Pet peeve. First and ten. Run for six yards … blindly spot the ball. 2nd and 6. Run for 4 yards. Blindly spot the ball. Third and 2 Run for nearly two yards. Blindly spot the ball and now measure - you’re short 1/2 the length of a football that has been most likely measured incorrectly 3 times in a row ????
I love his points about how the league will use 6 replays in the 2nd quarter in October for a jets jaguars game just to get it right. And then they don't care about the overtime rules
At the end of the game, when both defenses are gassed, this is basically what it amounts to. I agree with Costas, especially in playoff game situations. It's ridiculous that a coin toss determines which team's red-hot offense wins the game. It makes no sense.
Overtime rule: Both coaches submit a bid for the yard line where they will take the ball, visitor must be even number, home odd. Lowest number gets the ball. First team to score wins. No random chance coin flip, coach's decision. Regular football.
Then the counter to Bob's point should be, then why are wildcard winners decided in one game when every other matchup between teams is within a series? LOL
Why don't they play H.O.R.S.E?!!! If a team doesn't score and if the other team scores a field goal, game over!!! If a team scores 6 points (no extra) the other must score at least that or game over!!! Score the extra point you win. If the other team goes for 2 extra, then you have to match it or... you guessed it, GAME OVER!!! Both teams get to touch the ball and you have at least one chance to stay in the game or win it.
When KC tried to change the rule after 2018 everyone said they were just sore losers. Nobody supported a rule change. Basically the rule was fine when brady benefitted from it. NOW it's 'just terrible'. Suspect
@@HufflepuffBaseball42313 I'm over it. I'm fine with the rule. I didnt blame the rule in 2018 when it burned my team. I blamed Dee Ford. In the end, people will complain about the new overtime.
@@whitewhale9012 I’ve heard the argument that “If you don’t want OT, play better defense.” I agree with that, but OT is just turning into an auto-win in football. It’s like having Game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals determined in a shootout. That would be ridiculous.
@@HufflepuffBaseball42313 I just think there's too many ways to end up back at where you started. For example if we go with Bob's idea. If KC drove for 8 mins then scored, we're back to where we started. Also if KC scored then the Bills scored and time ran out, we're again back to where we started. I think the best idea is to do the OT coin toss at the beginning of the game. Have the regular coin toss as usual, then have the OT coin toss called by the home team. So that way you know who will receive the ball at the start of OT and can game plan the 4th quarter accordingly.
It's not an assumption it's a statistical fact 10-1 in the playoffs since this rule was changed to the current format for the team winning the coin toss.
I have no problem with the overtime rule, it's not the first team to score, it's the first team to score to score a TD. The teams should try to win the game in regulation.
Agreed. These same broadcasters complained when it was changed from "first score of any kind wins" because, they argued, defense counts and they should just stop the other team. That might have merit if the league hadn't changed the rules to so blatantly in favor of more offense (scoring). Nobody is offering any solutions to the game STILL ending in a tie at the end of a second time period.
Look at the statistics, in the playoffs over the last decade something like 90+% of the time the team that whens the coin flip wins the game, its obvious its unfair and as for those who say the defense needs to play better, fine, the defense will get their chance to play better by trying to stop the opponent when they get the ball back as is only fair... the Chiefs defense would have gotten their moment to step up after they scored in OT. Modern american football is essentially a debate and the quarterbacks are the brains of the operation, these OT rules allow for one team to make their case in the debate and then not allow the rebuttal.
True...it is 10-1 TO the winner of the coin flip..and even the 1 loss wasn't supposed to happen. The NFL rules favour offense over defense meaning the coin does not make it fair at all anymore
This argument was valid when it was a true sudden death overtime. But no one would raise a stink about the outcome of that game had it not been for the last five minutes of regulation. Buffalo had ample opportunities and blew them all.
Before all the rule changes favoring offense, teams that won the coin flip won 50% of the time. 8 minute quarter is fair. Still tied...play another quarter.
Yeah, today's rules favour offenses too much, meaning the winner of the coin will almost always score a TD and run away because the other team don't get a Chance to reply
Only way folks will be happy if you make OT another QT who ever leads at the end wins but what if a team use up the whole clock and wins than it’s still going to be controversy
10-1 To the winner of the toss..who ALWAYS chooses to drive because it is easier to do so than to defend in today's NFL. Even the 1 loss was a result of the worst passing interference call ever. The Coin is too powerful.
8 Minutes is a long time for pro players to keep playing IN ADDITION to what they've already done: If you dont like not having a chance at the ball, then STOP THE OTHER TEAM from scoring a TD: Commit Pass INT in the end zone if you have to. If you can't , then your defense wasn't good enough to deserve to win the game. Don't make players play longer just because you didn't get the ball first. If you wanna change the rule, then you can do it for later in the playoffs..... too many injuries happen already.... I don't wanna see key players hurt for next week's playoff game because they had to play extra minutes to give a team "fair opportunity to have the ball". Bob Costas' point isn't strong: In baseball if giving up a HOme Run ends the game...... THEN DON"T GIVE UP A HOME RUN: Pitch around the guy..... Walk him. It's not easy to hit a HR. It's not easy to score a TD in the NFL..... so if you do score one.... you deserve to win. You have options - it's not "unfair" .... defense has alternatives at their disposal.... pitchers have methods/ alternatives they can use to NOT give up a home run.
All of a sudden it's the dumbest rule in all of sports? Where was the outrage before? AND, the rules should be the same for regular season and playoffs. Should the rule be changed? I wouldn't have a problem with it. I just find it interesting that all of a sudden it's dumb.
@@michaelp.nguyen7872 Everyone called the chiefs 'sore losers' when they tried to change it 3 years ago. They got 0 support. It's funny how the narrative flipped when mahomes benifitted instead of Tom Brady.
I don't know but the semi-pro league to the frozen north has a system in place that has a fixed time period overtime and if the score is tied then it continues, if not the team in the lead is the winner. Seems to be a simple concept.
Bob is right. An extra timed period for the playoffs is absolutely a good call, if only for the drama. KC/BUF was the perfect example. As just a non partisan viewer I wanted to see them duel it out after that crazy 4th.
I would vote for a 5th quarter. No kick off swap the field as normal whoever had the ball at the end of the 4th has it at the start of the 5th. Play to the end, whoever has the most points wins.
To me, I just don't see a perfect solution here. especially with the extended season, I don't want teams having to play entire extra quarters of football. Also, I feel like everyone is using the KC/bills game for their argument, when that game was more of an outlier. Im for sudden death (personally), but would it be easier to stomach if OT's first possession was decided at the beginning of a game, so teams would have a chance to play accordingly leading up to the end of regulation?
I think the answer is to let each team get a position in overtime, if it's still tied after the 10 minutes of the first overtime, you have a sudden death OT and the team that didn't win the toss in the first overtime gets the ball to start the sudden death OT
So what if the opening defense scores? Do you force the other defense to take the field and give them a chance to score? The 3 phase argument is stupid.
@@ecpracticesquad4674 what? Lmao. No.. its 1 final drive to score a td. If the defense scores then that team wins. Period. I'm saying there's 3 phases to the game so your defense should be just as important as your offense. So I really don't wanna hear crying about someone's offense doesn't get a shot in overtime. If your defense can't stop them then you don't deserve to win. 3 phases to the game. Otherwise all ypure doing is trying to change and ruin the game due to some fan bases being salty about losses.
@@ecpracticesquad4674 the "my offense didn't get a chance due to our defense being bad" is the stupidest argument. Want both teams to get a shot over and over? What if the bills and chiefs scorwd 4 or 6 or 8 straight tds combined in overtime? ....then whichever team would win would would hurt and exhausted and would have no shot winning the rest of the way. People trying to change the rules are the stupidest out there.
@@ecpracticesquad4674 which is why it should just be another quarter with regular rules. It’s crazy to me for the nfl to constantly make it harder to play defense with rule changes designed to lead to more touchdowns because we love to see touchdowns. Then at the same time say defense make a stop or you lose. It was clear to everyone watching that game that whoever wins the coin toss was gonna win because neither defense could make a stop in almost the whole game.
The bills had 13 seconds left in the game to play defense and win. They gave up a field goal and the tie goes into overtime. Then they give up a TD in OT. Sounds like the defense was the problem not the format. Most opening drives in OT do not result in a TD. But hey Costas wants to compare it to a deadly street intersection that needs a stop sign. Asinine. What a soft ball interview.
Everybody's so consumed with "fairness." We all think that sports should be this oasis of fairness in a world we all recognize is unfair. I think it's fair that a team that can't keep its opponent from tying the game when they have only 13 seconds to play should lose the game. Buffalo gave that game everything they had and it wasn't enough. There's no dishonor in that. Also, this is a manufactured controversy because the game itself was not controversial. There weren't any outrageous penalties or non-calls, there weren't any fights. Just two teams going at each other all game with a magnificent exciting finish. But we can't just say, "That was a great game played by two great teams and it's a shame one of them had to lost." There has to be sports guys bemoaning the way it ended, beyond "one team's defense was gassed." Finally, I'm done with Bob Costas. He's got a great voice and he's very knowledgeable, but I'm tired of this little gerbil of a dude pontificating. Enough. You're Brent Musburger without the perviness. Get over yourself.
The controversial part is one team got an extra possession to win the game due to a coin flip. They "control their own destiny" while the other team doesn't. It inserts randomness into a game that isn't a game of chance. Fans want the best team to win, not the team that got the lucky "bonus round."
Nope. Sorry. Bob is completely wrong. I don't want to hear about how unfair the coin flip is in overtime when the exact same randomness applies to the opening coin flip. You win that and defer, you have the chance for back to back scoring drives. That's just the game. You have 60 minutes to win in regulation. Both teams get a chance to possess the ball. Lose the OT coin flip, try playing defense. Try stopping the team with 13 seconds left.
A game like that should be finished as fast as possible. Field goal kicks competition? Extending the game is only good for the next opponent, especially at the risk of players getting injured. Only for the Superbowl I would add chances or time (another full quarter for all I care) in OT.
Ah... boo hoo Bob Costas :) being transparent, I'm a Chiefs fan and these conversations are hilarious and sweet vengeance. B/c it happened to us 3 years ago and only us KC fans pitched a fit over it... sure some folks thought it was 'sad' at the time... but now that its an east coast team everyone with ties to the the east coast (and that sports media company out of Bristol) is loosing their minds, "oh, it sooo unfair... THIS TIME." Get over it folks, it was a great game and it finished the way it did. The Bills didn't deserve to win b/c UNDER THE RULES the best team that day won- thats what Pats fans said three years ago and its what needs to be said now. Better luck next year Bills fans, Josh Allen looks legit- respect.
For OT I'd go with this - each team gets a possession. Have both start at the 50 with 2 minutes, 1 timeout, basically have both sides running a 2 minute drill. Still have the coin flip for the team who wins that to decide possession first or last. If both teams end up tied still after this, go sudden death after.
Comparing baseball to football is so stupid. There is a level of random in baseball that simply doesn't apply to football. The fact is that only 20% of all OT opening drives end in TDs. Not to mention that the defense GETS PAID to play. Why are we ignoring that the Bills had the number 1 ranked defense? If the defense scored, would we give KC's defense a chance to score? How does that make sense? People are so quick to call the rule stupid without giving an adequate solution to the issue. The old sudden death rule was unfair. This one is miles better and no one will ever be happy if their team loses.
@@CO8848_2 Reading isn't your strength. People are talking about fairness because one team's offense didn't touch the ball. Does that same logic apply if the other team's defense doesn't get a chance to score? I specifically said "if the defense scored". Learn to read before you reply. Thanks.
There is no way to even out the opportunities in a football game. It is an inherent problem similar to chess. Whoever goes first has an advantage. It is part of the game. Deal with it!
Oh goody, thanks so much for clearing that up for us. Uhhh, football sure as hell is NOT chess . . . terrible analogy, mate. In case you missed it, the college OT rules certainly give equal opportunities to each team . . . gee, that wasn't so hard was it?
@@whitewhale9012 Uh no . . . the teams actually get to play abbreviated offensive and defensive possessions under a format similar to a mini-game. Sure, once it gets to required 2 pt tries, it's a little funky/repetitive, but you can't deny it's fair to both teams, and it's exciting for the fans. It's certainly more like a soccer OT . . . extra time, then PKs if still tied . . .than the goofy basketball analogy you suggested.
Hearing Bob say, "Oh, shut up!" made my week!
Especially to a dipshit Pats fan who was actually upset about Brady getting an unsportsmanlike.
I second that emotion.
Bob Costas "OH SHUT UP" is the greatest drop EVER
WIDE RIGHT WIDE RIGHT!!
Bob Costas is 100% correct. Man, he is eloquent too.
He's always been that way!
Literally the best
Yep... play a 5th quarter.
Why does he always make me think of Billy Crystal
Pet peeve. First and ten. Run for six yards … blindly spot the ball. 2nd and 6.
Run for 4 yards. Blindly spot the ball. Third and 2
Run for nearly two yards. Blindly spot the ball and now measure - you’re short 1/2 the length of a football that has been most likely measured incorrectly 3 times in a row ????
What beat the Bills was their horrendous play in the final 13 seconds in regulation after taking the lead.
The CFL gives each side an initial possession in overtime. I'd say we do it right up here.
Arena football was the same way before that league folded. Both get possession then it goes to sudden death.
Play another quarter consistent w the game that they play the rest of the time. Do not fundamentally change the game.
And when that quarter ends in a tie?
@@jwil4905 next point wins regardless at that point.
@@shanecadden5303 So why not just do that in the first OT? There's no way of getting around it.
I love his points about how the league will use 6 replays in the 2nd quarter in October for a jets jaguars game just to get it right. And then they don't care about the overtime rules
They just need to add another quarter, make it 5 or 10 minutes
OT rules were already fine before this bull. The Bengals just proved it but Costas needs air time.
When Costas speaks, NFL should follow
Playoffs OT rules shouldn’t be the same as regular season
Also known as the Josh Allen whiners rule.
In playoffs, u play another 15 min. Still tied? Play another 15 min. Etc etc
Why don’t they just flip a coin to decide which team wins?
At the end of the game, when both defenses are gassed, this is basically what it amounts to. I agree with Costas, especially in playoff game situations. It's ridiculous that a coin toss determines which team's red-hot offense wins the game. It makes no sense.
Exactly...at this rate we might just flip the coin at the start and decide the winner there and then
Factoring the time management aspect....Andy Reid gasps!
Of course, defenses need to play and it’s not just an assumption that offense wins it. It’s happened but defenses can make stop.
the Winner of the Coin flip always chooses to drive the ball, rather than defend..and as a result has won 90% of the time.
@@micahkiyimba8641 Yet in most of those games both offenses touched the ball and had a chance to win.
Overtime rule: Both coaches submit a bid for the yard line where they will take the ball, visitor must be even number, home odd. Lowest number gets the ball. First team to score wins. No random chance coin flip, coach's decision. Regular football.
Then the counter to Bob's point should be, then why are wildcard winners decided in one game when every other matchup between teams is within a series? LOL
Why don't they play H.O.R.S.E?!!! If a team doesn't score and if the other team scores a field goal, game over!!! If a team scores 6 points (no extra) the other must score at least that or game over!!! Score the extra point you win. If the other team goes for 2 extra, then you have to match it or... you guessed it, GAME OVER!!! Both teams get to touch the ball and you have at least one chance to stay in the game or win it.
When KC tried to change the rule after 2018 everyone said they were just sore losers. Nobody supported a rule change.
Basically the rule was fine when brady benefitted from it. NOW it's 'just terrible'.
Suspect
Lots of fans complain every time it happens.
I was rooting for the Chiefs and I still think it was bullshit
@@HufflepuffBaseball42313 I'm over it. I'm fine with the rule. I didnt blame the rule in 2018 when it burned my team. I blamed Dee Ford.
In the end, people will complain about the new overtime.
@@whitewhale9012 I’ve heard the argument that “If you don’t want OT, play better defense.” I agree with that, but OT is just turning into an auto-win in football. It’s like having Game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals determined in a shootout. That would be ridiculous.
@@HufflepuffBaseball42313 I just think there's too many ways to end up back at where you started. For example if we go with Bob's idea. If KC drove for 8 mins then scored, we're back to where we started. Also if KC scored then the Bills scored and time ran out, we're again back to where we started. I think the best idea is to do the OT coin toss at the beginning of the game. Have the regular coin toss as usual, then have the OT coin toss called by the home team. So that way you know who will receive the ball at the start of OT and can game plan the 4th quarter accordingly.
It's not an assumption it's a statistical fact 10-1 in the playoffs since this rule was changed to the current format for the team winning the coin toss.
But only 20% of the time does the opening drive in OT end in a TD. That stat doesn't tell the whole story.
@@ecpracticesquad4674 exactly.
Most of the time both teams touch the ball.
Everyone was fine with the rule 3 years ago.
I have no problem with the overtime rule, it's not the first team to score, it's the first team to score to score a TD. The teams should try to win the game in regulation.
Agreed. These same broadcasters complained when it was changed from "first score of any kind wins" because, they argued, defense counts and they should just stop the other team. That might have merit if the league hadn't changed the rules to so blatantly in favor of more offense (scoring). Nobody is offering any solutions to the game STILL ending in a tie at the end of a second time period.
Look at the statistics, in the playoffs over the last decade something like 90+% of the time the team that whens the coin flip wins the game, its obvious its unfair and as for those who say the defense needs to play better, fine, the defense will get their chance to play better by trying to stop the opponent when they get the ball back as is only fair... the Chiefs defense would have gotten their moment to step up after they scored in OT. Modern american football is essentially a debate and the quarterbacks are the brains of the operation, these OT rules allow for one team to make their case in the debate and then not allow the rebuttal.
True...it is 10-1 TO the winner of the coin flip..and even the 1 loss wasn't supposed to happen. The NFL rules favour offense over defense meaning the coin does not make it fair at all anymore
This argument was valid when it was a true sudden death overtime. But no one would raise a stink about the outcome of that game had it not been for the last five minutes of regulation. Buffalo had ample opportunities and blew them all.
Bob Costas is a damn national treasure
Before all the rule changes favoring offense, teams that won the coin flip won 50% of the time. 8 minute quarter is fair. Still tied...play another quarter.
Yeah, today's rules favour offenses too much, meaning the winner of the coin will almost always score a TD and run away because the other team don't get a Chance to reply
Listen to what Costas says. Then do the opposite.
It's a stupid rule.
How about OT possessions have a 2 or 3 minute time limit? I know it's crazy, just think about it.
Should be 2. One timeout
Only way folks will be happy if you make OT another QT who ever leads at the end wins but what if a team use up the whole clock and wins than it’s still going to be controversy
Thank you Bob. Truly the dumbest rule.
I’ve been brought around to support this idea, especially the timed period wrinkle…just like basketball.
if you at all these games the losing teams had the game in their hands/blew it, only have themselves to blame
The game should not end (4th quarter) if the score is tied.
The first 15 seconds is Costas dropping fire bars.
He's so wrong
Give 'em hell, Bobbooooooooo...
Costas is clearly right. Competitively unfair, and thats all that matters.
10-1 To the winner of the toss..who ALWAYS chooses to drive because it is easier to do so than to defend in today's NFL.
Even the 1 loss was a result of the worst passing interference call ever. The Coin is too powerful.
@@micahkiyimba8641 in most of those games both offenses touched the ball.
You're using a very misleading stat.
The argument is that now the team that gave up a touchdown now gets 4 downs per first down yardage
Said amazingly by Costas! I agree with a time period for OT. I would say 8 minutes and 2 timeouts.
And if a team use up the whole clock than we are back here
8 Minutes is a long time for pro players to keep playing IN ADDITION to what they've already done:
If you dont like not having a chance at the ball, then STOP THE OTHER TEAM from scoring a TD: Commit Pass INT in the end zone if you have to.
If you can't , then your defense wasn't good enough to deserve to win the game.
Don't make players play longer just because you didn't get the ball first. If you wanna change the rule, then you can do it for later in the playoffs..... too many injuries happen already.... I don't wanna see key players hurt for next week's playoff game because they had to play extra minutes to give a team "fair opportunity to have the ball".
Bob Costas' point isn't strong: In baseball if giving up a HOme Run ends the game...... THEN DON"T GIVE UP A HOME RUN: Pitch around the guy..... Walk him.
It's not easy to hit a HR. It's not easy to score a TD in the NFL..... so if you do score one.... you deserve to win.
You have options - it's not "unfair" .... defense has alternatives at their disposal.... pitchers have methods/ alternatives they can use to NOT give up a home run.
Wrong Bob.
Bob is 💯 RIGHT here!
Bob Costas just says whatever he wants about the NFL now lol. Ever since they fired him for explaining football caused brain damage to the audience
All of a sudden it's the dumbest rule in all of sports? Where was the outrage before? AND, the rules should be the same for regular season and playoffs. Should the rule be changed? I wouldn't have a problem with it. I just find it interesting that all of a sudden it's dumb.
Pretty sure it has been dumb forever. Nobody liked it. Ever. Nobody. This is not a new feeling….
@@michaelp.nguyen7872 Everyone called the chiefs 'sore losers' when they tried to change it 3 years ago. They got 0 support.
It's funny how the narrative flipped when mahomes benifitted instead of Tom Brady.
I don't know but the semi-pro league to the frozen north has a system in place that has a fixed time period overtime and if the score is tied then it continues, if not the team in the lead is the winner. Seems to be a simple concept.
You are correct Sir . ( Bob )
Larry David's idea doesn't sound so bad now, no?
Preach Bob, Preach
Pundits being hypocritical is nothing new, whatever happened to "muh" player safety?
💰💰💰💰
👍
Bob is right. An extra timed period for the playoffs is absolutely a good call, if only for the drama. KC/BUF was the perfect example. As just a non partisan viewer I wanted to see them duel it out after that crazy 4th.
I would vote for a 5th quarter. No kick off swap the field as normal whoever had the ball at the end of the 4th has it at the start of the 5th. Play to the end, whoever has the most points wins.
Costas just blew your "idiocy" about NFL OT rules to smithereens...
WHY SHOULD THE BILLS PLAY DEFENSE THE LAST 13 SECONDS OR OVERTIME.
If you can’t hold a team for thirteen seconds….you don’t deserve to win.
Again, Costas proves how little he knows about sports.
Keep the rule as it is. Let’s have some teams play some defense.
I agree as a Bills fan. Stop them with 13 seconds left and no need for OT.
Agreed, but let's get back to defenses being ALLOWED to defend.
PLAY DEFENSE!!! Stop them from scoring. Force a turnover. SOMETHING!!!
Clown
@@mikeru2499 tell me your a Bills fan without telling me your a Bills fan. Lol
@@mikeru2499 Should've supported the Chiefs trying to change the rule a few years ago. Oh the turntables.
To me, I just don't see a perfect solution here. especially with the extended season, I don't want teams having to play entire extra quarters of football. Also, I feel like everyone is using the KC/bills game for their argument, when that game was more of an outlier. Im for sudden death (personally), but would it be easier to stomach if OT's first possession was decided at the beginning of a game, so teams would have a chance to play accordingly leading up to the end of regulation?
I think the answer is to let each team get a position in overtime, if it's still tied after the 10 minutes of the first overtime, you have a sudden death OT and the team that didn't win the toss in the first overtime gets the ball to start the sudden death OT
3 phases to the game. Period. Its a shame that people legitimately forgot about that. And THAT is the dumbest thing.
You are so right! That’s why all three phases should have to play a role in ot for both teams. Glad you noticed that😂
So what if the opening defense scores? Do you force the other defense to take the field and give them a chance to score? The 3 phase argument is stupid.
@@ecpracticesquad4674 what? Lmao. No.. its 1 final drive to score a td. If the defense scores then that team wins. Period. I'm saying there's 3 phases to the game so your defense should be just as important as your offense. So I really don't wanna hear crying about someone's offense doesn't get a shot in overtime. If your defense can't stop them then you don't deserve to win. 3 phases to the game. Otherwise all ypure doing is trying to change and ruin the game due to some fan bases being salty about losses.
@@ecpracticesquad4674 the "my offense didn't get a chance due to our defense being bad" is the stupidest argument.
Want both teams to get a shot over and over? What if the bills and chiefs scorwd 4 or 6 or 8 straight tds combined in overtime? ....then whichever team would win would would hurt and exhausted and would have no shot winning the rest of the way. People trying to change the rules are the stupidest out there.
@@ecpracticesquad4674 which is why it should just be another quarter with regular rules. It’s crazy to me for the nfl to constantly make it harder to play defense with rule changes designed to lead to more touchdowns because we love to see touchdowns. Then at the same time say defense make a stop or you lose. It was clear to everyone watching that game that whoever wins the coin toss was gonna win because neither defense could make a stop in almost the whole game.
Pro football, getting paid the bug bucks to score or make the stop, that's my response.
The bills had 13 seconds left in the game to play defense and win. They gave up a field goal and the tie goes into overtime. Then they give up a TD in OT. Sounds like the defense was the problem not the format. Most opening drives in OT do not result in a TD.
But hey Costas wants to compare it to a deadly street intersection that needs a stop sign. Asinine. What a soft ball interview.
rule sucks but if you cant stop a team in 13 seconds you deserve to lose
Everybody's so consumed with "fairness." We all think that sports should be this oasis of fairness in a world we all recognize is unfair.
I think it's fair that a team that can't keep its opponent from tying the game when they have only 13 seconds to play should lose the game. Buffalo gave that game everything they had and it wasn't enough. There's no dishonor in that.
Also, this is a manufactured controversy because the game itself was not controversial. There weren't any outrageous penalties or non-calls, there weren't any fights. Just two teams going at each other all game with a magnificent exciting finish. But we can't just say, "That was a great game played by two great teams and it's a shame one of them had to lost." There has to be sports guys bemoaning the way it ended, beyond "one team's defense was gassed."
Finally, I'm done with Bob Costas. He's got a great voice and he's very knowledgeable, but I'm tired of this little gerbil of a dude pontificating. Enough. You're Brent Musburger without the perviness. Get over yourself.
The controversial part is one team got an extra possession to win the game due to a coin flip. They "control their own destiny" while the other team doesn't. It inserts randomness into a game that isn't a game of chance. Fans want the best team to win, not the team that got the lucky "bonus round."
@@dohczeppelin37 They got that. The Chiefs won.
@@VinceLyle2161 OK, obviously your argument is simply "I liked the outcome" then. That's great but not what anyone is discussing.
Where did all these pro-change of the rules guys came from all of a sudden... Hypocrites
Seriously...
Nope. Sorry. Bob is completely wrong. I don't want to hear about how unfair the coin flip is in overtime when the exact same randomness applies to the opening coin flip. You win that and defer, you have the chance for back to back scoring drives. That's just the game. You have 60 minutes to win in regulation. Both teams get a chance to possess the ball. Lose the OT coin flip, try playing defense. Try stopping the team with 13 seconds left.
A game like that should be finished as fast as possible. Field goal kicks competition? Extending the game is only good for the next opponent, especially at the risk of players getting injured. Only for the Superbowl I would add chances or time (another full quarter for all I care) in OT.
Ah... boo hoo Bob Costas :) being transparent, I'm a Chiefs fan and these conversations are hilarious and sweet vengeance. B/c it happened to us 3 years ago and only us KC fans pitched a fit over it... sure some folks thought it was 'sad' at the time... but now that its an east coast team everyone with ties to the the east coast (and that sports media company out of Bristol) is loosing their minds, "oh, it sooo unfair... THIS TIME." Get over it folks, it was a great game and it finished the way it did. The Bills didn't deserve to win b/c UNDER THE RULES the best team that day won- thats what Pats fans said three years ago and its what needs to be said now. Better luck next year Bills fans, Josh Allen looks legit- respect.
Chiefs fans weren’t the only ones hating the OT rule I’m a rams fan and I hate the rule and it’s been unfair.
I don't care what season it is, or who loses or wins from it, it's just a bad rule
It's a stupid rule.
For OT I'd go with this - each team gets a possession. Have both start at the 50 with 2 minutes, 1 timeout, basically have both sides running a 2 minute drill. Still have the coin flip for the team who wins that to decide possession first or last. If both teams end up tied still after this, go sudden death after.
Comparing baseball to football is so stupid. There is a level of random in baseball that simply doesn't apply to football. The fact is that only 20% of all OT opening drives end in TDs. Not to mention that the defense GETS PAID to play. Why are we ignoring that the Bills had the number 1 ranked defense? If the defense scored, would we give KC's defense a chance to score? How does that make sense? People are so quick to call the rule stupid without giving an adequate solution to the issue. The old sudden death rule was unfair. This one is miles better and no one will ever be happy if their team loses.
Logic is not your strength. If the defense stops a touch down in the first drive, does the rule say the defense wins the game?
@@CO8848_2 Reading isn't your strength. People are talking about fairness because one team's offense didn't touch the ball. Does that same logic apply if the other team's defense doesn't get a chance to score? I specifically said "if the defense scored". Learn to read before you reply. Thanks.
Ok Costas, what's the fix? Easy to complain about it so eloquently.
There is no way to even out the opportunities in a football game. It is an inherent problem similar to chess. Whoever goes first has an advantage. It is part of the game. Deal with it!
Oh goody, thanks so much for clearing that up for us.
Uhhh, football sure as hell is NOT chess . . . terrible analogy, mate.
In case you missed it, the college OT rules certainly give equal opportunities to each team . . . gee, that wasn't so hard was it?
@@Rilianawakened321 College OT is like ending a basketball game with a free throw competition. It's terrible.
@@whitewhale9012 Uh no . . . the teams actually get to play abbreviated offensive and defensive possessions under a format similar to a mini-game. Sure, once it gets to required 2 pt tries, it's a little funky/repetitive, but you can't deny it's fair to both teams, and it's exciting for the fans. It's certainly more like a soccer OT . . . extra time, then PKs if still tied . . .than the goofy basketball analogy you suggested.
@@Rilianawakened321
Its horrible