Playoff Overtime Rules

I've seen all the conversation around the strategy for the new NFL overtime rules in the playoffs. I think there's a clear way to go moving forward. But let's dive into each side. 

Advantage of Going First

If you score first, you can put the pressure that any turnover ends the game

If there's a third possession, it will be a tie game, and it's sudden death now and a field goal wins

Your defense gets a rest, particularly important if they were just on the field

Advantage of Going Second

You know exactly what you need, which turns the whole field into 4-down territory if you're trailing

Your defense has a chance to get a turnover or even force a punt to make it sudden death, where all you need is a field goal 

You know exactly what you need, so you could win with a field goal, you could win with a touchdown, you could win with a touchdown + PAT, you could win with a touchdown + 2pt

You have the luxury of going for two knowing it's a game winner...let me come back to that

- - -

Let's run through a few scenarios...

Scenario A

Go first and you get a touchdown. You have to choose to kick for one or go for two. Going for two is very risky. It doesn't guarantee the win as the other team will have a chance to match and if you fail the other team doesn't have to match, they can kick for one and win. That risk/reward ratio makes it unappealing to go for two. An aggressive coach could still do it, if their offense if much better than their defense, but the reward doesn't outweigh the risk. 

Scenario B

You're going second and you're trailing by 7, then you get a touchdown. Now the math is different. Going for two wins the game. Kicking for one gives the other team the ball with sudden death. The reward for going for two is much better and now kicking for one is tremendously risky. So if you're in this situation, you go for two. 

Now that we've run through scenarios A + B, we see that the chances of a third possession are a lot slimmer. (The 49ers could have had one if they stopped the Chiefs in the red zone and limited them to a field goal...but not if both teams scored a touchdown.)

If you look back at the advantages of going first, the pressure element was not really applicable to Mahomes and the third possession thing is also weak. The only real advantage would be to give your defense a rest, but that doesn't come close to the advantages of knowing what you need. 

Scenario C

You're the Chiefs and you're going first. You've got 4th and 4 from your own 31. Do you go for it? Fail and you give the ball to the 49ers in field goal territory. Or you could punt and pin them deep. It's a tie game, so pinning them deep doesn't seem so bad, right? The problem is you don't know what you need. You don't know what the 49ers will do on their possession, so you don't know if it's okay to punt the ball away or if it's worth the risk to go for it on 4th down. IF you had a magical crystal ball that could let you see the future of their next drive, then the call to punt or go for it would be easy. Choosing to receive second is that crystal ball. 

Fixing NFL Overtime, Again

So back in 2010, NFL overtimes were sudden death even in the playoffs. You could win the toss. Gain 30-40 yards, kick a field goal and win the game. 

This seemed too easy, creating too much of an advantage for the winner of the coin toss. In 2010, I explored proposals to change the sudden death system.

The NFL made a change that took effect in 2012, that if the first team scored a field goal, the second team would still get a chance. 

This was an improvement and seemed to make things more fair. 

- - -

In the 2018-2019 AFC Championship, the Patriots and Chiefs went to overtime. Patriots won the coin toss, drove the field for a touchdown and won without Mahomes getting to touch the ball. 

In the offseason, the Chiefs proposed a rule change that would ensure both teams get to have a possession. It didn't even have enough support to get a league vote. 

Chiefs fans were told to get over it. Make a stop. 

Three years later, the two best teams in the AFC faced off again in the playoffs. It went to overtime. And the team that won the coin toss got a touchdown and won the game. 

Now, the conversation has shifted. More people are realizing it's not really fair to have such weight on a single coin toss. 

Here's the thing: Modern playoff teams are typically offense-driven. Combined with the fact that defenses are gassed after playing for 60 minutes, it really has shifted the odds heavily in favor of the team that wins the coin toss. 

I've seen two more good points this week that made sense to me: 

1. In baseball, it wouldn't feel right if extra innings ended in the top of the 10th, even if the road team scored 4 runs. 

2. To the "defense is part of the game, make a stop" crowd...the Chiefs defense didn't have to make a stop on Sunday. The Patriots defense didn't have to make a stop 3 years ago. So because of a coin toss, we've shifted the responsibility to half of an NFL team. 

So any proposal should address the weight of the coin toss on a game, and should involve the offense and the defense of both teams in the overtime period. 

Let's look at some proposals and see what makes the most sense. 

Proposal #1: Both teams guaranteed a possession. If still tied, then sudden death. 

This is actually one of my least favorites. If this was in effect two days ago and the Bills tie it up, then we're back to the 2010 rules where all the Chiefs need is a field goal. Offenses and defenses are involved but the coin toss still matters a lot. 

Proposal #2: Play a full 10-minute or 15-minute period. 

I don't love this one either. Forcing players to play 75 minutes is probably too long. 10 minute OT and one team could try to hold the ball and drag the clock out. And you could still be tied after all of this anyways.

Proposal #3: Keep the current rules but remove the coin toss. Home team gets ball. 

This might sound dumb at first, but by removing the coin toss and making it known what happens in advance, it's more fair. The road team can now choose to play for the win. The Bills might have gone for 2 with 13 seconds left if OT was less desirable. At least knowing in advance, you can't complain that the toss didn't go your way. 

Proposal #4: College format from the 40, home team goes 2nd. 

Here we've removed the coin toss and are involving the offenses and the defenses. A defensive stop could win you the game as you don't start in gimme field goal range. We reward higher seeds with byes and homefield already, going 2nd in OT isn't that much more far-fetched. Again, knowing this in advance makes it more fair in regulation.

Proposal #5: College format from the 25, no field goals allowed. 2 point conversions mandatory.

We can still have a coin toss here, but we've removed the advantage of going 2nd. There's no information gained. Both teams have to go for a TD and 2-pt no matter what. It will take offense and defense to win the game.

Proposal #6: Spot and choose, sudden death.

Road team picks the spot where the OT drive starts from, home team picks offense or defense. In Sundays game anything from the 10 and up and I think the Chiefs pick offense. But if the Bills say let's start at the 3 yard line, 97 yards away from a TD, do the Chiefs still pick offense? Adds a lot of strategy. But doesn't really feel like NFL.

Proposal #7: Secret auction, sudden death.

Whoever picks the furthest yard line away gets the ball. The coaches write a number in an envelope. The ref reads it out. If the Bills pick the 12 and the Chiefs pick the 9, the Chiefs start OT on their own 9. Again, very strategic, very unlike normal football.

I basically think 1 and 2 are worse than what we have now, and 3 through 7 are an improvement. I think #5 is the simplest solution that solves the issues and we've seen it play out in college, so we're used to the idea already. (In a way that fans aren't ready for 6 or 7.) So let's go with #5.

NFL Overtime Fixed*

*in the playoffs only.

I like the new system, but find it curious that it's only for the playoffs. Whatever. I bet it gets added to the regular season next year.

I compiled my list of various proposals back on 1-28-10.
Simmons revealed his idea on 2-8-10.

The one the NFL chose is what Simmons proposed, a variation of the last two on my blog.

I think it is a solid improvement, although it will have a bit of artificialness if the receiving team does kick a field goal. Then they will be winning in overtime and have to kickoff. The benefit of not having to score 6 points in OT is a shorter game.

Either way, it opens the door for more excitement and strategy when a team has the ball and is driving inside the 20. Now a touchdown wins it and teams will definitely treat field goals as a last resort. Of course, if the receiving team punts, or if both teams get field goals, we're right back where we started where teams will rush out the field goal kicker as soon as they get inside the 20. But at least both teams had a chance to win it.