NFL Playoff Overtime Champions League Style

After watching Chelsea beat Bayern Munich on penalties in the Champions League Final, I thought I would compare the two and propose an alternative overtime for the NFL playoffs.

The one thing that gets me about the NFL overtime is that how unfair it can be in a sport that prides itself on equality. The NFL tries to provide a level playing field through the draft, salary caps and shared revenues but when it comes to the playoffs the team that gets the ball first (like Denver against Pittsburgh) can win the game without the opposition having a reply.

Therefore I would like to put forward a more fairer system based on football. If any playoff game ends in a tie then there would be another 15 minutes played. If the two sides were then still level then a penalty shoot-out style system would decide the winner. Now before people think I'm talking about quarterbacks and wide receiver kicking conversions, I'm not.

Basically each team would have five attempts to score a 'two-point conversion'. This would involve both teams offence and defence. If the scores are still level after 5 attempts each they each get an extra go until one team scores and the other doesn't.

There already is new overtime rules (already used for playoffs) that will be used in the regular season where both teams will get a shot at possession unless the first possession is a touchdown.
Up to your defence to stop them.

The rule is both teams get the ball. Unless a touchdown is scored by the team on the first possession. It's more about eliminating the fact that the team who wins the toss wins the game with the kicker, who probably doesn't have a hair out place and beads of sweat anywhere on his body. It's designed so the stars are the guys who win the game.

The Broncos-Steelers game was the first OT game under the new rules and Tebow and Thomas did what the rule change encourages players to do.

I would prefer them to play the whole 15 mins of overtime
Regardless of whether anybody scores

If still level after 15 mins ,regular season is a tie & playoffs then go to 1st team to score

At least the rule change they have made stops the team winning coin toss just having to reach field goal range

I like the rules currently, with the first team needing a touchdown to ensure the win means that if a defense performs well they aren't punished by the team hitting a 50 yard field goal. We've only seen the rules once so they probably need a bit more time before they're criticised but I think Pittsburgh deserved that loss they had been getting burnt all day by thinking Tebow couldn't throw so put 11 players within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage and got burnt deep.

well, three times technically, no? didn't both championship games go to overtime?

anyway, I do get the whole "unfair" thing about a touchdown ending it right away before the other team has a chance to score - while, ironically, the Steelers were the ones burnt by it, in general, it will punish teams whose defense are built around giving up touchdowns in order to increase odds of creating turnovers, because their offenses are so prolific - the Green Bays and New Englands of the world. Then again, you could say it balances it out - those teams' offenses are generally so good, that if they win the coin toss, they're likely to win; but if they lose the coin toss, their defenses are bad, so likely to lose.

but if you want to make it fair, I would basically keep the same rules but include touchdowns - in that, if the first team score a touchdown, the second team does get the opportunity to try and match their touchdown. after that though, it should be first team to score wins - both teams have had an opportunity, so after that, why not just do it "golden goal" style? it's much more organic, IMO, then just setting up goal-to-go situations - remember, teams very rarely use their base formations & personnel in those situations, with many backups being used due to overloading certain positions - for example, you might get two or three tight ends on offense, and at least five, often more, defensive linemen. Rather than forcing teams into situations where they do use their backups, and thus not giving them a fair shot, a chance to have one series each, followed by a "golden goal" situation if either both or neither team score, regardless of a field goal or touchdown, will be fairest.

and, what's more, teams can still win on the first possession like they currently do.... but rather it being the offensive team by scoring a touchdown, the defensive team can end it on the first drive, either by pick six, fumble recovery taken to the house, or a safety.

GurTPL wrote:well, three times technically, no? didn't both championship games go to overtime?

Had forgotten about them so twice as Ravens missed the field goal to make it overtime.

They've already had an hour to outscore their opponents, why give them one extra drive? How is it fair to become 'golden goal' after they've both scored as then it still favours the team who won the toss, maybe if we're after fairness it should just be 'sudden death' style and so they both get an equal number of drives.

^ I might be wrong on this, but I believe that's how overtime works in college, basically like sudden death penalties. TBH I've wondered if the change in overtime rules last year were only ever meant as a stepping stone to transitioning to the full on college system.

I do think that the 'golden goal' style would make it a lot more interesting. Firstly, it punishes teams whose defense can't stop the other team, but it also IMO makes for fascinating decision making in situations where the first team doesn't score on their first attempt. Does the second team keep marching down the field no matter if it's 1st or 4th down, trying to get the score to rob the other team of another chance? Or do you go for the punt and play the field position game?

All that said, I wouldn't be at all opposed to the college "sudden death" system per se, but I do think that it should ONLY be used in a "second overtime" situation - i.e. if the teams are tied up after one 15-minute overdrive period. If you bring it in from the beginning of overtime, I think you have to have it in the regular season too, which will A) eliminate tied games and B) could see games extended by potentially a VERY long time. If you're proposing going to sudden death AFTER a first 15-minute overtime period, which is played either the current rules or a "golden goal" situation like I described above (i.e. a touchdown doesn't immediately end the game no matter what), then you've got me on board.

GurTPL wrote:^ I might be wrong on this, but I believe that's how overtime works in college, basically like sudden death penalties. TBH I've wondered if the change in overtime rules last year were only ever meant as a stepping stone to transitioning to the full on college system.

College football works as a series of paired drives from the 25 (???). Say it's Bama vs LSU.

LSU goes first... standard offensive drive, albeit a short field and no time limit - there is a standard play clock. Either get's 8, 7, 6 or 3 (depending on their choice of conversion on a TD).
Bama tries to match to continue the game or do better to win.

In the event of a tie the same thing happens only Bama goes first.

This continues, alternating the team that starts, until one team finishes the pair ahead. The only other clause being that from the third (??) series any team scoring a Touchdown must by rule go for the two point conversion - increasing the likelihood that the tie would be broken.

Defensive touchdowns end the game as it counts as each team having had one possession in the "pair". It is thus possible to win after one play by the first defensive team returning an interception for a TD.

The main downside to this is you end up with a points fest quite often and I think those stats count in the record books which as a statistical type I wholeheartedly disagree with!

Anyone fancy that in the NFL!