I would if I could, but I keep getting escorted off the field.
Which is to say: all of this talk about what’s “fair” is missing the point. I’m not sad about Josh Allen; he’s well compensated and knew the rules going in. I’m sad that I, personally, didn’t get to see Josh Allen have his chance to match Mahomes in overtime. Sports is an entertainment product, and I want the rules to make it:
As entertaining as possible, while remaining:
Reasonable, feasible, and as safe for the players as possible.
So for me, the bottom line is that I (a Giants fan with no vested interest) would have enjoyed last night’s game even more if the Bills had a possession in overtime. It’s not that it would have been “more fair,” it’s that it would have been “more fun.” When it comes to spectator sports, I am entirely selfish: I don’t understand or favor any configuration of rules that makes the game less fun to watch for me.
The result is ‘fair’ in the sense that OT rules have existed for a while and everybody plays by them, but that doesn’t make them right.
If it were the case, then strong defensive teams would opt to give the ball to the other team to start OT much more often. I could be wrong about this, but the only case over the last decade involving a team trusting its defense to start OT was Bill Belichick and that involved incredibly bad weather as well. If the team that wins the toss always takes the ball to start OT, that’s indicative of something.
That and defenses are just more gassed by the end of games. Half (ok not really half but not far off of that) the points in the game were scored in the last few minutes. Neither team was going to put up much of a defense in OT. The idea that they should be expected to smacks more of a person playing Madden than the real world.
Maybe I didn’t express myself clearly. You are kind of reflecting my point. Buffalo was in a very, very high percentage situation to win the game in regulation, but they couldn’t do it - should they get “rewarded” by changing the rules of OT?
Some people are saying it’s not ‘fair’ that Buffalo didn’t get a chance in OT. But they knew what the OT rules were, and they could have avoided that completely by stopping the Chiefs from getting in FG position in the final 13 seconds. KC didn’t get “extra consideration” by scoring then; they got to extend the game, and both teams knew what the rules would be.
So, is Brady coming back? Lots of rumors and rumblings that maybe he will not. If he had managed to rally against the Rams and hold on to win another Super Bowl, it would have been perfect timing to hang it up on a high note. But now I have a feeling that he’ll feel compelled to return next season to try to win one last SB.
Love him or hate him, a post-Brady NFL will really be the end of an era.
Imagine if someone had showed us that graphic before the game and asked us to predict how the actual game unfolded? We all would have guessed a flood of weird turnovers, or maybe a punt return or field goal block, but no: just two offenses out of their minds for fifteen minutes.
A football announcer cliche is “you don’t want to give the ball back with too much time on the clock”, generally meaning somewhere around a minute, depending on the QB and the number of timeouts.
Mahomes has now set the definition of “too much time” to 13 seconds with two timeouts (had three, didn’t need them).
I agree completely. The CFL uses the two “mini-halfs” approach, so each team gets a chance regardless of the coin flip. That’s how the western semi-final ended in November: Calgary v Saskatchewan. Calgary won the coin toss, and kicked a field goal in their first mini-half; Riders responded with a field goal, so a second set of mini-halfs were played. Calgary missed a field goal in theirs, so the Riders just had to get within field goal range and kick a goal, which they did.
I wasn’t at the stadium, but even at home on tv, it was a thrilling way to end the game.
Yeah, I said to my wife, a lifelong Bills fan, not to get too excited yet after the last touchdown. Three timeouts, thirteen second could be enough for Mahomes with how winded the defenses looked at the end. I thought perhaps they should squib to shave off some more time. Unfortunately, my fear proved true.
After some thinking, here’s an idea I got based on a similar one floated for T20 cricket. Since I’ve never been involved in the game as a player, I may be totally talking out of my ass, but here goes:
Both offenses get at least one possession in overtime. If both teams score touchdowns on their first possession, then an “auction” occurs where the teams bid on how many plays they think they will need to score a touchdown (kickoff not counted as a play). The team that bids the lower number gets to receive the ball, but if they don’t score a touchdown in their bidded number of plays or less, then they lose the game.
For example, assuming these rules were in place for last night’s game, and both the Chiefs and the Bills scored a touchdown in their first possession of overtime -
Chiefs bid 7 plays Bills bid 6 plays Chiefs bid 5 plays Bills decline to exceed Chiefs’ bid, so Chiefs receive the ball
Now, if the Chiefs cannot score a touchdown on their resulting possession in 5 plays or less, then they lose the game.
If both teams bid the exact same number of plays and refuse to go lower, then a coin flip is used to see who receives the ball, but the winner of the toss still have to abide by the number of plays they bid, otherwise they lose.
What’s with all the calls to change OT rules? Remember when a field goal would end it? I’m having a hard time finding the exact stats, but I don’t think a first possession TD happened super frequently in OT games this year. Maybe 25% of the time? It seems fairly well balanced, really.
Indeed, that is my argument. From the numbers, it seems pretty fair, slightly favoring the winner of the toss. I think there just is a sense of unfairness to the fans when a TD does occur on first possession. Like I said, I was rooting for the Bills, but I didn’t think the outcome was unfair in the least.
