This was a great change that has been needed for years. It is a little more complicated than a simple change like "You have to get 4 pts to win in OT" but has a similar effect. Whoc ares how complex it sounds, it will actually make OT better. Here is my point for point answer for the naysayers.
Wayne Fontes wrote:
I said it before and i'll say it again, I hate this rule. It's silly and arbitrary now and even worse then before. Why is it just in the playoffs? Why do both teams need to get a possession? PLAY DEFENSE! Just because you can't stop a team doesn't mean it's unfair. If you look at the numbers it wasn't an overwhelming number of teams that win the coin toss win the game. It was 60-40. If it was 70-30 or 80-20 then sure it would warrant a change, but not now. Another thing that bothers me is that it downplays the role of the kicker somewhat as well.
You are correct. It is 60-40. However, 20% is a HUGE Margin of unfairness in a BILLION Dollar Industry at the end of a 3 hr football game that cost millions to produce, to give an arbitrary 20% advantage to either team is just plain silly. It needed to be fixed. Otherwise it is not too dissimilar from say, making them play an extra 15 Minute quarter, but giving 1 team a free 3 points. Its 15 minutes, and only 3 points. It only a Small Advantage. That doesnt make it any less unfair. If the marginw as less than 5% you would have a point.
The fact that Minnesota, the team that got the short end of the stick, voted no, is surprising. I think that the NFL looked at the rule because of that game.
While it is Ironic that Minn voted No, the league didnt looka t it because of this game. The Competition Comittee has discussed this issue for YEARS , almost a full decade now. Now that Public Perception has noticed how retarded it is, they finally had the impetus to get the owners to vote the change that they have known was needed for years. This is not a new issue (its about as New as the "College FB needs a Playoff" argument.
If there was going to be a better scenario then the new rule and previous rule, I think it would be to just play 8 or 10 minutes more and whoever is up at the end of that time wins. If they are still tied, keep going. That's how it is in the rest of the major sports (except for shootouts...field goal kicking contest?)
They already explained why they did not like this options. Teams(Owners, Coaches, Players) would not allow for a guaranteed extra period. Too much extended Risk of Injury, Player Fatigue, No Extra Pay for extra Hours, TV Contract Issues , etc. An Extra period is just not an option in Football.
They wanted a somewhat more fiar system, that gives each team the opportunity to touch the ball (You arent guranteed a possession since they can still onside kick it) while keeping it a Sudden Death Scenario in most cases.
Again, while the rule sounds complex, it actually will do what it is supposed to, which is balance OT a little bit.