Dilbert, I hate to be crass or blunt (however) all three of your suggested points are vying for "Which is more absurd than the previous One?"This is simply your opinion and certainly entitled to it. Not sure it's the NFLs intent to come to a speedy or "efficient" conclusion. I would think they want to produce a true champion. Maybe the NFL should call it sudden death, because that's what is is. Maybe this is a good idea in the regular season, but to decide the Super Bowl maybe not.
Both teams play an extra FULL quarter of OT...?...you really think those tricked up collegiate OT rules are fairer (than the NFL's version)...? (I'm guessing you didn't sit through that Arkansas / Ole Miss SEVEN overtimes game in 2001, hmmm?)
Just for grins, wasn't it the legendary Harry Callahan who once mused "What's fair got to do with it???"
Well, the Answer is simple: "Absolutely Nothing."
Here's the deal....you get FOUR full quarters of regulation play to get a Winner and a Loser figured out. Now if you're incapable of getting it settled over that span of time, Overtime's intention isn't to be fair....it's to bring the game to an efficient conclusion. And that conclusion can (and should be) decided on any play after the coin flip....even on the opening kick of OT.
In addition, (to address the fair thing one final time) Atlanta still could've have won last night's contest in OT without the benefit of winning the coin toss and first possession of the ball....a safety, a strip-fumble-and-score....or force a 3 and out and score via their Special Teams with either a punt return or a blocked FG attempt and TD return.
Simply put, the Falcons defense was no longer effective (an inadvertent Patriots strategy by virtue of falling behind that eventually paid off for them) in both the 4th Q and OT. In a nutshell...that's football, fair or not. Originally Posted by Chateau Becot
http://www.businessinsider.com/super...e-rules-2017-2
A different opinion