Why the new playoff overtime rules are beyond stupid

[Nav22]

Reminder: the NFL stupidly changed the playoff OT rules so that a TD on the 1st possession no longer ends the game.

It was a rash decision after the Bills-Chiefs thriller last year, in which the Bills never touched the ball in OT because KC scored on its opening possession.

WAAAAH, poor Buffalo!!!

The logic went as follows: "But this is more fair! Now both teams are guaranteed a possession!"

Actually, it's LESS fair.

In order for overtime to be as fair as possible, there needs to be pros and cons to 1) getting the ball first, and 2) kicking off first. The coin toss must matter as little as possible.

Let's examine that.

Getting the ball first in OT - Regular season rules:

PRO: A TD wins the game!

CON: If we don't even get a FG, we're in grave danger of losing. If we get a FG, we still might lose.

Kicking off first in OT - Regular season rules:

PRO: A stop puts us in a GREAT spot to win the game! Even if we allow a FG, we've still got a shot!

CON: If we allow a TD here, we lose.

Getting the ball first in OT - New playoff rules:

PRO: *crickets*

CON: If we don't even get a FG, we're in grave danger of losing. If we get a FG, we still might lose. Even if we get a TOUCHDOWN, we still might lose - the opponent would have a shot to match our TD, with the benefit of knowing they need a TD so they'll be in 4-down territory... AND they could/should go for 2 if they DO score a TD, since a 50/50 proposition to win the game right then and there would be better odds to win vs kicking off to us in a sudden death situation where even a FG beats them.

Kicking off first in OT - New playoff rules:

PRO: The sweet benefit of knowing exactly what we need to do once we get the ball, regardless of what the opponent does on their opening possession. We get a stop? GREAT! A FG wins the game! We allow a FG, or even a TD? We STILL get a shot to match that, or even top it to win the game!

CONS: *crickets*

BOTTOM LINE: There is no longer any benefit to getting the ball first in OT in the playoffs. In fact, it would make zero sense for the coin toss winner to want the ball first!

That's NOT a good thing - the goal should be for the coin toss to matter as little as possible, with pros and cons for kicking off AND receiving first. So without any benefit for receiving the ball first, the coin toss winner has a much bigger advantage, and therefore the coin toss matters more than ever - let's kick off and see how our defense does, and no matter what happens on the opening possession, we'll have a shot to win once we get the ball!

Thanks for reading, if you made it this far!

 

[tomsanders921]

I was not aware but just saw an article saying the rules have changed since that chiefs bills game last postseason.

Now both teams will possess the balls even if the first team scores a touchdown.

What would be the chances of this team having an overtime game, winning the toss, and choosing to receive?

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

Reminder: the NFL stupidly changed the playoff OT rules so that a TD on the 1st possession no longer ends the game.

It was a rash decision after the Bills-Chiefs thriller last year, in which the Bills never touched the ball in OT because KC scored on its opening possession.

WAAAAH, poor Buffalo!!!

The logic went as follows: "But this is more fair! Now both teams are guaranteed a possession!"

Actually, it's LESS fair.

In order for overtime to be as fair as possible, there needs to be pros and cons to 1) getting the ball first, and 2) kicking off first. The coin toss must matter as little as possible.

Let's examine that.

Getting the ball first in OT - Regular season rules:

PRO: A TD wins the game!

CON: If we don't even get a FG, we're in grave danger of losing. If we get a FG, we still might lose.

Kicking off first in OT - Regular season rules:

PRO: A stop puts us in a GREAT spot to win the game! Even if we allow a FG, we've still got a shot!

CON: If we allow a TD here, we lose.

Getting the ball first in OT - New playoff rules:

PRO: *crickets*

CON: If we don't even get a FG, we're in grave danger of losing. If we get a FG, we still might lose. Even if we get a TOUCHDOWN, we still might lose - the opponent would have a shot to match our TD, with the benefit of knowing they need a TD so they'll be in 4-down territory... AND they could/should go for 2 if they DO score a TD, since a 50/50 proposition to win the game right then and there would be better odds to win vs kicking off to us in a sudden death situation where even a FG beats them.

Kicking off first in OT - New playoff rules:

PRO: The sweet benefit of knowing exactly what we need to do once we get the ball, regardless of what the opponent does on their opening possession. We get a stop? GREAT! A FG wins the game! We allow a FG, or even a TD? We STILL get a shot to match that, or even top it to win the game!

CONS: *crickets*

BOTTOM LINE: There is no longer any benefit to getting the ball first in OT in the playoffs. In fact, it would make zero sense for the coin toss winner to want the ball first!

That's NOT a good thing - the goal should be for the coin toss to matter as little as possible, with pros and cons for kicking off AND receiving first. So without any benefit for receiving the ball first, the coin toss winner has a much bigger advantage, and therefore the coin toss matters more than ever - let's kick off and see how our defense does, and no matter what happens on the opening possession, we'll have a shot to win once we get the ball!

Thanks for reading, if you made it this far!

On one hand, you're correct. There should be an incentive to want the ball first. I suppose the incentive is that, if you get the ball back, then you can win it on your drive. On the other hand, I do think that the second team should receive an opportunity. Here's what I'd do if I were making the OT rules.

Regular season rules stay the same, or the game ends like it did previously where a field goal wins it first drive. Essentially, back to sudden death and the game ends in a draw if it's still tied at the end of the period. Or, just end the game in a draw without OT.

Postseason - I'd probably do a college football style OT.

 

[EST_1986]

Overtime rule change was needed, but they should alter it even more and go to a college style OT

 

[DogFace]

I didn’t think of it that way. Very good point @Nav22

Teams should defer just like they should always to start the game.

 

[John813]

IMO if you can't win a game in the first 60 minutes then don't complain about sudden death in the 10 minutes afterwards.

But hey, the NFL is an entertainment league

 

[tomsanders921]

I didn’t think of it that way. Very good point @Nav22

Teams should defer just like they should always to start the game.

The cowboys will probably still choose to receive in overtime.

 

[Asklesko]

They should play for 30 extra minutes and have field goal kicks like in soccer if need be

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

They should play for 30 extra minutes and have field goal kicks like in soccer if need be

I love this idea!! Yes! This!!

 

[J-man]

I think they need to make it more of a competition like college. Both teams get equal number of shots to score from increasing distances on the field, first team to score more points wins. IMHO, it would be the fairest way to decide the winner.
Something like this:

First round: both teams get the ball and start on the opposing teams 10 yard line, 1st and goal.
Second round: both teams get the ball and start on the 20, 1st and goal.
Third round: start at the 30, 1st and goal
etc.etc.
Also after the 3rd rd of OT you must go for 2 after a TD.
This allows equal opportunities and gets both offenses and defense involved in the process of deciding the outcomes. Plus it adds a major entertainment component the NFL would love!

 

[FanofJerry]

Imagine working your butt off all year, your club has invested millions, fans invested...

Your team makes the playoffs...

In which both teams resulted in the same amount of points after regulation time.... only for to lose in overtime because you were not allowed to touch the ball.

Call it whining. I call it a blatant psychology trap.

The coin flip had a huge factor in deciding the game. Not the coaches or players.

 

[Flamma]

Reminder: the NFL stupidly changed the playoff OT rules so that a TD on the 1st possession no longer ends the game.

It was a rash decision after the Bills-Chiefs thriller last year, in which the Bills never touched the ball in OT because KC scored on its opening possession.

WAAAAH, poor Buffalo!!!

The logic went as follows: "But this is more fair! Now both teams are guaranteed a possession!"

Actually, it's LESS fair.

In order for overtime to be as fair as possible, there needs to be pros and cons to 1) getting the ball first, and 2) kicking off first. The coin toss must matter as little as possible.

Let's examine that.

Getting the ball first in OT - Regular season rules:

PRO: A TD wins the game!

CON: If we don't even get a FG, we're in grave danger of losing. If we get a FG, we still might lose.

Kicking off first in OT - Regular season rules:

PRO: A stop puts us in a GREAT spot to win the game! Even if we allow a FG, we've still got a shot!

CON: If we allow a TD here, we lose.

Getting the ball first in OT - New playoff rules:

PRO: *crickets*

CON: If we don't even get a FG, we're in grave danger of losing. If we get a FG, we still might lose. Even if we get a TOUCHDOWN, we still might lose - the opponent would have a shot to match our TD, with the benefit of knowing they need a TD so they'll be in 4-down territory... AND they could/should go for 2 if they DO score a TD, since a 50/50 proposition to win the game right then and there would be better odds to win vs kicking off to us in a sudden death situation where even a FG beats them.

Kicking off first in OT - New playoff rules:

PRO: The sweet benefit of knowing exactly what we need to do once we get the ball, regardless of what the opponent does on their opening possession. We get a stop? GREAT! A FG wins the game! We allow a FG, or even a TD? We STILL get a shot to match that, or even top it to win the game!

CONS: *crickets*

BOTTOM LINE: There is no longer any benefit to getting the ball first in OT in the playoffs. In fact, it would make zero sense for the coin toss winner to want the ball first!

That's NOT a good thing - the goal should be for the coin toss to matter as little as possible, with pros and cons for kicking off AND receiving first. So without any benefit for receiving the ball first, the coin toss winner has a much bigger advantage, and therefore the coin toss matters more than ever - let's kick off and see how our defense does, and no matter what happens on the opening possession, we'll have a shot to win once we get the ball!

Thanks for reading, if you made it this far!

First off, I couldn't agree more with this post. They made OT rules worse. And KC won the coin toss against the Bengals in the AFC championship game, and lost.

Who decides on these rules? You'd think they'd be better at it. They didn't even get the last one right. It should have been, 6 points wins in OT. If 6 points aren't scored, the team with the lead wins. Not, if you get 3, then the other team has to get at least 3. So now if they have a 4th and 10 from their own 20, they have to go for it, when they otherwise would have punted down by 3 from their own 20. Instead, they get 4 downs the entire drive. Which could change the outcome in their favor, similar to what you pointed out. It's as if the people making these rules aren't sports people. Kids could do better.

 

[Nav22]

The cowboys will probably still choose to receive in overtime.

LOL! When I was writing that, I honestly thought the exact same thing. Hope we're smarter than that.

 

[Wichitaleafs]

Overtime in football is pretty much impossible to make "fare'" for both teams because of the nature of the sport where one team is on offense first with the better chance of scoring. Other sports hockey, soccer etc. where both teams have the opportunity to possess the ball will always inherently seem fairer. Baseball has both teams with an opportunity to score. In my opinion college football has it about as good as it can be but the scores can get pretty ridiculous like 59-58 stuff looks weird on the scoreboard. Bottom line teams know if you tie in regulation you might not like ending up with the short end of the stick playing D first so avoid it at all costs.

 

[JBS]

This is a brilliant thread.

Everything the OP lays out is 100% spot on.

Excellent work.

 

[Nav22]

Imagine working your butt off all year, your club has invested millions, fans invested...

Your team makes the playoffs...

In which both teams resulted in the same amount of points after regulation time.... only for to lose in overtime because you were not allowed to touch the ball.

Call it whining. I call it a blatant psychology trap.

The coin flip had a huge factor in deciding the game. Not the coaches or players.

Under the new playoff OT rules, the coin toss matters MORE, not less.

 

[Flamma]

LOL! When I was writing that, I honestly thought the exact same thing. Hope we're smarter than that.

Yeah, this changes the entire dynamic. You kickoff now if you win the coin toss. Way better advantage than winning the toss used to be.

 

[Established1971]

Cant wait for the day a Super Bowl ends on a 4th down chain measurement. Can you imagine that?

 

[noshame]

Don't forget, the losing team now gets a participation trophy!!

 

[zack]

Reminder: the NFL stupidly changed the playoff OT rules so that a TD on the 1st possession no longer ends the game.

It was a rash decision after the Bills-Chiefs thriller last year, in which the Bills never touched the ball in OT because KC scored on its opening possession.

WAAAAH, poor Buffalo!!!

The logic went as follows: "But this is more fair! Now both teams are guaranteed a possession!"

Actually, it's LESS fair.

In order for overtime to be as fair as possible, there needs to be pros and cons to 1) getting the ball first, and 2) kicking off first. The coin toss must matter as little as possible.

Let's examine that.

Getting the ball first in OT - Regular season rules:

PRO: A TD wins the game!

CON: If we don't even get a FG, we're in grave danger of losing. If we get a FG, we still might lose.

Kicking off first in OT - Regular season rules:

PRO: A stop puts us in a GREAT spot to win the game! Even if we allow a FG, we've still got a shot!

CON: If we allow a TD here, we lose.

Getting the ball first in OT - New playoff rules:

PRO: *crickets*

CON: If we don't even get a FG, we're in grave danger of losing. If we get a FG, we still might lose. Even if we get a TOUCHDOWN, we still might lose - the opponent would have a shot to match our TD, with the benefit of knowing they need a TD so they'll be in 4-down territory... AND they could/should go for 2 if they DO score a TD, since a 50/50 proposition to win the game right then and there would be better odds to win vs kicking off to us in a sudden death situation where even a FG beats them.

Kicking off first in OT - New playoff rules:

PRO: The sweet benefit of knowing exactly what we need to do once we get the ball, regardless of what the opponent does on their opening possession. We get a stop? GREAT! A FG wins the game! We allow a FG, or even a TD? We STILL get a shot to match that, or even top it to win the game!

CONS: *crickets*

BOTTOM LINE: There is no longer any benefit to getting the ball first in OT in the playoffs. In fact, it would make zero sense for the coin toss winner to want the ball first!

That's NOT a good thing - the goal should be for the coin toss to matter as little as possible, with pros and cons for kicking off AND receiving first. So without any benefit for receiving the ball first, the coin toss winner has a much bigger advantage, and therefore the coin toss matters more than ever - let's kick off and see how our defense does, and no matter what happens on the opening possession, we'll have a shot to win once we get the ball!

Thanks for reading, if you made it this far!

It is because as a country, we have become soft. The NFL is no different....