Thread: First to Six! A cool idea for overtime:

Stumbled across this early this morning, makes sense to me!

To Roger: One Man’s Whining About The NFL Overtime System

January 26, 2010 at 7:30 am | NFL
By: Stormin' Norman Disciple

From the desk of His Jesusness Shuttlesworth:

Dear Commissioner Goodell,

Something needs to be done about OT! I warn you that I often start emotionally, so bare with me- I promise a return to prudence by my letter’s middle. While I do not seek to generalize, it behooves me to emphasize that I am not alone in my criticism of your league’s extra-time format. I’d like to begin by addressing what prompted a group of devout NFL fans to explode in outrage following the NFC championship game on the eve of January 24th. (Out of necessity and a respect for your precious time, I am omitting our consensus hatred for the NFL’s pass interference penalty. That certainly contributed to the outrage, but in our late-game-exacerbated intoxication, we made the wise decision to focus on just one issue)

It all starts with the OT coin flip. Now it wasn’t the actual coin flip we had a particular “beef” with, it was the implications of that coin flip. The question on all our minds quickly reformed as it had many times in the past- How can we let a coin flip determine the outcome of an NFL game? Especially one of this magnitude!? How can one team win a game without their opponent getting ample opportunity to either contest or respond? At first, we all agreed it would be better to adopt the college system. But then after some seriously drunken, yet undoubtedly scholarly discourse (the kind only passionate Bears fans, and maybe some Eagles fans, can engage in) we realized this was impractical. It extends the game too much and could be fiscally detrimental to the broadcasting networks, physically detrimental to the players, and in my opinion, most so marginalizing special teams (both teams starting at the opposing 25 yard line). So what is the solution? What’s the compromise that will satisfy both the NFL’s investment in profit along with its undying commitment to the fans and players?

That’s where Brian comes in. First to 6 points he says. Hmmm… Interesting… But what exactly does this mean Brian? It’s simple. The first team to score 6 points wins. If a team is able to drive down the field and score a touchdown, the game is over. If a team settles for a field goal, their opponent gets a chance to respond. Essentially, any 1 touchdown or 2 field goals wins a team the game. Brilliant I thought! Well, not at first. My fellow drunks and I were immediately inclined to argue and find this system’s flaws. To all of our dismay, Brian’s suggestion was in fact the perfect compromise. The game has the potential of being just as short as it would be with the current format and just long enough to give both teams their fair share at a win.

This is where we all agreed… a defense that gives up a touchdown is more deserving of a loss than one that gives up only a field goal. In the First-to-6 system, if a team must settle for a first possession field goal, the opposing offense is then given a chance to either match that field goal or go for the win. “Well that’s just like college!” we all shouted at Brian. But no, in fact it is nothing like college. Here’s why: There is incentive for that 2nd team to go for the touchdown even though their opponent just got a field goal, because if they relinquish possession tied at 3 points a piece, their opponent is a field goal away from victory and they will not get a second chance to match. Thus, the system abbreviates the game enough to clearly differentiate it from college, it preserves the networks’ commitment to profit, and it does not exclude special teams!

Most so, it is fair. Much more fair than the current system. And fairness should always be a central tenant to NFL policymaking, Mr. Goodell. That’s why you have integrated instant replay in such depth. So let’s get it right! At the very least, if you cannot do that, I implore you to poll the players on their opinions of Brian’s First-to-6 system. I hate Brett Favre just as much as the next guy, but the Vikings D deserved more of a chance to send him back on the field. No fan out there can claim that Hartley’s field goal determined that the Saints are a better team than the Vikings. The buck stops here, Mr. Goodell. The petition to enforce the First-to-6 system starts now!

Keep the old system for the regular season in order to keep the networks happy and get the games over with.

Implement the "first to 6" for the playoffs.

That would be my suggestion.

After the first team to score, the opponent should be allowed to match the score in OT.

I like the first to 6 idea. It seems quite fair to both teams. I hate the current first to score in OT wins. Even though my beloved team has won many a game in that fashion, they have lost them as well.

Fair is fair. Go with the first to 6 IMO!

that's a good idea. I think it would be pretty fair.

It's a good, creative idea however I see two flaws - one is the team that wins the coin flip (maybe the team with most total yards gets the ball first) still can end the game on the first possession. I'd rather both teams get one chance to score before the game ends.

Secondly, what if both teams are staunch defensive teams like the Ravens and it takes more than an hour for one team to put six points together where a lone FG might have ended the game much easier.

This idea is an upgrade to the present system but I'd still like to see it tweaked.

NFL OT is great the way it is.

Originally Posted by EMB6903

NFL OT is great the way it is.

signed,
The US Postal Service

corrected

I like the idea mainly because I HATE the current OT rules as they are now. Sudden death sucks.

I hate the current NFL system, and despise the NCAA's even more.

I like both teams getting the ball, but this idea is good. Its (as it says) a nice compromise... much like the 2 point conversion. It adds the 'thought' of possibly going for that 4th down.. or.. making a play on the 3rd and long instead of just kneeling to take the kick. It makes getting to the endzone MEAN something, rather than just having to drive the ball 50 yrds (from 20yrd line to the other 30 yrd line).

I like this idea. It has merit. That being said, it should never be presented in THAT letter again, for that letter alone takes away all validity.

It's fine the way it is. You don't want to risk the chances of the game "being decided by a coinflip", win the game in regulation.

Coaches and players don't have a problem with it.

Anyone know the percentage of the team that wins the coin toss winning the game?

I think OT is fine the way it is.

Originally Posted by silkamilkamonico

It's fine the way it is. You don't want to risk the chances of the game "being decided by a coinflip", win the game in regulation.

Coaches and players don't have a problem with it.

Anyone know the percentage of the team that wins the coin toss winning the game?

actually, I remember hearing that the team that wins the flip wins like 48% of the time.

but really... if you win the coin toss, 60% of the time, it works every time!

Originally Posted by silkamilkamonico

It's fine the way it is. You don't want to risk the chances of the game "being decided by a coinflip", win the game in regulation.

Coaches and players don't have a problem with it.

Anyone know the percentage of the team that wins the coin toss winning the game?

From the 2000 through 2007 regular seasons, there have been 124 overtime games. In every single game except one (I believe), the team that won the toss elected to receive. And those receiving teams won 60% of the time (and tied once). That's a relatively large advantage, particularly when compared to home field advantage.

Home teams have only won 51% of OT games. The weakness of HFA (Home Field Advantage) isn't too surprising given the way it diminishes throughout a game. It's strongest in the 1st quarter and then diminishes through subsequent quarters until it's almost non-existent in OT. Fans are presumably at their most involved at this point in a game, which suggests crowd involvement is not the primary source of HFA.

The dreaded 'lose-the-coin-toss-never-touch-the-ball' scenario happened in 37 out of the 124 OT periods, or about 30% of all overtime games. That's too often in my opinion. The NFL's current sudden death format can be exciting and lead to quick resolutions. But if almost 1 out of 3 games is over before the unlucky coin toss loser even touches the ball, a lot of teams and fans are going to be left with a bitter and empty feeling.

David Romer's suggestion is to move the kickoff line from the 30 to the 40 in overtime to help equalize the chance of either team scoring first. This would drastically increase touchbacks, which according to Romer would halve the receiving team's advantage. Starting at the 15 yd line is the theoretical neutral point in the NFL, where both teams have an equal chance of scoring next.

This guy makes a related observation. In 1994, the NFL moved the kickoff line from the 40 to the 30 to reduce touchbacks and increase scoring. But unwittingly, this change also increased the frequency of the never-touch-the-ball phenomenon in OT.

I'd like to see a full period. Maybe do it like basketball and make it a shorter period (10 minutes or so), but the current system is basically set up to say the winner of this coin toss wins the game. I know it doesnt work that way every time, but it's still designed that way. Bust your butt to tie the game, get to overtime and possibly never even see the football again...because a quarter bounced funny. Dont seem right.

Play a full 10 minute overtime period