Overtime flaw still exists

Getty Images

The Patriots won the Super Bowl, if you haven’t heard, by scoring a touchdown on the first drive of overtime. But the game shouldn’t have been over at that point.

The team that kicks off to start overtime should always have a chance to match an opening-drive score, whether it’s a field goal or a touchdown. Especially in the postseason, where the winner advances and the loser goes home. Or in the Super Bowl, where a championship can be secured on a single, well-timed touchdown drive.

During Thursday night’s Chiefs-Patriots pregame show, Bob Costas made the case for full and complete fairness in postseason overtime, with the game never riding on outcome of the flip of a coin. Since Bob can say it better than I ever could, check out Bob’s remarks and then invariably complain about what he had to say in the comments.

Unless you know in your heart that he’s right. In that case, complain about something else.

16 responses to “Overtime flaw still exists

  1. Costas should stick to baseball.

    So what if both teams score touchdowns? Is the next argument going to be that it’s unfair that the team that scores first can then win it with a field goal? We like games ending in touchdowns. The Falcons had enough chances to win the Super Bowl. Nobody who doesn’t within 100 miles of Peachtree Street believes the Super Bowl was unfair because the Patriots went down the field and scored.

  2. There are 3 aspects of the game … play defense to get it back to your offense… stop trying to change the game so everyone gets a trophy

  3. Might as well go to the college rule. Also, the losing team should get a mini Lombardi trophy too and a runner’s up ring.

  4. If they don’t want sudden death then the rule change is so simple.
    1 – if the opening team kicks a field goal, the other team MUST go for a touch down to avoid another tie and extending the game
    2 – if the opening team scores a touchdown, the automatically get the extra point. The other team gets a chance, but must go for the two point conversion (again, to avoid extending the game with a tie)

  5. If you don’t get the ball first in OT, you still get to play defense. Life isn’t fair. Stop somebody.

    We should go back to sudden death, not further away from sudden death. You can’t talk about player safety, and then advocate for longer overtimes. You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth at that point.

  6. How about you don’t let the team that is losing to your team by 25 points score 25 points in the last seventeen minutes of regulation? Then you wouldn’t have to worry about who gets the first opportunity to score in overtime!

  7. Funny how it’s the pundits like Costas, Florio, Peter King, etc. that consistently complain about this rule. Personally, I’m still a fan of sudden death.

  8. Looks like 10-0 against Costas. No love for a guy that couldn’t carry a spit bucket for a Pop Warner team. He has no business suggesting anything in regards to football.

  9. Both teams DO have a chance to score in overtime. Force a punt and get the ball to your offense. Force a turnover and get the ball to your offense. Make a pick six or fumble recovery return for a score. Block a FG and return it for a score. There are lots of ways for the team that loses the coin toss to score in overtime. If they’ve really got guts and a special need to have the ball first they could even onsides kick. See how absurd this is getting? Play defense. Win games.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!