Make a defensive stop.
Right? Same with extra innings in baseball. Oh, you want to hit, too? No, you should’ve stopped your opponent when they were up. Game should end on the first run scored.
You’re a better poster than that very dumb argument.
Possession should be for both teams. WTH?
Either way, another fantastic game. I’m sorry for Josh Allen. We’ll see him around for a few seasons, I’m sure.
Could the Chiefs had made a defensive stop against Josh Allen in OT? I guess we’ll never know.
Bills win if they squib kick at the end of regulation.
Or, as Tony Romo said, kick it short of the end zone so the KC return man is forced to bring it back. That will waste 5 or 6 seconds, and would allow only one play instead of two before the FG attempt.
A good squib kick would probably burn off even more time. They’re harder to do though than a simple short kick.
Almost impossible to “kick short” on a kickoff. It’ll roll into the end zone of the Chiefs don’t field it. That’s the whole reason teams do squib kick in that situation. They are far more reliable and they burn more time.
Romo was talking about a squib kick there. He just didn’t have the word handy. I’m sometimes against a squib kick when there’s closer to 30 seconds left and the opposing offense is mortal, but against these two teams you burn those 5 seconds every time.
Using that definition, yes, I agree with that type of kickoff. I was thinking that a squib was a short dribbler that be fallen upon by one of the up guys.
See, I can see the logic in it. Isn’t the breakdown only slightly favor the team to get the ball first? I found a 2019 stat saying the winner of the toss wins 52.7% of the time. If both teams have a go and the first team scores a touchdown, then the toss losing team has a little extra information and will go for a fourth down in situations where it would normally elect to kick a field goal if it were the first team to receive the ball. I wonder if that might affect the outcomes enough to move the win percentage in the team to go second’s favor.
It’s something like 52-46-2 W-L-T. However, the more offensive the teams the larger an advantage it is. At the end of this game there are two evenly matched offenses just burning up and down the field, and due to complete randomness we only go up the field this time. I don’t see any good reason to not have a symmetric overtime.
There’s probably a better thread for this, but you’d do it possession-for-possession throughout or just the first two and then it’s sudden death? I have a feeling we’d still be watching this game if it was possession for possession with the way the defenses were at the end there. 
I was cheering the Bills on, being married into a Bills family, but as upsetting as it is, I don’t find the rule grossly unfair.
With a squib kick, there’s even the potential for the kicking team to recover it as an unintentional onside kick.
The argument that the defenses can’t stop the offense is an argument that the coin flip is deeply unfair.
man, they just should call next year’s season "vengeance " cause it will fit so many teams …
sooo chiefs vs 49ers? in the bowl? i say chiefs yet again …
Yeah, even if you give both teams a possession and go sudden-death after that, it’s still “asymmetric.” If you have sudden-death at all, you won’t always have an even number of possessions … so what’s the point? Making it “look” more fair? Giving teams extra chances to make mistakes? Put in a “both teams get possessions” rule last night and we’re likely tied 43-43, and now we’re right back to where we actually were at the beginning of last night’s OT.
The approach that would counter that is to have a timed extra period, and whoever leads after that wins. That system, though, introduces the problem of exhausted players risking injury as you continue to play, since being tied at the end of a period means another period, and another …
I agree it’s a shame Josh Allen and the Bills didn’t get a shot in OT, but if you’ve got to have a system to declare a winner when evenly matched teams keep trading shots, pretty much every system is going to have some unfairness or some other imperfections. My opinion - which I realize is a extreme, extreme minority position - is that since a tie indicates the teams are already playing in a closely matched way, it’s not that big of a problem to have some randomness in your method of picking a winner. Even a straight coin toss (“It’s heads, you win”) could be considered a valid way to choose, although it certainly wouldn’t be popular.
Posters like Hamlet are getting a hard time for calling out the Bills’ defense, but come on - you take the lead with 13 seconds left, you can’t let the other team drive into FG position in a couple of plays. Maybe cover Travis Kelce or something. You can criticize that point of view, but if you want both teams to “play football” in OT, they should also be expected to perform their jobs on defense in the final 13 seconds, don’t you think?
When it was 26-21 for KC, did anyone else think that the Bills were going to score and the Chiefs were going to screw it up with some of Andy Reid’s classic bad time management?
What does this even mean? Points scored in the last 13 seconds should give a team an advantage? The last team to score should get the ball in OT? If they tied it up with 2 minutes left instead of at the end, then should both teams get the ball in OT?
The game was tied at the end of regulation, any talk about one team earning extra consideration is weird, given, you know, they tied.