Overtime Is Fine

Sunday's Chiefs-Bills game was an absolute classic!  Each time somebody thought they won, the other quarterback was like "Not so fast!"  It felt like whoever had the ball last would win.  That turned out to be exactly the case.  The Chiefs won the overtime coin toss, marched down, and scored a touchdown.  Game over.

That result led to plenty of armchair quarterbacking from the casual viewers who were suddenly Bills fans complaining about how "unfair" it was Buffalo never got the ball in overtime.  Plenty of these "experts" even offered their own suggestions for how the NFL should "fix" overtime.  All of which were pretty dumb.  Especially since there's nothing wrong with the NFL's overtime format.  Thus, it doesn't need to be "fixed."

My question to all these people is if they still would've thought it was "unfair" had it been the other way around?  What if the Bills had won the coin toss, marched down the field and scored a touchdown, leaving Mahomes and the Chiefs offense standing on the sidelines as their season ended (just like it did in the 2018 AFC Championship Game)?  Or is it only "unfair" because you wanted the Bills to win?

Also, let's be clear about something.  The Bills did NOT lose the game because of the overtime format!  They had a three-point lead with 13 seconds left, only to let the Kansas City offense go 40 yards in two plays to get into field goal range, then kick the game-tying field goal to send it into OT.  The defense gets a stop, the game doesn't go into overtime, and we're not having this idiotic conversation for two days.

Likewise, the Atlanta Falcons didn't lose Super Bowl LI because the Patriots won the overtime coin toss.  They lost because they blew a 28-3 lead (and because Matt Ryan took a sack to knock them out of field goal range when they were up eight).  Sure, they probably knew they were gonna lose as soon as Brady got the ball first, but that doesn't change the fact it never should've gone to OT in the first place!

Would things have been different had Buffalo won the toss and gotten the ball first?  We'll never know.  But to say that they "didn't have a chance" is simply untrue.  The Bills had a chance to win the game with a field goal, while the Chiefs did not.  All they had to do was get it done defensively.  Which they didn't.

All of the complainers seem to either ignore or not understand that fact.  Winning the coin toss doesn't "guarantee" you victory.  The only way the game ends on the first possession is if the offense scores a touchdown!  Otherwise, you ARE getting the ball!  So, it's really pretty straightforward.  It puts the onus on the defense to stop them.

Both teams understand the rules, too!  It's not like they suddenly changed them for the playoffs.  You get the ball, you score a touchdown, you win.  Otherwise, they get the ball.  If you don't win the toss, you need to rely on your defense to do the job.  I get it.  It's a horrible way for your season to end.  But you have 60 minutes of regulation to avoid that scenario!

It's also worth noting that the NFL did "fix" overtime about a decade ago.  The owners agreed that the sudden death format needed tweaking because too many teams were winning games on a first possession field goal.  So, they amended it that it had to be a first possession TOUCHDOWN or defensive score to end the game.  And that tweak worked!  It makes the team that wins the toss go for the TD, even if they're already in field goal range.

The most common suggestion among the Monday morning quarterbacks is that the NFL adopt something similar to college football overtime.  In college football, the teams alternate possessions from the opponent's 25-yard-line.  They're already in field goal range, so defense is basically taken out of it.  It becomes a "can you top this?" contest.

NFL overtime, meanwhile, isn't just a series of goal line plays.  There's a kickoff, there's a clock, the offense needs to drive down the field, and the defense needs to try and stop them.  In other words, it's a football game.  All three phases are incorporated.  If one defense can't stop the other offense, that team deserves to lose.  The whole point is to keep the ball out of the end zone!  If you don't do that, why should you get a chance to match what the other team did?

And say the rule was that each team got the ball.  When does it end?  Does it become sudden death after each team's first possession?  Or is it like a hockey/soccer shootout (or college football overtime) where it doesn't end until one team scores and the other doesn't?  And, don't forget, there's a clock in play, too.  So, the clock's gonna run out on somebody eventually!  Just ask the Chargers about that one.  (Yes, they play until there's a winner in the playoffs, but I detest ties in the NFL and regular season OT needs to go back to 15 minutes because 10 is too short!)

If there was something "wrong" with the system, there would've been a push to change it!  None has come.  That should tell you something, too.  The owners, the players and the league are fine with overtime just the way it is.  So why change it just because social media is flipping out about the ending of one playoff game?

As a Bills fan, I obviously would've preferred if the ending of that game had been different.  But the result wasn't "unfair."  The Bills weren't "screwed" by the NFL's overtime format.  An overtime format that, frankly, there's nothing wrong with.