Whether it be pro or college football, the overtime-opinion has been near unanimous - kick first, so you know what you have to do in order to win the game. Sure, on paper this makes sense, but if I may quote Socrates, "People ain't paper."
In recent years, overtime rules have shifted about as much as Donald Trump's political alliances. Until 2010 in the postseason and 2012 in the regular season, we were faced with a true sudden-death overtime. First team who scored, either by way of a touchdown, field goal, safety, or with an opposing team's cheerleader, won. In the noted years, we then went to a partial-sudden death. If the receiving team scored a touchdown or the defense scored on the extra session's first possession, the game was over. If not, the kicking team had a chance to extend or end the game with a score of their own.
Up to this point, if a team won the coin toss, receiving the ball tended to make the most sense, especially before 2010/2012, where a score, any score would win you the game. In 2017, regular season overtimes went from 15 to 10 minutes. The most recent change came in 2022 for the postseason and 2025 for the regular season, when both teams were guaranteed a possession in overtime, even if the receiving team scored a touchdown on their opening possession.
Ever since these most recent changes, a significant majority of analysts have contended, when a team wins the coin toss, it's best to kick, so they know what they need to do on their possession in order to win the game. Quoting the great Lee Corso, I'm here to say, "Not so fast, my friend."
Over the past few years, sports - especially football - have become obsessed with 'analytics.' If it's 4th and 2 from the opponent's 30-yard-line, on a team's opening possession, coaches will look at what the analytics supposedly say, and if it says to go for it, by golly, they'll go for it. Sure, analytics will provide another bit of information to help the head coach conclude on what to do, but unfortunately, most of these coaches allow the analytics to ultimately decide for them, and in the end, the decision-making process tends to become a false-dilemma fallacy. The truth is analytics provide zero nuance, and as you'll soon see, relying too heavily on analytics limits one's options, and with that, their likelihood of winning a game.
The mentality pre-game should be different than pre-overtime. Even if your opponent scores on the opening possession of a game, the odds of them winning is between 60% and 70%. There are 3+ quarters, or 45+ minutes, to close the gap and possibly take the lead. In overtime, those 45+ minutes are condensed to under 10 minutes. Just look at those numbers for a second. In a 60-minute game, if a team scores on their first possession, they win 60-70% of the time. Just imagine what that percentage would be if said team scored on their first drive in a 10-minute overtime.
This past weekend, the Baltimore Ravens fell behind the Atlanta Falcons, 23-15, with two and a half minutes remaining in the game. The Ravens tied it with 40 seconds left; won the coin toss in overtime; and decided to receive. I read a tweet from a Ravens analyst, immediately following Baltimore's decision to receive the ball in the extra session, as he said, "I thought we were all in agreement you have to kick off, so you know what you have to do to win," adding, "I see no plus side to receiving in overtime." The Ravens proceeded to chew up 7+ minutes of clock and score the go-ahead touchdown. This left the Falcons with under 3 minutes to drive the length of the field; score a touchdown; and then decide whether they wanted to go for the win with a two-point conversion, or settle for a tie, because it would be highly unlikely they'd get a second possession in the extra session. On the second play of their drive, backup quarterback Tua Tagovailoa threw a game-ending interception.
At this point, I wondered, "Since overtime has been shortened from 15 to 10 minutes and both teams have been guaranteed a possession, I wonder what the results have been of teams who received vs. those who kicked," so I dug a little deeper, and here were the results.
In regular season games, since the start of the 2025-2026 season:
Teams who received the opening kickoff in overtime have gone 11-8-2.
Teams who have kicked to start the overtime session have gone 8-11-2.
The numbers get even more interesting, when we look at offensive proficiency and game-flow.
When a receiving team scores on their opening possession, they have a record of 9-1-1.
When a receiving team doesn't score on their opening possession, they've gone 2-7-1.
When 40 total points or fewer have been scored preceding overtime, the receiving team has only gone 2-5.
However, when 46 total points or more have been scored in regulation, the receiving team is 9-3-2.
Also, it should be noted that, in these 21 overtime games, the receiving teams have totaled 26 possessions, whereas the kicking teams have totaled 23 possessions, That may not be a huge difference, but 23 possessions in 21 overtimes does mean that kicking teams rarely get a 2nd possession, whereas receiving teams are certainly more likely to have a second chance of scoring and winning the contest.
This all seems pretty common sense to me. If it's been a low-scoring, defensive struggle, it may be best to kick the ball off in overtime, as you have more confidence in your defense than offense; believe you'll prevent your opponent from moving the ball much on their opening drive; and you'll then get decent field position, to increase your odds of kicking a game-winning field goal. If your offense has been playing fairly well, however, it's probably better to receive. If you score on the opening possession, you have close to a 90% chance of winning. The argument has been, "Kick off, so you know what you need to do to win in overtime." Sure, that sounds good and all, but if your opponent scores on their first drive and chews up a bit of clock while doing so, the pressure is all on you to try and either equal or exceed their production. Let's be honest, in whose position would you rather be? Up 27-20 in overtime, needing one stop to win the game, or down 27-20, but saying to yourselves, "Okay, we know what we need to do. We've got them right where we want them, down 7." Analysts can lie to themselves as much as they want, but we all know they'd rather be the team up a touchdown in overtime than the one down and knowing what they need to do to win.
Look at the aforementioned Baltimore/Atlanta game. The Ravens offense had just driven down the field to score the game-tying touchdown and two-point conversion. The Falcons defense was likely gassed, while the Ravens offense was feeling confident, thinking they'd finally found something which worked against the Falcons defense. So, they decided to receive the opening kickoff in overtime and they were right. They had all the momentum; Atlanta's defense was tired; Baltimore took 7+ minutes off the clock, en route to a game-leading and ulimately game-winning touchdown; and with all the pressure on the Falcons, with limited time, they couldn't rise to the occasion.
So, no matter what NFL analysts and talking heads would have you believe, that it's always best to kick the ball off in overtime, the numbers say differently. If it's a low-scoring contest, and you have more faith in your defense than offense, by all means kick the ball. But if it's not a defensive slugfest, odds are you'd be better off receiving.
Comments
Post a Comment