10-minute OT in regular season?

[hail2skins]

Sounds like the league is going to approve the OT time being reduced to 10 minutes. You would think this would likely lead to more ties, particularly since there is no sudden death anymore. I know there's probably stats that indicate, in games that have gone to OT and both teams have kicked FGs, how many times has a team been able to get a second score with over 5 minutes left in OT.  What do you all think?

 

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/05/17/report-nfl-owners-expected-to-approve-rule-changes-that-will-affect-rosters.htm

[TheGreatBuzz]

Hate it.  

 

Im not going to go into the debate of what I think would be better but I see no reason for this.

 

Also, I'd like to see just one season with no major changes from the year before.  Can we just enjoy what is for once?

[DWinzit]

I am okay with shaving five minutes off. I start losing interest in games that go more than ten minutes into OT.....unless it's an NFCE team. This would make the teams play more aggressive in the window and getting players off sooner leaves less exposure to injury. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 hours ago, DWinzit said:

I am okay with shaving five minutes off. I start losing interest in games that go more than ten minutes into OT.....unless it's an NFCE team. This would make the teams play more aggressive in the window and getting players off sooner leaves less exposure to injury. 

I dont get it.  You watch 70 minutes of football but 5 more minutes cant hold your attention?

[DWinzit]

Yup. It's been 70 minutes and no winner, call it a tie.   I feel the same for triple overtime games and games that go 17 innings. There's a point where It is a tie.    I admit that a game ending with penalty shots is exciting.....but negates all the time played during a full game.

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, DWinzit said:

Yup. It's been 70 minutes and no winner, call it a tie.   I feel the same for triple overtime games and games that go 17 innings. There's a point where It is a tie.    I admit that a game ending with penalty shots is exciting.....but negates all the time played during a full game.

I get that you have to draw a line somewhere.  I just found it odd that you draw the line at 70 minutes but 75 is too much.  Great thing about opinions is the aren't wrong.  I just found yours interesting.  To each their own.

[Old Bay]

If they change overtime rules further I would prefer if it were just eliminated in general. 

[carex]

here's an idea.  Besides shortening it to ten minutes and stop treating it like it's the start of a new game, just a new quarter.  Flip sides but the team with the ball keeps the ball and the same yard line and down

[Mr. S]

I start losing interest only because I hate the current NFL overtime (and the current college overtime for that matter).  Collage has it right in letting each team have a possession.  The NFL has it right in that they do a kickoff and don't automatically start on the 25 yard line like in college.  I think the simple solution has been there all along; let each team have a kickoff possession and make it sudden death if it's still a tie.  Keep the 15 minutes as is.  

 

All this 10 minute overtime will do is encourage a team to try and grind it out on the ground or with dink and dunk short passes, kill as much clock as possible, and get into field goal range.  It heavily favors teams with efficient offenses.  It also heavily favors the team who wins a coin flip.  If they are going to do this, I think Carex has a decent idea, just keep the game going.

[Taylor 36]

16 hours ago, carex said:

here's an idea.  Besides shortening it to ten minutes and stop treating it like it's the start of a new game, just a new quarter.  Flip sides but the team with the ball keeps the ball and the same yard line and down

I don't agree with this idea.  You can't treat it like a new quarter, because it is the end of a half: the second half.  Each half always begin with a kickoff. When a half ends, the half ends, and if the team on offense can't score prior to the clock hitting three zeros, they don't get to start with the ball in the same spot when they return for the next half.  That is how the game has always been played.  

 

Having a rule like that in place would allow for the offense with ball at the end of a tie regulation game to kill clock and wait to pick up when OT begins.  It would certainly take away from the drama and excitement of the game.  I already find it frustrating when teams decide to kneel the ball at the end of a tied game instead of taking a shot.  I hate the "settle for overtime" approach. A rule like the one you're proposing would make that the norm, even with enough time on the clock for them to legitimately make a push.  

 

I am not in favor of them changing the OT as it stands right now, but, honestly, I would rather them just get rid of OT in the regular season if they feel they HAVE to change it (which, I'm not sure why the NFL feels they need to make huge overhauls and changes every offseason, especially when most seem to be change for the sake of change and nothing more).  If there was no OT, it would encourage more big play attempts at the end of regulation, making it highly exciting. Plus, it would cut down on the chance of injuries and keep the games from being too long for the crying networks.  So, at least there would be a viable reason to change it f they made that move.  Just my two cents.

[carex]

3 hours ago, Taylor 36 said:

I don't agree with this idea.  You can't treat it like a new quarter, because it is the end of a half: the second half.  Each half always begin with a kickoff. When a half ends, the half ends, and if the team on offense can't score prior to the clock hitting three zeros, they don't get to start with the ball in the same spot when they return for the next half.  That is how the game has always been played.  

 

Having a rule like that in place would allow for the offense with ball at the end of a tie regulation game to kill clock and wait to pick up when OT begins.  It would certainly take away from the drama and excitement of the game.  I already find it frustrating when teams decide to kneel the ball at the end of a tied game instead of taking a shot.  I hate the "settle for overtime" approach. A rule like the one you're proposing would make that the norm, even with enough time on the clock for them to legitimately make a push.  

 

I am not in favor of them changing the OT as it stands right now, but, honestly, I would rather them just get rid of OT in the regular season if they feel they HAVE to change it (which, I'm not sure why the NFL feels they need to make huge overhauls and changes every offseason, especially when most seem to be change for the sake of change and nothing more).  If there was no OT, it would encourage more big play attempts at the end of regulation, making it highly exciting. Plus, it would cut down on the chance of injuries and keep the games from being too long for the crying networks.  So, at least there would be a viable reason to change it f they made that move.  Just my two cents.

 

they don't make huge changes every year, if they did by now the game would be unrecognizable from just  a few years ago.  And my rule would actually do the exact opposite of what you suggest because if the team stopped playing then they go into OT in a hole.  It might kill the hurry up offense in tie situations,but there could no kneel downs or anything like that because then the wasted downs hurt you at the start of OT and if you're trailing you still have to hurry up

[Taylor 36]

2 minutes ago, carex said:

 

they don't make huge changes every year, if they did by now the game would be unrecognizable from just  a few years ago.  And my rule would actually do the exact opposite of what you suggest because if the team stopped playing then they go into OT in a hole.  It might kill the hurry up offense,but there could no kneel downs or anything like that because then the wasted downs hurt you at the start of OT

For the last few years they have made huge changes to the game, including where the kickoffs are placed, where a touch back is spotted, where an extra point is kicked from, etc.  At this rate, the game will be unrecognizable in the next decade or so.

 

Again, your proposal would change the structure of the game.  When a new half begins, it always starts with a kickoff.  It has been that way for over a hundred years. There are two halves to a regulation game.  When it ends, tied or not, the second half has concluded.  Arguing that is arguing basic math and universal measurement standards.  And, yes it would cause teams to play the tie more conservatively, just like we see happen at the end of the first and third quarter of games all the time.  Better to let the clock expire and pick up on third and long (and also having the free TO to talk over the next play) than to risk turning the ball over so that the other team starts off OT with a first down at the spot where you turned it over.

[carex]

1 hour ago, Taylor 36 said:

For the last few years they have made huge changes to the game, including where the kickoffs are placed, where a touch back is spotted, where an extra point is kicked from, etc.  At this rate, the game will be unrecognizable in the next decade or so.

 

Again, your proposal would change the structure of the game.  When a new half begins, it always starts with a kickoff.  It has been that way for over a hundred years. There are two halves to a regulation game.  When it ends, tied or not, the second half has concluded.  Arguing that is arguing basic math and universal measurement standards.  And, yes it would cause teams to play the tie more conservatively, just like we see happen at the end of the first and third quarter of games all the time.  Better to let the clock expire and pick up on third and long (and also having the free TO to talk over the next play) than to risk turning the ball over so that the other team starts off OT with a first down at the spot where you turned it over.

 

only one type of touchback has been changed, the kickoff spot has returned to the place it was before the early 90s and I have never seen a team be particularly conservative at the end of the first and third quarter, beyond not running a play if there's more time on the play clock than on the game  clock

[Mr. Sinister]

I doubt this has that big of an impact. If either team can't score on their first or second possession, neither deserves to win. I like this better than the ridiculous notion of changing to the perverse,  college style OT, which has always been a sore spot for me, with games ending up 61-57. Do not reward failure. If you are a worthy offense, score to win the game. If you are a worthy defense, stop the other team from scoring. Even at the end, when both teams are tired, the better team digs deep and finds a way to win. Thats what real football should be about imo.

[spjunkies]

Just more people trying to earn a paycheck. There is nothing wrong with the traditional OT.

[eaglesfandan]

I guess this means teams are going to have to be a little more aggressive when it comes to OT.  Oh well.

[MassSkinsFan]

I'm old.

 

I liked it when there was no OT in the regular season.

 

Get rid of OT.

 

And get off my mother****ing lawn you punks!

[Cooleyfan1993]

I kinda think this will lead to more ties next season. although I think more ties will make the season a little bit more interesting, cause there could end up being a lot of tiebreakers for teams to try to make it into the postseason.

[RedskinsMayne]

I think this rule will affect so few games it's kind of a non issue. Not important.

 

[Renegade7]

OMG, they gave up five minutes of gametime so players could get rest?  That's retarded.  Call me when they eliminate ties like basketball and baseball.  In fact, I like the idea of letting the whole ten minutes play out, who ever has the lead wins.  Then people can really stop crying about not having a chance in overtime.

[Warhead36]

FFS its not that hard. Just play a 15 minute quarter. Whoever is leading by the end wins. Its not that hard.

 

I don't buy the "playing in OT screws us over for the next week" argument. What's another 15 minutes? If you're sore you're gonna be sore anyway. Anyone can get hurt at any time. You're getting paid millions to play a game, sack up and play.

[wysknz1]

Let the FG kickers battle it out. Start at the 10 and move back 5 yards each time until one of them miss. A lot of games come down to a FG anyway make them earn an extra dollar or two.

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

13 minutes ago, wysknz1 said:

Let the FG kickers battle it out. Start at the 10 and move back 5 yards each time until one of them miss. A lot of games come down to a FG anyway make them earn an extra dollar or two.

 

I'm a fan of letting the kicking game determine it also.  But I would start at the 40-ish and move back 2 yards until one misses.  Starting at the 10 would take too long.  Would you have lines and blockers out there or just the kickers?  I think I'd like just the kickers.  I bet we would see some impressively long kicks.

 

i still go back to wanting a year or two with no major changes from the previous year though.  Just enjoy what we have for once.

[skinfan2k]

Your first possession in OT should start at the 10 yd line.  It would convince people to play defense first to get their offense a short field

[amm0409]

I still cant believe SuperBowl OT rules.  The quarter should be played out till the end.