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.

This is the only reasonable change.  Each team gets a possession, after that it's sudden death.

This evening out the possessions is just plain stupid.

---

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.

Good God you're ridiculous.  Then again I knew that from reading the political forum.

---

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.

This is the only reasonable change.  Each team gets a possession, after that it's sudden death.

This evening out the possessions is just plain stupid.

---

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.

Good God you're ridiculous.  Then again I knew that from reading the political forum.

Let's make it easy and let the Head Coaches arm wrestle for it !! Andy Reid vs Zac Taylor at the 50 yard line !

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

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.

Some fun facts about the KC-CIN playoff:

Cincy won the toss, and received.
Both teams had an even number of possessions in the first half (4-4) and KC ended the half with possession.
KC received the 2nd half kick and had as many possessions in Q3 (4) as they did in the entire first half.
At the end of regulation, KC had more possessions (11) than Cincy (10) in spite of losing the opening toss. Again, KC ended the half with possession.
In OT, we all know both teams had one possession each.

OT is 15 minutes, just like a regular quarter.
the possession breakdown by quarter? Glad you asked. CIN 2, 2, 3, 2, 1 KC 2, 2, 4, 2, 1 One of Cincy's drives was a one-and-done INT on first down.
So they were at a disadvantage by not gaining an extra possession in the first half when they received, and also when they lost the OT toss to give KC initial possession.

As KC proved in both regulation and OT, a possession guarantees nothing.
Winning the toss gives you only one advantage - the option to choose your fate. You still have to produce to benefit from the advantage. That's the beauty of football. Sometimes it works, sometimes it don't.

---

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.

How do you handle one team taking 9 minutes off the clock to score on their possession? Does the other team only get the remaining clock to score, or continue second OT so long as the possession continues?

So you're saying your ideal postseason outcome would look like this:
One possession by each team, even matched (whether that's 3 and outs, stalled drives, field goals or TD)
both kickers hit 50-yard tries
both kickers miss 55-yard tries
both kickers miss 50-yard tries
both kickers hit 45-yard tries
one kicker makes 50-yard try, other does not.

Do you not see how boring that would be as a spectator, player (non-special teams edition), or coach? And you still have to determine who kicks first each round, do you just give that to the visitor? Is that fair?
Strategy is gone. Your best players are not on the field making plays. The game becomes an exhausting repetition of boring kicks, and negates the entirety of the effort that led to the stalemate.

---

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.

If you are forced to a 6th quarter in a playoff game, then so be it. Your offense and/or defense didnt handle thier business soon enough in quarter 5 and let the game drag on without a winning outcome. if you win in qtr 6 and that hurts your chances next game, then that's part of the deal. But at least both teams get a fair shot at winning the game in quarter 5.

---

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

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.

How do you handle one team taking 9 minutes off the clock to score on their possession? Does the other team only get the remaining clock to score, or continue second OT so long as the possession continues?

So you're saying your ideal postseason outcome would look like this:
One possession by each team, even matched (whether that's 3 and outs, stalled drives, field goals or TD)
both kickers hit 50-yard tries
both kickers miss 55-yard tries
both kickers miss 50-yard tries
both kickers hit 45-yard tries
one kicker makes 50-yard try, other does not.

Do you not see how boring that would be as a spectator, player (non-special teams edition), or coach? And you still have to determine who kicks first each round, do you just give that to the visitor? Is that fair?
Strategy is gone. Your best players are not on the field making plays. The game becomes an exhausting repetition of boring kicks, and negates the entirety of the effort that led to the stalemate.

My ideal is keep sudden death.  Keep the possibility that one team doesn't get to touch the ball.  Just have some sort of fair, quick, minimal contact, skills based way to decide who goes first.  It could be as simple as a footrace.  It could be as complicated as a rugby scrum. Fans want it to be in the hands of the QB, so it could be a simple pass attempt with one receiver against one defensive back, one chance, longest completion wins. Anything that at least one player on each team can do while in full pads.

Any scenario that guarantees a certain number of possessions or chances to score, like college OT, probably doesn't have a game clock at all, just a play clock.  I agree that ending it on long kicks would be less exciting than, say, ending it on repeated 2-point conversion attempts, but we have to minimize contact too.  But in general I don't like these scenarios as much

---

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

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.

Some fun facts about the KC-CIN playoff:

Cincy won the toss, and received.
Both teams had an even number of possessions in the first half (4-4) and KC ended the half with possession.
KC received the 2nd half kick and had as many possessions in Q3 (4) as they did in the entire first half.
At the end of regulation, KC had more possessions (11) than Cincy (10) in spite of losing the opening toss. Again, KC ended the half with possession.
In OT, we all know both teams had one possession each.

OT is 15 minutes, just like a regular quarter.
the possession breakdown by quarter? Glad you asked. CIN 2, 2, 3, 2, 1 KC 2, 2, 4, 2, 1 One of Cincy's drives was a one-and-done INT on first down.
So they were at a disadvantage by not gaining an extra possession in the first half when they received, and also when they lost the OT toss to give KC initial possession.

As KC proved in both regulation and OT, a possession guarantees nothing.
Winning the toss gives you only one advantage - the option to choose your fate. You still have to produce to benefit from the advantage. That's the beauty of football. Sometimes it works, sometimes it don't.

In regulation, either the number of possessions will be equal, or one team will have one more than the other.  It could be either team, regardless of the opening coin toss. The extra possession in this case equated to 10% more chances to score, which is not significant.

In overtime, again, the two teams will either have the same number of possessions, or one team will have one more, but, the extra possession always goes to the team that won the coin toss.  If the possessions break 2 to 1, the team winning the coin toss got 100% more chances to score.  If the possessions break 1 to 0, the advantage in terms of chances becomes very hard to compute.  About 1% of all possessions end in a safety or defensive touchdown, so you can say that the advantage is 99 vs 1 or 9900% more chances.

Again, I am fine with accepting the huge disparity so that the game can end quickly on an exciting play.  I am not fine with giving that huge advantage away based on a random, non-athletic event.

---

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

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.

If you are forced to a 6th quarter in a playoff game, then so be it.  Your offense and/or defense didnt handle thier business soon enough in quarter 5 and let the game drag on without a winning outcome.  if you win in qtr 6 and that hurts your chances next game, then that's part of the deal.  But at least both teams get a fair shot at winning the game in quarter 5.

Modified sudden death.

Turn off the game clock.  Coin toss for first possession.  First lead after an equal number of possessions wins.  

Brings a little strategy to a field goal on first chance on a set of possessions.  I could see a lot of teams deferring.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Sudden death. A TD on the first possession wins the game.
If one team had fewer possessions than the other during regulation, that team goes first.
If the possessions count was equal, the team that scored last during regulation goes second. Creates an incentive to play for the win at the end of the game.

---

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

Sudden death. A TD on the first possession wins the game.
If one team had fewer possessions than the other during regulation, that team goes first.
If the possessions count was equal, the team that scored last during regulation goes second. Creates an incentive to play for the win at the end of the game.

Not a fan of sudden death, but if it must exist, then this is pretty reasonable.

---

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

Some fun facts about the KC-CIN playoff:

Cincy won the toss, and received.
Both teams had an even number of possessions in the first half (4-4) and KC ended the half with possession.
KC received the 2nd half kick and had as many possessions in Q3 (4) as they did in the entire first half.
At the end of regulation, KC had more possessions (11) than Cincy (10) in spite of losing the opening toss. Again, KC ended the half with possession.
In OT, we all know both teams had one possession each.

OT is 15 minutes, just like a regular quarter.
the possession breakdown by quarter? Glad you asked. CIN 2, 2, 3, 2, 1 KC 2, 2, 4, 2, 1 One of Cincy's drives was a one-and-done INT on first down.
So they were at a disadvantage by not gaining an extra possession in the first half when they received, and also when they lost the OT toss to give KC initial possession.

As KC proved in both regulation and OT, a possession guarantees nothing.
Winning the toss gives you only one advantage - the option to choose your fate. You still have to produce to benefit from the advantage. That's the beauty of football. Sometimes it works, sometimes it don't.

In regulation, either the number of possessions will be equal, or one team will have one more than the other.  It could be either team, regardless of the opening coin toss. The extra possession in this case equated to 10% more chances to score, which is not significant.

In overtime, again, the two teams will either have the same number of possessions, or one team will have one more, but, the extra possession always goes to the team that won the coin toss.  If the possessions break 2 to 1, the team winning the coin toss got 100% more chances to score.  If the possessions break 1 to 0, the advantage in terms of chances becomes very hard to compute.  About 1% of all possessions end in a safety or defensive touchdown, so you can say that the advantage is 99 vs 1 or 9900% more chances.

Again, I am fine with accepting the huge disparity so that the game can end quickly on an exciting play.  I am not fine with giving that huge advantage away based on a random, non-athletic event.

I hate when my son does this, but teams could fumble a kickoff or onside kicks could sway the possesions beyond a 1-possession advantage

Holy moly, could you imagine kicking a FG in OT on the opening possession, and then successfully recovering an onside kick to ice the game?

The drawback to virtually every skill-based event though is either the time to complete, the risk of injury, or the fact that it becomes "football-adjacent".
Sadly, I don't know that there's a realistic, plausible way to get away from the coin toss. If there was, I'd certainly be intrigued to see if the league would consider that direction.

---

In regulation, either the number of possessions will be equal, or one team will have one more than the other.  It could be either team, regardless of the opening coin toss. The extra possession in this case equated to 10% more chances to score, which is not significant.

In overtime, again, the two teams will either have the same number of possessions, or one team will have one more, but, the extra possession always goes to the team that won the coin toss.  If the possessions break 2 to 1, the team winning the coin toss got 100% more chances to score.  If the possessions break 1 to 0, the advantage in terms of chances becomes very hard to compute.  About 1% of all possessions end in a safety or defensive touchdown, so you can say that the advantage is 99 vs 1 or 9900% more chances.

Again, I am fine with accepting the huge disparity so that the game can end quickly on an exciting play.  I am not fine with giving that huge advantage away based on a random, non-athletic event.

I hate when my son does this, but teams could fumble a kickoff or onside kicks could sway the possesions beyond a 1-possession advantage

Holy moly, could you imagine kicking a FG in OT on the opening possession, and then successfully recovering an onside kick to ice the game?

The drawback to virtually every skill-based event though is either the time to complete, the risk of injury, or the fact that it becomes "football-adjacent".
Sadly, I don't know that there's a realistic, plausible way to get away from the coin toss. If there was, I'd certainly be intrigued to see if the league would consider that direction.

Yeah recovering an onside kick would potentially give you two extra possessions instead of just one.  That would be an earned advantage though.

---

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

Sudden death.  A TD on the first possession wins the game.
If one team had fewer possessions than the other during regulation, that team goes first.
If the possessions count was equal, the team that scored last during regulation goes second. Creates an incentive to play for the win at the end of the game.

Not a fan of sudden death, but if it must exist, then this is pretty reasonable.

Thanks! Maybe some of the sportswriters will pick up on this.
I think fans would be less frustrated with sudden death if the announcers were already telling them who gets the ball first in case of OT, well before regulation was over.

---

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

In regulation, either the number of possessions will be equal, or one team will have one more than the other.  It could be either team, regardless of the opening coin toss. The extra possession in this case equated to 10% more chances to score, which is not significant.

In overtime, again, the two teams will either have the same number of possessions, or one team will have one more, but, the extra possession always goes to the team that won the coin toss.  If the possessions break 2 to 1, the team winning the coin toss got 100% more chances to score.  If the possessions break 1 to 0, the advantage in terms of chances becomes very hard to compute.  About 1% of all possessions end in a safety or defensive touchdown, so you can say that the advantage is 99 vs 1 or 9900% more chances.

Again, I am fine with accepting the huge disparity so that the game can end quickly on an exciting play.  I am not fine with giving that huge advantage away based on a random, non-athletic event.

I hate when my son does this, but teams could fumble a kickoff or onside kicks could sway the possesions beyond a 1-possession advantage

Holy moly, could you imagine kicking a FG in OT on the opening possession, and then successfully recovering an onside kick to ice the game?

The drawback to virtually every skill-based event though is either the time to complete, the risk of injury, or the fact that it becomes "football-adjacent".
Sadly, I don't know that there's a realistic, plausible way to get away from the coin toss. If there was, I'd certainly be intrigued to see if the league would consider that direction.

We don't need to get away from the coin toss, we just need to eliminate or at least minimalize the advantage inherent in winning it.   

Under the present system, there's a significant advantage to the team receiving the ball first.  Matching possessions in overtime is a simple solution.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

I hate when my son does this, but teams could fumble a kickoff or onside kicks could sway the possesions beyond a 1-possession advantage

Holy moly, could you imagine kicking a FG in OT on the opening possession, and then successfully recovering an onside kick to ice the game?

The drawback to virtually every skill-based event though is either the time to complete, the risk of injury, or the fact that it becomes "football-adjacent".
Sadly, I don't know that there's a realistic, plausible way to get away from the coin toss. If there was, I'd certainly be intrigued to see if the league would consider that direction.

We don't need to get away from the coin toss, we just need to eliminate or at least minimalize the advantage inherent in winning it.   

Under the present system, there's a significant advantage to the team receiving the ball first.  Matching possessions in overtime is a simple solution.

That extends the game. NFLPA *might* agree to matching possessions in playoff OT if you get rid of OT in the regular season.  That would be a win for them, less contact overall.
Also, you could do more to ensure it would only be one more possession after the first score.  If the first score is an FG, say the second team is not allowed to go for FGs.  If the first score is a TD, say the first team is not allowed to go for 2.  If the first team makes their extra point, the second team would be required to go for 2.  In the unlikely event that both teams score touchdowns and miss their extra points, you could continue play as before or do 2 point attempts until one team makes it and the other doesn't.

---

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

We don't need to get away from the coin toss, we just need to eliminate or at least minimalize the advantage inherent in winning it.   

Under the present system, there's a significant advantage to the team receiving the ball first.  Matching possessions in overtime is a simple solution.

That extends the game. NFLPA *might* agree to matching possessions in playoff OT if you get rid of OT in the regular season.  That would be a win for them, less contact overall.
Also, you could do more to ensure it would only be one more possession after the first score.  If the first score is an FG, say the second team is not allowed to go for FGs.  If the first score is a TD, say the first team is not allowed to go for 2.  If the first team makes their extra point, the second team would be required to go for 2.  In the unlikely event that both teams score touchdowns and miss their extra points, you could continue play as before or do 2 point attempts until one team makes it and the other doesn't.

Sure, it extends the game, that's why it's called overtime.  I doubt the players want their postseasons to depend on luck any more than the fans do.  Personally, I don't have a problem with ties in the regular season.  Maybe one possession each, then if the score is still even it's a tie

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

That extends the game. NFLPA *might* agree to matching possessions in playoff OT if you get rid of OT in the regular season.  That would be a win for them, less contact overall.
Also, you could do more to ensure it would only be one more possession after the first score.  If the first score is an FG, say the second team is not allowed to go for FGs.  If the first score is a TD, say the first team is not allowed to go for 2.  If the first team makes their extra point, the second team would be required to go for 2.  In the unlikely event that both teams score touchdowns and miss their extra points, you could continue play as before or do 2 point attempts until one team makes it and the other doesn't.

Sure, it extends the game, that's why it's called overtime.  I doubt the players want their postseasons to depend on luck any more than the fans do.  Personally, I don't have a problem with ties in the regular season.  Maybe one possession each, then if the score is still even it's a tie

I am totally onboard with getting rid of OT during the preseason and regular season.  Especially if it means getting a better system for OT in the postseason.

---

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

So, what do y'all think of the change to the OT rule? If I understand it correctly, it requires both teams to possess the ball once in the OT and after that, sudden death. I think that's fine. I does away with coin toss "bias". I would probably have gone a little further and treated moving from one OT to another OT like changing between quarters until there is a sudden death winner. All of this is fine in the post-season because there must be a winner to advance.

As for during the preseason and regular season, they should eliminate OT entirely. It's safer for the players and gives added importance to playing to win at the end of games.

---

Fix the O-Line!

So, what do y'all think of the change to the OT rule?  If I understand it correctly, it requires both teams to possess the ball once in the OT and after that, sudden death.  I think that's fine.  I does away with coin toss "bias".  I would probably have gone a little further and treated moving from one OT to another OT like changing between quarters until there is a sudden death winner.  All of this is fine in the post-season because there must be a winner to advance.

As for during the preseason and regular season, they should eliminate OT entirely.  It's safer for the players and gives added importance to playing to win at the end of games.

I agree with you about eliminating regular season OT.
I don't think there's any benefit to regular season OT.

But I don't think the NFL fixed anything with this postseason rules change.  Sure, they guaranteed that each team gets to touch the ball, but, there's still going to be a huge statistical advantage to the team that wins the coin toss.  It might seem more fair to the fans, but it's going to be about the same as what we do now.  It's just going to take longer.

---

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

Yeah, this is a “see, we’re doing something about it” response by the league that doesn’t actually address the issue of the heightened risk of injury that comes with prolonging the game which they claim is a focus. I didn’t mind the rules as they were, but at this point, the best solution is to eliminate OT in the regular season and just have OT during the playoffs and have it be the team that loses the toss gets an opportunity to respond until they either fail to score in kind or they out score the toss winner. There’s probably a clearer way to explain that but I’ll leave it at that.

---