By Dan PompeiIf there is a silver lining for Vikings fans after the NFC championship game, it is this: What happened Sunday should be an impetus for the NFL to take a long, hard look at how overtime is set up.
The current system is just not fair. The Vikings played their entire season to get to the point when they had a chance to win it in overtime and go to the Super Bowl, and they never even had a opportunity to score.
The fairest way for the NFL to orchestrate overtime is to give both teams at least one possession. Another way would be to make the winning team score a touchdown, or perhaps four points.
Photo: Brett Favre can't bear to watch during overtime Sunday. (Morry Gash/AP)
Over the years I have talked with members of the competition committee
about this situation, and it always comes back to one thing: They don't
want to make the game any longer than it already is. It's not good for
the health of players. It's not good for TV.
But what should drive this is what's best for competition. And what makes it the fairest competition is an overtime in which both sides get a chance at the end zone.
The team that wins the overtime coin flip wins the game about 60 percent of the time. A coin flip isn't supposed to be deciding which team goes to the Super Bowl -- players should be making that determination.
The NFL needs to adopt a different overtime approach -- even if it is on an experimental basis. Give it a try for a year or two and see how it works.
If the league likes it better the old way, it can always change it back. But I can't see how anyone would like it the way it is -- except maybe for Saints fans today.
But what should drive this is what's best for competition. And what makes it the fairest competition is an overtime in which both sides get a chance at the end zone.
The team that wins the overtime coin flip wins the game about 60 percent of the time. A coin flip isn't supposed to be deciding which team goes to the Super Bowl -- players should be making that determination.
The NFL needs to adopt a different overtime approach -- even if it is on an experimental basis. Give it a try for a year or two and see how it works.
If the league likes it better the old way, it can always change it back. But I can't see how anyone would like it the way it is -- except maybe for Saints fans today.
All Bears news delivered to your mailbox on Friday and Monday mornings. 
When sports news breaks, be the first to know. (To get alerts on a mobile device, text CHISPORTS to 31286.). 
Get our updates on 
This is the greatest sport in History, if this is the rules they set up who cares youll still watch it even if they don't change the rules so quit crying
Have to change the system. Placing the onus on the defense is bogus. No defense is equipped or expected to stop a team from gaining 30-40 yards to setup a FG..the margin for error is just too small. The schemes go out the window, you can't play soft in fear of giving up yardage--you can't play aggressive in fear of giving up the big play. You end up with a great game for 4 quarters being decided by something that is 'quasi-football' in OT. And stop pointing out the opportunities each team had to win the game in regulation. That is a false argument; the issue is the same if both teams played flawless ball for 4 quarters and ended up with the tie.
What a joke. Sounds like the politically correct police want equality for all. Come on !!!!
Moving the OT kickoff to the 35 yard line would mitigate the so-called advantage to the receiving team. I'd be in favor of that, but any change involving each team getting a possession is a terrible idea. It takes the "sudden" out of sudden death, and totally diffuses the excitement of a game-ending TD or field goal, which is integral to one's enjoyment of NFL games. Leave college rules where they belong, with the amateurs.
lets not make it any more complicated. this style of overtime has been around for ages. if a change would be made, if the team that won the coin toss scored in the first possession, the opposing team would be granted a possesion to see if they could score. if the opposing team didnt score within their allotted possession then the team that scored will win the game.
What a bunch of crap, perhaps the Vikings shouldn't have turned the ball over 5 times and not left their fate to a coin flip.
Wah-wah-wah. NFL overtime is fine as it is.
The team that loses the coin flip in the NFL in OT gets screwed, since there is an advantage to the team who has the ball first. Here is my idea. The team that gets the ball first in OT is the team that had the lead for a majority of the game based on time. Then for each teams first possesion you can only win with a touchdown. If there are no TD's after each team touches the ball once, field goals can win.
I would suggest just one change. During the regular season, keep OT as is, sudden death. For the playoffs, break OT into two parts. First have the teams play another 15 minute quarter, with initial possession decided by coin toss. If the game is still tied after the "5th quarter," then the teams continue play under sudden death, with the initial possession in sudden death determined by a coin toss, and they continue to play until a winner is determined.
Pompei, your argument is flawed. Its assumes the Saints were LIKELY to score on the first drive of the overtime. This assumption is FALSE. In fact, based on their score/punt ratio against the Vikings up to that point, their success rate in scoring was less than 40%. And last time I checked, the defense and special teams of the Vikings have a hand in determining the outcome of the game in overtime, it is not just the Saints offense playing in a vacuum.
If the Vikings were truly a superior team, they wouldn't have allowed it to come down to a coin flip. I look at OT the same way I'd look at a bad call; it stinks, but if you leave it close enough for chance to decide, you deserve what you get.
As to the earlier commenter complaining about Farve getting hit 15 times - THIS IS FOOTBALL! And Farve is responsible for half of the hits- he loves nothing more than cut blocking defenders behind a play. It's a BS double-standard, and I'd blow him up too if he was running at me. If he doesn't want to get hit he can take himself out of the play... if he's trailing he's part of the play!
So because Farve did not get a chance to score, it is a horrible system? If the Vikings had won the flip, would this article have been written? NO! Everyone wanted to see Farve in the Superbowl. The Vikings dominated the game, but they had way too many turnovers to win. Their D was good all game, except when it counted most.
Sudden death does happen in hockey already, you can't do it for basketball (it is a lot easier to score in basketball than other sports). People saying that a 6 point system needs to be implemented are wrong, so then a team scores a touchdown and this same argument comes up. College football does not do it right either, they should at least have to kick off or start with the ball at the 50. The NFL system is fine, how many teams lose the coin flip and get their own chance to score only to blow it themselves?
If you use overtime as a continuance of the 4th quarter, then the Saints had very good field position to start the OT. They didn't need that many yards to get into field goal position. Once again it comes down to the Defense and kick off team to do their job and stop the other team.
Manny291 - your right the 60% statistic isn't a very reliable one in that the number may be watered down by teams wining on drives following the 1st possession. But then you could argue that a team that wins the flip that doesn't score on its initial possession but the following gets two tries to win the game vs. one (the opponent).
Yes its a 50/50 chance to win, but this is a sports competition (competition being the key word) not a gambling event.
Basing a win on a fatigued defense that allows a field goal in OT does suck. It makes team kick in situations in which they normally wouldn't, simply because the upside is far greater (wining) than in regulation (taking the lead). The network argument is somewhat valid, the injury argument a bit less so. Come on how often do games actually go into OT? I waould also argue that a game that goes in OT is good for ratings i.e., good for the network. NFL games are typically not shoot outs like in college so a similar system, statistically, should not lead to overly long games with 4x OTs. But, i do think maybe a compromise would be great a mentioned previously i.e., you need to score 6 points to win (1 TD or 2 FG) in sudden death.
What a crazy article and idea. How about this - each team one possession. If neither team scores, then we switch end zones. If neither team scores, teams switch jerseys (their home for their visitor color jerseys). If neither teams score, we get a knew referee crew and start all over.
The game is 60 minutes long. Boo-Hoo Danny if your team didn't win. Look at the stats, not your team loyalty and figure out why the Vikes lost. BTW, I'm not a Saints or Colts fan.
I like the overtime in professional football the way it is and the college system the way it is. If overtime is that bad the Vikings could have went for 2 when they tied the game.
The Vikings scorched the Saints' defense and racked up almost 500 total yards. They lost because of 5 turnovers, not because of a coin flip. Although, I agree that the OT rules need to be changed. How about making them similar to the NCAA?
The Saints will get rolled by Indy in the Super Bowl.
Really Mr. Pompei? Didn't the Saints play the whole season to get to this point too?
The coin flip in overtime didn't decide who went to the Super Bowl. The Vikings turning the ball over so often decided that. If the Vikings were the better team, they would have won the game in regulation, or stopped the Saints from getting into field goal range in the overtime. They did neither, so they'll be at home watching the Super Bowl with the rest of us.
@Dougw: Never heard anyone complain about the NFL overtime system? Which cave have you been buried in? I'm guessing you've never heard complaints about review in baseball or soccer either, or a playoff in Div I college football. Players, coaches, owners, and commentators hove been begging the NFL to revamp the overtime system for years, especially since college football instituted uniform overtime in 1996. Any team that loses a trip to the Super Bowl because of a crappy 36-year old system has a legit gripe. The same would be true for the Saints if they had lost that way.
It wasn't Farve. Yes he threw that int, but what about the 5 fumbles??? Ap also before the half on the 4 yard line??? Minnesota let it get away, the Saints took advantage of it. I don't see the Colts winning
I understand all the fuss about fairness of the coin flip, and I agree that something should be done. But that doesn't need to be a college style overtime. Many years ago, the NFL kicked off from the 35 in overtime (rather than the 30). This provided no statistical advantage to either team. If the NFL were to switch back to this, there would be more touchbacks to start overtime, and a longer field for the first offense. They have to do a little more to get the field goal on the first drive, and a defensive stop gives the other offense the ball with better field position. I'd rather see a small tweek to an otherwise great game. If we talk about big changes, it will only be a matter of time before someone thinks the XFL scramble for the ball is more fair than a coin toss.
Plain and simple, the author is wrong. The Vikings did not lose the game because they lost the coin flip. They lost the game because they failed to stop the Saints on their final drive, something they had done successfully up to that point on 7 of 11 Saint drives. The Saints punted 7 times and had only 4 scoring drives. Therefore, the Saints were not likely to win the game on their first overtime drive just because they won the overtime coin flip.
The only thing I would change is eliminate the coin toss and make the overtime an extension of the 4th period. The team who had the ball last at the end of regulation keeps the ball and continues from where they left off.
So a couple of weeks ago, in the 45-all overtime with Arizona and Green Bay, when the Pack won the toss but Rodgers fumbled into a Cardinals TD runback... was that fair?
You might as well ask for a college-style OT, with successive possessions that begin at the 20 (no kickoffs, loser is first to fail to score after falling behind by 6), or a field goal shoot-out from progressively longer distances (same losing scenario, but 3+ points); or no punts, no FGs, start at midfield; or rock-paper-scissors.
The system is flawed. Also, piss poor attitudes on the part of the Saints. Since when do you get 15+ hits on a QB without getting one sack? The Saints played a disgraceful game. Pure luck the Vikings lost (fumbles and coin toss). I AGREE, change the system!
The Vikings made so many mistakes that they did not deserve to win even in regulation..The NFL OT rules are just fine..One team gets it on offense and one on defense..If your defense holds then your offense gets their chance..If they don't then you lose..It is fair and quickly desides the winner..If you don't want OT then win in regulation...
The Vikings had a chance to win in regulation until Favre threw and interception at the 30 yard line. The saints stopped the vikings. The vikings had a chance to stop the saints, but it didnt happen.
Guys, the system is flawed. The NCAA got it right when they instituted their OT system in the 90's. Give both teams a shot at the end zone, give the fans a chance to see both QB's score. Then after that, the first score wins.
And if you really think it's up to the defense to win championships, then why don't we apply it to all sports? How about in basketball, the winner of the coin flip get's to inbound the ball, and if they score a bucket they win. Of how about in Hockey, you score a penalty shot and you win. Just doesn't make any sense to me.
Honestly I don't care about the statistics, you can manipulate them to look however you like. The fact is its unfair to the players and the fans.
Here's betting the if the Colts and Saints go to OT, the Colts win the toss and drive down and kick a game winning field goal, that Saints fan is going to be calling for new OT rules. Just a hunch.
I do agree that both teams need equal opportunity in OT. If the league and TV execs are worried about game length, etc. then put time limits on each possession to score. Use the college system, but with a twist: Start at the 30 yard line, each team has 90 seconds to score, the clock remains running on an in-bounds play, on out-of bounds and incomplete pass plays the clock starts on the spot of the ball. Each possession has one 15-second time out. No TV time-outs and 60 seconds between possessions. What could be more exciting and perfectly fair?
I don't particularly care for the current NFL over-time scheme, but by relying on a claim of unfair outcome in last night's game, the OP makes an extremely weak case for change. Here, I fixed some of that post:
"The Vikings played their entire season to get to the point when they had a chance to win it in at the end of the 4th quarter and go to the Super Bowl, but their coaching staff made a stupid substitution error, and their veteran QB (who admitted in his PC that he DID NOT EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH MORE YARDAGE WAS NEEDED FOR LONGWELL'S FG ATTEMPT) made the kind of bone-headed, season-ending misjudgment that he is best known for, depriving them of their best opportunity to score and win the game in regulation."
-BB
As you said in the article, the team that wins the toss wins the game 60 percent of the time. Wow! That is a very overwhelming number.... it is almost 50%! Thanks for proving that we shouldn't change it!
Personally i don't mind the current NFL overtime. If it's a problem with time and TV there's simple solutions. First eliminate overtime for regular games - 60 minutes is enough. For playoffs do 10 minute quarters with no sudden death. Pretty simple.
Yeah they DID have a chance. Its called DEFENSE!!! Seriously? This is the worst article I've read in a while. You get paid to write this stuff?
Well The Vikings had 5 or 6 fumbles and then Favre throws a pick in the last 30 seconds so they don't get a chance at a FG. I do agree that they need a better OT system for the NFL though.
DougW-
Is this the first year you started reading about NFL OT? There have always been complaints. College OT is fairer and more exciting.
I have never heard anyone ever complain about the NFL's overtime system till now. I'm sure if the Vikings would have won it would be a non-issue. Stop your Whinning!
So Offense is all that matters in OT? I don't agree. If you lose the toss, your Defense has a job to do - to get the ball back. Then your Offense has their opportunity.
As for what happened yesterday - the Vikings had the chance to win in regulation but they messed up.
You want NFL games to run on like they do in college? Imagine a Monday night game running to three OTs because each team kept scoring on their respective drives. Who on earth is still going to watch that on the east coast? It'll still be on after 1 in the morning!
The system is just fine the way it is.
"But I can't see how anyone would like it the way it is -- except maybe for Saints fans today."
And Packers fans!
NFL should change overtime system. Defense wins champions argument is BS. Defense for a 60 minute game wins championships. How many defenses do you know that can shut out an offense on every drive in every game or even any given drive? Then throw in the fact that the refs usually give away 15-30 yards in a drive! You got your self a system that heavily favors the team that wins the coin toss.
Either a 6 point must system or both offenses get to touch the ball.
There will never be a solution that is "fair." The NFL along with MLB and NBA are about one thing -- MONEY. Fairness has nothing to do with money.
Flawed Argument Dan Pompei, your statistic of teams winning 60% of the time doesn't hold up. The real statistic you need is what percentage of teams who win the coin toss score on their first possesion, therefore winning the game.
Teams who win the coin toss might win 60% of the time, but it might be on their 2nd or 3rd possession of overtime...., meaning the other team got a chance as well...
Favre can't "bare to watch"? The homonym in this context is spelled 'bear'. You being from Chicago, try and search for a little irony hear. Oops-- I meant 'here'.
Are you staying now that Frave has lost the system needs to be revamped, you have four quaters to win the game, and 50% chance to win the flip.
Agree, and always have. I also agree the college system would suck for the NFL. After a team scores, the other team gets a possession. If they fail to tie or surpass the previous score, game over. And: teams must always go for two PAT. You could, at the very least, just adopt this for playoffs.
You must be joking. The Vikings defense and special teams let the whole team down thus they deserved to lose in OT. Perhaps you want to go to a shoot out like in hockey and make multiple players kick field goals. It is fine the way it is. The Vikes deserved to loase. Stop writing such garbage!
What ever happened to Defense wins championships? The Vikings D needed to step up and they didn't. Their kickoff team gave up a big return that hurt. They don't give up that return and they play D, then they give themselves the chance to win. They didn't and they lost. Nothing wrong with the overtime format.
I agree with Pompei. The OT system needs to be revamped. Personally, I support a system in which it is, essentially, the first team to score six points wins the game. If you score a TD on the first possession, sudden death, game over. Two field goals scored in OT can win, as well. The game can also end if the first team with possession scores a field goal, but the opponent on the next possession scores a TD. This way, it encourages teams to play for TDs, not field goals, as it is possible that you could score first, but still lose. No matter what happens, this nonsense of moving the ball inside your opponent's 35-yard line and then protecting the football in OT must end.
With that said, please understand that I am a fan who is very pleased by the outcome of last night's game.
I don't remember any calls for a change in the overtime system when the Bears beat the Vikings in OT. We won the toss that game, and the Vikings' defense stopped us. The Bears defense orchestrated a turnover, and the offense scored on its second try. Amazingly enough, that WAS fair.
If the Vikings defense failed to do their job, that wasn't the OT system's fault, it was THEIRS.
The coin flip did not decide the overtime. If that was the case, the game would have been called immediately after the coin flip was won by the Saints. The game was decided by the Vikings not stopping the Saints' offense. Simple as that. The system is fine as is.
The Vikings had their chance in regulation and Favre threw a pick, how is that not fair? The defense could have stopped the Saints and made them punt, but didn't.
I like the system the way it is. And as for the competition argument, what happens when a player gets hurt and misses the rest of the year? That will have a far greater impact on competition. Players get hurt more when they are fatigued. As for college OT, I feel that system is horrible. It pretty much eliminates field position, and also dooms a team to defeat if they miss a field goal or give up a turnover. In this system all parts of the game are at work.
with all due respect, who in the world is danny pompei? has he even ever suited up, or at least stood on the sidelines in some capacity? water boy?
The Vikings did take the field...their defense did and they failed to get the stop. If they had gotten the stop then they would have earned the chance. System is fine as is.