I'd say leave the NFL OT alone. You want both teams to have an equal chance to win in OT? If the coin flip winner wins the majority of the time then what's more equal than a coin flip? Seriously, let's look at some stats I googled. "From the 2000 through 2007 regular seasons, there have been 124 overtime games. In every single game except one (I believe), the team that won the toss elected to receive. And those receiving teams won 60% of the time (and tied once). The dreaded 'lose-the-coin-toss-never-touch-the-ball' scenario happened in 37 out of the 124 OT periods, or about 30% of all overtime games." Stated another way, in 70% of overtime games since 2000 each team had at least one position. What's the problem with that? The purpose of OT shouldn't be to start all over and play another game (as some college OT's seem to turn into). Both teams had ample opportunity for 60 minutes to win the game and OT is merely an extension of the regular time. If a team loses in OT without touching the ball then that means they failed to win the game in regular time, and either their special teams and/or their defense failed to do their job in OT. However, 30% is an awfully small percentage to be spending so much time discussing or worrying about. In my opinion the NFL OT is perfectly fair to both teams. If you believe it isn't fair then you need to stop talking about extending OT and start talking about playing every game at netural sites. The advantage for the home team in the NFL is about double that of the advantage of the OT coin flip.