Because of the NFL overtime rule, one of the best conference championship games in history ended with the league MVP never taking the field in overtime. The Breakout Live team debates whether it’s finally time for the NFL to change the overtime rule to guarantee each team gets a possession regardless of how many points the coin flip winner scores.
Nah. Look, I’m all for fairness when it comes to OT – especially in big games – but you really can’t do much more than what the NFL has to make things equal. Would I have loved to see Patrick Mahomes and the Chiefs get their shot with the ball? Of course, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad rule. All KC had to do was keep the Pats out of the end zone and they’d have given Mahomes that shot, but they couldn’t do it. That’s on the Chiefs’ defense, not the NFL.
The current version of OT does what it’s supposed to do. It creates urgency, it puts the onus on the players to decide the game and it ensures we don’t have long, drawn-out OTs where tired players are more likely to get hurt. The game is already the most violent in sports for 60 minutes; why extend to 75 minutes or more if you don’t have to? The last thing anyone wants to see is a Super Bowl played by a bunch of second-stringers because teams lost starters in a double-OT game two weeks prior. NFL OT isn’t perfect, but it’s about as close to it as we’re gonna get.
It’s not even a question, and I have argued this point for the last couple of decades. You don’t give one team an extra offensive possession while denying their opponents a single possession, period. Here is what the other side will invariably argue: If you don’t want to lose without getting the ball, then don’t give the other team a touchdown. That sounds really clever, until you consider that the team winning the coin flip and scoring a TD never has to take that challenge.
Without going to a completely different playoff system, such as the NCAA system, the league should absolutely guarantee each team one possession in overtime. NFL fans were robbed of the opportunity to see the NFL MVP take the field with the game on the line in overtime. One more overtime change I would make: force teams to go for 2 after a TD.
George “Cannonball” West
Every time a team loses a playoff game in OT because they don’t play defense, a bad loser wail emits the day after about how the OT rule isn’t “fair” and should be altered. I am 100% against changing the rule. If a team’s defense can’t stop their opponent, especially on THREE 3rd down and 10s, you deserve to lose, even if you never get the ball.
I am especially against the NCAA system which changes the game from football to a field goal kicking contest. It would be like deciding a Stanley Cup playoff game with a shootout, or a World Series game with a home run hitting contest. You can’t bastardize the game on some hypothetical “fair” system. The coin flip in OT has no bearing on a team’s chance to win. If you lose the flip, just play defense and guess what? You get the ball and your chance to win.
Senior News & Fantasy Editor
In a league that overwhelmingly favors offense, it’s very hard to defend the current OT rule. Yes, you can say the Chiefs and their 31st ranked defense had their shot to stop Brady and failed. Correct. However, due to the coin toss, the Patriots middling defense didn’t get the same requirement of having to stop Mahomes due to a guess on a 50-50 proposition.
If we want fairness on pass interference, we should want it in overtimes of playoff games. The NFL and NFLPA is concerned about their players playing beyond 60 minutes. A health/competitive balance compromise is to give each team the ball at their own 25 in a 2-minute drill with two timeouts. Whatever team scores more points or advances it the farthest down the field wins, or repeat process in case of ties until we have a winner. Who wouldn’t want to see Brady and Mahomes each in 2-minute drills with the best result determining outcome? I’d take that all day over what happened Sunday evening in Arrowhead.