Getting rid of the NFL Overtime Sudden Death for playoff games

The NFL Playoffs: (to me) one the most exciting times of the year in the world of sports along with the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. Twelve teams battle for the right to clinch a spot in the Super Bowl and bring home the Vince Lombardi Trophy.

But there's just one small problem, that weighs heavily on my pigskin-overdosed mind as the NFL playoffs take place: it's how games are settled if the game goes into overtime: It's settled by sudden death. The team that scores first wins. I want that rule changed. At least for the playoffs.

Peter King, Sports Illustrated's NFL scribe, doesn't like sudden death either because games can be won by the team who got the ball first without the opposing team getting the ball. Even though only 29 percent of teams who have gotten the ball first in overtime win the game, King feels both teams should be guaranteed at least one possession. However the NFL competition committee sees no reason to get rid of sudden-death overtime and probably won't do so until the number of one-possession-only games passes the 50 percent mark.

However, my problem with sudden-death overtime is that once a team scores (regardless if they got the ball first or not), the game is finished.

It's no way to settle an important playoff game (I don't like sudden death in the regular season either but I can tolerate it) like this last year's Giants-Packers showdown in the NFC Championship game.

As a fan of the Big Blue, I was obviously ecstatic to see them emerge victorious. However, I was not as ecstatic about the way the won it. The G-Men won it in overtime with just one score: a field goal. Just one field goal. A 47-yarder from Lawrence Tynes. It was like watching the Sopranos series finale: it left me feeling cheated and wanting more. And I say that as a fan of the victorious team.

Last Saturday, we all saw the San Diego Chargers take down the Colts in the first AFC Wild Card game. But an important factor being that they won the currency flip. After the kickoff, the Chargers offense steadily drove the ball 76 yards down the field, capped off by a Darren Sproles 22 yard-gallop into the end zone to give the Bolts the win--without ever letting Peyton Manning ever touch the ball in OT.

The Super Bowl has never gone into overtime (although there have been several close calls in recent years), but if and when it does, I dread seeing it settled by using sudden death. So I would like to see sudden death overtime in the NFL go the same route of eight-track cassettes, rotary dial phones and record players. Toss it aside. Forget about it. Never use it again.

I am from the school of thought that ex-Pittsburgh Steelers coach Bill Cowher has endorsed: play a full overtime period that lasts, let's say for ten minutes. Let both teams touch the ball more then once. Let multiple scores by both teams take place. Let a team rally from a deficit in overtime. Let drama really unfold.

Those that favor sudden death overtime, argue that it's the best and most exciting way to determine the winner of a game. At the annual league meetings at Palm Beach, Fla. in 2004, the competition committee and team owners struck down the idea of replacing sudden death overtime. Afterwards, current Atlanta Falcons' president Rich McKay, who at time served as co-chairman of the competition committee stated "People do like in our league that it is true sudden-death, One play can end the game, and that's unique to our league."

But Mr. McKay because its unique, doesn't mean its better for the NFL.

Now consider if a full overtime period existed for last year’s classic Giants-Packers clash. After Lawrence Tynes connected on his three-pointer, imagine Brett Favre getting to atone for his ill-fated pass (picked off by Corey Webster, setting up Tynes' game winner) by driving the Pack down field and finding Donald Driver in the end zone to give the Pack a four point lead.

Imagine Eli Manning now leading a Giants drive down field and finding a leaping Plaxico Burress at midfield then racing past Al Harris to hit paydirt. The Giants are back up 30-27.

Imagine Ryan Grant, rushing up the middle fighting for yardage inside Giants territory to set up a Mason Crosby field, which ties the game.

Imagine a ten-play Giants drive capped off by Brandon Jacobs rumbling off right tackle and running over A.J. Hawk to cross the goal line and decide the contest.

Now wouldn't such a scenario be even more electrifying and trump the current one-score-and-done sudden death system?

I rest my case.

Roger Goodell, if you are reading this please pass this idea along to your competition committee at your next meeting, so we don't ever have a Super Bowl (or any other playoff game) decided because one team correctly called heads and then drove sixty down yards field and had their kicker boot a ball into the uprights while the other team didn't ever get to run one single play.

I'd so appreciate it. I'm sure many other football fans would too.

Anonymous Fanatic #1

304 days ago

Score -1

wait, what?

Permalink | Reply

Anonymous Fanatic #2

304 days ago

Score 0

i'm saying play a full OT period. Don't decide it on the first score wins.

Permalink | Reply

Behbigben15All-Star

304 days ago

Score 3

I don't have a problem with it, to tell you the truth. Usually, Super Bowl-worthy teams need to have a balance of offense and defense. If you think you deserve to be a Super Bowl team, go out there and prove it to the world by playing hard-nosed defense. I say, keep the sudden-death...But that's just me.

Permalink

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

303 days ago

Score 4

A full overtime period, or even a 10 minute one is ridiculously long. These are televised games, and speaking as someone who works at football games, sudden death is a great thing. And let's say you had a 5 minute OT, what do you do if there's a tie at the end? The last thing the NFL needs is more than two ties per decade. Ties are lame.

How about this. Regular 15 minute period of sudden death overtime, HOWEVER, no field goals allowed on both teams' first possessions. You gotta drive all the way to the end zone to win it. Same goes for the team that gets the ball second. After each team's had one possession, field goals are allowed.

Permalink | Reply

Taytay 24All-American

303 days ago

Score 3

Good suggestion, Rawb. Another variation would be the old WLAF rule: it takes six points to win, either one TD or two FGs.

Permalink

Jy826Soccer Kid

303 days ago

Score 0

Rawbeezitz, I don't think a 10 minute OT is that long especially when you are using it to decide a playoff game. Even if it was long so what? How is that different from watching a MLB playoff game, such as the Atlanta Braves and the Houston Astros playing an 18 inning game in the 2005 Divison Series? Or watching the Philadelphia Flyers and the Pittsburgh Penguins play 5 OT in their 2000 playoff series? A ten minute OT with both teams using all three timeouts, an instant replay challenget and an injury on the field would pale in comparsion.

If there was a tie after one 10-minute OT period, then play another 10-minute OT period.

Your suggestion of no FG's on either team's first possesions isn't a bad idea but I would rather just let team's duke it out after 10 minutes. It would give a chance for drama such as letting a team rally from a deficit in OT.

Permalink

Jy826Soccer Kid

303 days ago

Score 0

Rawbeezitz, I don't think a 10 minute OT is that long especially when you are using it to decide a playoff game. Even if it was long so what? How is that different from watching a MLB playoff game, such as the Atlanta Braves and the Houston Astros playing an 18 inning game in the 2005 Divison Series? Or watching the Philadelphia Flyers and the Pittsburgh Penguins play 5 OT in their 2000 playoff series? A ten minute OT with both teams using all three timeouts, an instant replay challenget and an injury on the field would pale in comparsion.

If there was a tie after one 10-minute OT period, then play another 10-minute OT period.

Your suggestion of no FG's on either team's first possesions isn't a bad idea but I would rather just let team's duke it out after 10 minutes. It would give a chance for drama such as letting a team rally from a deficit in OT.

Permalink

Permalink

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

303 days ago

Score 2

But that 5 OT game between the Flyers and Penguins you mentioned would be... sudden death.

Baseball's the only major sport in which possession CANNOT change in the middle of a play, so sudden death doesn't work there. Basketball doesn't have sudden death because baskets are so easily scored.

Playing 10 full minutes of football, then playing 10 more if the game is still tied, and so on, is really ridiculous. There's a point at which teams don't deserve a chance to rally from a deficit and games need to end. After all, the point of a game is to determine a winner, not give losers second and third chances.

Permalink

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

303 days ago

Score 2

Sometimes, getting 2 field goals or 1 touchdown might be a tall order for teams in just 15 minutes of football. I've seen 2 NFL games end in ties in my lifetime, that's 2 too many as it is.

Also, how sick would it be if a game ended on a safety? Highly unlikely, but THAT would be exciting.

Permalink

Steel TownDraft Pick

302 days ago

Score 1

The Steelers first points ever in a superbowl were a safety. fitting really.

Permalink

Jy826Soccer Kid

303 days ago

Score 0

Bihbigben, I understand where you are coming from, however even the 85 Chicago Bears D might have a freak play happen in OT (such as a CB falling down on a pass play or just get caught off guard and allow a big play) which leads to a TD or a team getting into field goal range.

Permalink | Reply

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

303 days ago

Score 3

If a CB falls down, that's not a freak play, and that's not bad luck. That's a defensive player out of position. It happens, and it's his fault. And if a defense gets "caught off guard" they deserve to lose.

Permalink

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

303 days ago

Score 0

I do hate it when a game ends like this:

Coin toss, Team A wins, receives kickoff, returns it to the 35. Throws the ball for 20 yards, throws the ball for 15, kick, game over. That's why I like my proposal of eliminating field goals for each teams' first possession. So when Team A wins the coin toss, they have to score a touchdown.

Permalink | Reply

Steel TownDraft Pick

302 days ago

Score 2

Overall, I like Taytay's suggestion the best if the system is going to be changed. But really, I'm with Ben, keep it sudden death. Every once in a while you have a crappy ending. So What?

Permalink | Reply

Taytay 24All-American

302 days ago

Score 2

Absolutely. JY826's hypothetical overtime situation would indeed be as exciting as he suggests. But does this hypothetical do anything for you?:

Team A gets the ball and drives to the 30, kicking a field goal.
Teams B and A then alternate 3-and-out possessions for the next thirteen and a half minutes.

If you want excitement, nothing beats sudden death.

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #2

300 days ago

Score 0

taytay, you see my point on why I think a full OT period would be exciting and I see your point on why sudden death is exciting but you point out that in OT only one team could score and the rest of the OT could go scoreless. But at least with a full OT, both teams get multiple touches of the ball. Like I said my biggest problem with sudden death in OT, that is not always guaranteed AND it can end with a single FG. To me that is like winning a MLB playoff game in extra innings when you have a runner reach third base OR in basketball you win a game after you hit just one free throw. A full OT may end in just one FG but it can't end with just one team winning the toss and driving to aprox the oppoents 20 and then kicking a FG.

Permalink | Reply

Taytay 24All-American

300 days ago

Score 0

Yes, I recognize all that--I am merely pointing out that your example of a full overtime of excitement shouldn't be expected to be the norm. A full fifteen minute overtime as I describe is much more likely. A full overtime may be more "fair"--and you would do well to stress this aspect of it. I'm not sure that arguing for greater excitement is the way to go, though.

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #3

277 days ago

Score 0

The NFL "coin flip" rule that is used to award possession of the ball at the start of overtime is unfair. The most equitable solution is also the simplest:

Skip the flip. Just keep playing. First team to score wins.

There are six reasons why this method is an improvement over the current rule:

1) More exciting games. For example, a team trailing 38-31 scores a touchdown on the last play of regulation. Under the current rules, they will kick the extra point to force overtime. The new rules will encourage them to try for two and end the game, since they will kick off if the game goes to overtime.

2) No more "playing for overtime". Assume that a team is pinned at their own 2-yard line with 1:17 remaining in the 4th quarter, and the other team has one timeout. They currently can take a knee for two or three plays to force OT. That could not occur under the new rule.

3) The defense would not need to be on the field for two consecutive possessions.

4) The players and coaches maintain control of the game. The flow of the game is not interrupted by starting over and arbitrarily giving the ball to one team.

5) The receiving team typically starts at their own 20 or 30-yard line after the kickoff under the coin flip rule. With the new rules, the team with the ball could be anywhere on the field (at midfield, on average) when overtime starts, and the game should end sooner.

6) Under current rules, the teams switch sides of the field at the end of the 5th, 6th or any subsequent quarters. Since there is no coin flip at the end of the 6th quarter, why is there one at the end of the 4th quarter?

When the overtime period starts, teams will switch sides and start with two timeouts, as they do now. "Sudden death" is the best way to play overtime – this new method is a sensible and fair way to get there.

Permalink | Reply