I still can't wrap my head around why SF would elect to receive first in OT after winning the coin toss?
Seems like it's a massive advantage to have the 2nd possession with OT rules that guarantee each team gets the ball at least once. 49ers nearly turned the ball over at the start of their drive, which would've ended the game with a chip shot field goal for KC. The Chiefs also had the advantage of playing "4 down" plays on their drive, as they knew they at least had to score a field goal - if they had gotten the ball first, you possibly consider punting on 4th down outside FG range.
The only possibly advantage I see in getting the ball first is if both teams score equal points on their initial drives, then you get the ball back with the game then being in sudden death. Still, I can't see how the advantages of knowing what you need to tie/win the game on your initial possession isn't more of an advantage.
Personally, I would defer and if you give up a TD on the opposing team's first possession, you now know you have 4 downs each play to get the first and score a TD and then I'd take my chances with a 2 point conversion, which still favors the offense.
Am I missing something here? Is this being treated as a controversial decision?