NFL's Overtime System Needs Serious Overhauling

No Lions game yesterday, so I'm going to use its normal place to rail about the NFL's overtime system.

It grates on me that a team can lose an overtime game in the regular season -- or in the postseason, for that matter -- without touching the ball.

The coin flip, then, becomes the most important part of a tie game, and that just shouldn't be. After 60 minutes of play with no resolution, it seems we can come up with a better system.

Currently, all overtimes are sudden death. Now, just the words "sudden death" evoke a chill up the spine of most sports fans. You kind of have it in baseball, with the "walk off win", and you definitely have it in hockey. The NFL has it, too -- but in a very flawed manner.

Team A wins the coin flip. And, if they're not coached by Marty Mornhinweg, they take the ball first. Team B kicks off, and according to the raw data, have a significantly reduced chance of winning, right off the bat. In fact, the chances aren't bad that they won't get the football at all.

So Team A drives into field goal range (typically anything inside the opponents' 35-yard line is sufficient), and kicks their way to victory. Very few overtime games are won via touchdown.

I HATE this system!

Yet I'm not all that enamored with the high school and college methods, which eschew kickoffs and places the ball at a pre-determined yard line and asks the offense to score somehow. Though at least here, each team gets a shot with the ball.

Here's my proposal, and tell me if it doesn't make sense.

Each team gets the ball once. You flip a coin, as normal. If Team A receives, and scores on the ensuing possession, they must kickoff to Team B. If Team B fails to match or beat the score of Team A (obviously every set of downs then becomes "four-down territory"), then the game is over, and Team A wins.

If Team A fails to score (lost on downs, turnover, missed FG), then Team B wins if it scores on its possession. If Team B fails to score, then the game becomes "sudden death," with the first to score winning.

Now, some FAQ:

1. What if Team A loses the ball on the overtime's opening possession via turnover, and Team B returns it for a touchdown?

Then Team B wins, even if it happens on Team A's first play from scrimmage. It counts as a possession.

2. What if Team A returns the overtime kickoff for a touchdown?

Then Team B still gets a chance with the ball.

3. What if Team B holds Team A to a punt, and returns it for a touchdown?

Haven't you been following along? Team B wins.

4. What if Team A suffers a safety on the first possession of overtime?

Team B wins.

5. What if Team B holds Team A, but then fumbles or throws an interception, and Team A takes it all the way?

Team A wins.

The other thing I like about this system is that decision-making becomes crucial. Does Team A settle for a FG on a 4th-and-1 in the red zone, for example, or go for it, trying to score a touchdown and make it more difficult for Team B?

Critics (and I'm sure there will be plenty) are sure to say that, in some respects, Team B has the advantage in this system because it will always know what it needs on its possession (TD or FG). Well, not every system is perfect, and just because they KNOW what they need, doesn't mean that they'll get it. In fact, Team A can counter that knowledge by defending appropriately.

I just think that under this system, games wouldn't be extended all that much, in order to give each team the football. Whether a team wins or loses shouldn't ride so much on a coin flip.

Thoughts?