More generally appropriate (to the entire game, not only to overtime) is to repair the rules that place the offensive linemen at a disadvantage and force them to concede the initiative to the defense, such as either holding restrictions (put the same restrictions on the defense — only allow holding of the person possessing the football, in other words) or the prohibition on advancing downfield (interfering with pass plays and rendering linemen ineligible for passes). The initiative should be possed fully and only by the offense. The problems faced by the offensive linemen suffer from this fundamental defect in the current rules.

Cleaning up the rules about forward passes and ending the too-pristine treatment of receivers would be welcomed as well by those who value good play over quick, cheap thrills associated with excess passing. (Rushing, not passing, is the soul of football.) Sadly, that is unlikely to happen given how popular passing has become. Easing the hyper-guarding of the quarterback would also be welcome, but may also not fare well.

About the only other thing that might be considered is something too impractical and expensive to ever be treated seriously, much less tried, but merits mention here — reviewing the dimensions of the field with the consideration that a longer and (especially) wider field would be of value (particularly if rushing were to be favored by rules changes at the expense of passing). Field dimension changes are something meriting attention not only in US football but in soccer (international football)*, hockey, and other sports; people are larger and faster than they were generations ago when dimensions were chosen, possibly arbitrarily.

* For soccer, I've thought about a world-class field arranged to classic proportions, approximately 127+ meters long and 83+ or so meters wide (I don't have the numbers with me as I post this), which yield a classically-proportioned field of 10,000 hectares.