I know others have discussed this, here and elsewhere, but I am going to add a comparison to another sport - Tennis.
Tennis developed the tie-breaker to keep sets from going into excessive OTs - essentially the same rationale for the OT rules that in football.
But in the most prestigious tournament that exists - Wimbledon - if you get into the last set of the championship match - no tiebreaker - you need to win the convincing old-fashioned way.
As Fezzik can readily tell you ... there was never an OT in the first 50 Super Bowls, but now that we have one, which was arguably decided by a coin-flip, it's time to consider an exception to rules that were adopted for the average game. In a tennis tie-breaker, you can win by a breaking a single service point, as opposed to a breaking a single service game, except in the fifth set of the most prestigious tournament. So should there be an exception for the most prestigious football game.
- IMHO