Denver Post "OT rules unfair" LMAO

[Uppercut]

Just saw Tony Cornholer on a sports channel raving about how is is totally not satisfied with how this game ended! What a stooge!

[obiken]

Too bad, the object is NOT to get to OT, and their defense let Wilson march right down the field and score a TD.
We won a game we have to win we move one and they beat Rivers.

[Hawktawk]

These sentiments from the talking heads are a reason why RW wasn't the SB MVP. The more I study the game the more clear it becomes that he was the logical choice. But these people cant stand putting him on the same level or above the Mannings, Brady etc. Yesterday RW had an awesome game winning drive, the 11th of his young career. But it would have been better if it was Manning according to these people. Manning put up exactly 3 points in 3 quarters. Why is everyone so sure he scores at all? This game has become the most popular in the world without all this manipulation of the rules. Seattle lost the count toss vs Tampa Bay last year and held them to about -10 yards before taking the punt and driving for a GW field goal. Thats what you do when you lose the toss, play some defense.

I'm fed up with the Manning bias. To me hes a choking dog in the biggest moments, his *lucky * TD drive notwithstanding....

[burrrton]

Coin flip that can leave only one team possessing the ball is inherently unfair. Length of extra period is not critical.

Again, why do you believe there should be some guarantee each squad for each team gets a chance to perform in an OT period?

I don't think your idea is bananas, but it's not bullet-proof, either, and having the coin flip decide which squad gets first crack isn't unfair- if the flip decides your defense is on the field, they better step up if you want the offense to get a chance, too.

[burrrton]

I'm fed up with the Manning bias. To me hes a choking dog in the biggest moments, his *lucky * TD drive notwithstanding....

I'm not as convinced of any "bias", but yeah, this attitude that he "deserved" some shot in overtime despite his defense getting rolled is nonsense.

[RiverDog]

Bingo. Coin flip that can leave only one team possessing the ball is inherently unfair. Length of extra period is not critical.

Now PTI is questioning the issue. F it. We won.

If the coin flip is so inherently unfair, then why not pick a stat, say like total first downs, and use it to determine who gets to choose whether they want the ball or not?

[Zorn76]

How about a jump ball at midfield?

I gave up on national media awhile ago.

They have their darlings, and Peyton Manning will always be one of them, no matter how many times he's choked or continues to choke in the postseason.

[NorthHawk]

Long Time Fan" c_hawkbob" But why is 10 minutes better than 15?

Sounds to me like your issue is with the coin flip ...

Bingo. Coin flip that can leave only one team possessing the ball is inherently unfair. Length of extra period is not critical.

Now PTI is questioning the issue. F it. We won.

As well, if the first team took more than 8 minutes of the 10 minute O/T, there would be cries of unfair just like the coin toss.

[kalibane]

Drivel. In both the NBA and MLB overtime or extra innings ensure each team has offensive opportunities.

The NBA and MLB aren't being played by grown men running at 20 MPH trying to take eachother's heads off. Baseball and Basketball play extra periods/innings on ever level of the game. Baseball is structured totally different than football (no clock so dumb to compare the two) and the NBA plays only a 5 minute extra period even though the game isn't as physically demanding.

Why is it do you think that NO level of football plays a full overtime period to decide the outcome of tie games? I guess you just know better than the administrators of organized football all over the country for the past 100 years or so?

You've heard reasons, you're just not willing to accept it.

The NFL was Sudden Death for decades and there was no sweeping national discussion of how "unfair" unfair it was until Peyton Manning lost a big game by a field goal. They modified the rule, and Denver won under that rule and again no one complained about it Ben Roethlisberger not being able to get a possession but Peyton Manning loses another big game in OT and all of a sudden it's time to have another national discussion about OT.

It's BS

[#37]

Six on one hand. Half a dozen on the other...

[HumanCockroach]

LTF. Interesting take, but you know, there was no whining about the sudden death rule until Favre threw away a SB appearance as was his habit, then all of a sudden there is some stupid outcry, no complaints by the Bears or their fans when Cutler didn't see the field but Manning has his defense play bad D, and now there is a problem? The Seahawks AND Denver had the SAME opportunity to win that game, Denver's D didn't have to play lights out, they didn't even have to play average, they simply had to keep Seattle out of the end zone, that's it.

This isn't in the least about fairness, this is about Manning. No one would be b@tchingetching if Manning had driven down the field and won, so WHY would anyone sane care if he didn't have "his chance" ?? Well because people are convinced he "should" WHY? The offense and defense HAD an opportunity, problem is,Manning's defense let him down.Period. It would be the same if we had lost or won for me, so I'm not "defending" yesterdays result, I'm saying DEFENSE MATTERS, and for some reason people can't grasp the concept.

And you DO realise that the team that gets the ball first only wins 36% of the time right? So Seattle was actually statistically at the DISADVANTAGE and won anyway. You grasp that right?

[Hawktown]

Excuse me here if I have missed something and I hear exactly what you are saying HC, about defense matters. The defense needs more than ever to make a big stop (though in a pass happy league, darn that Manning guy). But, what is wrong with playing an extra quarter and end it in a tie if the teams fail to score. This way would allow both teams to have, possibly, multiple shots with the ball.

I do personally think that I would feel better with some way of letting both teams actually POSSESS the ball but I could live with the outcome either way. Heck, I was fine with the first score wins in OT.

[HumanCockroach]

Excuse me here if I have missed something and I hear exactly what you are saying HC, about defense matters. The defense needs more than ever to make a big stop (though in a pass happy league, darn that Manning guy). But, what is wrong with playing an extra quarter and end it in a tie if the teams fail to score. This way would allow both teams to have, possibly, multiple shots with the ball.

I do personally think that I would feel better with some way of letting both teams actually POSSESS the ball but I could live with the outcome either way. Heck, I was fine with the first score wins in OT.

What's the problem with the way it is now? Only three games have ended with the first team to receive the ball scoring a TD since the rule was changed to "appease the star loving fans", guess which two total teams account for all three of those games ? Denver and Seattle. What that means is that in almost every single OT game, both teams do indeed touch the ball. My problem with this whole thing, isn't that people feel it's "unfair", it's that they only NOW feel it's unfair. Why? Well because it was Peyton Manning, that's why, not because there is an issue with it actually being unfair ( because it isn't) but some knee jerk reaction to not getting to see the NFL's Michael Jordon touch the ball, or Ken Griffey bat in extra innings, he "has" to right? No, he doesn't, it is up to the players around him to make sure that happens, and the Bronco's failed.

Skewing or changing the game, and the rules for ONE or TWO players is NOT a successful way to manage a sport. It just isn't. Couple seasons ago, they implemented the "Brady rule" to protect QB's knees, and yet just the season before, MULTIPLE QB's were injured the SAME way, NO ONE said boo, no one complained, there was no outcry about it, why? Just two seasons ago, Seattle beat Chicago in almost the EXACT same fashion, not a peep from fans, media, nothing, in fact people lauded Wilson for doing so. Why? Because it was either Tom Terrific, or now it is Peyton Manning. Hell the ONLY reason the rules were changed in the first place was because Bret Favre lost, how many teams and players lost in the same Fashion? Too many to count, and not a peep from those whining about it now.

This is a sport, and it is the SAME rules for everyone. I'm simply NOT interested in watching the WWE or the NBA "superstar" calls in this sport. Manning lost, big f-ing deal,it happens, and I don't Remember those folks in Denver, or the media moaning when Tebow did the exact same thing to the Steelers in the playoffs, do you? Why? Because it was Rothlisberger not PFM. Changing FAIR rules to accomidate a SINGLE player, to mitigate a RARITY that changes the ENTIRE emphasis on "sudden death" is a HUGE over reaction, by the media, the fans, and anyone else claiming it "wasn't fair". It WAS, Denver had a BETTER chance to win in that circumstance than Seattle, so they actual HAD the advantage.

Extra period, removes the intensity and the importance of the extra period, as a team ( or both teams) could bumble the ball around for nine minutes and STILL win, in the SAME fashion. With the way it is set up now, EACH and EVERY play, is paramount, and important. Why not simply, start the game over ( in essence that IS what an extra period is doing).

You want other reasons. How about the longer a team plays, the more likely additional injuries can occur. How would anyone here feel if Seattle scored fourteen points in the first three minutes of an "extra period" only to lose Wilson in the final two final two minutes for the season? I'd be pretty pissed off, Earl? Beast? Sherm. Hell how about for just a week or two? Just so we can all accomidate a player not on our teAm that more than likely will be gone in two years from the game? OT, Playoff games, late fourth quarter drives are where players ( QB's usually) MAKE their legends.

[RiverDog]

Here's another option: Get rid of the overtime period all together. Force any team that scores a touchdown in the 4th quarter to go for a two point conversion so there are fewer ties.

Yea, I know, stupid idea. Just thinking outside the box.

[c_hawkbob]

Well in this case the 2 point conversion earned them the tie, but I do agree that O/T is superfluous in the regular season. Ties work just fine in the standings. They are better than a loss, not as good as a win and can be the difference maker getting a team into the playoffs. Obviously once in the playoffs there has to be a winner and a loser, but if player safety is your concern, do away with regular season O/T.

[RiverDog]

Well in this case the 2 point conversion earned them the tie, but I do agree that O/T is superfluous in the regular season. Ties work just fine in the standings. They are better than a loss, not as good as a win and can be the difference maker getting a team into the playoffs. Obviously once in the playoffs there has to be a winner and a loser, but if player safety is your concern, do away with regular season O/T.

Our game with the Broncos was an anomaly as it included a safety. Forcing teams to go for two, as they do at some point in the Kansas tiebreaker playoff system, makes for a less likely prospect of the game ending in a tie. I'm not necessarily recommending it, but it is an option if we are concerned about limiting the number of games that are tied at the end of regulation.

[Long Time Fan]

Good discussion of an interesting issue.

I think that we'd all agree that ties are anathema to our sense of competition and unwieldy to the standings. It would be nice to have a means of breaking a tie in some overtime format. Let me repeat that I have zero misgivings about the Seahawks win over Denver. But the current overtime was tweaked no long ago in recognition that a simple field goal on first possession was not fair standard to invoke "sudden death". I question whether enough was done to ensure "fairness".

I have suggested an overtime period of 10 minutes to ensure that both teams have an opportunity to possess the ball.

I don't think your idea is bananas, but it's not bullet-proof, either.

I am heartened by the suggestion that I'm not bananas, and I agree that my suggestion is not the end all, be all solution.

If the coin flip is so inherently unfair, then why not pick a stat, say like total first downs, and use it to determine who gets to choose whether they want the ball or not?

Surely, you realize that I am not arguing elimination of something as trivial as the flipping of the coin; it doesn't matter in the least how it is decided on who gets first possession (Although some competition amongst the opposing cheer leading squads would be a fun alternative), so long as both teams get an opportunity to possess the ball.

As well, if the first team took more than 8 minutes of the 10 minute O/T, there would be cries of unfair just like the coin toss.

Fair point. Maybe a 15 minute overtime is necessary.

And you DO realise that the team that gets the ball first only wins 36% of the time right? So Seattle was actually statistically at the DISADVANTAGE and won anyway. You grasp that right?

Great stat. If that is the case then possibly it means that first possession most often results in a shortened field for the second possession team; furthering the argument for a set period of overtime extended enough to level all early possession advantages.

I guess you just know better than the administrators of organized football all over the country for the past 100 years or so?

Careful there....you do realize that you are on an opinion based fan forum? My first inclination would be to rip you a new one into a point of view filled with enough holes, but I will ask you to reconsider a position that would be laughable were it not dangerous. Please consider disavowing a belief that a new perspective is to be disregarded simply because this is the way things are being done and no one should question it.

As an aside, I realize that I am a relatively new voice on this forum (I choose to participate here rather than on another forum that I viewed as a tantamount circle jerk). I would ask that if you wish to expand the interaction that you leave out the question of right to offer opinion. Just saying.

Again, good discussion.

[HumanCockroach]

LTF, if you want "fair" wouldn't you simply return to the original format? The team that won the coin toss when all it took was FG to win won only 52% of the games in the history of the NFL, I'm no genius, but 52% seems awfully "fair" to me. The only reason it is set up this way in the first place is the whining following Favre's pick/loss game in the playoffs.

That was an over reaction, and this is one as well.

[burrrton]

I am heartened by the suggestion that I'm not bananas

I'm typically fairly adept at using the words I intend to use (although often too verbose), so I'd like you to notice my correct use of "your" as an attributive adjective modifying "idea" before "bananas", rather than "you're", which, being short for "you are", might indicate my assessment of "not bananas" applied to you personally rather than the idea you proposed.

For all I know, you could be bat-sht bananas.

My ultimate criticism of your proposal is that it's nothing more than change for change's sake. It would simply replace one set of gripes with another, and there is nothing inherently "unfair" about a coin flip deciding which unit on each team has to step up first.

so long as both teams get an opportunity to possess the ball.

We don't keep separate scores and standings for a team's defense and a team's offense- when the defense failed, the team failed, and I see no compelling argument to give a team some kind of 'do over' if they fail the first challenge of OT.

furthering the argument for a set period of overtime extended enough to level all early possession advantages.

I thought that's what a defense was for.

[Hawktown]

To be honest, I lean toward LTF more so in the face of fairness and to me it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Manning or brady or any of the likes. I have honestly always felt this way but i accept rules as they are now or then, whichever way the league wants them to play is just how it is. That does not mean i have to agree and no explanation really is good enough to change my mind so far. Possession is possession, Defense gets no possession unless they are able to stop a TD. Sorry, to me not fair. This is only a discussion because it was brought up in this forum, not because of Manning. NO ONE in here is defending Elmer Fudd's forehead.

[Hawktown]

in a game that is set up FOR THE PASSING GAME, i cannot understand why some would feel so sure that this is the right setup at all??? Defense has a disadvantage regardless if the Stats say 52% or whatever. Those are just stats and can change significantly overtime.

[Long Time Fan]

LTF, if you want "fair" wouldn't you simply return to the original format? The team that won the coin toss when all it took was FG to win won only 52% of the games in the history of the NFL, I'm no genius, but 52% seems awfully "fair" to me. The only reason it is set up this way in the first place is the whining following Favre's pick/loss game in the playoffs.

That was an over reaction, and this is one as well.

As a fellow "no genius", I don't argue with lies, damn lies, and statistics. Maybe what I am actually supporting is the appearance of fairness for fairness sake. The extended period is the only thing that I could think of that trumps every future suggestion that an outcome that deprived a team of opportunity was unfair.

Every other major sport allows for extended play in such a way that it is if the game were begun anew, albeit with the same provisions of equal scoring opportunities.

I'm typically fairly adept at using the words I intend to use (although often too verbose), so I'd like you to notice my correct use of "your" as an attributive adjective modifying "idea" before "bananas", rather than "you're", which, being short for "you are", might indicate my assessment of "not bananas" applied to you personally rather than the idea you proposed.

For all I know, you could be bat-sht bananas.

My ultimate criticism of your proposal is that it's nothing more than change for change's sake. It would simply replace one set of gripes with another, and there is nothing inherently "unfair" about a coin flip deciding which unit on each team has to step up first.



We don't keep separate scores and standings for a team's defense and a team's offense- when the defense failed, the team failed, and I see no compelling argument to give a team some kind of 'do over' if they fail the first challenge of OT.



I thought that's what a defense was for.

I will then remain undiagnosed and will be more open to the many questions of my banananess. I am not discounting the impacts of defense, but I question the validity of an outcome where only one team's offense was allowed to take part.

Any overtime should be accepted as a game in and of itself. There would be no acceptance of a game that began and ended as overtime is currently constituted in the NFL. That sentence doesn't sound right, try to decipher it as best you can.

[kalibane]

First LTF... you don't need to warn me about anything. I don't particularly care how you come at me. If you want to go off on a tangent because you can pick a technical flaw in the statement I made because you think it means I subscribe to the "a belief that a new perspective is to be disregarded simply because this is the way things are being done and no one should question it." Have at your lark if you think you have me in a bind.

There of course is a huge technical flaw with that brush you're trying to paint me with.

I asked a fair question. Football was first played in 1869. 150 years later no level of football solves the tie issue by playing a full OT period. Not Pee Wee, not Pop Warner, not HS, not College, not Semi-Pro, not CFL, not Arena League, not NFL. Do you honestly think you are the first one in 150 years to propose a full OT period? Of course not. This is not a "new" perspective. Not even close. So please explain why this is the case since your solution is so logical?

And since we are talking about logical flaws let's just break this down. Your issue is that the Seahawks offense got 1 opportunity and the Broncos offense got 0. Okay... so let's say we put your idea into practice and a hypothetical game goes into OT. Team one gets the ball first and scores a TD. Team two gets the ball and scores a TD to tie the game. Team one gets the ball back and takes the ball down the field, chews up clock and kicks a field goal as time expires. Game over, Team One wins. Team one got 2 possessions and Team 2 only got 1.

How is that any different? In either case one team got an opportunity on offense that the other team didn't have a chance to answer. Whether it's 1-0 or 2-1, the net difference in opportunity is the same. So we're right back at square one. You putting a clock on it is completely arbitrary. It does absolutely nothing to address your problem with the current overtime format. It's just window dressing. It might make you "feel" better, but it has nothing to do with logic and the original stated problem still exists.

[burrrton]

Defense has a disadvantage regardless if the Stats say 52% or whatever.

They have the same advantage/disadvantage throughout the game. The current system simply decides one side or the other has to perform first for the game to continue, and teams don't score TDs on such an overwhelming percentage of possessions that having the ball first is game-set-match.

This is much ado about nothing (and FTR, I don't really care if they change it or not- let's just be honest about what we're discussing and why).

[burrrton]

I question the validity of an outcome where only one team's offense was allowed to take part.

Understood, but "why" is the question.

There is no guarantee of equal parts offense and defense at any other point in an NFL game- what makes OT special?

[Hawktown]

Not trying to argue here or anything Kal but does it not make sense that there would be 15 minutes for both teams to battle back as many times as necessary until the clock expires leaving the one on top the winner or just end in a tie? If that is your theory against 15 minute OT then all teams should have equal possessions in the WHOLE game to begin with because it is now a battle for time of possession as it is.

that is not what i want, i want an OT that gives both teams a shot and time to fight to win the game, just like regulation is set up now. Sudden death with one team possessing the ball is no good, getting a TD for the uncontested win is no good. 15 minutes is a good chunk of time to have a 3 and out happen to give ample opportunities to both sides.

To me if baseball were like this, you would just flip a coin and see who wants to be on O or D. Whoever chooses to bat would be able to hit in a run and game over without giving the other team an at bat. the excuse would in this case here we are having would be that the pitching team should have stopped them. Really?

I don't claim to be a genius or even know what i am talking about, i am just joining the conversation with my opinion!

[kalibane]

And my point is that you are painting yourself an illussion of fairness that doesn't really exist by playing a full period.

If you want "fair", in the sense that you want to make sure that no team gets an advantage because of a coinflip possibly granting them more offensive opportunities than the other team you have to do what college and the CFL do. Have both teams alternate possessions from some arbitrary yardline until someone wins. Now if you want to go that way, I have no argument other than my personal opinion that I am completely bored by that OT format.

Go reread the hypothetical I laid out and then explain how that outcome is any different than what just happened on Sunday. That's the whole issue. Playing a full period doesn't really solve the problem. You just think it does. And if they change the rule again to play a full period you'll be happy again until Peyton Manning (or media darling equivalent) only gets one opportunity to score but his opponent got two. Then we'll be having this same conversation all over again.

[mykc14]

Not trying to argue here or anything Kal but does it not make sense that there would be 15 minutes for both teams to battle back as many times as necessary until the clock expires leaving the one on top the winner or just end in a tie? If that is your theory against 15 minute OT then all teams should have equal possessions in the WHOLE game to begin with because it is now a battle for time of possession as it is.

that is not what i want, i want an OT that gives both teams a shot and time to fight to win the game, just like regulation is set up now. Sudden death with one team possessing the ball is no good, getting a TD for the uncontested win is no good. 15 minutes is a good chunk of time to have a 3 and out happen to give ample opportunities to both sides.

To me if baseball were like this, you would just flip a coin and see who wants to be on O or D. Whoever chooses to bat would be able to hit in a run and game over without giving the other team an at bat. the excuse would in this case here we are having would be that the pitching team should have stopped them. Really?

I don't claim to be a genius or even know what i am talking about, i am just joining the conversation with my opinion!

The baseball analogy holds no water the sports are to different. In your baseball scenario there is no advantage to be gained by the defense for not allowing them to score a run, at the bottom of the inning everything is equal again. In football there is the potential for a huge advantage if the D stops the O i.e. field position, turnover, etc. In baseball there is no way the Defensive team can win the game, but in football it can happen.

IMO that is why the current system works so well. It puts importance on Defense and, as people have stated, statistically it is about equal to get the ball first or second, in your baseball scenario it almost certainly wouldn't be qual. I agree that statistics can change but why change things because statistics 'might' change. If somehow the team that got the ball first started to score on the first possession 75% of the time then maybe something would need to change, but as it is now 90% of OT games both teams have at least 1 possession.

[Long Time Fan]

The baseball analogy holds no water the sports are to different. In your baseball scenario there is no advantage to be gained by the defense for not allowing them to score a run, at the bottom of the inning everything is equal again. In football there is the potential for a huge advantage if the D stops the O i.e. field position, turnover, etc. In baseball there is no way the Defensive team can win the game, but in football it can happen.

Persuasive.

To the couple of comments about a defined period of overtime resulting in some disparate number of possessions. I don't see the problem there. There is a huge gulf between one team playing its opportunities to having more opportunities than its opponent versus one team having potentially, by rule, no opportunities.

[burrrton]

versus one team having potentially, by rule, no opportunities.

It's that team's failure that results in loss of opportunities.

[Long Time Fan]

First LTF... you don't need to warn me about anything. I don't particularly care how you come at me.

Not my intent, you don't need to feel warned, just defending my right to a dissenting opinion. Of course history plays well in determining how we got here, but just the relatively recent tweak in the rules tells us that they were deemed flawed. I simply don't think the flaw was eliminated. One possession sudden death can be improved upon. Call me crazy.

[Long Time Fan]

It's that team's failure that results in loss of opportunities.

The team that got the first opportunity (coin flip) didn't "earn" it. Why must the second team be forced to "earn" their opportunity?

[burrrton]

The team that got the first opportunity (coin flip) didn't "earn" it.

You're still looking at it wrong. The "opportunity" went to both teams- a coin flip simply decided which unit for each team was up.

Why must the second team be forced to "earn" their opportunity?

Unless you want to guarantee equal possession, why *shouldn't* they?

[THX-1138]

Sudden Death Overtime is how the NFL operates. Baseball plays extra innings, the NFL does not. This form of overtime is FAR superior to what was in place before it. Basically all you had to do was get across the 50 to somewhere between the 30 and 40 yardline and that could be enough to end the game. Now if you do that the other team get's the ball. If they can't stop you from getting to the endzone then it's Sudden Death. The end. And if you don't like coin tosses remind yourself that this is how ALL football games begin.

[Long Time Fan]

You're still looking at it wrong. The "opportunity" went to both teams- a coin flip simply decided which unit for each team was up.



Unless you want to guarantee equal possession, why *shouldn't* they?

Why can't we produce quote within a quote?

I'm not asking for equal possession guarantee, let the game play within an extended period determine how many possessions each team gets. What I am arguing against is a rule that effectively says under these circumstances; one team can not have a possession.

[burrrton]

one team can not have a possession.

Argh. They *can* have possession, though, if they don't fail first!

You're acting like a team failing on D shouldn't count against their O as if they're wearing different uniforms or something.

let the game play within an extended period determine how many possessions each team gets.

So you want time instead of performance to determine how many possessions they get, which isn't completely unreasonable, but it seems like change for change's sake.

[Long Time Fan]

Argh. They *can* have possession, though, if they don't fail first!

.

Argh back at you matey. That is a huge "if" in your sentence. The first team gets possession without any "if"; thus not fair.

[mykc14]

The team that got the first opportunity (coin flip) didn't "earn" it. Why must the second team be forced to "earn" their opportunity?

That's just It both teams get an opportunity. The 'O' has an opportunity to score but at the same time the 'D' has the opportunity to stop them and improve their team's chances of winning. Both teams have an opportunity it is just different.

[NorthHawk]

Just make it so each team gets a posession regardless of the outcome from the first team.
Example:
Team A gets the ball and scores (FG or TD) and then kicks off where the other team gets its chance.
If they are tied after this then the game ends in a tie.
If Team A gets the ball and doesn't score, Team B gets a posession and a chance to score.
If they don't score either then it's a tie, but a FG could win it in either situation.

[burrrton]

Argh back at you matey. That is a huge "if" in your sentence. The first team gets possession without any "if"; thus not fair.

Who told you a football team is guaranteed equal "possession"?

I know you think that's somehow more "fair", but it's not by any standard currently in place in the NFL. It wasn't "unfair" that we only had the ball for 17 minutes against San Diego- why should OT be an exception?