Okay...so when the Bills got the ball and didn't score shit last year it would have been okay for the game to end under these new rules?

I'm not sure taking the ball 2nd is ideal either. If the score is tied after the first possession by both teams, it becomes sudden death. Might be good to have the ball 1st and then 3rd when a fg would be all you need.

That is just a silly comment.

You could have regular season games end in a tie at the end of regulation if you wanted to.

And you obviously can't for playoffs.

The stakes are higher for play offs.

The networks aren't as desperate to get playoff games over with to move on with their regularly scheduled programming.

Hence the 10 minute OT in the regular season which I think is too short when a team like Tenn can put together a 9+ minute run heavy drive and kick a field goal.

I don't know. If you take the ball second, you know whether you have to score a field goal or a TD to stay alive.

And if the other team has scored, everything is four down territory. That seems worth a lot.

If you go first and get a TD, you can do sellout blitz to try to cause turnover and end game.

I think most coin toss winners would receive unless the weather is affecting the offense and kicking game and it is clear that it is favorable to one side of the field.

Less than optimal change by the NFL. Instead of this change, they should have done a simpler change of road team chooses the starting field position from the end zone at start of OT. Home team gets to choose whether to take the ball at that position or defer.

So if Bills had chose 3 yard line and Chiefs wanted the ball, the Chiefs get to start the game at their own 3 yard line. If Chiefs deferred, Bills have to start at their own 3 yard line.

The advantage of this is it pretty much evens things out and let's the team decides while on average getting the game over quicker compared to the new way of doing things. It is a disadvantage to the winner of an OT playoff game to have a long OT game and then have to play the next week.

The only good thing about this change, it is still way better than the gimmicky college way of doing things.

Oh I get it. But let's say you are down 7 (or 8) and you do get that tie to stay alive. FG beats you now.

Advantages both ways. I'm not sure it's a clear cut decision to just automatically win the toss, and put the defense on the field like in college.

In time it may prove out to be that way. But I'm not 100% sold just yet.

So the Patriots benefit from the rule twice. No real issue. Chiefs benefit. We have to fix this glaring problem.

This is the point that most seem to be missing.

If there was any discussion of the OT rule after the Patriots-Falcons Super Bowl, I completely missed that.

I doubt there was much yakkety-yak then considering that the Falcons had given up a huge comeback, I doubt many people felt that the OT coin toss was a key moment after that game.

Patriot favoritism or Chiefs disrespect has nothing to do with the timing.

The recent change is an improvement on the status quo ante.

The suggestion you describe has been made by the Ravens in a prior year and was not adopted.

That indicates a certain sub-optimal element in your brilliant adoption of the Ravens' proposal. The sub-optimality concerns the fact that it did not get the votes.

In order for a OT rule proposal to be "optimal", it has to be able to get approval by the competition committee and the owners.

Yup. I said the same thing when it was reported to be up on then table again.

Where did this gimmicky bullshit come from? It's been mentioned a few times now. It's a fun concept, but completely reeruned to actually think it should be a thing... turning the coin toss into a game of analytics.

HFA --> get to choose to start OT. Far simpler and in the playoffs it's based on something you've already earned, and makes the regular season a bit more meaningful.

Take away punts in overtime.