The NFL’s Overtime Problem
The NFL just voted to change the playoff overtime rules to something a lot of people have called for, myself included. Both teams will now have at minimum one possession. The game can no longer be won on the opening drive. It’s only for the postseason though, so the NFL is likely running it through as a test. Since the rule was updated from the original sudden death, the team that has gotten possession first is 10-2. 7 of those wins were on the first possession, meaning 7 out of 12 times the game was won without the other team having a chance to possess the ball.
I’m happy with the change but it’s hard to deny that the NFL’s overtime is a convoluted issue. I’ve seen a massive variety of viewpoints on the situation. Some think teams should return to sudden death. Some view overtime as a punishment that shouldn’t be fair in the first place because teams should strive to win in regulation. Some think an entire 5th quarter should be played. Some think the previous/current system is just fine and the NFL is being reactionary to the Bills/Chiefs controversy. Some think the NFL should go to the college system. Some people have some absurd ideas like penalty kicks. Nobody seems unified on what they want, so I figured I’d lay out a bunch of the options and examine them as possibilities.
As I’ve come to see it, the biggest issue with overtime is the coin toss. It’s a system designed to be as impartial as possible, but the issue is the advantage it provides to the winner. There’s no way around the fact that getting the ball first in overtime is a massive advantage. Defenses are tired, and you can see by the sample so far that “WeLl DeFeNsE iS pArT oF fOoTbAlL” is nice in theory but in reality, defenses are very much affected by the end of these games. Not having to play defense is a big advantage. If defense is so important, why shouldn’t both teams have to prove it? Why does the team that wins the coin toss just not have to prove it if the offense scores? That seems wrong to me. If defense is such an important part of the sport (it is), make both teams play it.
But there is more to just the tired defense advantage. By getting the ball first, you’ve likely given yourself more possessions or at least the chance of more should the overtime drag on. You also get the chance to rest your defense should you only kick a field goal or not score at all. By having the ball first, you are creating the pressure, and the other team is largely reacting.
The reason I like the new change is that deferring is now a viable strategy. When was the last time you saw a team defer in overtime? Never, because who the fuck would do that? God just handed you a huge advantage, you take it. But if the opposing team now has a guaranteed possession and the ability to know what to do in response, it may be prudent to kick off first in certain scenarios. I don’t see this happening much, but the point remains: it’s now viable. A risk, but viable. Especially if you can decide the direction in a windy game. The overwhelming advantage is diminished to a more manageable degree.
This, of course, may result in sudden death anyway. We have all assumed that if the Bills got a chance to answer the Chiefs, they would have. We don’t know that, but with the game going the way it was, it is an easy assumption to make. Thing is, I don’t see a problem with this. The main issue with the current system was that a team could be locked out of a chance to answer. With a possession for both sides, that chance occurs. Both teams had to prove it on offense AND defense. Now it’s a free for all. Good. I’m fine with that.
I’ve also seen the argument that with both teams getting the ball, the advantage is now on the second team’s side. They have more information on what they have to do to win. I disagree. The second team is still effectively being reactive (especially if team 1 scores) and information is not execution. If you know you need a touchdown or just a field goal to win, you still have to successfully score those things.
But let’s take a moment to look at some of the proposals on the table and see what sort of options we have anyway.
Sudden Death
They changed this rule for a reason. Having a team win the coin toss, march 40 yards into field goal range, hunker into safe mode and kick a field goal to win a game is boring as shit and still has the problem of another team not getting a chance to answer. The current rule was designed to counter this crap by making a field goal no longer guarantee a win. The main advantage this rule has is that it ends games faster, which is something the networks want and is safer for the players.
Both teams get one possession
Still has issues as it doesn’t eliminate the coin toss advantage, but it doesn’t give both teams a chance to play both sides of the ball and evens the playing field. However, it does drag the game on a bit longer.
Play a full quarter
In spirit, this idea is great. In reality, this is a bad idea. Football is not a safe game and more time spent playing this harsh sport is potentially bad all around. Secondly, networks don’t want to have to plan their other programming around potentially spending another 10-15 minute quarter on every game.
No coin toss, possession is determined through other, game relevant factors
Someone has to get the ball first no matter what, we cannot prevent that advantage. But what if we found a way to stop having that decision rely on chance and made it a factor of the game? My idea was that whoever scored last in regulation gets the ball first since that team effectively forced overtime. The team that allowed the last score is punished for allowing it to get to this point and has to defend. This would work better with the “win with a TD” rule, because now possession isn’t determined by random chance. A team earned that chance.
Home team gets ball first
Kind of the same thing as the previous option, but Baseball rules. This would actually be fine with me, but it won’t work for the Superbowl, so we’d still need another option for that. I’d also still prefer possession to be determined by something more tangible than who happens to be at home. There are plenty of options as to what that factor could be. Who scored last? Who scored first?
No overtime, tie games
Yeah that’s not going to work in the playoffs but more ties in the regular season would shake things up. Ties are better as weird unicorns that happen once per season or so IMO.
Penalty Kicks
This is stupid and penalty kicks/shots exist because at some point someone has to win and football doesn’t have this problem because you can score multiple variations of points. Watching a game come down to a kicker is already tough, making it just kickers eliminates the rest of the team and is dumb. This is dumb.
College system
I hate the college system. It feels like the football version of penalty kicks. It’s also unnecessarily convoluted.
NO KICKING
I haven’t actually seen this proposed anywhere, but I thought about it, and I think it might work. Eliminate kicks. No field goals. Only Touchdowns or safeties. Here’s the catch. No kicking at all. That means NO PUNTS. You go for it on 4th and you convert or you turn it over. Sudden death rules. First team to score a TD wins. Determine the first possession by something other than a coin toss.
There are other options of course, but those are the main things I’ve seen floated. I’m happy with the current change, but long term it might not work out. I’m essentially of two thoughts: if you want to keep the coin toss, the playing field needs to be evened out so the first possession advantage is nerfed. The new rule accomplishes this. If you want to eliminate the coin toss, sudden death and the previous/current rule would work well if possession was determined by an actual factor that wasn’t pure luck.
No overtime, tie games
I like this one, because the extra burden of overtime feels like an extra injury risk to happen either that week or the following week. If anyone has a link to a proper study on overtime and injuries, would be appreciated.
For example, I’ll take a tie every week if it means one less season ending injury a year. That’s an easy trade-off to make for be as a fan.
Penalties! YES! Feel the England soccer team’s pain! It’s ALWAYS fucking penalties that does for them!
In fact, even better – Kicker H-O-R-S-E! It’d be like the old Chip Lohmiller-Pete Stoyanovich McDonald’s ad!
speaking as a Scotsman, I support penalties for this reason
I have a lot of issues with this comic and post but, honestly, the thing that’s really bothering me here is the fact that you take issue with NFL’s OT rules as they stood, but hate the single alternative that actually fixes the problem while still awarding possession in a relatively simplistic manner. I also don’t care for the college OT rules, but in terms of pure fairness, they have the best alternative possible. If you dislike that while also not being pleased with the NFL’s rules then it just comes off as if you can’t be pleased at all.
The only alternative here that I like is the one of giving possession to the team that scored last, since it doesn’t really change anything except for rewarding possession based on a factor relevant to the game, but even then, it still carries most of the same issues and fans will inevitably still complain for the exact same reasons.
At the end of the day, though, the changes the NFL made don’t actually fix anything. It’s just now instead of Team A winning it in one possession, they can win it in two without Team B matching. If the issue is about fairness then this did absolutely nothing and possibly made things worse if anything.
One more thing, this suggestion—Home team gets the ball first—might be the single worst alternative I’ve ever read. It’s even more arbitrary than a coin toss and now brings in the added issue of broken playoff seeding giving an advantage to a worse team. Yes, let’s give the 7-9 Division Winner the ball first over the 11-5 Wild Card because they are at home. That’s not even unfair, it’s just dumb.
Having a 9-7 home team get the ball first over a 11-9 wildcard would be hilarious, actually, but it’ll never happen anyway
Giving both teams one possession absolutely evens out fairness man. Overtime will never be truly fair thanks to the first possessor advantage, so doing something to mitigate that helps significantly if it can’t erase it completely
It’s the same as the college system just without the 25 yard line start and continuing to swap possessions every time until somebody misses. Both teams get one chance. The first has the advantage and the second team has the reaction knowledge advantage. After that it stops. If the record for Overtimes stays around where it was previously, then the problem wasn’t helped, but now we get to see if it matters
It really doesn’t, since, as I said, if both teams score a TD and the team that scored first scores again, they win without the other team matching. Is it slightly more fair? Sure, but the difference in that regard is negligible. Just because a team has an advantage doesn’t make it unfair, and you accidentally proved that in your post when adding context to the 10-2 record of teams that get the ball first in OT in the playoffs. Only 7 won it on the first drive. Out of 12 total. That’s barely over half the time. And in instances where both teams did get the ball, the team that got it first went 3-2, again a minor advantage but nothing worth being upset over nor warranting a rule change. The reason I mention fairness at all is because it’s a copout. The reason people dislike the OT rules is because they dislike sudden death in general. That’s all the new rules change.
I know the basketball comparison was done for comedic effect but I think it highlights the main problem here; it seems like you and people that don’t care for the old rules in general think scoring TDs is really easy when it’s not. Scoring on a 75 yard (give or take depending on the kicker though kickoffs are basically a guaranteed touchback now) TD drive is really, really difficult. Significantly moreso than getting a bucket in basketball. And this is evidenced by the fact that, again, it’s nearly 50/50 in terms of scoring a TD on the first possession. It’s not the overwhelming advantage that it’s been made out to be.
Ultimately I just think the old OT rules struck the right balance of being about as close to being fair as you can get without going full tilt like in college. Getting the ball first doesn’t guarantee anything besides getting the ball first. All a defense has to do is not give up a 75 yard TD drive. If they can’t stop that then you really don’t deserve to win the game at that point. I know it’s cliche to say this but it’s a team sport. If one part of the team flounders, tough, you have to accept the results for what they are. We don’t give passes to teams with outstanding offenses and atrocious defenses when their defenses inevitably fail them so I don’t see why that needs to change in OT.
I do not agree with the sentence “If they can’t stop that then you don’t deserve to win.” The chiefs bills game is a perfect example. Some teams are just great on offense and crap on defense, or have such a cheat code at QB (In a game slanted towards offense already) that defense doesn’t matter. It’s difficult to be great on both, and if you are it’s rarely for very long year to year. When you get to those games, it’s undeniable that the team that gets the ball first gets an incredible advantage under the old rules, and the reason is because overtime asks a different question of the teams than it does during regulation. During regulation, it asks “Can you stop them more than they stop you?” but in overtime, it asks “Can you stop them this time?” That isn’t right to me.
I don’t think that having an issue with fairness is a copout, it’s what people like me watch sports for. I want to see the best team win. Just because an advantage cannot be prevented in its entirety, does not mean that we should just be okay with something if it can be improved. If you like sudden death, you’re allowed to, but I dislike sudden death precisely because it isn’t fair. Sudden death’s draw is tension and excitement, not fairness.
Win your division, then.
I think penalty kicks is dumb, however, I have a counter. What if every person took the field goals? First the kicker, then the punter, then the rest of the team. Not only would this be fun to watch, but imagine a 350 pound d lineman attempting a field goal to win the super bowl. (This idea was inspired by Vince Wilfork as kicker in madden)
And Vince Wilfork in real life (practice)
My favorite alternative is that it should just follow the coin flip that starts the game. If you got the ball in the first half, you get the ball in the first OT period; if you got the ball in the second half, you would get the ball in the second OT period if there was one…and so on and so forth. Would take out the sudden randomness at the end of a game, because each team would know full well who’s going to start with it as they approach the end of the 4th quarter, and can adjust how they play accordingly. If you’re the team that got the ball in the second half, you’ll be much more likely to try to risk everything to end it before OT is reached.
P.S. Trail Blazers actually tied the series 2-2 with the Lakers this season.
Basketball has neither the physical toll nor can you actually play defence in basketball, so I have no idea why it’s relevant at all.
Basketball being a very different sport is the entire joke. The joke is just putting the NFL’s weird overtime problem into an even less sensical sport. Don’t overthink it
I know you said not to overthink it but…couldn’t you have used Westbrook here?
He’s also on the Lakers, who was actually on the team that got their heart broken by the Dame Time buzzer beater 3.
Would hurt way more.
Eh, he wasn’t on the Lakers at the time and arguably he’s a big reason why they sucked this year already.
Also he’s less fun to draw than Lebron. I would have used him if the comic was about bricking a shot
To be fair, the Dame Time shot was against the Thunder with Paul George and Westbrook. But I see that point.
Would be interesting to see a comic about Westbrook and Parkey going head to head in bricked shots though.
I’d like OT to be played like this:
Play a full quarter (playoffs) or a ten minute quarter (reg season). The game keeps going unless one team gets more than 8 points. So for example if you get a TD and field goal you win before time runs out. Otherwise play until the clock runs out and the winner is the one who has the most points at that point. It’s simple, and both teams get at least one possession.
Unpopular Opinion here but the NFL changed the rules for the wrong game, Its Inexcusable for the #1 defense to give up points in 13 seconds, they really should have changed it after the 2018 AFC Championship or even the 2019 NFC Wild Card game, Vikings vs Saints
Although It’s better late than never
“My idea was that whoever scored last in regulation gets the ball first since that team effectively forced overtime. The team that allowed the last score is punished for allowing it to get to this point and has to defend. This would work better with the “win with a TD” rule, because now possession isn’t determined by random chance. A team earned that chance.”
Doesn’t this compound the tired defense problem? If anything, you should make the more rested defense play first
They could always flip it, as long as the team that gets the ball first was determined by a less random factor than a coin toss
What if regulation ends 0-0?
Then we fire everyone.
That dame face is one of the best faces you’ve ever drawn, and you’ve drawn a lot of good ones
additionally, that is a great LeBron in the second-to-last-panel.
I think that if he ever gets a statue, he should be in that classic LeBron Pose: jaw dropped, eyes bugging, arms outstretched, whining in utter disbelief that a call didn’t go his way….
While I understand the purpose of the comic, Basketball is a lot different sport than Football, so it makes the sense that the NBA has extra quarters instead of one possession ending the game. I know this post will generate a lot of hate, but I agree that teams should have to play defense if they want to win the football game. There is a reason they say defense wins championships. Also people tend to forget that the very first playoff Overtime Playoff game, the 1958 Championship game, was won on the first drive of the game, and no one gave them shit over the fact the Colts won the coin toss first and drove down the field and scored, hell it’s still considered as the Greatest Game Ever Played.
I do agree that the coin toss should be changed considering its very unfair and Teams should ¨earn¨ the first possession. But I don’t agree with both teams getting the ball as it just prolongs games, and while it’s entertaining, it’s bad for the health of the players. On Top of that I don’t really see it change the outcome of any of the recent OT playoff games.
My proposal has always been treat it like the end of the 1st and 3rd quarters. Just switch sides and keep playing. No one has ever convinced me it’s a bad idea. If Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers is down 7 late, and scores the inevitable td, now the coach has to decide whether to go for 2 at the end or risk giving the other team the ball to start what is essentially ot…don’t like it? Don’t be down 7 late in the 4th.
I rather like this idea, actually. It makes the idea of sudden death easier to swallow I think. It does largely eliminate the sense of urgency the team with the ball in a tied game might feel… but under the current rules that sense of urgency isn’t always present either.
For chaos’ sake, imagine this idea but with a “fairness”-mandated guaranteed possession for both teams in overtime… the end of a tied game could very well turn into teams trading punts in an attempt to stick each other with the less advantageous first possession in overtime. I’d watch that! Maybe not more than once, though.
No punting specifically gets my vote. Bolt on whoever made the last score gets the ball first in regulation and you’ve got yourself a viable overtime soup.
“When was the last time you saw a team defer in overtime? Never, because who the fuck would do that?”
Mr Draw Play Dave, Have you ever heard of a team called the Detroit Lions and a coach named Marty Mornhinweg?
Man I knew there had to be some dipshit who tried it
On the other side of the dipshit coin, Bill Belichick did it in vs Denver in 2013 for exactly the same reason Mornhinweg did (taking the wind instead of the ball) and it actually worked out for him. That was a wild game start to finish
He also did it during the overtime of the Jets game in 2015 and lost
College overtime is awesome. You’re nuts.
Unpopular opinion: If an entire four quarters pass and neither team has scored there should be no OT. Both teams take an L. It would do hilarious things to the division standings and post season seeding.
I love the double-loss!
I would be for this but when is the last time this actually happened
It’s almost happened fairly frequently, I imagine it must have happened at least once. May as well plan for it.
Did you really mean both teams didn’t score at all?
I’m in favor of regular-season double-losses in case of ANY tie. If you didn’t WIN, it’s a loss…
Yeah, if the scoreboard looks like a soccer match then both lose.
College OT was great until they ruined it with a 2-Pt Concersion shoot-out. Bring back the old version cowards!
On one hand, yea, letting both teams have a shot is fair, but on the other hand… you had 60 minutes to win the game. If one team drives down the field in a tie game in regulation and scores the winning TD as time expires, nobody cries that the other team didn’t get the ball. Well, other than the fans of the team that lost.
So why does the exact same scenario happening immediately after OT begins change things? Because of the coin flip. Dump it, then take some random stat that nobody cares about, and make THAT the deciding factor. No, wait, change what the stat is every week. It will be hilarious, and suddenly all the stats become important, lol.
– Week 1: Whoever has the most rushing attempts gets the ball first in OT
– Week 2: Whoever has the most TOs left gets the ball first
– Week 3: Whoever has the fewest penalties gets the ball
… and on and on. XD
This I like. Your team made the most completions between 12 and 17 yards? The ball is yours.
Ah, the chaos method. What would make it better is if you didn’t even know until OT. They pick an envelope at random like in Wheel of Fortune.
Haha! This only gets better. After the game they could show the envelope(s) that didn’t get picked and do the sad saxophone sound effect for the team that could have won if they picked different.
No ties, ever. Whoever reaches a point level first owns the lead at that point level. The other team has to score more points in order to win. So, if Red scores 7, then Blue scores 7, Red still has the lead. In case of a 0-0 tie at the end of regulation, either an L for both teams, or a tug-o-war at midfield (which would be awesome).
both teams get 1 possession after that its a tie game
the one truth authority(tm) hath spoken
In the no kicking ruleset, safeties should absolutely count as an instant win.
Yes and they absolutely should
Honestly safeties are already an instant win in overtime and it needs to stay that way
Why wouldn’t home team getting the ball work for the Super Bowl, exactly? There’s a declared home team for that game, even if it’s not played in the home stadium. Hell, the Bengals were the home team for the Super Bowl against LA when it was hosted in LA. That problem is solved.
The home team in the SB only really refers to the colors of the uniforms used. It’s supposed to be a neutral site, so effectively it’s another coin flip because I’m not sure how much the teams get a say in the matter
Also the Rams being the away team at home was…oddly fitting
I really want ties in the regular season, and in overtime in playoffs to have the home team get the ball first.
Agreed! Part of the home-field advantage in the playoffs should be first possession in OT.
Knowing this ahead of time would allow strategery on the part of the visiting coach: If you score a late TD, do you go for a PAT knowing the other team gets first possession, or do you go for 2 at the end of regulation?
anti-comedy option: both teams pick their best all-around player for a Punt, Pass & Kick competition.
I think ties would be more acceptable if they did their rankings the way that rugby does by assigning the results a point value: 3pts for a win, 0 for a loss, 1 for a tie, and bonus points (score more than 4 trys +1; lose by less than 5 points +1). This means that a close, high-scoring game could still net the loser 2 points. The total points from the results are used ahead of the win/loss rankings to determine playoffs.
… and somehow, that’s still more straightforward and understandable than “Is it a catch?”
On a somewhat-related topic: The “PAT vs 2-point conversion” decision at the end of potential OT games was completely RUINED by moving the PAT back 10 yards.
How the hell do you do a surprise 2-pointer when you line up at a completely different spot?
Well, given the distance it would be a much bigger surprise if tried now.
Agreed. Instead of having 12 yards to run routes, you know have 25 yards. If a TE can catch a defense of guard, he has plenty of space to catch a weak pass from the holder or kicker without worrying about running out of field.
I’m surprised we haven’t seen it yet, though.
My take: no overtime in the regular season.
You can’t win in 4 quarters, you don’t get another chance to get that win.
In the playoff, both teams will have 5 drives each (one taking turn after the other), starting at the opponent’s 20 to score TDs. No kick allowed, you either score a TD during your drive or you don’t.
If the result is still tied after 5 drives, you continue until the first who scores win.
Couple of options you missed:
Teams switch off possessions until one team can’t match: Basically like college OT rules, but full football instead of shortened fields. Maybe do 1 or 2 possessions in the regular season and if it’s still tied after, tie the game
Don’t do kickoffs after the coin toss, instead have the team start on 4th down: It’s an idea that’s already been floated around before due to the injury risk of kickoffs, but it also has the benefit of being more flexible. We can change the distance and field position until getting the ball first isn’t an advantage or disadvantage
Bid system for field position: Similar to the last idea, but without the coin toss. Instead the two teams bid on where they would start if they had the ball, and the team that has a worse field position gets the ball
The only downside of the Play Defense argument is we had both outcomes last playoffs (Bills couldn’t stop KC from scoring; Bengals not only stopped but got a turnover via armpunt interception).
My suggestion: If Team 1 scores a TD, Team 2 cannot tie with a TD and XP; they must score and go for 2 pts and the win. However if Team 1 goes for two and gets it, Team 2 can go for two and if they get it, game continues as sudden death. Also, if a team chooses to play offense first, they cannot punt the ball on their first drive of OT.
I used to be sold on the college system…then I saw the horror that was the PSU/Illinois game last year. No thanks.
The changed college OT system was a mistake, even as someone who already dislikes college OT.
If you’re going to throw out field position and make it a game of mini-football, at least go for fully mini-football and make each drive a *drive*.
Going for alternating twos after just a few possessions is fucking dumb.
This comic is inaccurate because it shows LeBron trying on defense.
At least LeBron will always have Space Jam 2, an award winning movie.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t hockey have similar OT rules to the NFL? I’m pretty sure they have sudden death
Yes, but two things. 1) The two teams fight for first possession. Not decided by a coin flip. 2) It’s extremely rare for the first possession to be a goal.
The first possession matters less in hockey. It’s a slight advantage, plus it’s not determined by something out of the player’s control
I’m all for the removal of overtime, with one difference. Regulation can’t end on a tie. If the game clock hits 0, the 4th quarter continues until there’s a winner.
Admittedly I haven’t thought through the downsides to this idea yet, but what about a sort of Double-Dare Physical Challenge approach? Hear me out – each team is given 5 minutes of game time for their offense to work, but the game continues as it would have normally. Team A starts with possession, drives, scores or doesn’t. X minutes and Y second have ticked from their 5 minute total, Team B takes over on offense and begins their respective 5 minute clock. Repeat until both clocks are at 0. The flow and scoring essentially remains the same, and it would force teams to play a quick and exciting brand of football in an attempt to jam as many scores in as possible. The obvious issue aside from a possible general dislike would be what to do in the event one team runs their clock, and the second suffers a turnover with time still left on theirs.
Having more information will always be an advantage, regardless of execution.
Yeah, why on Earth would a team choose to get the ball first if going second means you know exactly how many (if any) points you need and can treat every series as 4-down football if necessary? Pretty sure that’s why college moved away from this system, because it made the coin toss an even BIGGER factor, but we’ll see I guess.
That no kicking rule is FUN. I like that. Give me a coronary
How about every starter runs a 40 yard dash against his opposite on the other team? Most 40 yard dash winners takes the game? lol
“When was the last time you saw a team defer in overtime? Never, because who the fuck would do that?”
Bill Belichick did it a few years back. I’m pretty sure they stopped the offense on the opening drive, but still lost the game.
They did, but they didn’t stop the drive. They just lost: https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2602808-patriots-lose-to-jets-in-overtime-after-accidentally-electing-to-kick.amp.html
xfl had a fun idea for overtime, albeit very gimmicky – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qs7jzLrnkk
I think it should just be a tie. Overtime was only created because the playoff games can’t end in a tie. The first overtime game was the Greatest Game, which ended in a tie and no one was sure what to do, IIRC, so they did an overtime. There is no reason why regular season games can’t end in ties. Over time doesn’t really add much to the regular season. (If you want to get really crazy, add ties to the post season. If teams tie in the Super Bowl, they split the championship. If they tie in an earlier round, the next one becomes some type of round Robin style thing. This would be impractical for many reasons but it would ne fun. Another option is just eliminate teams that tie from the playoffs altogether. Would probably not be a good idea but would be fun. Also, allow for the possibility of a year where no one wins the Super Bowl, if all remaining teams tie. Crazy but fun)
So for me
Regular season – no OT Would encourage more risk taking (eg two point conversions) – since you can’t play to win in OT would also save the injury risk etc.
Post season – “No coin toss, possession is determined through other, game relevant factors”
Something like
1) Most TD scored
2) Most 2 point conversions
3) Last team to score
To decide who get the ball first.
My ideal world:
Regular season: no OT – games just end in a tie in regulation.
Playoffs: Pure sudden death. However, opening field position and possession is determined by “I slice, you pick”. The coin toss determines who the “slicer” is. That team picks where the ball will start. The other team decides whether to be offense or defense. And the team ending up on defense picks which goal to defend.
Personally I’d prefer “name that tune” where teams bid on what yard line they’ll take possession, with the team bidding closest to its endzone being awarded possession. But I acknowledge that will probably be seen as too complicated.
If you’re not willing to do those then I would go with the “pure sudden death, no FGs allowed” approach.
There’s a simple solution to this that makes a game not go on forever.
Both teams get a possession, there’s still a coin flip.
If the first team scores a touchdown, they MUST kick the extra point, and CANNOT go for 2. Assuming that kick is made…
If the second team scores a touchdown, they MUST go for 2, and CANNOT kick the extra point.
Everything else works as currently understood about overtime rules. The goal is to not allow for a situation in which there is a third possession, other than trading field goals (which was already a thing) and dual missed extra point (which would be rare, but possible.)