Belts and suspenders

Football coaches don't manage a game to win, they manage it not to lose. There's a difference. A lot of folks are celebrating Denver Broncos coach Mike Shanahan because Sunday he managed the game to win by going for a two-point conversion after the Broncos scored a touchdown that drew them to within one point of the San Diego Chargers in the final seconds of their game. Last year kickers converted 99 percent of their point-after attempts (1,165 out of 1,178 attempts). Last year two-point attempts were successful only 49 percent of the time. The statistics overwhelmingly told Shanahan to go for the tie and send the game into overtime. I'd be willing to bet every other head coach in the NFL would have kicked the point after. Why? Because they coach not to lose instead of coaching to win.

But what if there wasn't any overtime. What if the only two possible outcomes for a coach in this position was a win or a tie? What if standings were based solely on winning percentage making a tie, statistically speaking, the same thing as a loss? Then, I'm betting, many additional coaches go for the two-point conversion, which is a far more exciting prospect for fans than what is possibly the most boring play in football -- the point-after-kick.

What I'm getting to here is simply this: Football, both college and pro, has to either get rid of the two-point conversion rule or overtime periods and I'm advocating the latter. Pro and college football have two entirely different rules for overtime, neither of which I find satisfactory (although I would like the college version more if each team started from the 50 and not the 25-yard-line). This year, college adjusted its play clock in attempt to shorten games, yet it still has overtime rules that can extend the game to ridiculous lengths. By getting rid of overtimes, it may force more coaches to follow Shanahan's example -- to coach to win instead of coaching not to lose.