I like current overtime rules.

I've seen countless OT games where the first team to receive the ball either settles for a FG or gets stopped completely, giving the next team the ball anyway.

I'm also good with the 10min time. If the first team to possess the ball burns a lot of clock and settles for a FG,, then the second team to get the ball may have decisions to make scoring-wise if time is limited. It's cool with me.

College OT sucks, I have always hated that JMO.

An NFL defense (especially in a playoff game) should be accountable to force a FG or stop. GET A STOP.

Defense apparantly doesnt matter anymore. We are just discussing ways to let both offenses get 1 try each in overtime, n then praise defense if they stop the team AFTER theyve had their overtime turn smh. Partcipation trophy ppl i see.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

---

Season Tix, Section 409

2023 and still counting.....SB will finally be ours soon enough.
TLaw aka 'the prince that was promised' supporter.

I said above that getting the ball first in overtime only increases your win percentage by 6%.
That's true if you include both regular season and playoff games.
But if you only look at the postseason, the team that gets the ball first has won 10 out of 11 times.
That is absolutely ridiculous.
To have your chances of winning go from 10% to 90% based on one coin flip.
I still think eliminating the coin flip is a good solution. We could say that the team that received the second half kickoff has to kick to start overtime, or we could say that the team that scored last has to kick to start overtime. That way there wouldn't be these wild swings and who is most likely to win coming from a coin toss.

Agree. There should only be 1 coin flip. Whoever recieves to start the 2nd half has to kick off to start the OT. Factors in the initial decision to kick/recieve.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

I like current overtime rules.

I've seen countless OT games where the first team to receive the ball either settles for a FG or gets stopped completely, giving the next team the ball anyway.

I'm also good with the 10min time. If the first team to possess the ball burns a lot of clock and settles for a FG,, then the second team to get the ball may have decisions to make scoring-wise if time is limited. It's cool with me.

College OT sucks, I have always hated that JMO.

An NFL defense (especially in a playoff game) should be accountable to force a FG or stop. GET A STOP.

Sure, hold the defenses accountable. So you should agree it's a problem when, in 7 out of 11 playoff games, one of the two defenses never even got on the field!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I like current overtime rules.

I've seen countless OT games where the first team to receive the ball either settles for a FG or gets stopped completely, giving the next team the ball anyway.

I'm also good with the 10min time. If the first team to possess the ball burns a lot of clock and settles for a FG,, then the second team to get the ball may have decisions to make scoring-wise if time is limited. It's cool with me.

College OT sucks, I have always hated that JMO.

An NFL defense (especially in a playoff game) should be accountable to force a FG or stop. GET A STOP.

Sure, hold the defenses accountable. So you should agree it's a problem when, in 7 out of 11 playoff games, one of the two defenses never even got on the field!

We hear u but one offense winning the game because one defense didnt stop them helps their defense. Offense rests defense and also scores to make it easier to play defense and call defense. If the objective is TD wins the game an defense is suspect u play to win. If u want 70 plus scoring games just say that at this point

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

---

Season Tix, Section 409

2023 and still counting.....SB will finally be ours soon enough.
TLaw aka 'the prince that was promised' supporter.

Sure, hold the defenses accountable. So you should agree it's a problem when, in 7 out of 11 playoff games, one of the two defenses never even got on the field!

We hear u but one offense winning the game because one defense didnt stop them helps their defense.  Offense rests defense and also scores to make it easier to play defense and call defense.  If the objective is TD wins the game an defense is suspect u play to win.  If u want 70 plus scoring games just say that at this point

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

I agree Buffalo could have done more to avoid overtime, but on the flip side, did KC really earn that win, given that the coin flip basically gave it to them? If Buffalo got the ball first, they probably would have won.

I definitely don't want 70 points a game.  I don't want college OT rules.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

We hear u but one offense winning the game because one defense didnt stop them helps their defense.  Offense rests defense and also scores to make it easier to play defense and call defense.  If the objective is TD wins the game an defense is suspect u play to win.  If u want 70 plus scoring games just say that at this point

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

I agree Buffalo could have done more to avoid overtime, but on the flip side, did KC really earn that win, given that the coin flip basically gave it to them? If Buffalo got the ball first, they probably would have won.

I definitely don't want 70 points a game.  I don't want college OT rules.

i dont see a medium that would be fair to both sides outside of match, beat, and then sudden death. team scores 3 or 7 and u either tie or beat. if you tie then sudden death so next score wins.

Even with that though, if defenses are bad ppl will still say one team had 2 opportunities and the other had 1.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

---

Season Tix, Section 409

2023 and still counting.....SB will finally be ours soon enough.
TLaw aka 'the prince that was promised' supporter.

A couple things or so...

I absolutely hate college overtime.  If I'm watching a game that goes to overtime, I typically turn it off.  It is horrid that a 14-14 slugfest could end up a 37-35 shootout after overtime... gross.

I believe the current overtime rules are just fine, although it annoys me they shortened it to 10 minutes for regular season games.  The NFL has been continually looking for ways to shorten the game for decades, all the while raising the crap out of ticket prices and stadium vending prices.  We continue to pay more for less.

Mikesez, that 21% analogy just might be the worst analogy in the history of analogies.  yuk!

I'd go a step further and say no OT in regular season.

I'm perfectly happy with sudden death OT. You've already played 60 minutes in an attempt to establish yourself as the victor. If teams are discontent with decisions resting on a coin flip, maybe we explore ways to offset that? Maybe best of 3 flips to determine who gets to make the election to kick, receive, defend a goal, or defer?

---

The rule should be that each team gets the ball and has to match the other teams score to win. So if they keep scoring, the other team gets to try also. The focus is too much on the offense now, so the team winning the coin toss is at a big advantage. That gives the defense a chance to play aggressive and try to win the game as opposed to sitting back and trying to stop a TD. Then if your defense is good and stops them, you are rewarded with a short field for a FG win.

Presently a defensive score on the first possession ends the game, thus rewarding a good defense. Your matching plan would only apply if a FG or TD were scored.

If they do this, then I want it to be one-to-one match. You start on the same yard line as the scoring team started their drive, and your clock is now the total time elapsed on the scoring drive.

If you want to mix it up, allow for the scoring team to kickoff, but the rule is that the drive starts from either the spot the return is downed or the other team's drive starting line, whichever is closer to the end zone. This would allow a team with a great returner not to have an advantage neutralized.

From then on, you continue aiming to match scores while trying to beat the clock established by the opposing team. Eventually a defense will get a stop, a penalty will kill a drive, a FG will be missed at the buzzer, or a team makes a jaw-dropping play to secure the victory.

It would still reward a potent offense, but it would also encourage them to have a sense of urgency about the time they are on the field and between plays. Could you imagine an entire OT played like a two-minute drill?

---

I'm just saying, it's pretty poopy when a coin flip influences the outcome of an athletic contest!

---

I agree, I would be fine with no overtime in the regular season.

Same here.  Ties make positioning for the playoffs more interesting.  And the Players Association would love it from the perspective of shortning the game.  Vegas oddsmakers would probably hate it tho.

You misspelled fantasy football fans and agents representing players with stats-based incentives in their contracts

---

I said above that getting the ball first in overtime only increases your win percentage by 6%.
That's true if you include both regular season and playoff games.
But if you only look at the postseason, the team that gets the ball first has won 10 out of 11 times.
That is absolutely ridiculous.
To have your chances of winning go from 10% to 90% based on one coin flip.
I still think eliminating the coin flip is a good solution. We could say that the team that received the second half kickoff has to kick to start overtime, or we could say that the team that scored last has to kick to start overtime. That way there wouldn't be these wild swings and who is most likely to win coming from a coin toss.

Only 7 of those ten won on the first possession. So it's not nearly the jump you're saying it is.

This article cites 54% win rate for flip winners since regular season OT shrunk to 10 mins, but I haven't found a stat on how many of those wins were on the first possession. The same article also states that kicking teams have around 39% win rate since the OT was shortened in the regular season. 

So the difference from regular season to postseason is roughly 9% (54 to 63.63%), if we are crazy enough to assume that every regular season OT win was on the first possession.
36% of all postseason games have at least two possessions. That's practically identical to the regular season win rate for a coin toss loser; postseason OT coin toss is no less advantageous than in regular seasons. 

Let's also not forget that the visitor is the one who calls the toss. They are given the 50-50 shot to decide their own fate.

---

I said above that getting the ball first in overtime only increases your win percentage by 6%.
That's true if you include both regular season and playoff games.
But if you only look at the postseason, the team that gets the ball first has won 10 out of 11 times.
That is absolutely ridiculous.
To have your chances of winning go from 10% to 90% based on one coin flip.
I still think eliminating the coin flip is a good solution. We could say that the team that received the second half kickoff has to kick to start overtime, or we could say that the team that scored last has to kick to start overtime. That way there wouldn't be these wild swings and who is most likely to win coming from a coin toss.

Agree.  There should only be 1 coin flip.  Whoever recieves to start the 2nd half has to kick off to start the OT.  Factors in the initial decision to kick/recieve.

But how do you deal with the team that wins the toss, but elects to defer? You have four choices at the flip - kick, receive, defend a goal, or defer to the second half. Do they get to defer both second half AND OT? Now we're back to a coin flip giving an advantage.

I'd rather they just say at the end of regulation, treat the end of a quarter like the end of a quarter - switch endzones and reverse the field, play continues as normal. If a team was driving at the end of the game, they continue the drive in Q5.

---

We hear u but one offense winning the game because one defense didnt stop them helps their defense.  Offense rests defense and also scores to make it easier to play defense and call defense.  If the objective is TD wins the game an defense is suspect u play to win.  If u want 70 plus scoring games just say that at this point

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

I agree Buffalo could have done more to avoid overtime, but on the flip side, did KC really earn that win, given that the coin flip basically gave it to them? If Buffalo got the ball first, they probably would have won.

I definitely don't want 70 points a game.  I don't want college OT rules.

THEREIN LIES THE INTRIGUE OF SUDDEN DEATH
Josh Allen made the call. He missed. KC could have just as easily been undone by a holding call on their drive to force a punt, or the kickoff return fumbled, or any other possible outcome that didn't result in a Kelce touchdown.

At some point, though, a winner has to be declared in a postseason game. Do you keep letting QBs match each other until the refs make an iffy call the deciding factor in whether your season continues? Or play your guys to exhaustion, and fall flat in the game that could put you in the Super Bowl?

Every body on that field knew exactly what they were dealing with. It was a hard fought game, and a tough loss to swallow, but that's the stuff that fuels a rivalry. All offseason that entire team will be motivated by one thing, and that is getting back to the postseason, and then they'll be busting their hump to get wins before the final bell. Because again they will know that everything can be won or lost based on how a medallion tumbles off of a referee's thumb.

---

I said above that getting the ball first in overtime only increases your win percentage by 6%.
That's true if you include both regular season and playoff games.
But if you only look at the postseason, the team that gets the ball first has won 10 out of 11 times.
That is absolutely ridiculous.
To have your chances of winning go from 10% to 90% based on one coin flip.
I still think eliminating the coin flip is a good solution. We could say that the team that received the second half kickoff has to kick to start overtime, or we could say that the team that scored last has to kick to start overtime. That way there wouldn't be these wild swings and who is most likely to win coming from a coin toss.

Agree.  There should only be 1 coin flip.  Whoever recieves to start the 2nd half has to kick off to start the OT.  Factors in the initial decision to kick/recieve.

Every single coach would take the ball first to start the game which would mean they get the ball first in overtime if it comes to that.  It wouldn’t be just a factor, it would be the only factor.

---

I agree Buffalo could have done more to avoid overtime, but on the flip side, did KC really earn that win, given that the coin flip basically gave it to them? If Buffalo got the ball first, they probably would have won.

I definitely don't want 70 points a game.  I don't want college OT rules.

THEREIN LIES THE INTRIGUE OF SUDDEN DEATH
Josh Allen made the call. He missed. KC could have just as easily been undone by a holding call on their drive to force a punt, or the kickoff return fumbled, or any other possible outcome that didn't result in a Kelce touchdown.

At some point, though, a winner has to be declared in a postseason game. Do you keep letting QBs match each other until the refs make an iffy call the deciding factor in whether your season continues? Or play your guys to exhaustion, and fall flat in the game that could put you in the Super Bowl?

Every body on that field knew exactly what they were dealing with. It was a hard fought game, and a tough loss to swallow, but that's the stuff that fuels a rivalry. All offseason that entire team will be motivated by one thing, and that is getting back to the postseason, and then they'll be busting their hump to get wins before the final bell. Because again they will know that everything can be won or lost based on how a medallion tumbles off of a referee's thumb.

Josh Allen is an elite athlete.  I want to see him win or lose based on his athletic efforts.  Not his ability to call a coin in the air.

---

Agree.  There should only be 1 coin flip.  Whoever recieves to start the 2nd half has to kick off to start the OT.  Factors in the initial decision to kick/recieve.

But how do you deal with the team that wins the toss, but elects to defer? You have four choices at the flip - kick, receive, defend a goal, or defer to the second half. Do they get to defer both second half AND OT? Now we're back to a coin flip giving an advantage.

I'd rather they just say at the end of regulation, treat the end of a quarter like the end of a quarter - switch endzones and reverse the field, play continues as normal. If a team was driving at the end of the game, they continue the drive in Q5.

You're overthinking it.  Forget about coin tosses. Forget about deferring. We are saying whoever got the ball first in the second half, does not get the ball first in OT.  Simplify it further.  Make the rule that the teams have to switch sides, or make the rule that they have to stay on the same side they were on in the 4th quarter.  Who will be on which side in OT, and who will get the ball, should be determined when the second half starts.  Not when OT starts.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I said above that getting the ball first in overtime only increases your win percentage by 6%.
That's true if you include both regular season and playoff games.
But if you only look at the postseason, the team that gets the ball first has won 10 out of 11 times.
That is absolutely ridiculous.
To have your chances of winning go from 10% to 90% based on one coin flip.
I still think eliminating the coin flip is a good solution. We could say that the team that received the second half kickoff has to kick to start overtime, or we could say that the team that scored last has to kick to start overtime. That way there wouldn't be these wild swings and who is most likely to win coming from a coin toss.

Only 7 of those ten won on the first possession. So it's not nearly the jump you're saying it is.

This article cites 54% win rate for flip winners since regular season OT shrunk to 10 mins, but I haven't found a stat on how many of those wins were on the first possession. The same article also states that kicking teams have around 39% win rate since the OT was shortened in the regular season. 

So the difference from regular season to postseason is roughly 9% (54 to 63.63%), if we are crazy enough to assume that every regular season OT win was on the first possession.
36% of all postseason games have at least two possessions. That's practically identical to the regular season win rate for a coin toss loser; postseason OT coin toss is no less advantageous than in regular seasons. 

Let's also not forget that the visitor is the one who calls the toss. They are given the 50-50 shot to decide their own fate.

Fans might be more upset about one team not getting the ball, but logically we should be equally upset if the coin toss is influencing the outcome, regardless of how many times the ball changes hands.  Even if you only count games decided by a TD on the first drive, I think letting a coin flip increase your chances of winning from 37% to 63% is NUTS! This is an athletic competition.  Deciding who goes first by tug of war or arm wrestling would make more sense than a coin flip!

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I just had another idea. Change nothing about overtime, except replace the OT coin toss with a kicking contest. The two kickers line up on the same goal line. Whoever kicks the ball to a farther yard marker, gets the ball first. Out of bounds kicks count as 0 yards.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I agree Buffalo could have done more to avoid overtime, but on the flip side, did KC really earn that win, given that the coin flip basically gave it to them? If Buffalo got the ball first, they probably would have won.

I definitely don't want 70 points a game.  I don't want college OT rules.

THEREIN LIES THE INTRIGUE OF SUDDEN DEATH
Josh Allen made the call. He missed. KC could have just as easily been undone by a holding call on their drive to force a punt, or the kickoff return fumbled, or any other possible outcome that didn't result in a Kelce touchdown.

At some point, though, a winner has to be declared in a postseason game. Do you keep letting QBs match each other until the refs make an iffy call the deciding factor in whether your season continues? Or play your guys to exhaustion, and fall flat in the game that could put you in the Super Bowl?

Every body on that field knew exactly what they were dealing with. It was a hard fought game, and a tough loss to swallow, but that's the stuff that fuels a rivalry. All offseason that entire team will be motivated by one thing, and that is getting back to the postseason, and then they'll be busting their hump to get wins before the final bell. Because again they will know that everything can be won or lost based on how a medallion tumbles off of a referee's thumb.

The refs were barely calling any penalties in the game lol...  How refreshing was that??!  On top of it being one of the most incredible games I've ever seen, the refs stayed out of the way!
I would have liked to see Josh Allen win that game (just him - I like the Chiefs much more than the Bills), just because he is such an incredible talent and it would have been nice to see him get a turn.

---

Just play the full 15 minutes of overtime. Then 15 more if you need it. Until you don't.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

THEREIN LIES THE INTRIGUE OF SUDDEN DEATH
Josh Allen made the call. He missed. KC could have just as easily been undone by a holding call on their drive to force a punt, or the kickoff return fumbled, or any other possible outcome that didn't result in a Kelce touchdown.

At some point, though, a winner has to be declared in a postseason game. Do you keep letting QBs match each other until the refs make an iffy call the deciding factor in whether your season continues? Or play your guys to exhaustion, and fall flat in the game that could put you in the Super Bowl?

Every body on that field knew exactly what they were dealing with. It was a hard fought game, and a tough loss to swallow, but that's the stuff that fuels a rivalry. All offseason that entire team will be motivated by one thing, and that is getting back to the postseason, and then they'll be busting their hump to get wins before the final bell. Because again they will know that everything can be won or lost based on how a medallion tumbles off of a referee's thumb.

Josh Allen is an elite athlete.  I want to see him win or lose based on his athletic efforts.  Not his ability to call a coin in the air.

---

But how do you deal with the team that wins the toss, but elects to defer? You have four choices at the flip - kick, receive, defend a goal, or defer to the second half. Do they get to defer both second half AND OT? Now we're back to a coin flip giving an advantage.

I'd rather they just say at the end of regulation, treat the end of a quarter like the end of a quarter - switch endzones and reverse the field, play continues as normal. If a team was driving at the end of the game, they continue the drive in Q5.

You're overthinking it.  Forget about coin tosses. Forget about deferring. We are saying whoever got the ball first in the second half, does not get the ball first in OT.  Simplify it further.  Make the rule that the teams have to switch sides, or make the rule that they have to stay on the same side they were on in the 4th quarter.  Who will be on which side in OT, and who will get the ball, should be determined when the second half starts.  Not when OT starts.

Not to be that guy, but there are too many loopholes no matter what changes. Hell if thats the case, why tie from the 20 when time expires. Depending on if down stays the same, no more running to the hash etc for fg accuracy. get the 1st n let time expire. Either way ur changing the game n messing with the product. new playcalls, new strategy, new game.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

---

Season Tix, Section 409

2023 and still counting.....SB will finally be ours soon enough.
TLaw aka 'the prince that was promised' supporter.

I have an idea:

1. There is no second coin toss at the beginning of OT. The coin toss at the beginning of the game is the same toss used to determine who gets first choice at the beginning of OT. That way during the end game decisions, the coaches already have that knowledge affecting their strategy. It is like more high stakes version of the end of the first 1st half game strategy.

2. The choice at the beginning of OT is (1) where on the field the ball is placed to start ; then (2) To receive or kick. (The Ravens proposal basically)

3. Instead of regular kick offs, you do the safety punt/kick thing. That way kicking from odd starting points can more easily pin people deep in their zone.

4. Team that starts playing defense is assured a possession even if the first possession ends in an offensive score.

5. After each team gets 1 offensive possession, it becomes sudden death.

---

I read a suggestion on another comments thread, that rather than do a coin toss you could give possession to the home team. Would add marginally to home field advantage and reward the better regular season team in the playoffs. Would also have all the benefits listed above of teams knowing what they need etc.

The only minor issue would be the Super Bowl but you could still do it on regular season record and if that's tied, I'm sure there's tie breakers that could be brought in.

---