No need to change NFL overtime rules

So tired hearing about "the unfair NFL overtime rule." Came up again this week because the San Diego Chargers won the overtime coin toss Saturday and drove down the field for the winning score, meaning Indianapolis quarterback Peyton Manning did nothing but sit on the bench and watch the Colts lose. What an injustice, the complainers say.

So the arguments resurfaced: "Shouldn’t both teams have a chance to have the ball in overtime? … If one team scores on the first try, shouldn’t the other get a chance to tie? … Why not make it like college when each team gets it on the 25-yard? … "

Uh … no, no and absolutely not.

This is what a team should do if it loses the coin toss in overtime, and it’s not too complicated –- stop the other team and force a punt. That strategy applies to the entire game, why should it be different in overtime? Football is a game of offense and defense.  And despite people’s complaints, of the five overtime playoff games since 2004, the team that won the toss is 1-4.

And that college rule? An offense starting on the 25-yard line isn’t much of a testament to anything. Geez, the team begins its drive in field-goal range. May as well have a field-goal contest to determine the winner. The strategy of field position, one of the major cogs of the competition, is eliminated.  The effectiveness of a defense that doesn’t allow long drives is eliminated. The fear of an offense making a mistake on its end of the field is eliminated.

More to the point, football is eliminated.

-- Athan Atsales

Photo: Peyton Manning never got a chance to play in overtime Saturday against the Chargers, who won, 23-16, on Darren Sproles' 22-yard touchdown run. Credit: Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[JB]

I've said it a million times.. If OT is going to be like it is in the NFL then why not just start out, first to score wins? I think it's ridiculous to have teams play their hearts out for 4 quarters only for it to come down to first to score OT.. I think OT should be a full 15 minute quarter and the full time should be used, higher score at the end wins. Regular season games, end in tie.. Period.. No need for OT, let the math heads figure out the tie breakers. For playoffs, I don't care if it's a tie and games run on for 3 days, at least it will be fair.

[unknown]

its a OVER TIME, DO or DIE. Win or Lose. They already spent 4 quarter and didn't win so it come down to that.

[Michael]

Actually Athan, your "That strategy applies to the entire game, why should it be different in overtime?" statement isn't totally correct. Sure one team gets the ball in the 1st half and the other has to try and force a punt, but in the second half the roles are reveresed and the other team gets the ball and the other team gets to try and force a punt. Its fair. OT isn't. In the entire game, both teams recieve the ball once.

[mike]

There is a line in the main article that states: "That strategy applies to the entire game, why should it be different in overtime?" While the overall strategy of the offence trying to score and the defence trying to stop them applies, each team is given equal opportunity by kicking at the beginning of the game, and receiving after half-time (or vise-versa). Now THAT is a strategy that should apply to overtime as well. I don't feel like explaining it......but check out CFL overtime rules (that's Canadian Football League, for those of you who don't know). Much, much better decision maker and more entertaining overtime where each team is given an equal opportunity.

[Brandon Perkins]

i just think that there should be a kick off then play normal but each team gets a chance to score. kinda like college rules but with a kick off

[cody juarez]

i think that the both teams should play the full 15 minute quarter. have a coin toss just like in the 1st quarter. any other way just doesnt seem fair to me at all.

[mrmacboo]

Its analogous to tennis. A player can't win by one point because there is an advantage in serving the ball (usually) and it obviously isn't "fair" for a player to win because he was able to dictate initial offensive play more often than the other. This is axiomatic. Sure, its decisive, efficient, and the NFL overtime style has its advantages. But it is not reasonably fair. No need to get into all the elements of "fairness." On another level, NFL overtime is underwhelming, anti-climactic, and makes for bad sports entertainment. I just watched the Steelers drive the ball into field goal range and kick for the win on first down. I love the Steelers, but I'm not sure the better team won and I am disappointed that it came to this.

[Mike]

How about first to 6 points wins in OT (highest score if no team scores 6). So a teams need a TD or two FG. So defenses who stop TD to only give away a FG still have a chance to win.