For me, it's not so much about fairness as it is about entertainment value. I don't want to see some kicker making-or-breaking 2 teams' seasons in the playoffs. If changing the rules prevents that, I'm all for it. This proposed rule change doesn't do that, though, so I agree, it stinks.

100% agree. Also, the fact that they are considering changes ONLY for the playoffs is quite mind boggling. Why in the world would you want to change the rules for the playoffs alone?

Couldn't agree with you more Aaron. It's ridiculous that THIS is the big talk in the owner's meeting rather than getting a new CBA done. Do the owners even care? And you're absolutely right that the whole "it's not fair that we didn't get a chance to score" is nothing more than a rendition of some kindergarden repertoire.

What Aaron said.
-----
I would also like to remind those who are in favor of changing overtime that there are 3 aspects to an NFL game: offense, defense and special teams. Proponents of drastic overtime change seem to forget this. As Packer fans, I would hope we would have intimate understanding that winning the coin toss does not = automatic OT win.
-----
Further, this notion that a game is "won or lost because of a coin toss" is patently absurd and is a slap in the face to the 4 quarters preceding overtime. Growing up, my coaches used to tell us two things: "don't bitch about referees and don't bitch about 'bad luck.'" Unless the example is especially egregious, if you're complaining the game was decided by referees or luck (read, a coin toss) then you should didn't take care of business during the other hundreds of plays that occurred during the game.

I like the sudden death factor in overtime.

I think if it was the first team to score a TD it would make overtime more exciting. Basically eliminate field goals in OT. Fans watch to see touchdowns anyway. If a defense lets the other team get the ball and march right down the field they deserve to lost the game.

There would be more situations where teams would go for it on 4th down which I think is fun to watch.

I would advocate for keeping everything the same as it is now - except I would do the OT coin toss at the beginning of the game so everybody knows who gets the ball first in OT . Then they can plan accordingly all game long.

A coin flip to decide who gets the ball in a sudden death situation has never made me happy.

Picture penalty kicks in soccer being sudden death starting with the first kick and flipping a coin to decide who gets to shoot first.

I've always felt that each team should get the ball at least once in overtime. If still tied after that, then it's sudden death.

Actually, I think Aaron Rodgers has the right idea about overtime:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAkzvuZLkdg

1) Clever PR ploy by the owners to have this headline discussion instead of what's really important. I'd rather see a SB decided by an OT FG than not see ANY SB because of a lockout.

2) I like the idea proposed by ESPNMilwaukee's Homer, just move the OT kickoff back up to the 35.

I suggest a THUNDERDOME RULE.

Each team picks a contender...two will enter
ONE WILL LEAVE...

Thunderdome is the new law..

(cue Tina...'we don't need anuthah herrroooh'...)

I look at the money you have invested in these players and the FACT that you're more injury prone when fatigued and I simply can't advocate additional time to beat the snot out of one-another for my entertainment only. Keep it as is. If a franchise's season came down to a single overtime kick then you made some serious errors along the way during the other 15 games.

My biggest issue with overtime is that defenses seem to wear down much more than offenses as the game wears on. You seem to hear it every game with the announcers stating "This runningback gets stronger as the game goes on," when, in actuality, it's just that defensive lines wear down. Because of this, and a myriad of rule changes through the years, offenses have a huge advantage over defenses late in games.

What I'd like to see instead of the "each team gets a chance" rule, is just a continuation into overtime as if the quarter had changed from 3rd to 4th. This way the game is determined by the teams on the field and no coin flip is involved. At the end of the game, if one team is trying to come from behind, they'd be more likely to go for the win than the tie because they would know that there would be a chance to never get the ball back. The most obvious flaw with this is that there would be less urgency with teams coming down the field to try to win in a tie game, but already there are plenty of teams that say "let's take it to overtime" and throw in the proverbial towel on winning in regulation.

Not only do I agree completely, but I am personally probably even more against any change. Are the Peter Kings just looking for an OT rule that will actually work out to 50% for each team? Then just flip a coin for the win. Captains...assemble. Call it! Winner gets a win and goes home. No more injuries, either!
__________
Now, I'm not saying I want to change it to that ridiculous scenario. I DON'T want to change it at all. One seldom-quoted statistic is what happens when the flip winner is forced to punt on the first possession. The team that forces a punt on the opening drive of OT will then go down and score a vast majority of the time. The "problem" is that NFL rules favor the offense. Period. And it's really not a problem with me. There has to be SOME incentive for teams to build quality defenses...maybe this should be one.

To me, it's not an issue of "you should have scored during regulation." We've seen shootouts before. To me it's really a non-question in general. Maybe tie the first overtime possession to the original coin flip to start the game. Then, the team that wins that flip does not have "chance" to blame if they don't get the ball, just themselves. Make it part of the strategy.
But I don't really think anything really even needs to be changed at all.

I agree, if you want to win the game, do it in Regulation, and if you want to get the ball in OT, stop the opposition. Just passed though so there's no point in me complaining lol, we'll see how it goes.

So what happens if the team that wins the coin toss kicks a FG and then the receiving team fumbles the ensuing kickoff.

Is the game now over ?

this is when we need lombardi to come back yelling at all these idiots..."WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON OUT THERE!!" LOL...or DeNiro...

I can't believe it passed 28-4. You just can't help but wonder if an underlying theme with the voters was the paranoia that a Super Bowl would end on a 1-possession OT field goal. Oh well. I don't think they should have changed it, but I guess nothing bad can really come of the change. Game on.

If pressed, I'd probably come out against changing OT rules. But since they did, I really dislike the way in which they did it. I don't get the argument against just playing another shortened (5-8 minute) quarter with normal rules - like basketball. This new OT system is far more complicated than it needs to be.

Ya, the time would have been better spent negotiating with the NFLPA.
_____
If both teams kick FG's next team to score wins? Why would team two even try a FG? Maybe that's the big plus? I can't think of anything else.

Aaron,
if you truly believe that football is about all 3 phases of football then why wouldn't you want each team to be forced to use every phase to win. It would lean towards the best overall team winning. It would be less likely for the team with a really good offense but no defense from having a better chance of winning.