The Best Overtime Strategy

There's been an overabundance of overtime games in the NFL over the past two weeks.  We saw three consecutive primetime games go to OT, and this after the Commanders' terrible clock mismanagement resulted in a tie against the Giants.  And, every time a game goes to overtime, there's the inevitable conversation about what the team that wins the toss will choose to do.  Which inevitably leads to the conversation about what they should do.

That's been the debate ever since the NFL implemented the current overtime rules prior to the start of last season.  Do you take the ball, guaranteeing yourselves the first shot at scoring and, just as importantly, a possible second possession (when the game becomes sudden death)?  Or do you kick, trust your defense and know what you need to do?  There's no consensus.  And there are pros and cons to both arguments.

More often than not, it seems teams prefer to take the latter option.  If they win the toss, they choose to kick.  (How many players do you see trying to defer, which isn't an option in overtime?)  The thought process is usually that if their defense gets the job done, they'll win with any score.  Or, worst case, you give up a touchdown, you know your offense needs to score one, as well.  Plus, if there isn't enough time to get the ball back, you'd also have the ability to go for a two-point conversion and the win.

Likewise, knowing what you need to do offensively gives you a little more freedom.  If the other team scored a touchdown, you know that's what you need to do.  So, there's no decision to be made.  Everywhere on the field is four-down territory.  Or, if you only need a field goal, all you have to do is get into field goal range, set it up where your kicker likes it, and walk it off.

Until the rule change guaranteeing both teams a possession, there was no choice on the overtime coin toss.  Take the ball, score, and you don't have to worry about it.  Even when they initially changed it and said both teams were guaranteed a possession unless there was a touchdown on the opening drive, you still usually saw teams choose to receive.  That changed with the 2025 rule change, where playing defense first was suddenly en vogue.  But, is it really an advantage?  The numbers suggest it's more of a toss-up.

Choosing to receive has its own set of pros and cons.  Just as choosing to kick means you're putting faith in your defense, taking the ball means putting faith in your offense.  And, just like how choosing to kick means you know what your offense has to do, the opposite applies to the receiving team's defense.  If you score and your defense can stop them, that's it.  Game over.

However, there's a huge advantage to taking the ball that isn't taken into consideration nearly as much as it should be.  After each team's first possession, the game becomes sudden death.  So, should it get to a second possession, whoever gets the ball first might be the only team to get one.  That's especially true in the regular season, when overtime is only 10 minutes (which I hate...it should be a full 15).  If you receive, you could theoretically have the ball for the entire overtime.  Or, at the very least, leave them with very little time to answer.  The chances of both teams being able to get the ball the same number of times in 10 minutes aren't great.  So, if there's gonna be an odd number, why wouldn't you want to be the team that gets the ball twice?

In the postseason, overtime is different.  Instead of 10 minutes, it's a standard 15.  And, since games can't end in a tie, the start of overtime is essentially the start of a new game.  Since both teams are guaranteed a possession, time isn't a factor.  The 15 minutes can expire mid-possession and it would just roll into a second overtime period (which we almost saw in Super Bowl LVIII).  Then it only becomes sudden death after that.  Which is all the more reason to receive the overtime kickoff in the playoffs.

Of course, there are other factors that determine your kick or receive overtime decision.  If you made a massive fourth quarter comeback to force OT and your offense is rolling, you're gonna want the ball.  Likewise, if you were on the opposite end of that comeback, you might want to give your defense a break.  Or, you may want to keep the other team's quarterback off the field.  Which is a perfectly valid reason.  Same thing about wanting your quarterback to be on the field.

To me, the choice is an easy one.  There are so many more pros to receiving in overtime than there are to kicking.  I don't understand the analytics suggesting the opposite or why so many coaches rely on those analytics.  The only benefit to kicking is how if you do get a stop, you have the ball first when the game becomes sudden death.  That's literally it.  Even matching what the other team did isn't a great advantage because your choices are (A) go for two and the win, which means you lose if you don't get it or (B) go for the tie and give them the ball back with the game now in sudden death.

NFL overtime has always been a source of controversy.  It wasn't too long ago that it was straight sudden death (when you always took the ball no matter what).  Then they made it where only a touchdown on the first possession automatically wins the game.  Then the Bills lost a playoff game in overtime, people whined about how unfair it was, and they adopted the current format.  First, it was just in the postseason before adopting the same rules for the regular season (with the exceptions of OT being five minutes shorter and games being able to end in a tie) last season.

And I think it probably is too early to judge which approach is the "right" one.  There simply isn't enough data pointing one way or the other.  Although, it is interesting that all the numbers we have do seem to indicate that there isn't an inherent advantage either way.  It doesn't seem to matter whether you get the ball first or second.  So, it really is just a matter of preference.

Speaking of preference, there are plenty of people out there who'd like to see the NFL adopt rules similar to college football overtime.  In college, it's alternating possessions from the 25-yard line, with two-point conversion attempts eventually required the longer OT goes.  Some fans think that's more fair than what the NFL does.  Personally, I prefer the NFL version since it more closely resembles the rest of the game.  All three phases are involved, there's a clock, the offense actually needs to move the ball and the defense has to try and stop them.  You aren't automatically in field goal range.

Is NFL overtime perfect?  No.  Is it stupid that games can end in a tie?  Yes.  Should it be 15 minutes long instead of 10?  Yes.  (That extra five minutes makes a huge difference, especially for the team that gets the ball second and has to chase with potentially limited time.)  But, if I were an NFL coach, the decision whether to kick or receive in overtime is an obvious one.  As Keyshawn Johnson famously said, "Just give me the damn ball!"