensibly, that it's not fair that one team can win the game without the other team even getting the ball.

First, as in Brad's column, the statistics don't bear that out too much, and although I'm seeing percentage breakdowns of how often the team that wins the coin toss wins the game, I would want more specifically to know how often the team that won the toss wins the game on their opening possession. Because if they end up winning on the third or fifth or seventh possession of overtime, it ceases to be statistically useful in analyzing the fairness of sudden death. Actually, it becomes an indicator for the fairness of sudden death.

Let's expand our scope even further, though, beyond overtime: how often to teams score on any drive that began with them receiving a kickoff? Even when you eliminate drives that are ended by the half, I have to think the number is a good deal less than 50%. It is hard to drive down the field. The odds favor a stop.

But even if more than half of all overtime games featured the coin-toss winner marching down the field and winning while the other team's offense never gets off the bench, I submit it's still fair. Get a takeaway. Force a punt. Otherwise, although the offense can grouse they didn't get a chance to win, the team as a whole can't make that claim. This is the NFL. There are no Youngstown State vs. Ohio State matchups, competitively so uneven as to be unfair. I don't think it's too much to ask even the worst defense in the NFL to try to stop the 2000 St. Louis Rams with the game on the line.

Instead (and Brad touched on this), with the new rules, the pendulum swings wildly the other way, favoring the team that does not get the ball first. If they stop the other team (and, again, statistically speaking they probably will), they can win the game a field goal. Hence, if they do get that statistically-likely stop, then they won't have to drive nearly as far as the first team did to win the game, they need only move into field goal range. In fact, I anticipate teams actually electing to kick off in OT should they win the toss. Just make one stop, even force the other team to settle for a figgie, and you are in a great, great position.

Brad doesn't like the college system, but at least there is some congruence to it: Will keep giving each team the ball in turns, and keep doing it until one team does more with their possession than the other team did.

In fact, college overtime rules are my preference. I can live with kickoffs and punts, which comprise probably only 10-15% of the plays in regulation, not being a part of the equation.

Brad points out that the college overtime rules (unduly, in his opinion), favors the team going second, because they know exactly what they need to do.

That's true, but a) not to the extent the new NFL playoff OT rule does, and b) there's one way the team going first can ameliorate the disadvantage and turn it into an advantage: score a touchdown.

Score that touchdown, and your defensive decisions just got that much simpler, especially on third and fourth down. If there's only one thing and one thing only the offense can do to extend the game, then the advantage lies with the defense. If you spot me seven points, I'll give you your "you know what you need" second possession every time.

And ironically, that's the one thing the NFL got right here, putting a premium on touchdowns. They just went too far with it, or rather, tried to sort of combine college and pro overtime rules into a hybrid.

Hybrid cars are a great thing. But this is more like a hybrid animal, one bred underground for some unscrupulous zoo, where the results live short, painful lives. Hopefully, the new NFL playoff rules will, too.

P.S. It would never happen (too bizarre and viewer-unfriendly), but how about this for an overtime solution that is original, congruent, and eliminates built-in advantages for either the team going on offense first (as sudden death is perceived to do) or second (as college overtime is perceived to do)?

Give both teams the ball at the opponent's 25-yard line and put five minutes on the clock. That team will stay on offense the entire five minutes. If they score, they line it up again on their own 25-yard line. Same if they turn it over. The defense cannot score, for a reason that will be apparent momentarily.

So we will see which offense can put up the most points in five minutes. But the "second" team won't know how many points they need, at least not conveniently, because they will be having their go on offense on the other side of the field ... at the same time.

Bring in the alternate officials! We have two games going on here!