Sudden Victory

The National Football League's overtime rules strike many as antiquated, ridiculous, unfair. Currently, after four quarters, if both teams are tied, the game moves to sudden death (though our politically correct society amends it to sudden victory). After an initial coin toss, where the visiting team calls while in mid-air, the first score wins the game. Note that both teams are not guaranteed a chance to go on offense. Also, note that a field goal is enough to guarantee a victory.

This has the effect of shrinking the field for overtime. Assume that the team starts on their own twenty-yard line. Rather than having to drive eighty yards for a touchdown, they only need fifty or so to have a fair chance at kicking a field goal, converting, and winning. There are plenty of teams that move the ball well in the middle of the field, then bog down in the red zone. Whether it is an anemic offense, or a defense that grows stouter the closer you get to the end zone, this changes your strategy, removes some pressure from the offense, increases it from the defense.

Contrast with the college football overtime rules (of which I am not so intimately familiar with). Each team will get at least one offensive possession. You start at the opponent's twenty-five yard line and have four downs to score. It is possible to pick up first downs. After each pair of offensive possessions, if the score is still tied, you move on to another overtime period. After two such overtime periods, if a team scores a touchdown, it is forced to attempt a two point conversion after a touchdown, as opposed to the traditional kick/point after touchdown. It creates some interesting wrinkles, but the most important part to everyone is that both teams get a chance to get the ball on offense.

I just watched the overtime period of the Colts and Chargers wild card playoff game, and the Chargers won on a touchdown by Darren Sproles. The Colts called the coin flip incorrectly, the Chargers took the ball on offense, and proceeded to score. In this case, they went for the touchdown, and they were also aided by a Colts defensive meltdown, as well as the referees being somewhat penalty flag happy. Still, you wonder what would have happened if the Colts could have gone back on offense. Peyton Manning had his helmet on during the latter half of the drive, as if anticipating the opportunity to carve up the Chargers defense. Alas, it was not meant to be.

The theory is that no one will change the overtime rules until an overtime game occurs during the AFC Championship game, NFC Championship game, or Super Bowl, and a team wins on their first offensive possession. As it stands, we have (relatively) plenty of overtime games that end on that first offensive possession, and oftentime, what really peeves people is that the game is won on the field goal. There are several popular ideas for amending overtime, such as forcing each team to get an offensive possession.

Looking at it, and especially after that game, I didn't have a problem so much with the Chargers winning on a touchdown; they at least went the length of the field. However, I could see that causing problems for others. An idea I've not read/heard before is a minimum required score for overtime. Therefore, I would like to propose (because I am so close with the rulesmakers in the National Football League) the following:

1. Each team gets at least one overtime possession.

2. In order to win, a team must have scored at least seven points in overtime.

3. If after the initial overtime possessions, if neither team has won, continue play until one team has scored seven points.

4. If the first overtime quarter expires, take an intermission and continue with a second overtime quarter. Repeat as necessary.

Is it perfect? No, but I've been thinking about this for a while now. Seven points is almost a given if you score a touchdown, and also requires that you score three field goals if you go that route. If a team gets the ball first, and kicks the field goal, the opposing team gets the ball, and they can go for a tie, or get the touchdown and end the game right there. There are still situations where teams would potentially trade field goals until the team that had first offensive overtime possession would win. However, both teams had plenty of chances to score touchdowns.

The advantage of this, it removes the increased power conferred upon field goals in overtime. I'm not disrespecting the kicking game, just noting that kicking to score is vastly different in nature from scoring via run/pass. It more closely reflects the game itself, even though there is now a new point total that must be met. Also, it would force a resolution on regular season games. There's nothing wrong with ties when your sample set is big, but we are talking about sixteen games per team per regular season here. Let them play it out, let them do their thing.

In the end, none of this will happen. The NFL is partly successful because of its conservatism. If you know what to expect, it's easier to accept. Note that this doesn't take into account the fact that many players don't know the minutiae of the rule book, but that's somewhat off topic. The key is to add some fairness to games, and the method I write about seems as close as any other to doing so.