My Solution to the NFL's Overtime Rule

Ever since the vaulted Chiefs offense of 2018/19 did not get an opportunity to take the field in overtime of the 2019 AFC Championship game, NFL fans (mostly Chiefs) have clamored for a change to the NFL overtime rules.  They want both teams to have an opportunity to possess the ball.  And I have to admit, I agree.  If two teams meet, and each team has a great offense and sub-par defense, the coin flip really does determine who wins the game.  I know it's been 7 months since that AFC Championship game, but I have just thought of a solution to fix overtime in the NFL.  I want to add that I have modified my original overtime proposal which allowed games to extend beyond two possessions.  This does not (unless it is a playoff game).

Here is my solution: Each team gets one opportunity to possess the ball on offense.  The only exception being if the defense scores on the first possession.  If the first team to possess the ball scores, the opposing team will get one shot to tie or beat them.  After those two possessions, the game is over.  If the game is tied after two scoring possessions, the game becomes a tie (unless it's a playoff game).  If the first team to possess the ball gets a TD and goes for two and succeeds, that means the best the opposing team can do is tie the game.  If it was a playoff game, they'd have to get a touchdown and two point conversion to keep the game going.  I must add that in this version of overtime, there is no game clock, just like in college.  Just possessions and a play clock.

Confused at all?  I wouldn't blame you if you were.  Here are some hypotheticals (and we'll use the Patriots and Chiefs to make it easy).  And we are using regular season overtime rules (unless otherwise specified).

- The Patriots get the ball first in overtime and kick a field goal.  The Chiefs then kick a field goal.  The game would then be a tie.  In the playoffs, the Patriots would get the ball back, now with the game in sudden death mode.

- The Patriots get the ball first in overtime and score a touchdown and get the ensuing PAT.  The Chiefs get the ball themselves and score a touchdown as well.  They kick the PAT as well.  This would result in a tie.  The Chiefs could go for two points, and if they successfully get it, they win the game.  If they fail to get it, they lose.  Talk about drama.

- The Patriots get the ball first in overtime and score a touchdown and get the two point conversion.  The Chiefs would then get an opportunity to match.  If they don't, the game obviously ends with a Patriots victory.  If they do, the game ends in a tie.  In the playoffs, they would continue to play now under sudden death (next score wins).

- The Patriots get the ball first and either punt or turn the ball over.  The Chiefs get the ball.  Any score wins it for them.  If they fail to score at least a field goal (because with the offense on the field, they can't score a safety), the game ends in a tie.  In the playoffs, the game would continue until someone scores.

I hope that clarifies things.  This way, both teams get a chance to possess the football, and the game always ends after two possessions, unless it's the playoffs.  The interesting scenario this creates is for the second team to possess the ball.  Do they go for the tie or the win?  I'd say 90%+ of the time you go for the win; one exception being if a loss knocks you out of the playoffs, but a tie or win and you're in the playoffs.

Here are the pros and cons of this format.

PROS:
- Both teams get a chance to go for the win if they so choose, unless the first team gets a TD and 2 point conversion.  If the first team does get both, then the second team loses the ability to go for the win.
- Would make for exciting and dramatic football as we could see a lot of "Do or Die" plays
- Would make for a lot of interesting and tough coaching decisions (Go for 2?  Go for it on 4th?  Kick or receive?)
- It's about as fair as OT can be to whoever wins the toss, and I could see some teams wanting the ball first while others want it second

CONS:
- Can be a tad confusing
- There could be an increase in the number of ties since any teams that do the same in the overtime period would count as a tie.
- This could increase the amount of time players have to play in overtime if they're always forced to play at least two possessions.

To counter those three cons I listed, for the first one, I came up with a simplified way of explaining these rules and it is this: Each team gets one possession.  Whoever does better wins.  If they do the same, they tie.  That's it. Once people get used to these rules, they become very easy to explain.

Secondly, it's hard to really say if the number of ties would increase.  If just one team scores, the chance that there will be a tie dramatically drops, because the second team to possess the ball more than likely won't go for a tie.  And with defenses that have been on the field for a half hour each (on average) already, it means offenses playing against gassed defenses and more than likely, one of the offensive units would get at least a field goal.  Also, you would not see many teams "going for a tie", such as kicking a field goal when the other team kicked a field goal, because a head coach would instantly and forever be harshly criticized for not having the courage to go for the win.

Thirdly, this could indeed increase on average the amount of time overtime periods go.  Right now, overtime can end on one possession.  It still could now (if there's a defensive score), but most often we'd see two possessions.  My argument is that I think players would be willing to play a bit more for a better chance to win the game.  Think back to the AFC Championship game this past season.  I'd guarantee each of those Chiefs offensive players, from QB Patrick Mahomes to the offensive linemen, they all wanted to go back out there.  They all wanted one more shot.  There are only 16 games a season plus a maximum of 4 playoff games for one team.  Each game is critical, and everyone on the team would love a shot to go out and win a game that goes to overtime.  Let's give them that shot.

My Idea for Fixing the DH Rule

For years, Major League Baseball has dealt with having the designated hitter in the American League and the pitchers hitting in the National League.  There has been some talk of abolishing the DH, some talk of enacting the DH in the National League, but nothing too serious.  Many people want a change, but no one can agree on one. 

My proposal (or compromise, if you want to call it) is to have the DH in the first 3-5 innings of a game.  I'll go with 3, because the game of baseball likes to do things in multiples of 3.  What this would mean is that any team, whether they be a National League or American League team, would have a DH for the first 3 innings of a game.  Then, with the start of the 4th inning, the DH position becomes the pitcher's spot and the player who was the designated hitter gets sent to the bench, but can be used again, but only one more time, such as pinch-hitting for the pitcher when the pitcher's turn comes up in the order.

This would be good for multiple reasons. 

1) It would keep the DH and allow hitting numbers to go up, which is good for baseball, having high-scoring games.
2) It would keep the chess game that the National League currently has.  Managers would have to decide whether to use up their DH to pinch-hit for the pitcher, or to have their starting pitcher take one or two at-bats. 
3) Players on the bench would appear in a lot more games.  Some bench players I've seen can go weeks at a time without any playing time. 
4) Players who become too old to field (Think Jason Giambi, Jim Thome, Frank Thomas) don't have to go to an American League team, they can DH on the team they're currently on.  They also wouldn't have to play a full game ever, slightly prolonging the careers of some players.

I'm not completely set at the 3rd/4th inning as the time to make the switch from DH to pitcher, but I do believe the DH should be in the first part of the game and not the end.  The DH being used early means that starting pitchers usually wouldn't have to worry about hitting, unless they're going the distance.  No one really wants to see starting pitchers hit, and with this rule in place it would mean the average 6 inning starter would only get a plate appearance once every couple starts, on average. 

I also think baseball rosters should expand to 27 players (keeping with the rule of 3) because of the rash of injuries happening, and if they enforce this DH rule I am proposing.  There would be more possibilities for each manager, with a bench of 5, not counting the DH.

This is quite a radical change, but it's something to consider.  Obviously, the time in which the designated hitter would stop being used is debatable.  But if you let the DH come back into the game, then the switch-over can be made early.  If you don't let the DH come back into the game, the switch-over should probably be made later, such as the 6th or 7th inning.  I'm usually not a huge fan of rule changes when it comes to my favorite sports leagues, but this one I would certainly be in favor of.