It should be sudden death. The only thing they should change about the OT format is that somebody should have to score. There should be no such thing as a tie in sports. Other than that it’s fine.

Its ok to win by a fg in regulation. Why should it be any different

I agree, that the OT should be left alone.

The media and a segment of fans want to see it changed; I have not seen any players or owners come out and say that it needs to be changed.

I like the current format because it is an unfavorable position for the teams to enter, the emphasis is to finish the games in regulation; not to extend the playing time. It is supposed to be a risky proposition for either team to take their chances in OT; and any coach that takes the strategy to play for OT instead of the win must fully understand they are at the mercy of a coin-flip.

60%+ is a big number. But regardless, I’m a huge fan of the following proposal…

- If the receiving team goes down and scores a TD, game over.
- If the receiving team kicks a FG, the other team gets the ball back and has a chance to go down and score. If they get a TD, game over. If they kick a FG, the game resumes in a sudden-death format.
- If the receiving team doesn’t score at all, the game resumes under the normal sudden-death format.

More strategy, more excitement, no settling for FG’s… Just better.

better play good defense

1) Play another 10 or 15-minute quarter. (My preference…closest thing we’d have to basketball and baseball)

2) Require 6 points to win.

3) Keep playing as though it’s the end of the 1st/3rd quarters. Lots of crazy possibilities with this one.

If keeping sudden death, you have more interesting options:

4) Coaches bid on field position. Whoever bids to have their team start farther back gets the ball. Tell me this wouldnt be fascinating.

5) Eliminate field goals altogether.

6) Move the kickoff position.

As it stands, though, it’s basically like a baseball extra innings game that can end after the visiting team plates a run in the top half of the 10th.

And any ideas that OT shouldn’t be ‘fair’ are ludicrous

If you MUST try to even it out… start by moving OT kick-offs back to the 35 yard-line. That will result in longer drives and more opportunities for the defense to make a stop.

I agree with this. And actually made this argument last year.

Here’s a good discussion of this proposal to have the overtime kickoff from the 35 yard line instead of the 30, with statistics. It is from 2004 so this idea has been around for a while.
http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html

A couple basic points:

- Prior to 1994 when the kickoff was moved back 5 yards to the 30, who won the toss did not significantly affect the outcome
- Since 1994, nearly one-third of overtime games have been won on the first possession by the team that received the ball first, and there is a 99.99% statistical certainty that the coin flip has made a difference in the outcome of the game over the last 10 years

So it makes sense to have the OT kickoff only from the 35. If prior to 1994 when the kickoff was at the 35 the impact of the coin toss was not statistically significant, that seems like the most simple, easy solution to the problem.

Say Team A’s offense goes first and finds itself in a 4th down situation in field goal range. The prudent move would probably be to kick the FG.

When Team B ends up scoring a TD, Team A has wasted its 4th down. Did Team B really outplay Team B?

What if Team A scored a TD? Team B will have a chance to use all four downs to score, instead of wasting a field goal.

Mandate that the visiting team receive the opening kickoff and the home team receives the second half kickoff. For OT, as a reward for overcoming the home field advantage, the visiting team receives the kick off.

Pistols at dawn!