Eliminating the Coin Flip Would Solve NFL's Overtime Issues

You're playing a game of football with your friends, when one of them gets a call saying that they have to leave soon, which will break up the game. The game is currently tied and you want to determine a winner. 

Do you:  a) keep playing until one team scores or b) flip a coin and then kick the ball off to the team that won the coin flip?

If you think that option b) sounds strange, you're not alone. 

Many NFL fans dislike the current overtime setup where the team that wins a coin flip can elect to receive the ball, move down the field and score, thereby ending the game without allowing the other team a chance to touch the ball on offense. 

The most equitable solution to this problem is also the simplest:

Skip the flip.  Just keep playing.  First team to score wins.

For example, on third-and-10, the offensive team completes a 17-yard pass to the opposing team's 45-yard line on the last play of the fourth quarter.  When overtime starts, the offense will have the ball first-and-10 on the opposing team's 45-yard line. 

The "sudden death" rule is still in effect, so if the offense scores on this possession, the game is over. There would be no other changes in the rules: teams would still switch sides of the field at the end of each quarter, regular season games would end in a tie after a 15-minute overtime, and teams would get two timeouts per quarter (three in playoff games).

One reason for making the change is that the current rule disrupts the balance of the game. If a football game were played as one consecutive 60-minute period, the team that received the ball first at the start of the game would have an advantage. This is part of the reason why a regulation game is divided into two 30-minute halves—the team that receives the ball at the start of the game will kick off to begin the third quarter. 

The initial coin flip is used only to determine if a team receives the ball at the start of the first quarter or at the start of the third quarter. Flipping a coin to start overtime effectively establishes a third period of play, which benefits the team that receives the ball first. This disparity would be eliminated under the new rule, since the overtime period would essentially be an extension of the second half.

Another benefit of the new rule would be that control of the game would be returned to the players and coaches, since the possession, field position, and down-and-distance scenario in overtime would be a direct result of what occurred at the end of the fourth quarter. The complaint that "we lost the game on a coin flip" would no longer exist. The game would be decided on the field, and would not be influenced by a random, unrelated and unnecessary event at a crucial time in the game.

A third reason to change the rule is because a defense can be forced to stay on the field for two consecutive possessions. For example, if a team drives down the field at the end of regulation in a tie game and misses a field goal, they can still win the coin flip in overtime and get a second chance to score. 

During regulation play, if the defense makes a stop, they get a chance to rest since their team's offense will then take the field.  Modifying the rule will eliminate this issue.

Given all of the advantages of moving to the new rule, why hasn't the NFL done so?  For one, tradition plays a part. There also has not been agreement on the best procedure.  Many ideas have been proposed, which include:

1) an extra period (five, ten or fifteen minutes) and sudden death thereafter,

2) one possession for each team and sudden death thereafter,

3) disallowing field goals,

4) "first-to-six" where the first team to score six points in overtime wins,

5) the current college system where both teams are provided an opportunity to score, with the game proceeding to multiple overtimes if the score is still tied,

6) moving the kickoff to the 35-yard line and

7) an "auction" or other system where teams would negotiate starting field position for the ability to receive the ball.

These solutions all fail to address the root cause of the problem, which is the coin flip itself. Using a coin flip to start overtime effectively creates an independent, shorter game, but it is difficult to generate a fair winner in such a game unless the teams play for a reasonable period of time. 

The first five proposals above would result in longer games, which conflicts with the goals of the league and players, who do not want to increase the amount of time spent playing overtime. 

Moving the kickoff from the 30-yard line to the 35-yard line does not solve the fairness issue, as it will not make much difference in an offensive shootout. An auction system is unnecessarily complicated, and could still be perceived as unfair if a team elects to receive the ball on their one-yard line and scores on their first possession. 

Eliminating the coin flip for overtime and continuing play is easily understandable and does not require any changes to the basic structure of the game.

It has been argued that removing the overtime coin flip will result in longer games, since teams will not have as much incentive to win in regulation. This argument has merit in certain situations, but does not consider the full impact of the rule change. 

There are three basic situations where the strategy at the end of regulation time will change:

·        when the offense trails by three points,

·        when the offense trails by seven points, and

·        when the game is tied.

Over the past five years, the team that has won the coin flip has gone on to win the game over 61 percent of the time. 

In a situation where the offense is trailing by three or seven points near the end of regulation, the team will have essentially a 50 percent chance of winning the game if they can send it to overtime, due to the coin flip. 

Under the new rule the offense will only have a 39% chance of winning the game in overtime, as they will kick the ball off to the other team if they score to tie the game.  Teams in these situations will therefore have additional incentive to end the game in regulation, which would satisfy the NFL's objectives. 

This is best illustrated in the scenario where a team trailing by seven points scores a touchdown at the end of regulation time, and must choose to either tie the game or to end it with a two-point conversion try. Teams have been successful on approximately 45 percent of their two-point conversion attempts since the NFL adopted the rule in 1994. Since this is less than the current 50% chance of winning the game in overtime, coaches currently will typically attempt the extra point to send the game to overtime as it improves their chances of winning.  

However, the new overtime rule would alter this dynamic. 

In this situation, a team that attempts the extra point would now only have a 39 percent chance of winning, instead of the 45 percent chance provided by a successful two-point conversion. The two-point conversion now becomes the percentage play, which will end these games before they go into overtime.

In a tie game, the team's strategy will greatly depend on how much time is remaining in the game. If a team has the ball at their own 20-yard line and there are three or four minutes to play, they should have ample time to drive down the field under either rule. 

If there is less than a minute left in regulation and the team is backed up in their own end of the field, the new rule is actually an improvement, since a team cannot go into a conservative shell and "play for overtime". 

In the case where are two minutes remaining in the game, the offense must now play more aggressively to move the ball down the field quickly in order to set up a game-winning score in regulation, while the new rule would encourage a team to send the game to overtime to deny the other team a chance to score. 

While this may appear to favor the current rules, there are certain items to be considered.  When a team is forced to play aggressively on offense, their play calls become more limited, which provides the defense with greater opportunity to stop the drive. 

In cases where the offense is able to move down the field to set up a field goal attempt in a tie game at the end of regulation, the current rule does not necessarily ensure shorter games. 

Consider the situation where a team has moved to the opposing team's 30-yard line with only a few seconds left in regulation time. A successful 47-yard field goal will end the game at that point, but if the kicker misses, overtime play will start with a kickoff, which will likely result in much worse field position for the team that receives the kickoff. 

With no coin flip, the offense could continue the drive and potentially end the game just a few minutes into the overtime period. In games tied near the end of regulation, one might expect the new rule to cause more games to go to overtime, but the length of play in the overtime period should be reduced, due to the favorable field position at the start of overtime. 

Quite possibly, the total amount of time spent in overtime in these games might not vary that much if the coin flip is eliminated. 

The argument that the coin flip encourages teams to end the game in regulation is also inconsistent with the current procedure for playoff games, where play is continued in 15-minute quarters until one team scores. 

If the NFL believes that a coin flip actually shortens games, then why is there no coin flip at the end of the fifth or any subsequent quarter? Since the current procedure at the end of any overtime period is to simply continue playing, it would make sense to do the same thing at the end of the fourth quarter as well.

So how would the new rule have affected last season's games?  In 2008, there were a total of 16 games that went into overtime. The teams winning the toss were 11-4-1, and eight of these winners scored on their first possession of overtime. 

There were also three other games during the year that did not go into overtime, which ended with a field goal near the end of regulation time. This analysis is limited to the last few plays of regulation and the overtime, and makes the simplifying assumption that there would have been no change in the play calls leading up to that point.

The three games that did not go into overtime (Colts at Vikings, Week 2; Colts at Chargers, Week 12; and Texans at Packers, Week 14) ended on field goals of 47, 51 and 40 yards.  

There were another four games that went into overtime (49ers at Seahawks, Week 2; Packers at Titans, Week 9; Bears at Packers, Week 16; and Panthers at Giants, Week 16), where teams attempted and missed field goals of 41, 47, 38 and 50 yards at the end of regulation. 

Under the new rule, all seven of these games would probably have gone into overtime, since there would be no incentive to try a long field goal. The teams would most likely have attempted to run a few more plays and kick a shorter field goal. 

The average length of an overtime period over the past five years is about six-and-a-half minutes, but this reflects the fact that overtime currently starts with a kickoff. 

Given the field position (the opponent's 28-yard line, on average), it could be assumed that each of these games would have run another three minutes in overtime, for a total of 21 minutes. This is only slightly greater than the actual 19 minutes played in overtime in these games.

A significant benefit of the new rule is the ability for teams to avoid overtime when trailing by seven points, which occurred in two games (Buccaneers at Bears, Week 3; Jets at Patriots, Week 11). 

Both the Buccaneers and the Patriots scored touchdowns with less than ten seconds left in the game, and needed to choose either a game-tying extra point or a two-point conversion to win outright. In both of these situations under the new rule, the percentage play would have been to go for two points, thereby ending the game in regulation. This would have created two dramatic finishes and also eliminated over 18 minutes of overtime.

Based on these assumptions, the new rule would have resulted in three additional games going into overtime, but would have eliminated overtime in two other games.  The total time spent playing overtime in 2008 would have decreased by at least 15 minutes. 

Finally, there was one game (Ravens at Steelers, Week 4) where the Ravens had the ball at their own 25-yard line with 46 seconds remaining in a 20-20 tie.  The Ravens called a running play and took a knee to send the game into overtime.  Under the new rule, the Ravens would not be able to run out the clock this way.

Skipping the coin flip and continuing the game into overtime from that point should be easily accepted by most fans, as it is clear and understandable. Defense and special teams would still continue to play a significant role in the game, as they do now. The overall time spent in overtime periods would be decreased, and most importantly, the unfairness of the current rules is eliminated.

"Sudden death" is an exciting way to play overtime—this method provides a sensible and fair way to get there.