Jim Nantz is a Scholar and a Gentleman. And He Might Be Why the NFL Changes its Overtime Rules
NFL January 27th. 2009, 2:45pm.jpg)
The week after the Colts lost in overtime to the Chargers in the playoffs – Peyton Manning never got on the field after Indy lost the coin toss – Phil Simms and Jim Nantz debated changing the NFL’s overtime on Inside the NFL.
Nantz, armed with reams of information, pummeled his on-air partner. Nantz then took his information and relayed it on WFAN radio in New York City. The best angle to his findings:
* In the first five years of the system, 34 overtime games. The team that won the coin flip won 15 of those games – just 44 percent of the games.
* In the last five years of the system, 72 overtime games. The team that won the coin flip won 44 of those games, – 61 percent.
Nantz also felt that rule changes in the last decade have been tilted toward the offense, from kickoffs to wide receivers. As the offensives has improved, it only makes sense to not have the game decided on a coin toss.
Nantz’s interview made the rounds and he heard from SI’s Peter King, who wrote about it recently. Nantz was on WFAN again yesterday and said he feels (paraphrasing here) there is a lot of background chatter right now about changing the overtime rules to at least get each team one possession.
Tennessee coach Jeff Fisher, who co-chairs the NFL Competition Committee, is sure to do something about the delay-of-game clock after it might have cost the Titans the Divisional playoff game against the Ravens. Hopefully, adjusting overtime is second on his list.
74 Responses to “Jim Nantz is a Scholar and a Gentleman. And He Might Be Why the NFL Changes its Overtime Rules”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Good work Nantz.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Your statistics do not impress me!
/Numerically challenged
January 27th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I imagine the NFL had no idea about those numbers until Nantz brought them up.
TBL you are big on the hyperbole today (The Pats are going down in flames! Nantz brings rules changes!) I like it…
January 27th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I do hope they change the rule, I also hope he burned that purple tie.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Speaking of Pats, Belichick has long suggested an overtime that makes sense to me… Set the clock at 6, 7, or 8 minutes, and play it out. If the team that wins the toss drives for all those minutes, so be it. However, this leaves the key components of the game (offense, defense, special teams, clock management, strategy) intact.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
FSB – Actually, i sold high on the New England era of sports dominance either after the Boston NBA title or the Red Sox loss to Tampa in MLB. i posted about it, but too busy to look now.
i actually do think Boston’s amazing run in NBA, MLB, NFL is over. no more titles for a few (no counting hockey).
as for Nantz … well im sure all the coaches who are going to vote on this rule (whatever it is) were unaware of the stats until Nantz presented them. i had not seen anyone present them prior to that.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I don’t think the coin flip system makes it unfair or anything, your defense has a chance to stop them. However; I think the college system is infinitely more entertaining, and the only reason I think the NFL won’t change it is because of the gambling implications.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
First, kickers are WAY better than they were when the system was first implemented. I think I read that, from inside of 50 yards, kickers made 87% of FG attempts.
Second, kicking off from the 30 really hampers the defensive team. Particularly in winter/late in the season, there are few touchbacks and a remotely decent return puts the offensive team at the 35/40. That means any kind of moderate drive (2 or 3 first downs) results in a FG attempt.
I think, for a small change (versus giving both teams the ball), the kicking team should kick off from the 40 yd line. This would promote touchbacks and/or strategic kicks to limit field position for the receiving team and force more of a “drive” to win the game.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
jim nantz can blow me, the OT rules are fine. Play defense, play special teams, simple as that boo hoo he didn’t get to see everyones loverboy that is the colts offense take the field. not like darren sproles turned out to be that great.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
good stuff, Roeth.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
when your chances of winning in OT based on the coin flip are 60-40, as they have been in the last 5 years, then yes, i’d call that an unfair balance.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
it helps when the kickers get special balls too.
insert joke there.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
roth – but the league doesn’t want to promote touchbacks. it wants offense. it wants excitement.
which is why it needs to spice up OT.
if anyone thinks there isn’t a decided advantage by winning the coin toss in OT, you’re kidding yourself.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
ahhhh, jaws is starting up on HBO.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Any early guesses on Nantz’ pun on Championship monday? My personal favorite was “UConn Ucan” and there was one about “May Madness” when UNC won a couple years ago.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Then why do they have the NFL’s Greatest Touchbacks on DVD?
/Mark Schlereth
January 27th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Good article on the evolution of kicking in the NFL.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
TBL, there is no decided advantage by winning the coin toss in OT. i am not kidding myself…the nfl does not need to spice up OT, there is nothing wrong with it. this is so typical of people now that we live in this cry baby blah blah blah world where everyone deserves a chance. the people who want both teams to have the ball in OT are the same jerks who are crying over the girls team losing 100-0. This is life, put up or shut up.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
TBL — C’mon, just look up all the instances of coaches who choose to kick at the start of OT. See, the coin flip gives both teams a completely equal chance of winning.
Oh wait.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
i wish i had HBO, I love jaws…fuckin college
January 27th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
get with the program, TBL. I solved this problem over a month ago.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
jim nantz can blow me, the OT rules are fine. Play defense, play special teams, simple as that boo hoo he didn’t get to see everyones loverboy that is the colts offense take the field. not like darren sproles turned out to be that great.
I agree and disagree. First I hate the OT Rules. Games would be more exciting with college OT. But I agree that using Payton Manning not getting a chance to score as your basis is weak.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
KingGrizz- “Rock Chalk Championship” was clearly his best.
/biased
January 27th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Ok first of all, I dont disagree that a rules change for OT could make the game more exciting, but you’re just plain wrong here with this logic. Just because something has happened an average of 60% of the time over a certain time period doesn’t mean you have a 60% chance of winnin gin the future. Flipping a coin 50 times and getting heads 30, doesn’t make flipping a coin any different than 50-50.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Fox News or TBL?
Leave the damned OT rules alone and do not let one shmuck like Nantz even have a post let alone any influence on NFL rules.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
How many of the games did the coin-toss winner win on their second OT possession or later? Including those games in the argument makes it flawed.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
in the last 5 years, teams that won the coin toss have won 60% of OT games. that’s not a decided advantage? if not, please tell me why it isn’t.
anyone taking a chance on baylor tonight -1 at home vs. texas? im not going in as big as these guys, but im in
January 27th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
CRM makes a very good point.
If, as a team, you tend to lose overtime games because your defense doesnt stop the team who won the toss, maybe you need to get a better defense.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
3 words. make a stop.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Source
January 27th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
tampa, the NFL isn’t in the entertainment business, i’m sure you have realized this by now. personally, i think the game is already exciting as is. this is coming from someone who saw his team lose in OT this year without getting the ball because the pats defensive backs resembled a high school JV squad, but hey thats life, play defense and stop the other team. That’s football, lineup against the guy in front of you and beat him not “oh well, at least the offense can go and tie it up”
January 27th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
via TBL’s link:
January 27th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
agree with CRM. what is the % of OT games that are won on the very first possession?
January 27th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
From 1972 – 2003:
January 27th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I don’t know how you can say that overtime is a dead toss up. If it were, teams would put their strength on the field (ie, teams with great defenses would opt to play defense when winning the toss), but we all know that’s not the case.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
The pertinent question is — After 60 minutes of football that has been played to a complete draw, do you want a coin flip (game of chance) introduced that can have a dramatic effect on who wins this game?
This isn’t hockey, basketball, or baseball. These teams only play 16 games a year. Why can’t games be decided in a manner that EVERYONE can agree is fair?
January 27th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Im Shocked, this never happens.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Can we just combine posts on NFL overtime with posts on a CFB playoff? Here’s an article debunking the win the flip/win the game argument from 2004.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
telling you, dude’s ahead of the game.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
what is everyone going to find fair? a lot of people think that college OT is unfair to the team that has the ball first.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
You know you can play defense in college style overtime too. Just a thought.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Rock Chalk Championship is good regardless of your bias, it’s not as cheesy as a pun as he had in the past and it makes not quite enough sense where you can question it.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
@Sir — Give both teams the ball at least once. No extra point kicks allowed.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Well this doesnt make any sense, you play overtime to score first. Your defense, no matter how good it is, isn’t more likely to score first than putting your offense so you would never do this.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
sportsdork, that isn’t football. it sounds like a little kids rec soccer league.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Fetch = + Eleventy million.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
So if each team gets the ball once, you think soccer? Right.
Because nothing is more manly, Dick Butkus throwback-style football than a fucking coin flip.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
You wouldn’t be “trying to score with your defense”. If you had a great defense you could put them on the field, try to force a 3 and out and flip the field for yourself.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Wouldnt this be just the same as accepting the kick? Why waste the time? What’s the point?
January 27th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Do you not understand field position?
January 27th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
During the game, each team starts a half with the ball. This ensures a fair chance for each team to control the clock and field position. You don’t flip a coin at the start of each half.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I guess that would be where special teams come into play as well. See, it’s not all about the offense!!
January 27th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
what’s not fair about that? that the other team can just try harder for a TD? eh. i’d take that over not even getting a chance.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Marty Mornhinweg and his anemometer thank you for the hat tip.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
CRM is right: This stat is useless because a team can win on their second possession and still satisfy this criteria. The complaint people have is about winning OT on the first possession.
Because 10% isn’t a significant statistical variance. It just isn’t, and that’s especially true in a relatively small sample size like this. Why is the game any better if the rate was 50%? The OT rules are fine. All this whining about them is pointless. Both teams have a fair shot and should be able to take care of business on either side of the ball.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Again, it’s an obvious solution – play normal football until one team is ahead after both teams have had equal possessions. EASY FUCKING SOLUTION, and not as contrived as college. All facets of the game go into consideration, meaning, if your stregth is offense, you get a shot no matter what, same for special teams, or even defense.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
i really don’t get why people think everyone should get a posession in overtime. It’s called sudden death for a reason, not “everyone gets a shot so there’s no hurt feelings for one team”.
it’s not like the team that loses the coin toss isn’t allowed to put out 11 guys on the field or are forced to play a soft prevent defense.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Wilhemreems, you misrepresented entirely why people like me feel both teams should get possession.
Football is not about one unit of your team going up against another unit. It’s all three against all three. It’s how my offense does against your defense, in relation to how my defense does against your offense. Special teams as well.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
… and where the hell was I?
January 27th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I’m getting really fucking sick of people who want to keep the OT rule as is calling anyone who wants to change it a “whiner.” Maybe we just want to make the rule a little better, and make the game more entertaining. Frankly I find the current system a little boring, since once a team is in field goal range they stop trying to advance the ball, and basically sit on it. Kinda sucks when they’re not even trying to score a TD.
The better rule is pretty obvious – Just play some extra time (10, 9, 8 minutes or whatever) and whoever is ahead wins. Why is this so complicated?
January 27th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
cursed: both teams played 4 quarters where all three aspects of their teams played to win the game.
you lose the toss, get the ball back, force a turnover or a stop.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
@ dhoffman:
that’s a lot more reasonable than arguing that each team should get the ball before it goes to a sudden death scenario.
There’a several rules that can be changed about OT (or the game in general) before you start trying to give possessions to each team.
eliminate fiels goals, push the kick off line back to the 40 yard line.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
You mean like when a team sits on it deep in the opponent’s territory at the end of regulation, hoping to make it to overtime?
January 27th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
*deep in their own territory
January 27th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I still haven’t heard a convincing argument against the “you know, you can play defense” point. People talk about rule changes favoring the offense…boo fucking hoo. If it were that big a deal, we’d be seeing a lot of 49-38 games. You have to stop them on one drive. If you can’t do it, you don’t deserve to win.
On the other hand, as others have pointed out, the current OT rules basically make the game a field goal contest. Get to the opponents 25 yard line, and the game is effectively over–in other words, even if you have a crappy kick return, you only need about 50 yards to win.
I say keep sudden death but eliminate field goals. I don’t care about the rules favoring the offense–if you can drive the length of the field and get into the endzone, you deserve to win, period.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Whoever made that point is genius.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
If sudden death is so sacrosanct, why havent all other sports adopted it?
“If you can’t get 3 outs in the top of the 10th, you deserve to lose, you fucking whiners.”
“If you can’t execute a fullcourt press, you dont deserve to get the ball back, you fucking whiners.”
Soccer? They never score anyways, so who cares.
What is the big fucking hurry to end the game? With all the fucking TV timeouts and time they piss away between punts & kickoffs, and the 5 minute video reviews — once we hit minute #61, everyone realizes “Oh Fuck! 60 Minutes is up next. We’ll miss Andy Rooney.” ???
January 27th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I obviously don’t have a poll or anything like that, but I would think the players would prefer sudden death over a “5th quarter” because of the injury risk. If the NFL goes to a full 15-minute OT system, look for the NFLPA to demand higher salaries or some other concession in return.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
You must go to BW3’s on sunday.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
False. The NFLPA will always have incompetent management.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Is it really…?
/Checks watch drawn on wrist.
January 27th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Nantz is a smarmy tool. Only thing keeping him from being a bottom-feeder on his own network is his partner Simms.
January 27th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
lol at how difficult it is to make the simplest argument possible to random sports blog idiots
January 27th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
The easiest way for Jeff Fisher to eliminate the delay of game fiasco he experienced is to implement a buzzer like the shot clock in basketball. If the buzzer goes off before the center snaps the ball, 5 yard penalty.
Plus the main ref wears an earpiece, it’s not like the refs upstairs can’t radio down and say “Dude wake up, that was a delay of game, throw the flag you homer.”