Reforming the NFL’s overtime format has become the hottest topic of the day, although the temperature always seems to be highest in the cities where the local heroes were just eliminated without ever getting their hands on the ball before the issue was decided.
When this happened to the Chiefs a few years back, ownership and fans in Kansas City hollered as if they had an acute case of bunions. Nothing changed and two weeks ago the Chiefs eliminated the Buffalo Bills in the same scenario. Nobody in Kansas City said a word about overtime reform then, but around Lake Erie the Bills “Mafia’ was so hot snow was beginning to melt all over Buffalo.
So it goes with the brainchild of former NFL commissioner Bert Bell, who first came up with the sudden death overtime idea over the protests of the NFL owners he worked for. That protest turned mute, however, after the then Baltimore Colts beat the New York Giants to win the first NFL championship ever decided in a sudden death overtime period. That 1958 game is considered the most significant in NFL history because the overtime caused the game’s national television broadcast to bleed into what was prime time television for the first time and a country fell in love with a sport that, up to then, barely was registering on the American sports scene.
The Bills’ elimination at the hands of the Chiefs (and the arm of Patrick Mahomes) this playoff season without ever touching the ball in overtime ended one of the most entertaining and dramatic games of the year. That ending left a sour taste in the mouths of many because there was a strong desire to see just what Josh Allen, the Bills unstoppable quarterback, would have done in response to Mahomes’ overtime touchdown drive. That never happened and so fans were left unsatisfied.
A number of reforms have since been floated with the strong suggestion that, finally, something has to be done to insure each team gets its hands on the ball at least once. One suggestion, supported by NBC Sports’ Peter King among others, suggested that rather than the game ending if the first team to get the ball scores a touchdown, as is now the case, the opposing team get one chance to respond but with the caveat that if it too scores a touchdown it MUST go for a two-point conversion if the first team had kicked the extra point.
That didn’t seem any fairer to me than the present system so one wondered how else this knotty problem might be solved and an idea came to mind to iron out the fairness issue while adding some drama to the entire matter.
In my overtime scenario, each team would possess the ball once regardless of whether the first team to get it scored a touchdown or not. If the first team failed to score, the second team would take over and could win the game with a touchdown or a field goal. But if the first to get the ball scored a touchdown the opposition’s offense would get one chance to retaliate.
If they succeeded or the game remained otherwise tied after a possession each how about we stop asking the battle-weary players to continue risking life and limb, not to mention potential visits to concussion protocol, and take a page from soccer. At that point let’s turn it over to the kickers.
After each team possesses the ball once, if the game is still tied the kickers come out and, like a shootout in soccer or penalty shots in hockey, each tries a field goal from, say, 35 yards. If they both make it they move back to 40, then 45, 50 and so on until someone finally makes the winning kick. If the kickers reach 67 yards away (which is the NFL record) and the outcome is still in dispute they start backwards again from 67, 65 to 60 and so on.
Back and forth they swing their legs until one of them gags or someone blocks a kick after the other has made his. Imagine the drama? Imagine the pressure? How long would it take for someone to shank one wide or drill the upright or the crossbar with an overtime win hanging in the balance?
This format seems to solve the complaints about the present system while also protecting the regular players from additional exposure to injury. Both teams would get at least one offensive possession and thus can’t be beaten without getting a chance to touch the ball. If the game remains tied after that, we turn it over to the NFL’s version of penalty kicks, thus putting the foot back into football.
Think of the tension as the kickers move further and further back, the gap between the uprights growing tinier and tinier as they do. Eventually, someone misses and for a year fans get to blame the kicker rather than the quarterback or the coaches or the defense for costing their team a trip to the Super Bowl.
There is only one drawback to this plan as I see it. It would insure the Green Bay Packers don’t return to the Super Bowl any time soon. Of course, Aaron Rodgers has pretty much done the same for them for the past 11 years anyway, so what’s the diff?
