How do we make NFL overtime better?
A touchdown wins the game is so fucking retarded, it's hard to believe that before that a field goal won the game.
What the NFL needs to do is either make a full quarter, or a 10 minute quarter AT LEAST and have it be fully played out, no automatic wins. It's the only way to make it fair.
Honestly I don't even think that's good enough. What if you have an OT game vs the teams with #1 and #2 defense? Whoever gets the ball first might lose due to a turnover setting up an easy FG.
Personally I like the idea where no matter when a score occurs, a team gets a chance to tie it again. Once it's tied the cycle begins again.
I don't know, always forcing a full extra quarter can put that team at a huge disadvantage in their next week game since they'll be exhausted. In the playoffs having a 2nd OT would still be easily possible which means already playing 1.5 games that shortly.
>Like it's even a question
Listen up, faggots. Make sure this makes it all the way up to whoever the fuck writes these rules. This is how we make overtime fair.
1. Make sure your team scores more points before overtime begins.
It's flawless. Dubs check 'em.
>cfb rules are literally perfect; more exciting and more fair
>/sp/ literally wants games to be unfair and less exciting just to spite the packers
Vikings fan. Happy as FUCK the fudge packers finally lost, but let's get real for a second folks. You must jest if you insist otherwise. This was the same shit with that Pats game earlier in the season. You all were laughing your asses off but I just sighed. Because I know this is eventually going to catch up on my team.
i've played and watched mostly Hockey, Lacrosse, Field Hockey, and Soccer so I must be a little bias but why not make the OT a sort of Skills competition thing. For example, in Hockey we have a shootout and similarly in Soccer we have the same.
Let's implement a system in the NFL where basically it consists of a round where you kick a fg, both offenses get to run a play in the red-zone with 4 downs, and one kick return (who can get the maximum return).
>just play a full quarter
this is exhausting and would still slightly favor the coin flip winner. plus what if it's still tied, which could be highly likely
>give the other team a chance to respond
as other anons have pointed out, this would then favor the kicking team since the receiving team would have pressure to score
there's not really a better way. just suck it up and play better defense fucking pussies
The current way isn't all bad anyway, this idea just eliminates the chance where a team wins the toss and drives down the field because they were lucky enough to win possession.
How is it a big advantage? Teams have to go for it on 4th down to keep the game alive during the last minutes of the game anyway.
It's a big advantage because the second team always has 4 plays to get a first down.
The first team will likely punt on 4th down since they aren't required to score so they only have 3 downs to get a first down
Touchdown ending it is unfair and puts too much on a coin flip. Put more strategy in it by making a 2pt conversion seal it so teams mus choose between a defensive stop or winning it all on 2 end zone touches in a row.
Guys I think I figured it out.
To get rid off the advantage of having 4 downs to try to tie, how about instead of changing possession, the team that just scored to tie it up gets the ball back right away, and therefore the other team, at the very least gets a shot to tie while being able to go for it on 4th down.
Team A kicks off.
1st possession:Team B scores TD
Team B kicks off.
2nd possession: team A marches down field using 4th down meme magic to score a TD to tie it.
****team B kicks off again****
3rd possession: team A had to drive without meme magic, scores TD
Team A kicks off.
4th possession: using 4 downs, team B scores TD
And so on, etc.
Remember the Vikings vs Rams OT? Vikings won the coin toss, chose to kick and pick to kick with the heavy wind, D shut them down, Blair kicked 40yd field goal. OT is fine, there's still strategy involved.
Why not just have it so if the first team scores a TD then the 2nd team NEEDS to score a TD AND the 2 point conversion to win. That way both teams would still have a shot and the game can't drag for longer than it needs too. Not too sure how they could handle field goals though.
But I like it as is. Play defense. It's as simple as that.
As of the beginning of 2014, the majority of games don't even end on a TD, but on a field goal which the other team always has a chance to match if it's on the first drive. Teams that win the toss also win something like "only" 57% of the time. Winning the toss is an advantage and giving both teams a shot would be more fair but still, it's not as significant an advantage as detractors make it out to be.
Here is why everyone who thinks something is wrong with overtime is stupid.
>change overtime rules to both teams get the ball at least once
> team A scores TD
> team B scores TD
> team A scores TD
"but but...they got the ball twice and we got it once"
>team A throws INT for TD
> game over
> "but but my defense never got the chance to intercept them for a TD"
you can literally find a way to cry about every possible method unless you always give equal possessions and take away kneeldowns.
Equal possessions will make overtime games a lot longer, increase injuries, and serve no fucking purpose other to stop the twice-a-year crying session that people have when an OT game ends on the first possession.
It shouldn't have OTs in regular season matches. If ended in draw, so the draw shall be keeped.
In playoffs, OT with 15 minutes and no sudden death rules. If ended in draw, decision by FGs.