Should the NFL change OT rules for playoffs and Super Bowl?

[fauch]

I think giving the other team "last licks" would not be such a bad idea. Or make it an extra quarter instead of sudden death (or sudden VICTORY as my coaches used to call it)... It seems a bit cheap to stake the whole game on ONE possession...

[Dennis S]

fauch wrote:
I think giving the other team "last licks" would not be such a bad idea. Or make it an extra quarter instead of sudden death (or sudden VICTORY as my coaches used to call it)... It seems a bit cheap to stake the whole game on ONE possession...

I think the NFL did that for field goals but kept the current rule for TDs. That's what I think I heard someone say last night.

[pRICE cUBE]

Dennis S wrote:
[quote=fauch]
I think giving the other team "last licks" would not be such a bad idea. Or make it an extra quarter instead of sudden death (or sudden VICTORY as my coaches used to call it)... It seems a bit cheap to stake the whole game on ONE possession...

I think the NFL did that for field goals but kept the current rule for TDs. That's what I think I heard someone say last night.
Former OT rule was any team scoring first wins the game, true side death.

Current OT rule states a game can only be won on the first score if it is a TD instead of just a field goal. Had the Pats scored a FG, Atlanta would have had a chance to possess the ball.

I believe this was changed about 3 seasons ago.

[vision63]

Just use the time remaining in the overtime period.

[cyclemax]

I don't see how someone can say winning the coin toss gives a team a greater advantage. Yes statistically the team that wins the coin toss in OT wins the game a little under 60% of the time but this could also be affected by other factors. The team on defense has the same chance of stopping the team on offense as the team on offense has of scoring a touchdown. Hold them to a field goal and you get a chance to score. The bottom line is that New England had all the momentum going into overtime and Atlanta was totally gassed on defense, having been on the field for 93 plays. Their offense was ineffective for most of the second half. Even if they won the toss, I think Atlanta would have still lost.

[bfd]

Buddy Selig caught plenty of fire for letting a freaking All-Star Game end in a tie.

Pro football used to count ties.

Yesterday's game was certainly that. It's this "somebody's gotta win" mentality that brought us all the tie-breakers and other nonsense.

Nobody likes a game like this to end in a tie, but just call it what it is and deal with it. Makes the rematch even bigger next season. Or not.

[Lew Zealand]

Do whatever makes the most money. This is a business.

[mrbigstuff]

I think the way the ref explains the rule at the beginning of OT is a bit confusing. More than once (I don't watch a lot of football), I've thought that each team would be granted one possession. That would seem more like baseball with an inning extra.

[Z]

Fox gotta get those tie-in shows airing.

[artie67]

I see in the regular season there were two tie games. Don't know the details though it could be weather, boredom, or the ump bought a beer with the coin. The overtime should start with a 50/50 chance for each team.Football, basketball, soccer, hockey, tennis etc. have a more equatable method of determining the final winner. Pro football is all about the money and the league and TV establish the rules for their best interests.