FreeMedical: If you let the guy return a kickoff for a touchdown, that's a special teams collapse and entirely your fault.

maybe there's an uncalled block in the back. I'm just sayin' that play renders the whole "well you guys never played defense" thing still valid.

Could always make the "you get one play to match" rule.

How about H-O-R-S-E? pick a yardline/location (hashmark to hashmark) and find a way to score from there in one play. Other team scores, no letter.

Better shorten it to P-I-G. (hey, it's a pigskin, it works even better that way)

Hell, for fun, we could have both offenses and defenses on the field at the same time in non-windy situations (I'm assuming that offenses are going to try to score from their opposition's territory). only problem is for the refs in that situation.

Kygz: It could stay in it's current format, just give the other team a chance for a rebuttal.

i.e.:
Team A wins the coin toss, but can't move the ball and has to punt.
Team B drives the ball down the field and kicks a field goal.
Team A get the ball and drives for a touchdown.
Team B gets the ball but is unable to score. Team A wins.

Basically the game would end when a team is unable to tie or go ahead with thier rebuttal possession. Most games would end in 4-5 possessions, though it could drag on with no scoring or with the teams trading touchdowns. I think it would be fair and exciting.

ummm, wouldn't Team B have won on their first rebuttal posession when they kicked a FG after Team A punted? Otherwise, I like this.

College rules!!!

Snarfangel: We could add other fun things to football. Like if a coach hasn't used up all of his time outs, he can add the time to the end of the game. It might make it harder for the other team to sit on a lead and run out the clock.

If they are going to use an auction, though, use a Vickrey auction. The winner gets the ball at the loser's bid.

Except that, knowing that, both teams bid 50. There's no incentive not to. Also, what would they do in the event of ties? Flip a coin?

b04155: How about this: field goals don't count in OT. It must be a touchdown.

That's basically the college system, applied to the NFL, since you start inside of field goal range already and NFL kickers are MUCH less likely to miss from that range than college kickers.

starmatt85: These both run into the reason they don't have NCAA style overtime: takes too long, and they don't want it running too far into whatever bullshiat they put on after football games anyway. Because clearly an exciting triple OT ending isn't a good enough reason to cancel a sitcom rerun.

Not to mention the gambling and fantasy implications.

DoBeDoBeDo: And it runs for about 4 times the length of the regular periods. And takes defense completely out of the equation. You can't afford to throw an exotic D because the other team is already in the red zone.

They shouldn't keep re-doing the toss in OTs but other than that it's fine. They don't start in the red zone, they start from the 25. I assume they'd move back to, say, the 35 in the pros because while most college kickers aren't reliable on a 42 yarder, pretty much all pros are.

No, the solution that most tickles the ivories...

Wait, the solution plays the piano?

IAmRight: No reason for it to be 6. I think if you can get two safeties in OT that's good enough. Make it 4 and it's better. That way everything still applies but a safety will still be useful. (a safety and a FG means you won on defense AND offense, you should get a win for this, too)

That's cool too.

DontMakeMeShushYou: Kygz: It could stay in it's current format, just give the other team a chance for a rebuttal.

i.e.:
Team A wins the coin toss, but can't move the ball and has to punt.
Team B drives the ball down the field and kicks a field goal.
Team A get the ball and drives for a touchdown.
Team B gets the ball but is unable to score. Team A wins.

Basically the game would end when a team is unable to tie or go ahead with thier rebuttal possession. Most games would end in 4-5 possessions, though it could drag on with no scoring or with the teams trading touchdowns. I think it would be fair and exciting.

ummm, wouldn't Team B have won on their first rebuttal posession when they kicked a FG after Team A punted? Otherwise, I like this.

No, cause Team B is the first team to break the tie, so Team A gets a chance (rebuttal 1). It's not about having fair-ups.

If Team A and B take turns going 3 and out for 10 drives each, then Team A finally scores, it's then only at rebuttal #1 and Team B gets a single drive to tie or take the lead.

pandabear: HaywoodJablonski: How about at the end of regulation, the team with possession gets the ball where they ended up and at the same down? There's an added twist to your 2-minute drill

With sudden death? I hate sudden death. Have them play another entire quarter, lather, rinse, repeat until someone is leading. I'd go for that.

Heck, just award the game to the visiting team and be done with it. Home field is supposed to be worth 2.5pts as far as Vegas is concerned, so if the home team can't manage at least a 1pt win, they don't deserve it.

It will make strategy at the end of the game much more interesting too if the home team needs to win but the visitors only need to tie. You'll see a lot more situations where the 2pt conversion comes into play.

How about they show a household good on the jumbro-tron and both coaches bid on it, the closest to the actual price without going over is the winner of the game?

cptjeff: What the hell people? Why is this a worse way to decide a game then giving a team that wins a coin toss a 70% chance of victory or more? If you're gonna have sudden death, this is really the only wa it's fair.

Total no. of overtime games (1974-2003) 365
Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %)

or better yet, don't play for overtime....

mikaloyd: cptjeff: What the hell people? Why is this a worse way to decide a game then giving a team that wins a coin toss a 70% chance of victory or more? If you're gonna have sudden death, this is really the only wa it's fair.

Total no. of overtime games (1974-2003) 365
Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %)

365 total games, 189 won toss and won, 160 won toss and lost, and 15 ended in a tie. What happened in the other game? (365-189-160-15=1)

Ok here is my newest one... send out the punters to the endzone and let them kick it as hard as they can. The punter whose ball goes the farthest gets possession for his team and include rolling distance so there is no way in the world that there can be any discrepancy.

Total no. of overtime games (1974-2003) 365
Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %)

Hmmm.

189
+160
+ 15
359

Where's the missing 6 games?

Alternatives that change the game are weird and confusing... although i do like the ncaa '09 tug of war concept.

Bidding is weird to me as i think coaches will come to the 'optimum bid' or that 'bid ties' really produce no result.

I do like first team to 4 points wins, which nullifies winning on a quick field goal. Tie at the end of the extra quarter.

I sort of like disallowing punting, but that also changes the game.

What about 1 possession per team with whichever team has the most net yardage winning (ties at this point mean the game ends in a tie).

The Great EZE: And yet, it would still be better than coinflip and sudden death. Seriously, what's wrong with giving each team at least one possession? Isn't symmetry the beauty of sports?

yogaFLAME: OH instead of a coin toss, we can just put the ball on the ground and let the players scramble for it!

And screw you. That was a brilliant idea and needs to be implemented as well.

Because the NFL is a professional sports league, and each team's defense should be able to stop the other team's offense because uh... that's the point. The only issue I see with NFL OT is that it ends in a tie if no one scores.

Sirsky: Because the NFL is a professional sports league, and each team's defense should be able to stop the other team's offense because uh... that's the point. The only issue I see with NFL OT is that it ends in a tie if no one scores.

Bolded for emphasis. If a team wins sudden death after one possession, then their defense doesn't have to do squat to stop the other team's offense. That seems like a pretty sweet deal for that team's defense.

If it's anything like the pace of a video review, It sgould only take them about half an hour to figure out who gets possession.

They should Roshambo for it.

Emrick: I like the 'first team to score 6 points wins' idea.

intriguing

Each team can have a dog put them at the 50 and whichever dog kills the other dog first gets the ball!

College football needed to change their rules due to much dissent and dissatisfaction declaring a winner. The NCAA used high school rules to grant a victor. However, since rankings are paramount at the college level, the 'winner' of a game may lose votes nationally for being taken to the overtime; the same way a highly-ranked squad drops a few spots for playing down to a less-heralded one. The overtime is for resolution of a game and excitement.

In the NFL, it's win, lose, or tie. The standings determine who'll make the playoffs, not the power rankings. If a team gets taken to overtime, it's both teams fault for not finishing the job in the first 60 minutes. I can understand giving each team a possession, but they don't really deserve it. With the level of talent in the NFL, we could easily see 5+ overtime games by putting the ball on the 20 or 25-yard-line. As it stands currently, the system is a win for the league and networks. The 6-point rule (no FGs) may take just as long, time-wise, as the college overtime. How about one series of college football-style, with each team getting a possession from the 50-yard-line, followed by a coin flip overtime if tied afterward? Vegas still would be pissed about the over/under for all of the extra points put on the board. The playoffs should really be the only time where both teams have a gripe about a coin toss.

Special J: If it's anything like the pace of a video review, It sgould only take them about half an hour to figure out who gets possession.

They should Roshambo for it.

Saw an example of the new CFL review process tonight and must say it was pretty slick. Instead of the ref going under the hood the replay calls are handled remotely like they are in the NHL where an offsite official makes the call. The one I saw tonight was already called by the time the ref was able to get to a headset. This is something the NFL should copy.

kpottruff: Special J: If it's anything like the pace of a video review, It sgould only take them about half an hour to figure out who gets possession.

They should Roshambo for it.

Saw an example of the new CFL review process tonight and must say it was pretty slick. Instead of the ref going under the hood the replay calls are handled remotely like they are in the NHL where an offsite official makes the call. The one I saw tonight was already called by the time the ref was able to get to a headset. This is something the NFL should copy.

The NCAA does it that way and I hate it. The refs make a call a certain way so it can be reviewable but the instant replay ref is usually a retired ref and really has no interest in overriding a field call and will only do so in the worst situation. The impotency of the replay refs compounds the bad call on the field.

Check out the OU Oregon fiasco sometime

Speedbts alt: kpottruff: Special J: If it's anything like the pace of a video review, It sgould only take them about half an hour to figure out who gets possession.

They should Roshambo for it.

Saw an example of the new CFL review process tonight and must say it was pretty slick. Instead of the ref going under the hood the replay calls are handled remotely like they are in the NHL where an offsite official makes the call. The one I saw tonight was already called by the time the ref was able to get to a headset. This is something the NFL should copy.

The NCAA does it that way and I hate it. The refs make a call a certain way so it can be reviewable but the instant replay ref is usually a retired ref and really has no interest in overriding a field call and will only do so in the worst situation. The impotency of the replay refs compounds the bad call on the field.

Check out the OU Oregon fiasco sometime

well being a smaller league means that they don't need too many people to make the call. the two guys who are doing it are the head of officiating (former head coach) and a ref who was in the field until last season and was a pretty good one. Given that everyone who is watching the game knows who these guys are they are under a microscope and I think they will do a good job.

Sirsky: Because the NFL is a professional sports league, and each team's defense should be able to stop the other team's offense because uh... that's the point. The only issue I see with NFL OT is that it ends in a tie if no one scores.

Its the Old Yeller Rule: if neither team can score in 15 minutes of overtime the game needs to be brought behind the woodshed and shot in the head for the sake of everybody involved.