Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
What's good? Everybody is of all trades here with the game Illuminati. Hope you guys are having a great day. So far. If you guys didn't get a chance to check out our last video. Be sure to check out the link down in the description box below. We are back for another Triple Threat Sports podcast. Now before we get into the Super Bowl edition of Triple Threat Sports podcast. I got to introduce you guys to my co-host first co-host. Say what up NAME_1's what up next you guys know him as UT X JG to dine, but he's also known as the The LA NAME_2 supporter and he's going to the Superbowl. Say what up, GG don't it? Feel so good though. It feels so good. The lone person the triple threat Sports podcast by team is going to the shelf and people are mad and we gonna talk about it man. We got we definitely going to talk about it for sure. So at the time of this recording we've already gone through the Pro

Summary:
1. The Triple Threat Sports podcast debates the NFL Conference Championship games between the Patriots and the Chiefs, and the NAME_2 and the Saints.
2. The hosts express their opinions on the games, including controversy surrounding the overtime rules and crucial penalties.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
 Write your response with at least 300 words.
user