The stats were established over many years, using legitimate statistical methods ... the evidence absolutely bore out a positive level of correlation between 'winning the toss' and 'winning the game'. And they didn't 'want that'. It's really that simple. You say it's 'screwing it up', but in reality WHATEVER rules for OT were constructed, all they ever were was some arbitrary designation of 'how it's best done'.
If the league felt (and I happen to agree) that theyd didn't want a system in place that favored the winner of what was essentially a completely random occurrence (result of a coin flip) as opposed to letting the play on the field decide, they were well within their rights to change the system.
Bottom-line, there's no 'absolute right' way to 'run the overtime'.
But optimally, you'd want it to be done FAIRLY ... and the numbers established by the old system PROVED ... it was 'not fair' ... unless you actually wanted the odds to favor the winner of a friggin' coin toss.
Statistics actually don't lie, at least not when interpreted properly ... and in this case, I believe they were.
I actually think the rules now are EXACTLY ... how they should be. And I bet once we have 20 years of stats on the subject, we'll find that the trend marches closer to 50% wrt the coin flip, vs the number it was at before, which I don't know offhand, but whatever it is, I know it is a statistically significant situation, wherein there's an advantage given to the team that wins the toss. No good comes from rules that set up that situation, that's why they changed it.
= new reply since forum marked as read