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.
No comments:
Post a Comment