The NFL conference championship games yesterday certainly lived up to expectations, and we now have a Super Bowl matchup set between the New England Patriots and Los Angeles Rams. With the top two seeds facing off in both the AFC and NFC, the potential for a great day of football was there, and we got even more than we could have expected, as both games were decided in overtime. However, the day after overtime games is often when we get people complaining about the format of overtime in the NFL, and today has been no different.
In my opinion, games that go to overtime in the postseason, when you need to have a winner, should be decided by playing the actual game as it has been played throughout regulation. It is why I do not like penalty kicks in soccer. They might be exciting, especially on the biggest stages, but you aren't deciding a winner based on one team being better than the other. You are deciding the outcome based on something that isn't really soccer.
It is also why I hate the contrived, joke of an overtime that happens in college football, where teams are given the ball already in field goal range. Penalty kicks in soccer are at least exciting. What college football does in overtime isn't even exciting. In my opinion, it is easily the worst overtime format in all of sports.
On the other hand, baseball, hockey, and basketball overtime/extra inning games are all decided by playing the game exactly as it had been played in regulation time. They all get it right. There is nothing more exciting than overtime in playoff hockey. Play for as long as it takes, and the first team to score wins.
In the middle of this spectrum is the NFL. Football in general is a bit different because the nature of the game isn't totally similar to basketball and hockey, where possession changes hands so often. For that reason, people who say that NFL overtime rules are unfair always point to that. The Patriots won yesterday after they scored a touchdown, and the Chiefs offense never got to possess the ball in overtime. Those calling this unfair will say that the Chiefs should have gotten a chance at a possession. But in my opinion, those people are dead wrong. The Chiefs and Patriots played football yesterday after regulation ended, and the Patriots won fair and square.
Football isn't just about offense vs offense. Both teams pay players to play defense as well. If the Chiefs defense couldn't stop the Patriots offense, then that's on them. The Patriots weren't given the ball at the 25 yard line, already in field goal range, like they would have been under the college format. The Chiefs kicked off, and the Patriots had to drive the length of the field to score. New England converted multiple third downs on that drive. Kansas City had plenty of chances to stop the Patriots and force a punt or a turnover, but their defense didn't do it. They could have even forced a field goal and still gotten a chance to get the ball back, but that didn't happen either.
If New England scored a touchdown and then the Chiefs had gotten the ball back in the name of "fairness," then what happens if the Chiefs score a touchdown? The Patriots get the ball back again and it turns into sudden death then? If New England scored on that drive, then is it all of a sudden "fair" even though New England had two possessions and the Chiefs only had one?
The argument that each team should get an equal amount of possessions in overtime makes zero sense. The teams had plenty of time for plenty of possessions in the 60 minutes of regulation they had just played. Why should that change suddenly just because it's overtime and for some reason now you have to be fair to both teams?
The Chiefs could have stopped the Patriots just like the many times that happened during regulation time. It isn't like they had to dig deep into the history books to find the last time a defense made a stop on the first possession of overtime either. It had just happened about three hours earlier. The Saints won the coin toss in overtime of the NFC game, but the Rams intercepted a Drew Brees pass and then went on to win. People who want to knock the overtime rules just conveniently left that part out. It was "fair" earlier in the day, but I guess that doesn't matter when you are blindly trying to prove a point that isn't a good one.
I actually went back and looked at the regular season games that went to overtime for a bigger sample size, and the results were even more one-sided than I thought they would have been. Fifteen games went into overtime in the regular season. Out of those 15, three of them ended after one possession because the team that initially received the kickoff scored a touchdown. That means 12 times, defenses stepped up and did their jobs, and three times the losing teams complained about the format after their defenses didn't do their jobs.
The NFL extended an olive branch to bad defenses when they instituted the rule requiring a touchdown on the first overtime possession to end the game, and allowing the team with the failing defense to get a shot if the opening drive ends with a field goal. In my opinion, even that was too far, but just like the longer extra points, everyone seems pretty accustomed to it now, so the only time we hear complaints is when the losing team has a defense that can't make a stop. And don't tell me it isn't fair because the defense is tired either. Everyone was out there playing 60 minutes of football. The offenses are tired too.
This is a debate that will never end, no matter what the format of overtime is. The winning teams won't complain because their guys did their jobs, and the losing teams will complain because their guys didn't do their jobs. You know how you make it not matter? Do what the Rams did. Make a play, and don't let the other team march right down the field and score.
Both games were ended yesterday by playing football. There wasn't some stupid, artificial semblance of football being played like college, and there wasn't a shootout like regular season hockey and there wasn't penalty kicks like soccer. Play the same game in overtime that you played during regulation time. Force an interception like the Rams did. Don't allow multiple third and longs to be converted like the Chiefs did. It's how football is played in the first quarter, and it's how football should be played in overtime.
I have no sympathy for Chiefs fans or players complaining they were treated unfairly or the game was decided because of a coin toss. The game was decided by New England's offense being better than Kansas City's defense for the entire game. And because of that, the Patriots are going to the Super Bowl and the Chiefs are going home.
Daily NFL Update: Aside from sore losers complaining about overtime, yesterday was a great day of football. Now, the long wait for the Super Bowl begins.
Daily Rangers Update: After losing five straight, the Rangers have now won four of five going into the All Star break. Hopefully this week off can refuel the team because they are going to need a very strong finish to the season if they want to make the playoffs.
Daily NBA Update: If you want to really appreciate how great LeBron James is, you just need to look at the history of the Cavaliers over the past decade. When he is on the team, they are good. When he is playing somewhere else, they are awful. After making the NBA Finals last season, Cleveland now has the worst record in the league this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment