NFL tie-breaker??

Discussion in 'Sports' started by Alcott, Nov 18, 2008.

?

How should ties at the end of regulation be dealt with in NFL?

  1. Keep playing SD for no limit of 15-minute periods until a team scores

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  2. Make OT non-SD and play 15-minute periods until one team wins

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  3. Reduce OT (non-SD) periods to 7.5 minutes and keep playing until one team wins

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  4. Go to an OT concept like college— equal chances on offense until one team wins

    3 vote(s)
    25.0%
  5. No OT— if tied, count penetrating opponent’s 20-yardline as one additional point

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Leave it as it is, where any game can end in a tie after OT, except playoffs

    5 vote(s)
    41.7%
  7. Abolish any type of OT except for playoffs

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  1. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    As Philadelphia and Cincinnati played out their overtime period with neither team scoring, and Eagle QB Donovan McNabb claiming he didn’t even know an NFL game could end in a tie, what (if any) change should be made to the current rule? OT=Overtime, SD=Sudden Death.
     
  2. Palatka51

    Palatka51
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think you can ever go back to the old way without OT, however I like the idea that you can play to a tie. So I say keep it as it is.
     
  3. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see a compelling reason to change, but this isn't a hill I'm going to die on and I could be swayed to embrace change if someone has a good argument for it.
     
  4. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would like to see a ten minute OT, followed by a college style OT.

    That said, we've had what, two ties this decade? Is this a really big deal? It will be when someone gets hosed out of a playoff spot because of it.

    Remember, we're talking about the Eagles and Bengals. I think if we were playing SD, we'd still be playing because both offenses are inept right now.
     
  5. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think it's a big deal at all.

    If a team such as the Iggles loses a playoff spot because of a tie, the answer to that complaint is very easy. Win the game. If you lose a playoff spot because you can't beat the Bungles of all teams, you have no business complaining that the tie cost you anything.
     
  6. Andy T.

    Andy T.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like the current system except for one thing: The fact that some teams don't even get a chance to have the ball on offense, if the other team scores on their first possession. I think if the first team scores on their first possession, then there should be an ensuing kick-off to the other team and play it out until that team scores or turns it over on downs. If Team A doesn't score on their first possession, then it becomes strictly SD for the remaining time. Or if Team A kicks a field goal on its first possession, and Team B does the same, then it becomes SD after that. And if it is still tied after 15 minutes, then the game ends in a tie.

    I think this would add excitement to the OT, because under the current system, if Team A gets in field goal range, they play it too conservative and it becomes boring. However, if they know that the other team will get a chance on offense and they could score a TD, then Team A will have more to consider than just trying to get a FG. So in that respect, I think it would add some flavor to the OT strategies that teams employ.
     
  7. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    In checking out a few facts about all this, between 1974 and 1994 the team that won the OT coin toss won 48% of the games. Then, after NFL kickoffs were moved from the 35 yardline to the 30, the team that wins the toss has won 60%. While we can't conclude it's all about those 5 yards presumably gained before play even starts that makes the difference, it does seem clear that the random chance of the coin toss figures into it too prominently.

    But I don't know if allowing each team an opportunity on offense, and then making it SD is the way to go. I think I would prefer having 7.5 minute periods of non-SD, perhaps making it SD after the 2nd OT period; paralleling the college rule of having to go for a 2-point conversion after the 2nd OT series. Either that or going to the college system altogether-- but starting each possession from the 35 or further back, instead of the 25. Any pro team should have a kicker capable of a 42 yard FG, and that's how far it would be if the offense had no gain at all from the 25.
     
  8. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just keep playing overtime periods until someone scores. How many games go into halftime tied at 0? One team will score in the second OT period if they don't score in the first.

    BTW...Donavan McNabb is a moron. He played a playoff game against a team that finished in a tie. How did he not know their record going into the game?
     
  9. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,130
    Likes Received:
    221
    Maybe Rush was right
     
  10. bobbyd

    bobbyd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course Rush was right...didn't you see that sticker on the bumper of that car in traffic? :laugh:
    I think the NFL has the dumbest OT system around, basically a coin toss can decide the game in some instances.
    If they were to change it, and i doubt they would just because the fans ask for it, i would like to see it more like the college game with equal chances.
     
  11. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Look at the end of that tie game. After Philly tied it with 5:18 to go, the Bungles had 3 possessions to try and win it. Philly had 2. Maybe the coin flip is unfair, but it's hard to understand the cries of unfair when both teams had ample opportunity to win the game in regulation. Plus, this just in: life isn't fair.
     
  12. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would like to see OT done away with except for the SB. If a playoff game ends in a tie, both teams are out of the play off.
     
  13. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    And if the playoff game is an NFC or AFC championship game? There won't be a Super Bowl :)

    Ties are a waste of time. Before the game it's tied 0 - 0. You would think after the game there would be clear winner and loser, and if not, play til there is.
     
  14. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    If a playoff game ends in a tie, both teams are out of the play off.

    Oh yeah, sure, on that! If it's the divisional playoffs and one game ends in a tie, then they just scrap the conference championship game and all the million$ from tickets, concessions, and television. The NFL would surely do that!

    But logically, that would be saying both teams lost... they did, but no more than both teams won. From the money angle, or from the competitive angle, there has to be a tiebreaker.
     
  15. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never have been much on the "Both teams should get a possession" argument. I see the point, but shouldn't a defense be able to stop the other team? Isn't that part of football? If you stop them, you get your possession. If you let a team march down the field in FG range, well, you're beat, and deservedly so.

    My point about ties and playoffs is the tie factor comes into play. Granted, it's not a huge chance, but it can affect you. And you can't win the game if you don't have a chance to win. That said, all Philly had to do in the present system is go down and kick a FG.
     
  16. Steven2006

    Steven2006
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0

    Football is not like baseball, it is a violent game. Because of that the league has to consider many things before they just say keep playing. First thing is just supposed a game does go six or even seven quarters. The fatigue that would lead to would lead to injuries. Second with the schedules the way they are now what happens if that was a Monday night game, or worse yet a team that would be playing again that Thursday, for a Thursday game? Players and coaches acknowledge already that playing a Monday game makes a big difference on the players being able to heal and recover for next week, can you imagine how unfair it would be to a team to play six quarters of football only to have to play again Thursday?

    No, the rule is fine the way it is. Not only does it hardly ever happen anyway, but keep in mind the original rules called for a tie after only four quarters. However since ties did occur much more often then, it was smart adding the additional sudden death quarter which for the most part eliminates all ties most seasons.

    My final thought is if neither of the teams are able "put it away", why shouldn't they both suffer the hindrance of a tie in their records? Teams needed to be rewarded for getting it done, not hanging around until everyone is too tired to play, and then gaining a win they really didn't secure. Why should a win after seven quarters against players half dead count as much as a solid win of another team? No, the rare tie when it happens seems to be not only fitting but appropriate.
     
  17. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    Well, I had thought that a small sample (4 games) of last week's NFL might give some info about the advantage of receiving a kick in the later stages of the game to help explain why the team that wins the coin toss has won 60% of OT games since 1994. But that sample does not indicate anything... In those 4 games there were 12 kickoffs in the 1st Q, 10 in 2Q. 8 in 3Q, and 8 in the 4Q. The average starting postion for the receiving teams were 29.3 yardline in 1Q, 33.7 in 2Q, 22.1 in 3Q, and 24.3 in 4Q. Perhaps we need overall data for all games this year to conclude anything, but I can't find that as readily available, and it's a lot of digging to do the math myself, even for a 4-game sample.

    We might provisionally conclude that, with the diminishing field position of the receiving team as the game progresses [29-34-22-24], that the kicking teams learn and adjust to the receiving team's blocking and returners better-- likely enough, as kicking off is much a one-to-one battle of kicker v. returner, and then the greater momentum is with the kicking team rushing down the field, as opposed to the return team trotting up to block them.

    So, ample sample or not, this shows no significant advantage by game progression for the receiving team... meaning it's much more just the advantage of getting the ball first; which ultimately means kicking off from the 30 is an offensive advantage any time, which should be verified by games having more scoring than before 1994, when kickoffs were from the 35.
     
  18. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    That could be a problem, but all in all would be fine with me, but not the NFL.
    They went for years without OT and with out OT I don't think the championship game ever end in a tie. You play the game to win, with OT you might play to tie to get more time to come back.
    Also so much of what is sold to us as football isn't for the football fan as much as for the gambler. TV and the gambler has changed football more than any coach.
     
    #18 Bob Alkire, Nov 22, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2008
  19. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    If you were head coach, and your team just scored a touchdown to get within 1 point with less than a minute remaining in the 4th quarter, would you play for the tie and probable overtime, or would you go for 2 to win?
     
  20. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would go for the win, but the KC coach did that a few weeks ago and didn't make it and was shot down for it. But I think his team was spend and it was their only chance. If it works you look great, if not you don't look so good.

    I'm the first to say that football was much larger to me in the 40's 50's and 60's than today, so my view might be much different than some. If I had the better team I would always go for the win but if not I might be happy with the tie and many a coach played it that way in the past.

    To me a baseball game is who scores the most runs, will win, in football to me each team has 4 quarters to win and that should be it. I believe it was Jimmy the Greek back in the 60's who said gamblers and their interest would change football the most. Gamblers do more to keep interest up in football, which sells tickets and other stuff and TV would go along along with Vegas to sell advertisement on the games and the game would go through much change, which it has.
     

Share This Page

Loading...