Every time a team loses a game in OT and doesn't touch the ball on offense people come out of the woodwork screaming for a rule change.  The latest example of this happened on Saturday Night in a playoff game when the Indianapolis Colts lost 23-17 in OT.  NFL MVP Peyton Manning never made it the field, because the Chargers won the toss and scored on the opening drive of OT.  

The fact is that people simply show their offensive biases when they suggest the rules need to be changed.   My favorite position has always been quarterback.  My favorite NFL player plays quarterback.  I probably know more of the quarterback statistics than any other position.  But that doesn't mean I think that is the only position on the field.  

What would happen if the Ravens and Dolphins had gone to OT?  Let's say the Dolphins had won the toss and elected to kick the ball.  I know they don't normally do that, but let's suppose it was a windy Miami day and they felt the wind was more important than the possession.  I think that would have played out between the Bills and Pats the last week of the regular season with 60 mile an hour winds.  

Back to the Ravens.  Young stud Joe Flacco takes the field ready for his moment in the sun and wind.  He promptly throws a pick to Joey Porter who races to the endzone.  Would anyone have said, "Gee, that's a shame the Ed Reed and Ray Lewis didn't get to go on the field and decide the game."  They should have another possession so that those guys could have gotten on the field.  The Ravens D means so much to that team and for those guys to just stand on the sideline watching helplessly seems wrong.

Different teams have different strengths.  Different stadiums have different weather.  The Colts are a high-flying offense, except for January.  The Cardinals love to throw the ball.  The Ravens or the Steelers may not mind starting an OT on defense, especially if the weather is bad.  It gives them a chance to pin the other team deep in it's own territory and force a sack, safety, or interception and prevents their offense from doing something destructive.  

The fact of the matter is that football is unique to most other sports in one way.  Either team can score on any play, other than the extra point.  Defenses can record safeties.  They can recover fumbles and return them for touchdowns.  They can pick of the ball and return it for a touchdown.  They can force a three and out and block a punt or field goal that results in a safety or a touchdown.  Other than an extra point attempt, any team can score on any play.

In baseball it isn't fair to have a sudden death OT, because Greg Maddux can't score a run while throwing pitches to a batter.  In basketball, Kobe Bryant can't score by stealing the ball.  Yes, a steal could result in a break away lay-up.  But the moment he steals the ball, he becomes an offensive player and has to go to the other end of the court.  It isn't like football where there are different players on offense than there are on defense.  

What is going to be a fairer deal than what the NFL already has?  Play college football rules where you turn an entertaining game into a circus exhibition of 30-yard line possessions?  Play a shorter ten-minute quarter?  That wouldn't work, because one team could control the entire quarter on offense and you'd still have the same problem?  

It's hard enough to play four quarters of football, much less making teams play another full 15 minutes.  What happens if the first OT is tied?  Do we play another 15 full minutes in the interest of being fair?  When does the game just end and we decide a winner?  

Teams can manipulate the clock.  They do it in the 4th quarter and that's why we get OT games in the first place.  What would happen if you had a 15-minute quarter where each team had to touch the ball at least once?  You know exactly what would happen.  A team would hold on to the ball and score with 1:30 on the clock.  Now what?  Does the other team get an equal amount of time to score and then if they do, we go back to a 15:00 minute OT?  Do they only get 1:30 to score, thus not getting to use the ground game like their opponent?  Do we just not time the OT until each team has had the ball once?

I can just see the circus this could turn into in the interest of keeping everything fair.  Life isn't fair.  It hurts to lose games and when they are close it hurts even more.  Nothing is more painful than losing an OT game.  Trust me, I'm a Packer fan and the 2003 and 2007 playoff losses were as painful as any football games I have ever watched.  Every mistake is magnified.  If Peyton Manning could have converted his 3rd and 2 you wouldn't be reading this.  Instead he got sacked, allowed the Chargers the opportunity to tie the game and lost.  Score more points in regulation if you don't want to go to OT.

People act like teams get shafted by this rule on a yearly basis.  The last 7 NFL OT games have ended as such:

1) 2007 NFC Championship Game - New York Giants at Green Bay - Green Bay won the toss and #4 proceed to throw his lack pick in a Packer uniform.  The Giants used that good position to kick a field goal and win 23-20.

2) 2006 Divisional Round - Seattle at Chicago - Seattle won the toss, but had to punt on a three and out.  Chicago used a poor punt and 30-yard pass to set up the winning field goal.  

3) 2004 Wildcard Round - New York Jets at San Diego - An exchange of punts.  A missed Kaeding field goal.  The Jets drove down the field and Doug Brien ended it with a 28-yard field goal.  

4) 2004 Divisional Round - New York Jets at Pittsburgh - Jet's won the toss, but were forced to punt.  The Steelers drove 72 yards for the game winning field goal.??

5) 2003 NFC Wildcard Round - Seattle at Green Bay - We want the ball so Al Harris can score.  Seattle won the toss.  The Hawks and Packers traded 3 and out possessions in OT before Harris scored the only OT defensive touchdown in NFL playoff history.  

6) 2003 NFC Divisional Round - Carolina at St Louis - One OT was not enough to settle this contest.  Each team missed field goals in OT.  On the first play of the second OT Steve Smith caught a 69-yard touchdown pass from Jake Delhomme.  

7) 2003 NFC Divisional Round - Green Bay at Philadelphia - This is the infamous 4th and 26 game where McNabb completed a pass to Freddie Mitchell to pick up a first down late in the 4th quarter.  The Eagles forced OT with a field goal.  Philly won the toss, went three and out, and the Packers got the ball back.  Brian Dawkins picked a very poor Favre throw and the Eagles won in OT.  

As usual we like to overreact to everything.  I'm just not seeing this epidemic of teams losing playoff games, because their offense doesn't see the field.  Often times its some jockeying for field position and a bad play ends up costing a team the game.  Costly interceptions are the reoccurring theme.

Like I said, you are never going to have a perfect system.  Different teams have different strengths.  Some games are going to feature high-powered offenses and bad defenses where a coin flip could literally determine the outcome of the game.  Some games are going to be defensive struggles that will take more time to settle.  You can't have different OT rules for different teams to make sure the game is settled in the most "fair" way for that particular scenario.  That is why Sudden Death seems like the most practical and most fair way to me.   

The system isn't perfect, but it is fair.  A good coach knows the rules even if Donovan McNabb does not.  The coach is going to put his team in the best position to win.   That is what Mike Shanahan elected to do in Denver this year.  The game was 38-37 with San Diego leading and the Denver extra point pending.  Shanahan elected going for two figuring he had a better chance of gaining three yards in that game than risking a coin toss going against him and depending on his defense to make a stop.  The Broncos converted and won the game.

Also, it's pretty presumptuous to assume Manning would have scored in OT.  The Chargers held him to one touchdown pass.  The Colts were forced to punt 6 times that game.  The Chargers were also forced to punt 6 times that game.  That didn't come down to a coin flip.  That came down to San Diego coming up big on offense and Indy coming up small on defense in the crucial moments of the game.  Saying that game was decided by a flip of the coin really takes away from the great possession San Diego played in OT.  It also ignores all the penalties Indy had on that drive that led to their demise.    

What are your thoughts?  Did I convince you to leave the rules as is or do you still think they need a rule change?  What do you think is the best way to settle a tied game after the 4th quarter?  Let me know your thoughts.