Ya know Z2C, if I had $10 for every time that I've called you an asshole...I could retire to a life of luxury on a Caribbean island.

Originally Posted by: vikesrule 

The problem is you focus squarely on the coin toss. In every one of those games, there is a high probability that something bigger occurred that affected the outcome of the game. I say high probability because nobody here can remember each OT. If you lose in OT and squarely place the blame on a coin toss, you're not watching the same game I am watching. There are too many things happening at once for one event to dictate the outcome of the game.

Is the OT system perfect?

Absolutely not, which is not the argument I am making. I believe blaming the coin toss regardless of how much data you can find on the net to support your theory is sour grapes. The person in the article sounds like he has a pair of those.

I also don't agree with the idea that it is unfair. Football is an 11 on 11 sport. That is fair. You have an opportunity to stop them. Getting the ball at your 20-yard line and driving 50 yards to setup a 47-yard field goal is not an easy task for any offense. Is there an advantage? Yes, but the entire rules of the NFL give an advantage to offenses in general nowadays. I stand to bet that good defenses rise to the occasion more often than not. The teams that are screwed in overtime are the teams that buckle under pressure. Are there exceptions? Yes, because the system is not perfect, but neither is the game of football.

Originally Posted by: porky88 

Where did I (or anyone for that matter) blame the coin toss as the sole reason for a team losing an overtime game. I said it gives a massive statistical advantage. And it does. We are in agreement that there are a million factors that decide a football game. Again, if they ended in a tie, odds are they played pretty evenly over the course of the game. You and WPR keep focusing on what happened in regulation and frankly I find it to be irrelevant when judging the merits of a certain overtime system, aside from considerations on how that system might affect end of the game coaching decisions.

We are also in agreement that the current system is not perfect. What I'm arguing is that the system is majorly flawed and that if we are going to settle games in overtime we can find a system that is at least as exciting and more fair at the same time. Would that not be a good thing?

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 

It is a pretty big overstatement to say that I "cherish" ties. I said seeing ties in the standings would be interesting; that is, it would make the playoff scenarios more intriguing.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 

See and you keep ignoring that we are saying what happened in regulation allows the play in OT to be considered fair. You don't, we (I) do. Kind of ends the discussion as we have different definitions of "fair".

Originally Posted by: wpr 

I'm not even necessarily arguing on the basis of fair. I'm arguing that I would prefer major statistical advantages to be decided by something football related, not something as trivial as a flip of a coin. The solution I half jokingly suggested earlier in this thread (same as current rules, only you replace the coin flip with the oklahoma drill) wouldn't even necessarily be fair as it would be hugely biased towards power running teams with good linebackers. At least that statistical advantage would be decided by something football related though.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys