Be honest: Do the OT rules to end games need changing?

[Observer]

I grew up playing pretty much every sport you could play. Never once did anyone say "Next 'point' wins" only to be responded to with "But that's not fair!". It was always understood that any sort of overtime type of situation, be it because a game was a tie, or because it was getting late, was going to be sudden death. So all this whining because someone didn't get equal time is something I find laughable.

That is simply not true. I have had many occasions where next point wins caused a conflict because of something as simple as who was serving.

 

[bormio]

Actually, this was how the KC possessions went in the 4th:

1. 3 and out

2. Short field after an interception, only went 23 yards

3. Incomplete pass
Fumble by Kelce, recovered by the Patriots, called back for a hold that was legit but often isn't called
Incomplete pass
Incomplete pass, ******** PI and legit RTP (I thought the pass rush was shot? Yet they were pressuring Mahomes on these possessions)
Incomplete pass
38 yard pass made possible by a blatant, missed pick play
2 yard touchdown run that the Patriots weren't interested in stopping because they wanted to save time

4. The only legitimately poorly played sequence on the part of the Patriots in the second half.

The Patriots had a far, far better chance of stopping the Chiefs than the Chiefs had of stopping the Patriots. They were still getting pressure in the 4th quarter, unless you're referring to the possession on which they were rushing two or three guys with under 40 seconds left in the game.

It's just not logical to think that a defense that has been on the field for 81 plays and 39 minutes isn't far more fatigued than a defense that had been on the field for 47 plays and 21 minutes. That's more than an entire quarter's worth of time and an entire half's worth of snaps.

That's with two turnovers!! One was at the damn one yard line! The other went off a receiver's hands!

Again, the team winning the toss has a bit of a mathematical advantage in overtime, but the Patriots flat out earned that advantage. It wasn't given to them by the coin toss, they pummeled the Chiefs until they didn't want anymore because that was their strategy going in. They've said as much.

Edit: Also, while they technically scored 24 points in the 4th, their first touchdown came with 14:51 on the clock. The majority of the drive was in the 3rd quarter.

Wish I had been so confident when KC kicked the game-tying FG. I was just thankful they didn’t run another play with 11 seconds left. The KC offense was in a groove at the end. I did feel a lot better when we won the toss.

 

[EddardSnow67]

First of all, let me say that I am glad that the rule is what it is and all the hand-wringing is mainly because the Pats won.

Now, I get your position but my position is not laughable by any stretch. There are two ways to think about overtime:
1. Both teams are equal but we have to pick one so let's decide by chance. In this case, yes your system of deciding by a coin toss would be the most fair. But then why go through the charade of playing extra time at all?

2. The teams are unequal but we need more time to determine which deserves to advance. In this case both teams should get equal opportunity to demonstrate their skill both on offense and defense. Many are making the argument that losing the toss is not a big deal and all the defending team has to do is make a stop. But in a game where you have entirely different teams on offense and defense, this is just not a valid argument. In a game like soccer where the same players are responsible for both offense and defense, this type of argument is much more valid but even soccer got rid of golden goal overtime because it was too sudden death.

In other words, the advantage goes to the better rounded, more evenly assembled team. So, basically changing overtime rules means catering to unbalanced teams and removing what has always been a decided advantage in football: Balance.

 

[bormio]

If the Patriots and Chiefs had possessed the ball the same amount of time and had been on the field for the same amount of snaps, I would agree with you.

You're discounting the main theme of the game, which was that the Patriots were intentionally keeping the ball away from the Chiefs to wear down their defense and keep the Pats defense fresh. It's a fact that the Patriots defense was a lot fresher.

So fresh they gave up 24 points on KC’s last 5 possessions. Hell it was better than last year’s SB

 

[EddardSnow67]

Wish I had been so confident when KC kicked the game-tying FG. I was just thankful they didn’t run another play with 11 seconds left. The KC offense was in a groove at the end. I did feel a lot better when we won the toss.

I get where you're coming from. I was nervous as well, what I just posted has come after calming down and looking at the drive charts and film and realizing the Patriots didn't really play that badly on defense in the second half. Though obviously much worse than they did in the first half.

 

[Observer]

In other words, the advantage goes to the better rounded, more evenly assembled team. So, basically changing overtime rules means catering to unbalanced teams and removing what has always been a decided advantage in football: Balance.

Not at all, the advantage is going to whoever has the serve.

 

[bormio]

In other words, the advantage goes to the better rounded, more evenly assembled team. So, basically changing overtime rules means catering to unbalanced teams and removing what has always been a decided advantage in football: Balance.

If KC won the toss, they would have an advantage you say they did not earn (even if not as great as NE got by winning the toss).

 

[EddardSnow67]

So fresh they gave up 24 points on KC’s last 5 possessions. Hell it was better than last year’s SB

That had nothing to do with their level of fatigue, which I just pointed out to you pretty much play-by-play. The Patriots defense was on the field 11 minutes in the second half. They definitely weren't tired, at least compared to the Chiefs.

 

[EddardSnow67]

If KC won the toss, they would have an advantage you say they did not earn (even if not as great as NE got by winning the toss).

I don't disagree, but you said it was about the same chance. I'm not saying the rule is totally fair, I'm just disagreeing about that particular statement.

 

[Deus Irae]

First of all, let me say that I am glad that the rule is what it is and all the hand-wringing is mainly because the Pats won.

Now, I get your position but my position is not laughable by any stretch.

Yes, your position is laughable.

 

[EddardSnow67]

Not at all, the advantage is going to whoever has the serve.

Not if they have a bad offense and the other team has a good defense.

 

[Ring 6]

NE winning the flip probably gave them at least a 60%+ chance of winning, KC winning the flip gave them would probably have done the same for them. Any system where the result of the coin flip affects the result of the game that much is flawed. The coin flip is a 50/50 proposition, but the OT rules should be designed so the result of the coin flip affects the outcome as little as possible. Achieving no effect however is virtually impossible in all situations. When teams are very likely to score a TD, like Sunday night, the problem is much worse.

BTW, I am not arguing for or against a change. I am just saying the reality is in this situation, the coin flip result likely strongly affected the outcome - which is what the OT rules are not supposed to do. Remember, the NE defense never faced the "if you are a champion, you would have made a stop" situation like the KC defense did.

Teams don’t score TDs anywhere near 60% of possessions after kickoffs.

 

[bormio]

In certain situations with the rule, you might choose to go 2nd. BB did it vs Denver even before the only a TD wins rule existed.

 

[EddardSnow67]

Just to make it known, I don't really care what the rules are. Regardless of the structure, there will be incidental advantages to one of the two teams, especially since teams are designed differently.

 

[bormio]

Teams don’t score TDs anywhere near 60% of possessions after kickoffs.

They were in the 4th quarter Sunday. But NE could also win by being even after 2 possessions and winning on the 3rd with a FG
Edit: Which is why Zuerlein’s kick was a huge risk. Miss it and the Saints only needed about 18 yards to be in FG position

 

[EddardSnow67]

The Chiefs only actually gained yardage on 6 of 16 plays in the fourth quarter. They had five first downs - three by penalty.

Almost half the yardage they gained in the 4th quarter came on penalties.

I don't really have a point beyond the fact that the Patriots were better defensively in the 4th than it seemed.

 

[Joker]

Six conference championships have gone into overtime during the NFL playoffs, with five of those overtime games coming in NFC clashes.

The 2014 NFC Championship between the Packers and Seahawks was the most recent championship game to need extra time. The two teams went into overtime at CenturyLink Field in Seattle, Wash., after wrapping up regulation tied at 22 points apiece. The Seahawks secured the win with an overtime touchdown for six points. Seattle went into the Super Bowl with a 28–22 conference championship win under its belt.

The NFC championship also went into overtime during the 2011 playoffs, with the Giants defeating the 49ers by three, 20–17, after an overtime field goal on Jan. 22, 2012.The 2009, 2007 and 1998 NFC championship games also went to overtime.

The AFC Championship, on the other hand, has only gone into overtime once since 1970. The Broncos and Browns 1986 NFC Championship clash was locked at 20–20 in regulation. Denver scored on a field goal to take the win, advancing to Super Bowl XXI where they fell to the New York Giants, 39–20.

THIS IS WRONG!!~! CHANGE THE RULE NOW!!! THESE TEAMS WERE CHEATED!!! OUTRAGEOUS! YOU MUST AGREE WITH MY IDIOCY!

 

[Xerostomia]

Outcome Bias.

I would argue that the Saints probably had the best odds of all 4 teams to score an opening drive TD in OT and did not. The Rams D did their job. If the Saints marched down the field and scored a TD, not one person would be complaining that it was not fair that the Rams did not get a chance in OT because the Saints 'deserved' to win the game anyways. That would have been outcome bias.​

The Chiefs D 'essentially' had 3 picks against Brady, and stuffed them on a 4th and 1 during the game. They were more than capable of stopping the Patriots and had them at 3rd and 10, 3 times during the last drive. Maybe Brady being the GOAT and the most clutch of all time is the reason why the Patriots won? It has nothing to do with fairness and it is a reaction to outcome bias as most of the country dislikes the Patriots and Tom Brady.

 

[Joker]

not busting your chops at all but...today we have all these biases. We explain away everything using "confirmation bias","negativity bias" , "normalcy bias" ad nauseum. Tell me, what the hell happened to plain, old fashioned COMMON SENSE?

 

[Ring 6]

They were in the 4th quarter Sunday. But NE could also win by being even after 2 possessions and winning on the 3rd with a FG
Edit: Which is why Zuerlein’s kick was a huge risk. Miss it and the Saints only needed about 18 yards to be in FG position

Basing the likelihood of a team scoring after a kickoff on one quarter of football is silly.
A team that kickoff and gets a stop has a higher chance of scoring and then would only need a FG. If the patriots kick a FG the chiefs are on 4 down football until FG range.
The only way it’s a decided advantage is if you just assume there is no defense.