[IYAS9YAS]

I think both formats blow chunks.

If the game can end in a tie after overtime, why not at the end of the 4th quarter? Either end it there, or play the whole 15 minute overtime for a final score.

[dilvish]

The basketball (play a full predetermined time period) method is no good either. Football isn’t usually a high scoring or more importantly quick scoring game like basketball, sudden death is perfectly reasonable. Remember NFL games don’t end in ties often, this is the first time in 6 years, and given how win centered the standing are a tie is as good as a loss. This really hurts Philly in the standings, and if the Bengals weren’t pathetic it would have hurt them too. Which is fine, two teams can’t figure it in 5 quarters they deserve the hit.

[Alberta's Child]

I tend to agree with you, though I'm not sure a full 15-minute OT period is needed. I've long said that playing a full 10-minute overtime period seems pretty fair for both regular-season and playoff games. This would add some interesting decision-making elements to OT games -- especially when it comes to field goal attempts, fourth down plays, two-point vs. one-point conversions, etc.

With a ten-minute overtime, there is no clear advantage to getting the ball first. The team that receives the kickoff might be able to mount a long drive and win the game without ever giving the ball up, but there's also a better-than-even chance that the team kicking off in OT will get the ball LAST.

[Exit148]

"If the game can end in a tie after overtime, why not at the end of the 4th quarter? Either end it there, or play the whole 15 minute overtime for a final score."

I'm with you on that. I don't like the luck of the coin toss to have such an advantage. It doesn't assure a win, of course, but it does give a big edge -- when all you need is a field goal.

The only time I'd want a tie is when the Jets play the Giants.