Reasons why the NFL should change the overtime rules
The New England Patriots secured arguably the great comeback in NFL history by surging from a 25-point deficit to defeat the Atlanta Falcons in overtime, 34-28 in Super Bowl LI.
The Patriots comebacks rank up there with "The Comeback" of the Buffalo Bills recovering from a 32 point deficit to defeat the Houston Oilers in OT, 41-38 in the 1993 AFC Wildcard game.
Although the Patriots comeback was in legendary territory, I feel that the NFL needs to change the OT rules.
Certainly, the Falcons blew the game on one of the biggest stages in sports, however, both teams should have the opportunity to have possession of the ball.
The conclusion of a game should not be influenced by the luck of a coin toss.
At the start of every game there is a coin toss to determine who has possession of the ball first, however, both teams still get an opportunity to start each half with possession of the ball so why not in OT?
Can you imagine if the team who won the coin toss at the start of each game had possession of the ball to start each half?
I was never a fan of the OT rule: If the team who receives the ball first in overtime can score a touchdown on the first possession, wins the game. There is no equality in such a rule.
It's a similar idea of the previous overtime rule: The team who first scores points in OT wins the game.
The NFL changed the OT rules so that the team who receives the ball first in OT can't just win with a field goal on the first drive as a way to create more of fair opportunity for both teams to win the game.
In Super Bowl LI, theoretically, the coin toss determined the winner, for the Patriots won the coin toss before scoring a TD on the first drive of OT en route to winning their fifth Super Bowl in franchise history.
Yet, the Falcons who dominated the early stages of the game with a 28-3 lead over the Patriots in the third quarter, but never had possession of the ball in OT.
If the Falcons won the coin toss, they could have easily scored a touchdown on their first possession of OT to win Super Bowl LI.
However, the Falcons didn't have a chance because of the luck of a coin toss that didn't go in their favor. Hence why I say that the coin toss ultimately, determined the Patriots victory, for both teams only played great defense for one-half, so in turn the offense that had the ball first in OT won Super Bowl LI.
I'm not insinuating that the Patriots won solely on the coin toss, yet I am saying that the coin toss was the primary factor that gave the Pats an unfair "advantage" to win the game.
It was not the type of advantage of where one team was simply better than the other, for it was the type of advantage that was solely determined off the luck of a coin, which is an "unfair advantage".
In the NFL, whichever team wins the coin toss in OT always elects to receive the ball because electing to receive the ball in OT is the clear advantage.
Super Bowl LI was the first time in Super Bowl history that the winner was determined in OT, for it is becoming more evident that there is a case that the NFL should change the rules.
My rule change:
Allow both teams to have possession of the ball in OT.
If the team that receives the ball first in OT scores a touchdown on the first drive, then the deferring team has an opportunity to have possession too.
In the nature that both teams score a touchdown that results in a tie within the first OT, then in the following OT's both teams will get possessions of the ball at the opposing team's 20-yard line until a winner can be determined.
In short, the Patriots fingerprints will be engraved in the NFL record books for having arguably the greatest comeback in NFL history.
However, it's time that the outcome of an NFL game is not influenced by the luck of a coin toss.