A Horrible, Brutal, Unfair Blight on Humanity: the NFL’s Overtime Rules
By Jesse Singal - Nov 17th, 2008 at 2:34 pmI had resisted addressing this particular issue because it would have seemed untoward, given that my New England Patriots just last week lost a nailbiter to the New York Jets as a result of the NFL’s overtime rules.
But, now that I see that even Time has deemed fit to chime in on the issue, it’s time for me to throw my hat into the ring. Overtime in the NFL is the sports equivalent of the Electoral College: it’s a dated, stupid system that rewards the wrong things and is constantly at risk of choosing a “winner” who didn’t deserve to win.
The two usual rebuttals to any attempt to alter the current system are that new overtime rules could unduly fatigue players, given that they’ve already played four quarters, and that it could lead to an increase in the number of injuries. This might sound callous, but who cares? This is the NFL, not a pickup basketball game at the Y. The teams with the best-conditioned athletes–or the most depth–will probably win under a new system, and what’s wrong with that?
As for the injury concern, it’s part of the game. The idea that we should have an inferior, infuriating overtime system in place because improving it might lead to a marginal increase in the number of injuries is dumb. Plus, there’s been a lot of talk among NFL higher-ups about extending the season from 16 to 18 games. The league’s top brass can’t seriously complain about the injury toll of a hypothetical, improved overtime system and then turn around and try to add two entire games to the schedule.
The NFL’s brutally unfair overtime rules are easily fixable, and yet owners appear unwilling to take the next step. When they do, they should adopt a system along these lines: After regulation ends, do another coin flip, followed by two five-minute overtimes halves, each with a kickoff, two timeouts per team, per half, no two-minute warnings, and with all challenges initiated by the replay booth. Whichever team is winning at the end wins. If no one is, it’s a tie. (Yes, there would be more ties. I’d rather have more ties than more outcomes determined by a coin flip.)
With this system, teams would have to play an additional ten solid minutes of complete football to win. Marching down the field after the opening overtime kickoff and kicking a field goal would no longer mean a guaranteed victory; it would mean it’s time to seal the deal with some defense. With both teams getting at least one guaranteed possession, fans would no longer have any reason to whine nasally, as I still am four days later, about “unfair” outcomes dictated by an iniquitous system.
Jesse, this is a good idea, but I think that the NFL will ever get around to it. Perhaps a compromise would be that, after a team scores in overtime, the other team gets one possession to tie or win the game. If they tie, they get to receive the kick, and so one and so forth. This may bear too much resemblance to the arcade-style college system, but it might be a small-enough change to be plausible
November 17th, 2008 at 3:17 pmWhat if the NFL just gave the ball to the team that asks for worse field position? If a team wants to start at their own 8 yard line it’s because they either have great offense or want to put their opponents in good field position. That way if you get scored on right away it’s your fault for not asking for worse field position.
December 15th, 2008 at 1:20 pmI would prefer to see overtime exist as a direct continuation of the 4th quarter.
No coin flips, no special rules - just continuing playing on from the final quarter, as we do at the end of the first and third quarters - and its suddent death.
just my two cents worth
see ya
January 4th, 2009 at 1:23 amET
http://tariksport.com/nfl-blog/