But not likely. Any team has a decent chance of scoring a TD to start OT. Every team has a decent chance to stop teams from scoring a TD as well. Proof, the Rams earlier that day.
No it really isn't likely they would have scored a TD and won.
The Chiefs had the best offense, but also the worst defense. They lost a playoff game because they lost a coin flip.
You aren't really making a strong case here for 'unfairness'.
We can easily just say: They lost a playoff game because they have the worst defense.
The point does still remain, though, had the Chiefs won the coin toss it is exceedingly likely they'd be in the SB.
The NFL has set up the rules to heavily favor offenses over defenses, so it's kind of just common sense both offenses should get an equal chance.
The Rams and Saints both have amazing offenses, the 2nd best and 8th best in the league. But the Rams, the 19th best defense in the league, were able to stop Brees and the vaunted Saints offense.
There is nothing unfair to an entire team in a coin flip. Both teams have a 50% chance to get their offense on the field and score a TD. If you lose the coin flip, go out and play defense, like what happened in the NFC Championship game.
I think there would've been a decent chance that they would've, though.
KC's last three possessions of regulation were TD, TD, FG. And the only reason they probably settle for a FG there was because of time constraints. You could certainly argue KC had the Pats defense on the ropes there. They sorta figured it out in that 2nd half. Points on 5 of 7 possessions.
Well, now its just semantics now, isn't it? What's "not likely" or "decent" to mean? Neither New Orleans or LA had the offensive momentum rolling into overtime that the Pats & Chiefs had. I certainly wasn't seeing that. A combined 3 FGs in that 4th quarter where you had 5 TDs and a FG in the 4th quarter of the AFC game.
It sure seemed to me that KC was figuring out that Pats defense at the end. Just like the Pats had the KC defense figured out in the 4th quarter.
Okay, likely, decent...yes semantics.
But if the C's and Cleveland go to overtime tonight, it's likely the Celtics will win because they have the much better offense. Should the NBA change OT rules because teams with good offenses are more likely to win in OT?
If Baltimore was going into OT versus Arizona, would it be fair to Arizona if Baltimore won the toss and elected to kick because Baltimore has the best defense and Arizona the worst offense and so Baltimore was likely to stop Arizona and get the ball in good position and score? Do we change the rules because it was likely Baltimore had a good enough defense to stop Arizona?
I don't know. Call me old school. It's a coin flip. Coin flip means fair odds to get to choose what you want to do. And if you lose the coin flip, it doesn't matter if the team is likely to score or has a decent chance to score or very little chance to score, you still need to play the other half of the game. You have to play defense and do your job so that the offense can get the ball and do their job.
New Orleans after winning the coin toss was likely to score a TD. They threw an interception and lost. Know why? Because the Rams' defense did their job. A defense that was ranked 19th in the league.