I think we have this conversation every year. When a beloved team loses in overtime without their offense taking the field, fans are divided into two camps. Both teams should get the same opportunity, and Camp A and Camp B operate under the idea that you want to win. Play defense. I don't fall into either of those categories. I believe that the overtime rules of the NFL are only fair for the average team in the league. The overtime rules fall apart when more efficient offenses get involved. Fans shout in favor of college football's overtime rules whenever arguments arise. In college, if Team A gets the ball at the opponent's 25-yard line, they have the chance to score. Team B gets the same opportunity after their drive is over. If both teams are still tied, the process is repeated with Team B going first followed by Team A, repeating those steps until a winner is determined. It's pretty simple. It's pretty understandable. Seemingly fair, but not. The advantage of the team that goes second is much greater than the advantage of the team that goes first. There have been 163 overtime games since the NFL changed its overtime policy. The team that gets the ball first wins the game more than 50 percent of the time. The team that gets the ball first wins 56.2 percent of the time if ties are removed.
In college, the team that starts the first overtime period on defense wins 63.6 percent of the time. Only 71 teams that started on defense won in the first overtime period, meaning that only 47 percent of teams in college start on defense. When the team that starts on defense gets a huge advantage, teams are forced to start alternating two-point conversion attempts. The team that started on defense won 21 out of 30 games. It doesn't mean the team that started on offense won nine times, it just means the team that started on defense didn't win nine times. Winning the coin toss at the end of regulation is a monumental matter.
Knowing what you need to do in order to win or come out with a tie is a huge advantage that often gets overlooked. It's more beneficial than the 888-565- team getting the first kick off.
The overtime rules of the NFL are starting to show flaws. The team that gets the ball first in the playoffs is 10-1 since the rules were implemented. The kicking team didn't get the ball in seven of the games. Why is this happening? Between the regular and playoffs, quarterback play is vastly improved. Most teams in the playoffs have a star quarterback who can lead them down the field when they need a touchdown. In the regular season, we have quarterbacks who aren't as reliable as their playoff counterparts. They just go for the endzone. It will be difficult to stop your opponent even if your team has a great defense.
The fan says defense is 50 percent of the game. That's not true first of all. You can ask the Green Bay Packers how important the special teams are. If your team is complete and a serious Super Bowl contender, you should be able to make a stop, but that doesn't account for quarterbacks and offensive coordinators in win-now mode. Teams will refuse to run their best plays in order to save them for more dire scenarios, and what is more dire than an overtime game in the playoffs. When the offense decides to use these plays, they are caught off-guard because the defense won't have film on them. It is near impossible to stop with a strong quarterback. I think there is a reason to change the overtime rules for the playoffs.
How can we make it better? I don't know. Even the most accomplished scientists in the world can't solve this problem, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I've heard people say to play through a whole extra quarter, which would probably be fair, but would also defeat the purpose of overtime: either give the fans a thrilling experience or end the game. Seeing two tired teams sloth out an extra 15 minutes would likely be fair, but also long and drawn out. It is a difficult subject and not a lot of people have an answer to, but as of right now, it is the most fair solution we have.
The rules are more fair than they appear, but there needs to be some change. If two of the best minds in football agree that the NFL overtime rules could use some tweaking, we should probably listen. One of them was given a trip to the AFC Championship Game just two days ago by way of the current overtime rules of the NFL, and even he believes there are issues with those rules. He fell victim to that ruleset when he and his quarterback lost to Tom Brady and the Pats in overtime, but his point still stands.
If you are one of the people who think changing the overtime rules between the regular season and playoffs is stupid, get a life. Go outside and look at the grass. The rules in the playoffs are different since teams can tie. There are different overtime rules in multiple American pro sports leagues.
For the past two seasons, the regular season in MLB has featured an extra-inning format that puts a runner in scoring position at the start of every half-inning. In the playoffs, teams return to traditional extra-inning rules.
If a winner is not decided in the overtime period, the teams play 3-on-3 hockey followed by a shootout. They play 20-minute periods at 5-on-5 until a goal is scored.
I haven't heard of any complaints about the NHL's change in format or the MLB's format being unfair to visiting teams.
The playoffs are separate from the regular season in every sport. The Atlanta Braves can win the World Series even though they have the worst record in the playoffs. It's okay to have different rules to make the game more fair. It is time for the NFL to adopt that mentality.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
