After last night, the team that wins the toss won 10 out of 12 games.  That's far from "just fine."

But now the "scores a TD on first possession" is down to 7/12, only 58.3%, which shows that as sample size grows, the percentage is regressing to the mean (54%).

Teams are always trying to win, and they don't care how they win.  Getting a TD on the first possession counts the same as an FG on the 2nd.
If we are going to deliberately introduce a random event, a coin toss, into the end of a game, we should look at the win/loss record of a team that wins the coin toss, regardless of how they eventually win the game.

---

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

Well, this thread aged well (only took 1 week), Lol!

Guess what,
- KC got the ball first
- Bengals Defense came up huge with a stop/turnover
- Bengals drive and kick a FG for trip to the Superbowl

Poor KC, and suck it Buffalo (supposed to be the best defense in the conference?).

OT rules are just fine.

After last night, the team that wins the toss won 10 out of 12 games.  That's far from "just fine."

That’s a cherry picked small sample.  Overtime is overtime.

---

Don't be fatuous.

Do you honestly think the league is going to decide a game on a next-to-zero skill event?
Regardless of the coin toss outcome, both teams still have to take the field and perform to get the win.
I mean, if you just want to decide an outcome, two balls in a hopper, lotto style. first ball out wins. FOOTBALL AT ITS BEST

I think you misunderstood.
My idea is to replace *only the coin flip* with a quick skill competition.
They would still play regular 11 on 11 football after that, with first TD wins.

I think the skill comp is kinda silly.  A long 3 hour game ends in a tie, let’s just get on with the game and determining a winner please.  I think a 5 minute or 10 minute or whatever sideshow is unnecessary and getting away from the game.  

And whatever the particular skill is provides the team with the top players of that specific skill the ball first in most if not all overtime situations?  You’re selling me harder on the coin flip here.

---

After last night, the team that wins the toss won 10 out of 12 games.  That's far from "just fine."

That’s a cherry picked small sample.  Overtime is overtime.

Cherry picked? "All playoff games since the last rules change" is not cherry picking.  I'm taking all the data available.  I'm not including regular season because a team might play for a tie in the regular season.

---

I think you misunderstood.
My idea is to replace *only the coin flip* with a quick skill competition.
They would still play regular 11 on 11 football after that, with first TD wins.

I think the skill comp is kinda silly.  A long 3 hour game ends in a tie, let’s just get on with the game and determining a winner please.  I think a 5 minute or 10 minute or whatever sideshow is unnecessary and getting away from the game.  

And whatever the particular skill is provides the team with the top players of that specific skill the ball first in most if not all overtime situations?  You’re selling me harder on the coin flip here.

It is silly.  But less silly than a coin flip. "If you want the ball first, get the best kicker/punter/QB" is a much better answer than, "Let's leave it up to luck".

---

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

Think about the old rules.
From 1994 to 2010, the team that won the coin toss won 59.8% of the time, 34.4% on the first possession.
The 2010 rules change was supposed to make it harder to win on the first possession.
It didn't.
It made it easier to win on the first possession, and easier to win if you win the coin toss overall.
It is a failed rules change and they need to go back to the drawing board.
Look up the NFL.com article from the time. Dated March 23, 2010

---

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

Don't be fatuous.

Do you honestly think the league is going to decide a game on a next-to-zero skill event?
Regardless of the coin toss outcome, both teams still have to take the field and perform to get the win.
I mean, if you just want to decide an outcome, two balls in a hopper, lotto style. first ball out wins. FOOTBALL AT ITS BEST

I think you misunderstood.
My idea is to replace *only the coin flip* with a quick skill competition.
They would still play regular 11 on 11 football after that, with first TD wins.

rock, paper, scissors it is.

---

But now the "scores a TD on first possession" is down to 7/12, only 58.3%, which shows that as sample size grows, the percentage is regressing to the mean (54%).

Teams are always trying to win, and they don't care how they win.  Getting a TD on the first possession counts the same as an FG on the 2nd.
If we are going to deliberately introduce a random event, a coin toss, into the end of a game, we should look at the win/loss record of a team that wins the coin toss, regardless of how they eventually win the game.

but your argument was that the coin flip is a near-automatic failure for the loser. what significance is the coin flip if both teams have their chance to score? At that point, the coin flip was a moot point. Once both teams possess the ball, the supposed advantage of winning the toss goes away.

Given that we're only working with 12 games in over a decade makes the reliability of any percentage extremely suspect.

---

Think about the old rules.
From 1994 to 2010, the team that won the coin toss won 59.8% of the time, 34.4% on the first possession.
The 2010 rules change was supposed to make it harder to win on the first possession.
It didn't.
It made it easier to win on the first possession, and easier to win if you win the coin toss overall.
It is a failed rules change and they need to go back to the drawing board.
Look up the NFL.com article from the time.  Dated March 23, 2010

Does that 59%/34% include regular season, though?

The article I previously cited confirmed that the win rate since the rule change was 52% since the rule changed in 2010. Since regular season OT was reduced to 10 mins (2017), that number only increased to 54%. The article failed to state how many were won on the first possession, though.

So, it appears that the win rate DID decrease due to the rules change, both before and after the OT time was modified. If the 2010 stat includes regular season, you can't project the current 12-game sample of current rule OT games to say whether or not a significant change occurred.

---

Teams are always trying to win, and they don't care how they win.  Getting a TD on the first possession counts the same as an FG on the 2nd.
If we are going to deliberately introduce a random event, a coin toss, into the end of a game, we should look at the win/loss record of a team that wins the coin toss, regardless of how they eventually win the game.

but your argument was that the coin flip is a near-automatic failure for the loser. what significance is the coin flip if both teams have their chance to score? At that point, the coin flip was a moot point. Once both teams possess the ball, the supposed advantage of winning the toss goes away.

Given that we're only working with 12 games in over a decade makes the reliability of any percentage extremely suspect.

The bolded above is wrong.  Common belief, but wrong. 
Even if you include the statistics from the regular season, when teams might play for a tie, coin flips starting overtime are never moot.  The advantage goes down, but it's still there.  It doesn't go all the way down to 50-50 like it should.
The team that goes second might have the same number of possessions, or one less, but never one more.  That's why there a durable statistical advantage for the team going first in OT that never goes away no matter how you cherry pick the data.  Even if you apply a "play til the end of the overtime period" rule, the advantage remains.

So, if you want to stop play when the clock goes to zero, and then restart it, there are only three fair choices:
1) do college overtime rules, guaranteeing an equal number of possessions for each team regardless
2) set up a new "penalty kicks" type situation to determine the winner, again each team gets the same number of chances at whatever the thing is,
3) do a quick "penalty kick" or "skills competition" between the two teams just to replace the coin flip, then play 11 on 11 with sudden death.

(1) takes the longest with the most contact
(2) has no contact at all, could be quick, but doesn't feel like football
(3) has the same amount of contact as today's rules, still ends with 11 on 11 scoring plays, takes about the same amount of time, and eliminates the unfairness.

---

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

but your argument was that the coin flip is a near-automatic failure for the loser. what significance is the coin flip if both teams have their chance to score? At that point, the coin flip was a moot point. Once both teams possess the ball, the supposed advantage of winning the toss goes away.

Given that we're only working with 12 games in over a decade makes the reliability of any percentage extremely suspect.

The bolded above is wrong.  Common belief, but wrong. 
Even if you include the statistics from the regular season, when teams might play for a tie, coin flips starting overtime are never moot.  The advantage goes down, but it's still there.  It doesn't go all the way down to 50-50 like it should.
The team that goes second might have the same number of possessions, or one less, but never one more.  That's why there a durable statistical advantage for the team going first in OT that never goes away no matter how you cherry pick the data.  Even if you apply a "play til the end of the overtime period" rule, the advantage remains.

So, there are only three fair choices in light of this:
1) do college overtime rules, guaranteeing an equal number of possessions for each team regardless
2) set up a new "penalty kicks" type situation to determine the winner, again each team gets the same number of chances at whatever the thing is,
3) do a quick "penalty kick" or "skills competition" between the two teams just to replace the coin flip, then play 11 on 11 with sudden death.

(1) takes the longest with the most contact
(2) has no contact at all, could be quick, but doesn't feel like football
(3) has the same amount of contact as today's rules, still ends with 11 on 11 scoring plays, takes about the same amount of time, and eliminates the unfairness.

That's ridiculous, it's not wrong it's absolutely correct.  Once both teams have had the ball and a chance to score it is irrelevant.  The only time it is relevant is if the team that wins the toss goes righ down for a touchdown.  Pardon me, but your suggestions are asinine.

I've got three equally viable solutions.
1) Let the best speakers on the team have a debate.
2) Maybe a swimsuit competition between the most fit players
3) Arm-wrestling

---

The bolded above is wrong.  Common belief, but wrong. 
Even if you include the statistics from the regular season, when teams might play for a tie, coin flips starting overtime are never moot.  The advantage goes down, but it's still there.  It doesn't go all the way down to 50-50 like it should.
The team that goes second might have the same number of possessions, or one less, but never one more.  That's why there a durable statistical advantage for the team going first in OT that never goes away no matter how you cherry pick the data.  Even if you apply a "play til the end of the overtime period" rule, the advantage remains.

So, there are only three fair choices in light of this:
1) do college overtime rules, guaranteeing an equal number of possessions for each team regardless
2) set up a new "penalty kicks" type situation to determine the winner, again each team gets the same number of chances at whatever the thing is,
3) do a quick "penalty kick" or "skills competition" between the two teams just to replace the coin flip, then play 11 on 11 with sudden death.

(1) takes the longest with the most contact
(2) has no contact at all, could be quick, but doesn't feel like football
(3) has the same amount of contact as today's rules, still ends with 11 on 11 scoring plays, takes about the same amount of time, and eliminates the unfairness.

That's ridiculous, it's not wrong it's absolutely correct.  Once both teams have had the ball and a chance to score it is irrelevant.  The only time it is relevant is if the team that wins the toss goes righ down for a touchdown.  Pardon me, but your suggestions are asinine.

I've got three equally viable solutions.
1) Let the best speakers on the team have a debate.
2) Maybe a swimsuit competition between the most fit players
3) Arm-wrestling

You're absolutely wrong. You have decided in your own mind that becomes fair and stays fair as soon as the second team touches the ball. But that is incorrect. It might be fair while the second team has the ball, but it becomes unfair again once the first team gets the ball back. When one team has the ball more times than the other, that team has an advantage. If the advantage comes from luck, it is an unfair advantage. If the advantage comes from skill or strategy, it is a fair advantage.

As for your suggestions, the first two are non-athletic and subjective, so they don't belong in a sporting event, and even if they did, they would only create more controversy. The last one would actually work, even though contact is involved.  I'll do you one better. Each team brings out one lineman. The linemen face each other, one football length apart. The referee holds a football on a stick between them.  The ball is halfway between the 50 yard line and the 45 yard line and halfway between the hash marks.  The same football on a stick you see them using during d-line drills. The visiting team gets to decide if the referee stands with the stick to his right or to his left. Both linemen get in a two-point stance. When the ball moves, the linemen charge at each other.  If you go down, you lose. If you get called for holding, you lose.  If you step beyond the 5 yard line behind you, you lose. If you step beyond the hash marks, you lose. If you reach the other guy's 5 yard line, you win.  It's a gridiron version of sumo wrestling.
Ridiculous? Sure. Better than a coin flip? Absolutely. Want the ball first? Send our your strongest guy and get it.

---

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

That's ridiculous, it's not wrong it's absolutely correct.  Once both teams have had the ball and a chance to score it is irrelevant.  The only time it is relevant is if the team that wins the toss goes righ down for a touchdown.  Pardon me, but your suggestions are asinine.

I've got three equally viable solutions.
1) Let the best speakers on the team have a debate.
2) Maybe a swimsuit competition between the most fit players
3) Arm-wrestling

You're absolutely wrong. You have decided in your own mind that becomes fair and stays fair as soon as the second team touches the ball. But that is incorrect. It might be fair while the second team has the ball, but it becomes unfair again once the first team gets the ball back. When one team has the ball more times than the other, that team has an advantage. If the advantage comes from luck, it is an unfair advantage. If the advantage comes from skill or strategy, it is a fair advantage.

As for your suggestions, the first two are non-athletic and subjective, so they don't belong in a sporting event, and even if they did, they would only create more controversy. The last one would actually work, even though contact is involved.  I'll do you one better. Each team brings out one lineman. The linemen face each other, one football length apart. The referee holds a football on a stick between them.  The ball is halfway between the 50 yard line and the 45 yard line and halfway between the hash marks.  The same football on a stick you see them using during d-line drills. The visiting team gets to decide if the referee stands with the stick to his right or to his left. Both linemen get in a two-point stance. When the ball moves, the linemen charge at each other.  If you go down, you lose. If you get called for holding, you lose.  If you step beyond the 5 yard line behind you, you lose. If you step beyond the hash marks, you lose. If you reach the other guy's 5 yard line, you win.  It's a gridiron version of sumo wrestling.
Ridiculous? Sure.  Better than a coin flip? Absolutely.  Want the ball first? Send our your strongest guy and get it.

Well then why don't we change regulation since it's quite possible that one team will have the ball more?  After all it's 'unfair' if one team has the ball more than the other...right?

You're suggestions...and 'logic', I might add...are ridiculous.

---

You're absolutely wrong. You have decided in your own mind that becomes fair and stays fair as soon as the second team touches the ball. But that is incorrect. It might be fair while the second team has the ball, but it becomes unfair again once the first team gets the ball back. When one team has the ball more times than the other, that team has an advantage. If the advantage comes from luck, it is an unfair advantage. If the advantage comes from skill or strategy, it is a fair advantage.

As for your suggestions, the first two are non-athletic and subjective, so they don't belong in a sporting event, and even if they did, they would only create more controversy. The last one would actually work, even though contact is involved.  I'll do you one better. Each team brings out one lineman. The linemen face each other, one football length apart. The referee holds a football on a stick between them.  The ball is halfway between the 50 yard line and the 45 yard line and halfway between the hash marks.  The same football on a stick you see them using during d-line drills. The visiting team gets to decide if the referee stands with the stick to his right or to his left. Both linemen get in a two-point stance. When the ball moves, the linemen charge at each other.  If you go down, you lose. If you get called for holding, you lose.  If you step beyond the 5 yard line behind you, you lose. If you step beyond the hash marks, you lose. If you reach the other guy's 5 yard line, you win.  It's a gridiron version of sumo wrestling.
Ridiculous? Sure.  Better than a coin flip? Absolutely.  Want the ball first? Send our your strongest guy and get it.

Well then why don't we change regulation since it's quite possible that one team will have the ball more?  After all it's 'unfair' if one team has the ball more than the other...right?

You're suggestions...and 'logic', I might add...are ridiculous.

In the first half, one team might get more possessions.
In the second half, the other team might get more possessions.
It balances out.
Was that not obvious?

---

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

but your argument was that the coin flip is a near-automatic failure for the loser. what significance is the coin flip if both teams have their chance to score? At that point, the coin flip was a moot point. Once both teams possess the ball, the supposed advantage of winning the toss goes away.

Given that we're only working with 12 games in over a decade makes the reliability of any percentage extremely suspect.

The bolded above is wrong.  Common belief, but wrong. 
Even if you include the statistics from the regular season, when teams might play for a tie, coin flips starting overtime are never moot.  The advantage goes down, but it's still there.  It doesn't go all the way down to 50-50 like it should.
The team that goes second might have the same number of possessions, or one less, but never one more.  That's why there a durable statistical advantage for the team going first in OT that never goes away no matter how you cherry pick the data.  Even if you apply a "play til the end of the overtime period" rule, the advantage remains.

So, if you want to stop play when the clock goes to zero, and then restart it, there are only three fair choices:
1) do college overtime rules, guaranteeing an equal number of possessions for each team regardless
2) set up a new "penalty kicks" type situation to determine the winner, again each team gets the same number of chances at whatever the thing is,
3) do a quick "penalty kick" or "skills competition" between the two teams just to replace the coin flip, then play 11 on 11 with sudden death.

(1) takes the longest with the most contact
(2) has no contact at all, could be quick, but doesn't feel like football
(3) has the same amount of contact as today's rules, still ends with 11 on 11 scoring plays, takes about the same amount of time, and eliminates the unfairness.

The team that goes second had every chance to score on their possession that the team that won the toss (and elected to receive) did. At some point you have to accept that either the losing team is not good enough to win, or some conspiratorial force intervened to force them out of the game.

I think at this point you're arguing just for the sake of argument. Every one of your proposals can easily be skewed out of 50-50 fairness
1) Field conditions can vary from one side of the field to the other; Lighting, wind, stadium design (see especially bowl games in baseball stadia) can all sway how a team plays on its possession. You still have to decide who starts each series; going second can be considered an advantage, as you know exactly what you have to do to stay alive.
2) Teams with star QB, or talent advantage on offense/defense are negated in this system. Good luck convincing a QB driven league to decide games solely on the foot of a kicker.
3) How do you determine which skill to compete in? If your best player is an RB, do you deserve a lesser shot at the so-called advantage to be gained by winning if the competition is "throw a ball through a tire"? If your team is built on short, quick passes and not throwing a ball over them mountains, does a distance throw give you equal shot at the advantage?

Here's the biggest thing. A coin fits in the ref's pocket, and a flip's outcome is resolved within half a minute during most game telecasts. If you go with skills competitions, you likely have a set of props that have to be on the field in case they are needed. If you go to kickers only, or adopt the college model, you've completely altered gameplay or greatly prolonged a random event just to get the game restarted. The lack of significant improvement to the system combined with prolonging the game even further makes all three options likely a non-starter.

---

That's ridiculous, it's not wrong it's absolutely correct.  Once both teams have had the ball and a chance to score it is irrelevant.  The only time it is relevant is if the team that wins the toss goes righ down for a touchdown.  Pardon me, but your suggestions are asinine.

I've got three equally viable solutions.
1) Let the best speakers on the team have a debate.
2) Maybe a swimsuit competition between the most fit players
3) Arm-wrestling

You're absolutely wrong. You have decided in your own mind that becomes fair and stays fair as soon as the second team touches the ball. But that is incorrect. It might be fair while the second team has the ball, but it becomes unfair again once the first team gets the ball back. When one team has the ball more times than the other, that team has an advantage. If the advantage comes from luck, it is an unfair advantage. If the advantage comes from skill or strategy, it is a fair advantage.

As for your suggestions, the first two are non-athletic and subjective, so they don't belong in a sporting event, and even if they did, they would only create more controversy. The last one would actually work, even though contact is involved.  I'll do you one better. Each team brings out one lineman. The linemen face each other, one football length apart. The referee holds a football on a stick between them.  The ball is halfway between the 50 yard line and the 45 yard line and halfway between the hash marks.  The same football on a stick you see them using during d-line drills. The visiting team gets to decide if the referee stands with the stick to his right or to his left. Both linemen get in a two-point stance. When the ball moves, the linemen charge at each other.  If you go down, you lose. If you get called for holding, you lose.  If you step beyond the 5 yard line behind you, you lose. If you step beyond the hash marks, you lose. If you reach the other guy's 5 yard line, you win.  It's a gridiron version of sumo wrestling.
Ridiculous? Sure.  Better than a coin flip? Absolutely.  Want the ball first? Send our your strongest guy and get it.

The teams rely on luck to start each game, too.
The teams rely on skill and strategy to end up deadlocked at the end of regulation.
Your suggestion is foolish. The NFLPA and the league would have to get behind that, and poses a lot more risk of injury in a non-game event than would be necessary to simply establish rights to elect to recieve the ball to start OT. Again, this is grasping at straws, and requires props that are not normally part of the game.

---

Well then why don't we change regulation since it's quite possible that one team will have the ball more?  After all it's 'unfair' if one team has the ball more than the other...right?

You're suggestions...and 'logic', I might add...are ridiculous.

In the first half, one team might get more possessions.
In the second half, the other team might get more possessions.
It balances out.
Was that not obvious?

"might."
what if it doesn't? Do we have to continue playing until possessions equalize?

---

Well then why don't we change regulation since it's quite possible that one team will have the ball more?  After all it's 'unfair' if one team has the ball more than the other...right?

You're suggestions...and 'logic', I might add...are ridiculous.

In the first half, one team might get more possessions.
In the second half, the other team might get more possessions.
It balances out.
Was that not obvious?

Obvious?  You still didn't answer my question.  All you said is something might happen.  What if it doesn't?  Isn't that unfair by your 'logic'?

---

Personally, I'd like to see both teams have to play the entire OT period. Remove the sudden death. But since NFLPA isnt going to have that, then eliminate the '1st to score a TD wins'. Each team gets one or more possessions regardless ot the type of score. Flip the coin just to give the winner of the flip the choice to recieve or defend. Everything will work itself out from there.

---

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

In the first half, one team might get more possessions.
In the second half, the other team might get more possessions.
It balances out.
Was that not obvious?

Obvious?  You still didn't answer my question.  All you said is something might happen.  What if it doesn't?  Isn't that unfair by your 'logic'?

Considering that each half is 30 minutes long, the difference between having 4 possessions or 5 possessions in the first half is not significant, especially when there's an even chance that such an advantage gets cancelled out in the second half.
But OT is not that long.  A team typically gets 0, 1, or 2 possessions.  The differences at each threshold are significant.

---

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

Personally, I'd like to see both teams have to play the entire OT period.  Remove the sudden death.  But since NFLPA isnt going to have that, then eliminate the '1st to score a TD wins'.  Each team gets one or more possessions regardless ot the type of score.  Flip the coin just to give the winner of the flip the choice to recieve or defend.  Everything will work itself out from there.

The NFLPA won't go for that because it would be too easy for the teams to match each other score for score and make the game go on and on indefinitely. 

If you don't like sudden death, how about:
Each team gets 1 possession.  If the game is still tied after 1 possession each, go to field goals.  Each team attempts a 50 yarder.  If they both make it, they both try again from 55.  If they both miss, they both try again from 45.  Keep going until one makes it and one misses.  The NFLPA might go for that, though it is more contact than they have now.

Me, I like sudden death.  I just want a fair-er way to determine who gets the ball first.

---

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

Personally, I'd like to see both teams have to play the entire OT period.  Remove the sudden death.  But since NFLPA isnt going to have that, then eliminate the '1st to score a TD wins'.  Each team gets one or more possessions regardless ot the type of score.  Flip the coin just to give the winner of the flip the choice to recieve or defend.  Everything will work itself out from there.

The flaw in that is what if the 5th quarter also ends in a tie?  We’re going to have a 6th quarter in a playoff game?  Or then finally decide to do sudden death?  The rules as they stand are as fair as can be with a focus and understanding on also trying to wrap up the game quickly as well.

Edit: this is in response to the desire for a full fifth quarter.

---