NFL needs overtime overhaul

The age-old phrase "What the hell were they thinking!?" came to mind after watching my beloved 49ers surrender a game-winning field goal on the first possession of overtime in a game against the rival Rams just a few Sundays ago.

After a last-minute tying touchdown by San Francisco (yes, it was Terrell Owens in the endzone; no, the sharpie remained in the sock) and a bizarre wind-down of regulation, the fateful coin toss came.

The coin flipped St. Louis' way, thus sealing the fate of the men in red and gold.

Since the creation of the sudden-death overtime system in 1974, 99 of the 347 games that went to the extra period ended on the first possession.

OK, so 28.5 percent of first-possession wins might not be so staggering. Yet the principle, not the numbers, is what's bothering me. Yes, the team who gets the ball first doesn't even win three out of 10 times, but the fact that in those three games, one team doesn't even get the ball violates any rule I've ever learned about equity. And let's remember, 28.5 percent of overtime games have been dictated by an ever-so elementary idea -- chance.

These games have been decided by nothing more than a coin flip. If only grades were left to probability.

Fortunately for us Dawg fans, the college ranks have a more sophisticated, exciting and fair way of determining a winner in overtime. A quick overview of the system: each team is given the ball, our good friend chance determines the order on the opponent's 25-yard line. The team that scores the most points on that single possession wins. If the tie hasn't been broken on that possession, the system repeats itself, with the game ending when the score is no longer the same.

And the real kicker: if the game comes to a third overtime, a touchdown must be followed with a two-point try opposed to the traditional extra point. This serves as a way to make sure the game ends that day.

Where the NFL is weak, the NCAA excels.

Simply put, college overtime is fair. Each team gets the ball and thus controls its own destiny -- none of this chance business. But not only is the match system (if there's a better name for the NCAA overtime system, I'd love to hear it) fair, it's exciting.

Just recently, No. 2-ranked Ohio State battled North Carolina State in a game that ended 24-24 after one hour. After three on-the-edge-of-your-seat overtimes, the Buckeyes prevailed 44-38. The fans left exhausted; overtime produced as many fireworks as a Fourth of July extravaganza.

By now, it sure seems that the NFL would take note of the popularity of the collegiate overtime. Yet there are those who seem to think that sudden death is appropriate for the NFL. Take ESPN NFL analyst John Clayton, for example.

He believes that the sole purpose of overtime is to prevent ties because,"Ties in pro football stink!" Ultimately, Clayton's argument is right. Ties create trouble come playoff time, and sudden death does prevent ties. But Clayton is neglecting the fact that NCAA overtime games don't end in ties either. Sure, they take a little longer to settle the score, but that only gives fans more bang for their buck.

With my distaste for the NFL sudden-death overtime system clear, a solution seems inevitable. While I love the college version, I think it should stay in college. My ideal pro system would be a match system, with one added element: special teams.

By starting at the opponent's 25, special teams lacks the importance that it merits. And the likelihood is, special teams gets the team to overtime. A new NFL system would also use the match system, but would begin with a kickoff, giving special teams its due respect. In order to speed along the process, the teams could kick off from their own goal line, leaving a shorter field to work with.

Hey, it could happen.