NFL Changing OT Rules in the Playoffs?
 

It's a start, but, college is still better IMO......

NFL considers changing OT format for playoffs - ESPN

I've heard the proposal, "first team to score 6 in OT wins." This works just as well.

i like it the way it was. those are million dollar players, they should be able to play some defense. i don't want to see it in college or high school but NFL, it's fine the way it is.

How about the first team to score at least 5. We have to consider the possibility of a safety. Does the NFL have the 1 point safety rule?

I like first to 4. Meaning you need a TD or at least 2 scores of any other type. But then again, I have no heartburn with the current NFL OT rules set. Only change that might be needed is moving the kick-off up to the 35 for OT. Saw a statistical analysis that showed when the NFL moved the kick-off from the 35 to the 30 thats when there was a significant rise in 'first possession" FG's.

Found it:

Prior to the change in 1994 coin-toss winners were 94-94-13 in OT.

After the change coin-toss winners were 145-95-4 through 12/31/09.

Why not just ban field goals in OT?

They're pros, they ought to be able to play full periods.

I think both the NFL and the NCAA should take the kicking game entirely out of OT -- no FGs, extra point FGs, or (NFL), free kick FGs.

That, of course, doesn't rule out safeties, but they are so unusual in OT periods (probably unheard of in the college game), that it won't matter much. The first to 4 (NFL) makes a lot of sense.

College has it right...each team gets a chance..you have to play offense and defense.

IMHO, the NFL should use the college format with each team starting from the opponents 40 yard line.

Yeah, who cares about special teams? :rolleyes:

But why doesn't playing full periods satisfy that criterion just as well?

What I've heard is the NFL is worried about exposing their players to another 15 minutes of potential injury and the game is so much more intense most players are spent by the end of 4 quarters. A full additional quarter would likely result in more injuries due to exhausted players and in the NFL, injuries could mean huge money. Especially for regular season games, they want to limit that exposure as much as possible.

Then why do they break ties in regular season games at all? They don't need to, and didn't use to. Tie games help spread out the standings for post season play more transparently and satisfyingly than standings tiebreakers do.

Plus, with the 2 point conversion option, they don't have the excuse any more (as they did when regular season OT was adopted) that teams didn't have a chance to go for the win. Of course the trick has always been that 2 point conversions in the pros have almost always been used to tie the score rather than break a tie, even in the AFL where there was no regular season overtime. But hey, that's their choice. So what is this, "Stop us before we tie games again!"?

OK, you want to break ties fast and without necessarily any regard to what the game is they're trying to break the tie of? Toss a coin...hardly any chance of injury.

You want to decide the game quickly, yet play something that resembles the game you were trying to break the tie of? I can think of better than either frames that neglect field position or sudden death with its problems. How about taking a cue from the NHL OT, removing one or more players from each side, to produce more open field, and play a short period, but without sudden death?

The owners today have passed by a 28-4 vote to the proposed change of the overtime playoff rules.

They will vote on changing the regular season overtime rules to the coincide with the playoff overtime rules at the owners meeting next month.

"First to 4" would have been a much better alternative. OT would end with scoring plays, not 4th down incompletions, and it wouldn't require a subset of new rules to account for different variables (defense scores safety/dual turnovers on one play/onside kicks/etc).