Alternative to Overtime Coin Flip

DarthMonk · Post by **DarthMonk** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:29 am

Many complain about the coin flip. Maybe the winner of the flip wins too often. Maybe the loser of the flip never gets the ball. Blah, blah, blah.

Here is an alternative that often gets a quick knee jerk "That'll never work" reaction. Try to let it percolate in your mind. Consider the ramifications. Here it is.

Just keep playing. No flip. Start a 5th quarter. Here's what I mean.

There are 3 minutes left and the Colts trail the Jets by 7. They tie it with 40 seconds to go. They kick to the Jets who take over at their 20 with 38 seconds left. As it is now the Jets are looking at either frantically trying to set up a field goal or kneeling down in anticipation of a coin flip. With my idea they are looking to get a first down. They might run for 4 yards on first down and let time expire. Then the teams switch ends and it's 2nd and 6 for the Jets at their 24. They better get a first down. Note that the Colts try to tie whether there is a flip or not. With a flip they might try to minimize the time left on the clock. They probably wouldn't care with the "no flip" rule.

Here's another one. It's tied and the 'Skins get the ball at their 20 with a minute to go. As it is now they can try to move the ball or kneel in anticipation of a coin flip. They might even sort of play the "let's see what happens on first down" game and take it from there. There is no real pressure to move the ball because they can let time run out and play for OT. With my idea there is pressure to move the ball. If they get to 3rd and 4 and time runs out they need to switch ends and get the first down or they will be punting whence the other team will have the ball near midfield.

Notice there can be no real complaining by the loser. There was no flip. Since it was tied we kept playing. It's just about scoring and stopping the other guy.

Thoughts?? Try not to knee jerk. Things would be different. Some things might be worse but a lot of things would be better too.

DarthMonk

gibbs4president · Post by **gibbs4president** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:19 am

I don't think I've ever heard this proposed solution before, and it's actually pretty interesting. I like that there's no coin flip for people to fall back on or complain about. Good stuff....

brad7686 · Post by **brad7686** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 10:28 am

Sounds good to me except if a team ran out of time in the first half, and then the other team got the extra 5th quarter when running out of time in the second half, the first team would be getting hosed in that scenario.

flamethrower · Post by **flamethrower** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:45 am

Me I like this. Great idea. Too darned bad the NFL probably will not ever get a clue. A+ Thumbs up on this one.

CcHhDd · Post by **CcHhDd** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:13 am

I like a variation of this idea. I do believe that there should be a kickoff. Without it there would be a lot of teams in the league settling to just wait for OT. With at least a kickoff we can try and force the team tied with the ball to try and win the game first.

But i've always been for playing an extra quarter. I really don't understand why the NFL hasn't adopted this policy. They do it in basketball and hockey.. same in baseball. If your tied add an extra quarter (make it ten minutes instead of 15 if you feel the need) That way both teams at least you'd think logically would get the ball back (save a 15 play 10 minute drive). If the quarter ends your tied. I know people hate to see games tied but i think it would make the NFL playoff scenerio a lot more interesting as well with ties. Come playoffs just keep tacking on quarters. Maybe one day we'll see an infamous 7 quarter conference championship game.

Never have understood why the NFL hasn't done this instead of sudden death.

laradioken · Post by **laradioken** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:08 pm

College Football does their overtime quite well.

How about a Field Goal Shootout?

Start at 30 yards for each team. If both kickers succeed, you extend the length by 5 yards until one of them misses. Make these guys earn their pay.

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:41 pm

CcHhDd wrote:I like a variation of this idea. I do believe that there should be a kickoff. Without it there would be a lot of teams in the league settling to just wait for OT. With at least a kickoff we can try and force the team tied with the ball to try and win the game first.

But i've always been for playing an extra quarter. I really don't understand why the NFL hasn't adopted this policy. They do it in basketball and hockey.. same in baseball. If your tied add an extra quarter (make it ten minutes instead of 15 if you feel the need) That way both teams at least you'd think logically would get the ball back (save a 15 play 10 minute drive). If the quarter ends your tied. I know people hate to see games tied but i think it would make the NFL playoff scenerio a lot more interesting as well with ties. Come playoffs just keep tacking on quarters. Maybe one day we'll see an infamous 7 quarter conference championship game.

Never have understood why the NFL hasn't done this instead of sudden death.

Hockey is sudden death, just like the NFL. Only difference is there is a face off in hockey. I don't like the "lets keep playing rule", because it makes clock managment and time out meeningless at the end of the game. No need t6 rush because the clock doesn't matter! It would take a lot of fun out of the end of games.

I don't like the college format, but I do think both teams should get a turn. Try this:
The team that last had the ball before OT goes on D first. They kick-off from say the 20 giving the other team good field position. The other team trys to score. If they can't score or get a first down they go for it on 4th or kick off from the 20 and now it is the other teams turn. If the 4th down convertion fails the other team has a choice of taking the ball at that spot or making the other team kickoff from the 5. If every thing is tied the game ends in a tie, unless it is post season then they keep going untill it is not tied.

wormer · Post by **wormer** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:58 pm

Interesting....

So lets assume it's the Skins ball and the game is tied at the end of the 4th. So they switch ends and keep playing. (like after the 1st and 3rd quarters)

The Skins score a minute or 2 into the 5th quarter.

So then the Skins would kick off to the other team (Cowboys) right?

If the Cowboys do not score is it over or do they keep playing the whole 5th?

If the Cowboys score and tie it do they kick-off to the Skins and we repeat the process?

What if the Cowboys score puts them ahead? Then what?

What do you do at the end of the 5th quarter if no one scores or it is still tied?

DarthMonk · Post by **DarthMonk** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:23 am

wormer wrote:Interesting....

So lets assume it's the Skins ball and the game is tied at the end of the 4th. So they switch ends and keep playing. (like after the 1st and 3rd quarters)

The Skins score a minute or 2 into the 5th quarter.

So then the Skins would kick off to the other team (Cowboys) right?

If the Cowboys do not score is it over or do they keep playing the whole 5th?

If the Cowboys score and tie it do they kick-off to the Skins and we repeat the process?

What if the Cowboys score puts them ahead? Then what?

What do you do at the end of the 5th quarter if no one scores or it is still tied?

In my conception it's still sudden death. So after we score it's over. If it's still tied after the fifth quarter it goes down as a tie. If it's the playoffs you keep going.

DarthMonk

DarthMonk · Post by **DarthMonk** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:30 am

skinsfan#33 wrote:
CcHhDd wrote:I don't like the "lets keep playing rule", because it makes clock managment and time out meeningless at the end of the game. No need t6 rush because the clock doesn't matter! It would take a lot of fun out of the end of games.

Clock management doesn't quite become meaningless and there would still be a need to rush for a trailing team. The excitement would be different. In some games it would lessen. In others it would increase.

A trailing team would still be desperate to tie or win in regulation. A team getting the ball with say a minute to go in a tie would NOW either rush things or sit and play for OT. With my rule that team could not sit and play for OT/flip. They would be under pressure to move the ball. If they don't move the ball they are in trouble. I think that's more exciting than watching 2 kneel downs and a coin flip.

DarthMonk

charliec107 · Post by **charliec107** » Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:39 pm

OT should be first to 6. If you kick a FG you have to kickoff to the other team, but if you score a TD it's over. To win with a first FG you have to hold the other team, get the ball back then you can do the cheap FG drive. That way you can assure the first drive is a legit drive, but it still keeps sudden death.

skinsfano28 · Post by **skinsfano28** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:38 pm

I love the way college has structured their overtime, and here is why--

1. Each team starts in the hardest place to execute plays, just outside the red zone. They are given 20 yards to make it into the endzone, and 4 plays to do it or get a first down. Why is this any different from the point of football in the first place? Its a perfect system.

2. Each team gets the ball one time. The point of the NFL's overtime is to get the ball first and score any way possible, and its unfair that the team that loses the toss wins only about 15% of the time. The game should be decided on the field, but if a team can set up for a 50+ yard field goal and win the game in OVERTIME (not regulation), it seems as though the other team should get a chance to come back, just like they have been all game.

Look at Hockey--each team gets chances at making it in the shootout. Basketball is a little different because its a flow of the game type deal, but they still add a 5 minute overtime so that each team gets even a remote chance. Baseball, each team gets up to bat. Football needs to have that too, especially when there are SO many games that end with deficits of only 3 points. Its only fair.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:01 pm

skinsfano28 wrote:2. Each team gets the ball one time. The point of the NFL's overtime is to get the ball first and score any way possible, and its unfair that the team that loses the toss wins only about 15% of the time.

Do you have any stats to back up that claim? I had always heard and read that the winning % was very close to 50/50.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:18 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:
skinsfano28 wrote:2. Each team gets the ball one time. The point of the NFL's overtime is to get the ball first and score any way possible, and its unfair that the team that loses the toss wins only about 15% of the time.

Do you have any stats to back up that claim? I had always heard and read that the winning % was very close to 50/50.

I've heard the 15% number as well

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:21 pm

The best I can do is data from 2004:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/200 ... thtrek.asp

There's a difference between:
"The team that wins the coin toss wins the game"

and

"The team that wins the coin toss wins the game on the first possession."

The NFL overtime has not historically been "decided" by the coin flip. I understand the arguments to switch formats, but skinsfano28's overstatement of the odds -- as many 'college overtime' advocates do -- hurts his case, in my opinion. My 2 cents

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:23 pm

Fios wrote:I've heard the 15% number as well

Well, I'm not sure on the reliability of whatever source that comes from. I had heard of a 52 / 48 ratio, but the webpage that I pulled up seems to uphold those numbers only in some ways but not in others. I think one of the overlooked statistics is how often both teams get at least one possession.

skinsfano28 · Post by **skinsfano28** » Wed May 02, 2007 1:56 am

I've looked up a few articles online that state anywhere from 50-65% of the time the team that wins the toss wins the game, however I do remember seeing a stat on FOX during a game that said 83% of the teams that win the toss go on to win the game. I'm not sure whether that is an all-time stat or what it was, but I know that it is definitely believable.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Wed May 02, 2007 6:52 am

skinsfano28 wrote:I've looked up a few articles online that state anywhere from 50-65% of the time the team that wins the toss wins the game, however I do remember seeing a stat on FOX during a game that said 83% of the teams that win the toss go on to win the game. I'm not sure whether that is an all-time stat or what it was, but I know that it is definitely believable.

Well, I guess I'd have to question that stat. The best I can think of is that they were highlighting one season's stats, and in that year the team that won the flip won 83+% of the games. Even though it still doesn't account for both teams having the ball at some point, I can still understand where I stat would come from.

Still, from 1974 to 2003, both teams had the ball in overtime in 72% of the overtime games. Historically, the team winning the toss has a slight advantage (for the same years the number was 52%). People arguing for the college overtime system tend to overstate their case, in my opinion. I also wonder what the stats are for college overtime -- when the team gets the ball first, how often do they end up winning the game?

DarthMonk · Post by **DarthMonk** » Mon May 07, 2007 3:24 pm

Irn-Bru wrote:
skinsfano28 wrote:2. Each team gets the ball one time. The point of the NFL's overtime is to get the ball first and score any way possible, and its unfair that the team that loses the toss wins only about 15% of the time.

Do you have any stats to back up that claim? I had always heard and read that the winning % was very close to 50/50.

Two articles I ran into:

#1

NEW YORK (AP) — It may become harder for coin-toss winners to win an NFL overtime game next season.
The league's competition committee announced on Wednesday that it's recommendation moving the kickoff in overtime from the 30-yard-line, the spot in regulation, to the 35, a proposal to be considered at the league's owners' meetings next week.

#2

Atlanta general manager Rich McKay, the competition committee's co-chairman, said the committee believed the kickoff spot was the major reason that 62% of teams winning the coin toss won overtime games last season, not necessarily on the first possession, but because of the field position they got. McKay said it stemmed from the change in 1998 that moved the kickoff back to the 30 and added the "K-ball," a kicking ball harder to kick deep.
Until then, winners and losers of the toss had won just about equally.
For the first 20 seasons after the N.F.L.'s 1974 decision to have overtime for regular-season games, the team that won the coin flip had no advantage. Coin-flip winners won 94 overtime games, coin-flip losers won 94 and 13 games ended in ties. But field-goal kickers improved, and the N.F.L. moved the spot of the kickoff back to the 30-yard line in 1994. Since then, coin-flip winners have gone 104-69-3, a winning percentage of .599. (A tie is calculated as half a victory, half a loss.)

jeremyroyce · Post by **jeremyroyce** » Mon May 14, 2007 1:15 am

Welll, lets put it this way. First off you have 60 minutes in a football contest to decide who wins. secondly its called sudden death. So, I think that they have it right.