Yeah, it's better. Mostly I don't like that the NFL overtime essentially shortens the field by 30 yards.

Not only are kickoffs farther back than when the original rule was created but field goal kickers are massively better. The last time the year's best Field Goal kicker made less than 90% of his kicks was 1987 and 35 years ago you could make just 78% and lead the league.

Comment on Facebook from a friend:

"Are the Steelers the new Cowboys?"

I don't see anything wrong with "next point wins," but the fair way to do it is to let the team that had possession at the end of 60 minutes keep the ball where it had it.

It seems to me that would take a lot of the suspense out of the end of games that are tied as time is winding down since if you have the ball you wouldn't go for the game wining field goal (which if missed would mean giving the advantage to the other team to start overtime) but rather to let time run out so that you can then resume pushing down field without the time pressures and in no worse a position if you end up kicking a field goal anyway.

I say just add an extra period and take the "sudden death" out all together.

I say have all members of both teams take off their gear and everyone dukes it out on the 50 yard line. The last man standing indicates which team wins.

That would be ideal in my opinion but I can understand why the players wouldn't like it at all. Maybe one period but unless sudden kicked in after that there'd be the prospect of six, seven, eight quarter games and that is a lot of abuse.

Whether before or after overtime started, I think teams would still kick the 30 yard field goal to avoid the prospect of turnovers. They might not kick the 52 yard field goal in hopes of winning the game before the coin toss decides matters.

It all depends on where you set the line of blame. You can set it at, "Well, you had the chance to win the game in 60 minutes, but you didn't, so you deserve to have a coin flip give the advantage to the other team." I prefer to set it at "If you can't stop this team from scoring with the game on the line, we're not going to impose artificial time limits and coin tosses to save your butt."

I would add that the last minute drive to the game winning field goal is only truly exciting when the driving team is trailing by a point or two and faces the prospect of winning or losing. The last second kick by a team that is down by three, which succeeds in avoiding a loss but sends the game to overtime is somewhat less exciting. The last second longshot kick in a tie game made in an attempt to avoid is overtime is still less exciting.

Yeah, they'd probably still kick a chip shot field goal as soon as doing so guarantees victory (whether that is at the buzzer or, more likely the first play of overtime) but they're not going to be under any time pressure to get down field to have that chip shot. It would be like running a two-minute drill at the end of the third quarter since all that not scoring before the end of the game means is that you just continue your drive uninterrupted.

But then I think that they should just rid of kicking from football, set a touchdown to one point and then watch people still make fun of soccer for having so may 2-1 games (all of soccer's PR problems would be solved if they just called a goal six points, followed every goal with a post-goal penalty kick worth one point, and then gave three points for every shot on goal that hit the posts).