How Important is the Coin Flip in OT?

All of our favorite teams have been on the short end of the stick when it comes to sudden death overtime in the NFL. The opposing team wins the coin flip, gets a decent return, completes a couple passes, then kicks a game-winning 40+ yard field goal. Our team never even gets a chance to touch the ball. It's a painful end to an otherwise exciting game.

Everyone knows the coin toss can be decisive. The team that wins the toss instantly becomes favored to win the game, but just how heavily?

From the 2000 through 2007 regular seasons, there have been 124 overtime games. In every single game except one (I believe), the team that won the toss elected to receive. And those receiving teams won 60% of the time (and tied once). That's a relatively large advantage, particularly when compared to home field advantage.

Home teams have only won 51% of OT games. The weakness of HFA isn't too surprising given the way it diminishes throughout a game. It's strongest in the 1st quarter and then diminishes through subsequent quarters until it's almost non-existent in OT. Fans are presumably at their most involved at this point in a game, which suggests crowd involvement is not the primary source of HFA.

The dreaded 'lose-the-coin-toss-never-touch-the-ball' scenario happened in 37 out of the 124 OT periods, or about 30% of all overtime games. That's too often in my opinion. The NFL's current sudden death format can be exciting and lead to quick resolutions. But if almost 1 out of 3 games is over before the unlucky coin toss loser even touches the ball, a lot of teams and fans are going to be left with a bitter and empty feeling.

One suggestion is to go to the college format where each team gets alternating tries to score from the opponent's 25 yd line. It eliminates the never-touch-the-ball problem, but it has its own shortcoming. Namely, the team that gets its possession second has a distinct advantage because it knows exactly what type of score is needed to tie or win. For example, if the first team doesn't score at all, the second doesn't need to risk passing and can safely run 3 times before kicking an easy field goal. Or, if the first team scores a touchdown, the second team knows it must forego the field goal and go for the touchdown, even on 4th down if necessary.

The NCAA mitigates the advantage of going second by alternating the order on successive rounds. But the team that goes second in the first round will have the overall advantage because there are many more 1, 3, or 5 round overtimes than 2, 4, or 6 round overtimes. But the overall advantage is estimated to be small, at about 52%.

Although I like the NCAA format, I'd make a couple changes. First, no field goals. This has two effects. First, it eliminates the advantage of the team to go second. Both teams simply need a touchdown, period. Second, it puts the game solely in the hands of the offenses and defenses, and not in those of an individual place kicker.

Because removing field goals might prolong the game excessively, I'd add another requirement. Only 2-point conversions would be allowed. In the NCAA, teams are forced to go for 2-pt conversions if no team has won by the 3rd round. But I'd institute that rule beginning with the 1st round, maybe the second.

Unfortunately, a lot of fans find that the NCAA format is not "pure" football. And I sympathize with that opinion, so here are a few more suggestions.

One idea is to play a semi-sudden death format. The current system would be kept, except that a winner is declared only after one team is ahead after an equal number of possessions. So if the initial receiving team scored first, the other team would receive a kick-off and have an opportunity to tie or win. I like this idea, except that from the NFL's point of view, OT games would last longer and ties would be more common. It might also suffer from an advantage problem, because a team in the score-or-die situation would have the same advantage that the team to go second in the NCAA format has.

David Romer's suggestion is to move the kickoff line from the 30 to the 40 in overtime to help equalize the chance of either team scoring first. This would drastically increase touchbacks, which according to Romer would halve the receiving team's advantage. Starting at the 15 yd line is the theoretical neutral point in the NFL, where both teams has an equal chance of scoring next.

This guy makes a related observation. In 1994, the NFL moved the kickoff line from the 40 to the 30 to reduce touchbacks and increase scoring. But unwittingly, this change also increased the frequency of the never-touch-the-ball phenomenon in OT.

Another idea is to have dueling kickoffs. Both teams would return a kickoff, and the team with the furthest return gets possession at the start of the sudden-death period.

Perhaps the silliest but most original idea is the field position bid. Both teams would submit a secret bid of how far back they'd be willing to start with the ball. The team that bids the deepest in its own territory would get the ball there. A football version of Name That Tune, I suppose.