To Roger: One Man’s Whining About The NFL Overtime System
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!
Most Commented Posts
Comments
Comment from Scotty
Time January 26, 2010 at 9:54 am
Dear Sid,
It clearly states that Norm did not write this letter. Also, I do not think he (not Stormin Norman) was arguing whether or not the Vikings blew it, but stating that there may be a better OT format (which I whole-heartedly agree). “Keep crying yourself to sleep over it.”? Really? The fact that you think anyone writing on this website is pro-Vikings/Favre is humorous.
Comment from Sensibility
Time January 26, 2010 at 11:03 am
“If your team cannot prevail at the end of the 4th quarter, then you deserve to have a coin give you a 50/50 chance of having the advantage to win.”
I’m sorry, Sid, but there is never a situation where the game’s outcome should be determined by a 50/50 chance. This isn’t Batman, there are rules, and leaving things to chance undermines the game’s fundamental principle- the best team wins.
Comment from DC Blackhawks
Time January 26, 2010 at 12:22 pm
First to 6 is a compromise and also puts a lot of pressure on coaching decisions in an overtime (there isn’t a whole lot game management in sudden death), esp that now, if they didn’t know before, you’re nut to kick off to take adantage of weather advantages. Here’s an exciting scenario to play out in a first to six format. 4th and 3 from the opponents 20 yd line. Do you kick and take three, or go for it?
Comment from Rule 5 Draftee
Time January 26, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Dear NQTC Goons,
I think Roger Goodell has a lot more on his plate to worry about than your silly proposals which you’re taking credit for even though Mike Greenberg of Mike & Mike has been campaigning for, for years. Asking Goodell to change OT rules while he’s undergoing a contentious CBA negotiation is like asking Congress to set limits on Carbon emissions while undergoing Health Care reform.
Comment from Ricky
Time January 26, 2010 at 4:40 pm
The “first to six” idea isn’t bad, but I actually love NFL overtime. You want the ball back? Play defense! ‘Tis part of the game.
Comment from RFS
Time January 26, 2010 at 6:07 pm
No matter what change or lack of change occurs, this argument will go on forever.
Comment from Sheps
Time January 27, 2010 at 5:11 am
I’m British and only just getting into this game so forgive me for not using the correct terminology. But surely the fairest system would be to say that the team who wins the toss is not allowed to kick a field goal on their first drive? So the first team can only win through a touchdown, but the 2nd team can win in any way.
Comment from G
Time January 27, 2010 at 10:21 am
I agree. I could care less who won the vikings/saints game, but it only highlighted the need to change the format of OT. There is a reason the team who wins the coin toss typically wins the game. Defense. Regardless of the score, your defense will be spent. That’s what makes it slightly unfair to have it come down to a coin toss. I like the idea of a 6 point system as it makes the team truly earn the win. Going up against a battered defense and kicking a 50 yard field goal slightly cheapens the game in my opinion. You have a well rested kicker with a great foot that can kick it half the field. With a decent kickoff return your offense barely has to work to get into FG range against a tired defense. Something needs to change. Not quite sure how, but it’s an issue that should be addressed.
Comment from Haurbancina
Time March 4, 2010 at 11:47 pm
The response to local and national disasters is noble but it’s a real shame that so many people take advantage of the negative situations.
I mean everytime there is an earthquake, a flood, an oil spill – there’s always a group of heartless people who rip off tax payers.
This is in response to reading that 4 of Oprah Winfreys “angels” got busted ripping off the system. Shame on them!
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/19/crimesider/entry5251471.shtml
Loading ...
Comment from Sid James
Time January 26, 2010 at 9:04 am
Dear Norm,
Stop making excuses for the Vikings’ loss on Sunday. The overtime system does NOT need to change. The Vikings had PLENTY of chances to win the game. Turning the ball over many times on offense and the defense not stepping it up is the reason why they had to go through overtime in the first place. If your team cannot prevail at the end of the 4th quarter, then you deserve to have a coin give you a 50/50 chance of having the advantage to win.
In short, the Vikings blew it. Keep crying yourself to sleep over it.
-Sid