Different sports have different overtimes: soccer simply plays an extra 30 minutes, and then goes to a shootout if the game is still tied. Baseball is similar, adding innings one at a time until the tie is broken. The "sudden death" or "golden goal" model is perhaps the simplest of all: the next team to score wins the game, period. It's unquestionably the most thrilling time in all of sports; every subsequent play has the potential to end the game. Leagues that use sudden death include the NHL, FIFA (until recently), and the NFL.
In light of Sunday's NFC Championship Game between the Vikings and Saints, the blog-o-sphere has exploded with editorials about how NFL overtime is or is not flawed. Here are most of the arguments that I have heard in favor of the current NFL overtime system (and why they're wrong):
WHY PEOPLE WANT TO KEEP THE CURRENT SYSTEM
1) Them's the rules. I've read countless articles and comments today that say "the defense should have played better," "they should have won the game in regulation," or ultimately come down to "they didn't deserve to win the game." Let me be perfectly clear: I am not here to say "The Vikings got jobbed." With 5 turnovers, they certainly didn't deserve to win Sunday's game.
2) Winning the coin flip does not mean a team will win. History has shown that taking the opening drive of overtime for a score does not happen nearly as often as one would think.
3) Sudden death works well in other sports. Hockey and soccer both implement a sudden death overtime format, and nobody ever complains about overtime in those sports (except the shootout, which is an entirely different can of worms).
WHY THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS FLAWED
1) The coin flip provides a statistical advantage. If 60% of teams that win the coin toss go on to win the game, the team that loses the toss will only win 40% of the time, which means the team that wins the toss is 1.5 times more likely to win the game. If an average NFL team were to go in to overtime in every regular-season game and lose every coin toss, they would go 6-10 or 7-9 on the season. To put it in perspective: the home team won 56% of games in the 2000-2007 season. So, winning the coin flip in overtime is
1b) Teams always elect to receive the ball in overtime. The opposite has happened only 7 times in the history of the NFL. Clearly, everyone that has ever played professional football (except for a few adventurous souls) perceives there's an advantage to going first, and since all those players and coaches are pretty good at what they do, I'm inclined to believe that there is.
Again, the the question here is, why should such an advantage be given out in the first place, let alone be awarded by a coin toss? Instead, what if the visiting team always got the first possession in overtime? Or, what if the team that lost the coin toss could only play with 10 players on defense? Surely such a rule would not stand for long.
2) Sudden death is not fair, given the nature of football. Sudden death is only fair in sports where changes in possession are significantly more frequent than scoring. As an example, let's compare hockey and football, both of which use sudden death overtime. I will estimate that in hockey, a possession lasts 30 seconds, for a total of 120 possessions per game, and that an average game has 5 goals scored. That works out to about 0.04 scores per possession. On the other hand, an average football game will see about 24 possessions (3 per quarter per team), and probably about 8 scores (2 TDs, 2 FGs per team), giving about 0.33 scores per possession.
What does this mean? According to our numbers, an average sudden-death hockey overtime will last about 24 possessions, which virtually guarantees that both teams will have an opportunity to make the winning score. However, the average overtime in football will only last 3 possessions; basic statistics tells us that quite a few football overtimes will be a one-possession affair, with the losing team never getting an opportunity to score (Update: the actual figure in 2000-2007 was 30%). What if baseball were to implement true sudden death, and the home team never got a chance to re-tie or win the game? Nobody in their right mind can argue that a high probability of a one-possession overtime is in the best interest of fairness.
3) Sudden death overtime in football changes the nature of the game. In other sports that use sudden death, a team can only score in one way: by putting the ball (or puck) in to the goal. The fact that the next score will instantly end the game does not change the ultimate strategy of the game, other than teams possibly playing more conservatively to avoid a loss.
However, in football, there are multiple ways to score, and naturally there is a trade-off between their ease of execution and their value. As a result, in regulation play, a team will obviously prefer a touchdown to a field goal, because it earns them more points. However, in sudden death overtime, a field goal and a touchdown have precisely the same value: a win. Clearly, it's not in a team's best interest to try to score a touchdown. Case and point:
If teams only need a field goal to win, the entire game changes. In regulation, holding an opponent to a field goal and then scoring a touchdown on the ensuing possession is a legitimate strategy; why shouldn't it be the same during overtime? In order to effectively win the overtime, an offense only needs to get to their opponents' 35-yard line; the defense is more or less playing on a 50-yard field with the game on the line.
4) The rules should work all of the time, not just most of the time. Using Sunday's game as an example, consider that it's equally likely that the Vikings could have won the coin toss and the "undeserving" team could score and advance to the Super Bowl. Perhaps some would say the Vikings deserved it because they won the overtime, but could you honestly say they were "deserving" when they committed 5 turnovers, and the #1 offense in the league sat on the sidelines, helpless to do anything to win the game?
Just because a rule works every once in a while (or even most of the time) doesn't mean it's not flawed; rules should work all of the time. For an example of this, look up the play that caused the 2003 Vikings to miss the playoffs (the rule was in fact eliminated in the off-season due to that very play).
WHAT SHOULD REPLACE SUDDEN DEATH?
1) Use the NCAA's overtime rules. This system has each team trade drives, starting on their opponents' 25-yard line. It's unquestionably fair in the sense that it gives both teams opportunities to score, but if we're trying to keep the nature of the game identical to regulation play, this is clearly not the way to go.
2) Add additional quarters as needed. This goes the furthest toward accomplishing the goal of not changing the game. Unfortunately, with an average overtime currently lasting about 7 minutes on the clock (by our calculations above), this would greatly extend the length of the game. Concerns about injuries and game broadcast length have prevented its implementation.
3) Require a team to score 4 points in overtime to win. This is my favorite, as a compromise between preserving the nature of the game and keeping game length to a minimum. In this system, the incentive to score a touchdown is not removed. Yes, there would still be one-possession overtimes, but only if a team scores a touchdown on the opening drive, at which point it's a much more convincing win. In order to win on field goals, a team would need to score two of them and prevent their opponents from scoring a touchdown in the intervening possession.
4) Hold a closed bid for possession. In this system, both coaches would secretly write down what yard line they would like to start on to begin overtime; the team that has volunteered to start further back would be awarded the ball, and the overtime would proceed as normal. I don't like this one because, as with the current system, it is played on a shorter field than regulation play, and it's very difficult to predict what would actually happen were this implemented.
4b) Choose where the opening kickoff/possession begins. One team (determined by a coin toss) would choose what yard line the opening drive (or kickoff) would start on, and the other team would choose whether they would like to kick or receive the opening possession. Again, I'm not a fan of this option, because while it's an interesting way to get teams to not automatically choose to receive the kick, it's still played on a short field.
----
Whatever is chosen to replace the current system, the point remains: the current NFL overtime system is flawed and ultimately unfair to the teams that play the game. Unfortunately, the league has not seen enough of a need for change to do anything about it; countless games that were decided by only giving one team a chance to score are apparently not enough of a reason.
It will probably take until a (possibly "undeserving") team kicks a field goal in the opening possession of overtime in the Super Bowl for the league to have a serious chance of changing the overtime rules. Until that happens, we can all hope that our team just wins the coin toss.
