Zebra Blog

NFL OWNERS APPROVE ‘MODIFIED SUDDEN DEATH’

The Competition Committee moved on changing the dynamic of postseason overtime on a nonexistent platform: field position after a kickoff gives a short field for an easy put-the-game-away field goal.

In postseason play, this situation has happened only three times. Yes, only three times has a team advanced the ball in overtime from kickoff to field goal in a playoff game, most recently in the 2009 NFC Championship game where the Saints advanced over the Vikings.

The Vikings, not one to sour on their lost destiny, voted against the modified sudden-death proposal. The Bills, Bengals and Ravens were the only others to reject the proposal

1st major modification in league history

Yes, that headline is screaming. And for good reason. The NFL now can’t simply resolve a tie game much like Major League Baseball (if necessary, play till 5 a.m. to resolve .006  percentage points in the standings), the NHL (after five minutes, go to a shootout that resembles pregame warmups), and NCAA football (a sudden-life format that was called “last licks” in my elementary school days).

The NFL owners approved a “modified sudden death” system, in that a field goal on the first possession of overtime extends the overtime period for a retaliatory possession by the other team. If the score is then equalized, then the next score wins the game. Therefore, the “catch-up” team must score at least a tying field goal on the second possession to stay alive. A touchdown at any time ends the game.

Oddly, this is only implemented for the postseason. The league stance is that there are already separate rules for regular season and the postseason. (This difference is merely that one overtime is permitted in the regular season and an additional timeout is given in postseason.) This may be to avoid an odd, but plausible, circumstance where an overtime session only lasts two possessions because of two conservative, ball-controlling offenses.

Competition Committee members Bill Polian and Rich McKay (Colts and Falcons presidents) explained that there were fundamental inequities to the team losing the coin toss in overtime. We will dissect them in another post. You can watch the news conference here.

The NFL homepage ran an Associated Press story quoting the Rich McKay, Falcons president and Competition Committee co-chairman. As it does almost every year, according to the commissioner, the Competition Committee is looking into the competitive balance of the current sudden-death overtime format. The committee met in Indianapolis before the Scouting Combine and are currently adjourned until March.

The review will likely lead to no change in the overtime rules. If there is a change, it would be nothing more than moving the overtime kickoff forward five yards.

Three reasons lead me to believe there is no change: (1) there is no formal proposal submitted for a specific rule change; (2) coaches still favor the system as it has existed since it was implemented in 1974; (3) Jeff Fisher, Titans head coach and the other committee co-chairman, is encouraging more study into any possible changes.

The one thing that keeps coming up is the idea that the coin flip determines the outcome. Of course, this discounts the role of the defense and the special teams—all important parts of a balanced team. However, I propose doing away with the coin flip and giving the option to the team that was last in the lead. In other words, if your team caused the tie, it is the same as if your team lost the coin flip. This also eliminates the possibility of a team tying in the final seconds of the fourth quarter, winning the toss, and scoring on the first possession of overtime.

In his second annual State of the League address, Commissioner Roger Goodell stated that the Competition Committee would be looking at a possible revision to the overtime rules. This idea has new traction after Peyton Manning watched the entire overtime period from the bench in the Colts’ Wild Card loss to the Chargers. However, the Eagles and Bengals kept each other from mounting more than a 30-yard drive in the extra session, ending that Week 11 game in a tie.

Commissioner Goodell, on a question about the coin flip determining the winner of the overtime:

I think every year we look back at our overtime rules. I would disagree very strongly … that the game is determined by a coin flip. The point of the game is to win it in regulation. There is a great coach over here, Tony Dungy, who said something to me earlier this year and I think it’s important — that once that coin is flipped and you’ve determined who gets the ball, you still have to get into scoring position. So, this game is about teamwork. It’s about offense, defense and special teams. You have to earn your way to get that opportunity and if you do, you win the game. So, there is a lot of debate about all overtime rules, including the college overtime rules. We’ll look at that. We’ll look at every alternative and we’ll try to come up with something that we think makes sense. We think the rule we have is a terrific rule and it’s served us well.

When asked about removing the option for a field goal on the first drive of overtime, Goodell responded:

It’s been considered before, and I’m sure it will be considered among the alternatives. There are other ways of addressing the field goal on the first drive, and I think it is something the Competition Committee needs to consider because what we’ve seen in our statistics is that historically about 30 percent of the games in overtime are decided with a team who wins the coin flip scoring on the first possession. That number has risen to about 47 percent, and I think that’s significant, and I think it’s something our committee needs to look at. When you couple that with the fact that our field goal kickers are much more accurate than they have been in the past, that is a danger. We have talked about different concepts, and the committee will discuss this. And I’ve had some discussions with some of the committee members individually. Should we move the kickoff so that the ball, theoretically at least, would be, the drive would start further back? If they drive down and they kick a long field goal, they deserve to win. So, that suggestion that you’re making has been discussed. We’ll discuss it among the other alternatives, and I’m sure they’ll come up with a recommendation by the end of March.

As we just marked the 50th anniversary of the first overtime game (let’s forget for a moment that  1955 preseason game between the Los Angeles Rams and New York Giants), the overtime rules have been revised exactly once: to include overtime in the regular season in 1974. Usually, a high-profile case, such as the Colts–Chargers game, will bring this to the front of discussion, and time and time again, overtime is left just as it is.

If there is going to be a change, there are only two concessions that I would allow without hurting the integrity of the overtime system:

I wouldn’t mind seeing the coin toss replaced with the options given to the team last in the lead. In most cases, this would mean the team that caused the tie to kick off in overtime. It’s not the strongest, but it adds an on-field element to something that is completely random.

Second, the suggestion of moving the kickoff in overtime has some merit. The kicking game has changed tremendously since the implementation of regular-season overtime, that it has slightly tipped the balance in the fifth frame. This variation was dismissed wholeheartedly by the commissioner-emeritus Paul Tagliabue during his tenure, but seems to now be under consideration.

Other suggestions to win by six points or to equalize the number of possessions change “sudden death” dynamic into “extra innings.” Hopefully, there is no serious consideration of these options.