disagree with your whole post-----------both sides had a fair chance to win the regulation game. After that it get's blurred IMO..........................
wrong--it has never changed
I was a 3 sport athlete at the state level and in the NCAA,,,,,,...time to put that foolish comment of yours to rest. Athletes worth their salt do not make excuses. A coin toss in football OT is LESS unfair than a strong wind and rain coming along to screw up your javelin throw...........(I know---played both sports)
I talked about
You just don't get it. It is not making an excuse. FFS. Debating rule changes is not making an excuse... it is trying to make rules better, more fair, more logical, whatever.
I don't understand why people would accept an unfair rule and just shrug as they are scratching their nuts... "ugh, life is not fair" instead of understanding that we hare humans. We created the game. We created the rules. In most sports some aspect of the rules has changed because we can change the rules. There are some sports where the rules change often... because we can do that to make the game better... but not in this case. "The rule is not fair and dog gammit.... that is just how life is sometimes".
Get it-------many of us just do not think it is "broken"..........so why fix it?
Good athletes accept any circumstance----especially if they know the rules beforehand.
That is a fair statement to make.
That the team that lost the toss get a chance at offense no matter what.
You keep repeating this as if it’s really significant. When it doesn’t really mean what it is you think it means. In post 152 I showed a stat for regular season overtime games since the rule change that has a 160 game sample size that showed that the team that got the ball first won 52% of the games. 52%, hardly an overwhelming advantage. In the postseason the team receiving ball first has won the game on their first possession in 7 out of 12 games. 58%. So therefore in 3 of those games the other team got their chance and failed to cash in. And here's the thing about getting the ball first. If you come up empty, as in no points, you have now put your defense under the gun. Because now other team doesn't need a touchdown to beat you. A field goal will do, and those are much easier to come by than touchdowns are. And yet those 3 teams still came up short. Why? Because the other team's defense stopped them and got the ball back again for their offense. So I have no reluctance in stating that barring some other unforeseen influencing factor such as a bad officiating call, that in almost all of those instances, the better team won. Because that is what football is. It is the ultimate team sport. Because a football team consists of multiple teams within a team. It has an offensive team, a defensive team, and special teams. To win a football game a team has to function and execute reasonably well in all of those 3 phases. Football isn't about fairness. It's not an inherently fair game. It's a competition. Some things work for you, some things work against you. The winning team is the one that overcomes challenges and executes more than the opponent. Short of a bad penalty call or a kick bouncing off a goalpost, not much over the course of a game is ever just given to you.
Non-passing era???
Buddy Ryan's Chicago 46 defense was in the mid 1980's, when the NFL passing game was exploding, and he created it to specifically combat it by placing max pressure on the QB. But feel free to continue with showing your complete and total ignorance of the game of football. Better that you should stick to the more wimpy sports like track, golf and surfing, dude. 
