Ties

[RavenMad31]

So there was another tie today. People are upset, disappointed, whatever. I get it.
Nobody likes a tie and in the moment, it's an unsatisfying result. In the big picture, with as rarely as they occur, is it really end of the world? Are ties what is wrong with the NFL and are they responsible for the dip in ratings? No. No, they aren't.
I suspect what is going to happen is that the NFL is going to come up with a rule change or change to the way overtime is played in an effort to save the NFL from this rash of ties that plague the league about once every 3-5 years.
My question is what is worse? The way the NFL will likely figure out to correct this outlier of a problem that really isn't a problem or the fact that we have to endure an occasional tie?
I feel what they did to change overtime from, simple sudden death was one of those overreaction stupid rule changes and the change to the PAT was basically fixing a problem that didn't exist. I suspect that this will be more of the same.

[bwgood77]

I don't mind ties at all. But I do dislike the OT rules. I still feel if a team scores a td on the first possession, the other team should get a possession.

[bleu]

I'm going to agree somewhat with both of you. I hate ties, and I agree that the OT rules should be changed to allow each team a possession regardless. I'm an enormous soccer fan, and I don't mind ties in soccer. But it's just not a fitting way to ever end a football game. IMO if a team still hasn't won at the end of overtime, continue on as if there is just an additional quarter. At that point it's already a sudden death thing, and I highly highly doubt you'd ever see games go past a second or on rare occasion third overtime. Somebody needs to come out victorious!

[bondom34]

College OT is just better. Ties are whatever, but the OT format is just more fun in college.

[OnceUponADime]

I don't mind ties at all. But I do dislike the OT rules. I still feel if a team scores a td on the first possession, the other team should get a possession.

Same. Their basically letting a coin toss decide the faith of the game.

Today's Raiders/Bucs game was an example of that.

[bleu]

College OT is just better. Ties are whatever, but the OT format is just more fun in college.

I agree with this, however, I wouldn't want to see the NFL use the NCAA's OT rules. To me, that just wouldn't fit the NFL very well, and I think it's better for that to just be a college thing.

I would also like to see them alter the college rules to have each team start from the 40 or 50 instead. I think that would make it more interesting.

[Otis Driftwood]

I don't mind ties at all. But I do dislike the OT rules. I still feel if a team scores a td on the first possession, the other team should get a possession.

Same. Their basically letting a coin toss decide the faith of the game.

Today's Raiders/Bucs game was an example of that.

So was another game of note.

Not that I didn't approve of the outcome mind you...

[Latrell]

They got rid of ties in the NHL and there you play 82 games so outcomes for a single game less important than in the NFL where you only pay 16. Makes no sense for the NFL not to abolish ties. They're still a rare enough occurrence though so I guess it's not THAT big of a deal.

[RavenMad31]

I don't mind ties at all. But I do dislike the OT rules. I still feel if a team scores a td on the first possession, the other team should get a possession.

Same. Their basically letting a coin toss decide the faith of the game.

Today's Raiders/Bucs game was an example of that.

At the point when they changed to the current OT rules, the team winning the toss won 53% of the time, so this is actually just a myth perpetuated by the folks who started crying about the old sudden death rules at the time.

College OT is just better. Ties are whatever, but the OT format is just more fun in college.

The OT format in college is hokey and takes normal football strategy out of a football game.

I'm going to agree somewhat with both of you. I hate ties, and I agree that the OT rules should be changed to allow each team a possession regardless. I'm an enormous soccer fan, and I don't mind ties in soccer. But it's just not a fitting way to ever end a football game. IMO if a team still hasn't won at the end of overtime, continue on as if there is just an additional quarter. At that point it's already a sudden death thing, and I highly highly doubt you'd ever see games go past a second or on rare occasion third overtime. Somebody needs to come out victorious!

Football is a different beast. You can't let these guys beat on each other beyond a fifth or sixth quarter or however long it would take to settle things.

[bwgood77]

I don't mind ties at all. But I do dislike the OT rules. I still feel if a team scores a td on the first possession, the other team should get a possession.

Same. Their basically letting a coin toss decide the faith of the game.

Today's Raiders/Bucs game was an example of that.

At the point when they changed to the current OT rules, the team winning the toss won 53% of the time, so this is actually just a myth perpetuated by the folks who started crying about the old sudden death rules at the time.

College OT is just better. Ties are whatever, but the OT format is just more fun in college.

The OT format in college is hokey and takes normal football strategy out of a football game.

I'm going to agree somewhat with both of you. I hate ties, and I agree that the OT rules should be changed to allow each team a possession regardless. I'm an enormous soccer fan, and I don't mind ties in soccer. But it's just not a fitting way to ever end a football game. IMO if a team still hasn't won at the end of overtime, continue on as if there is just an additional quarter. At that point it's already a sudden death thing, and I highly highly doubt you'd ever see games go past a second or on rare occasion third overtime. Somebody needs to come out victorious!

Football is a different beast. You can't let these guys beat on each other beyond a fifth or sixth quarter or however long it would take to settle things.

I agree about the last point, but not the first two. At least the college rules are fair. But the first point I don't agree with at all. So you pointed out the coin toss winner won the majority of the time. But the main thing is that while it likely didn't matter much with teams relying mainly on defense to win. But teams that rely on offense to win and have an avg D are at a massive disadvantage if they lose the toss. For example the 8-8 division winning Chargers hosting the 11 or 12 win Colts about 8 or 9 years ago, won the toss and knocked them out without Indy touching the ball. I can't imagine you considering this fair if it was, say basketball, where winner of a coin toss gets possession and if scores, game over. Same with baseball if a team in the top of 10th scores it's over.

[studcrackers]

the ties were hilarious in how much incompetence there was.

i was hoping for a2 of them yesterday

[RavenMad31]

Same. Their basically letting a coin toss decide the faith of the game.

Today's Raiders/Bucs game was an example of that.

At the point when they changed to the current OT rules, the team winning the toss won 53% of the time, so this is actually just a myth perpetuated by the folks who started crying about the old sudden death rules at the time.

College OT is just better. Ties are whatever, but the OT format is just more fun in college.

The OT format in college is hokey and takes normal football strategy out of a football game.

I'm going to agree somewhat with both of you. I hate ties, and I agree that the OT rules should be changed to allow each team a possession regardless. I'm an enormous soccer fan, and I don't mind ties in soccer. But it's just not a fitting way to ever end a football game. IMO if a team still hasn't won at the end of overtime, continue on as if there is just an additional quarter. At that point it's already a sudden death thing, and I highly highly doubt you'd ever see games go past a second or on rare occasion third overtime. Somebody needs to come out victorious!

Football is a different beast. You can't let these guys beat on each other beyond a fifth or sixth quarter or however long it would take to settle things.

I agree about the last point, but not the first two. At least the college rules are fair. But the first point I don't agree with at all. So you pointed out the coin toss winner won the majority of the time. But the main thing is that while it likely didn't matter much with teams relying mainly on defense to win. But teams that rely on offense to win and have an avg D are at a massive disadvantage if they lose the toss. For example the 8-8 division winning Chargers hosting the 11 or 12 win Colts about 8 or 9 years ago, won the toss and knocked them out without Indy touching the ball. I can't imagine you considering this fair if it was, say basketball, where winner of a coin toss gets possession and if scores, game over. Same with baseball if a team in the top of 10th scores it's over.

In a vacuum, this sounds unfair because it paints a picture that sort of forgets the idea that there were 60 minutes of perfectly fairfootball and several possessions that lead up to the point where two teams go to overtime. If defense is a liability for your team, then that's something to be considered during the 60 minutes of regulation. Overtime doesn't just jump out of the bushes and take teams by surprise. Teams play to a tie and often play FOR a tie because it's safe. As I typed that, it made me realize that with this in mind, pure sudden death should inadvertently help avoid some overtime games altogether, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[bwgood77]

At the point when they changed to the current OT rules, the team winning the toss won 53% of the time, so this is actually just a myth perpetuated by the folks who started crying about the old sudden death rules at the time.



The OT format in college is hokey and takes normal football strategy out of a football game.



Football is a different beast. You can't let these guys beat on each other beyond a fifth or sixth quarter or however long it would take to settle things.

I agree about the last point, but not the first two. At least the college rules are fair. But the first point I don't agree with at all. So you pointed out the coin toss winner won the majority of the time. But the main thing is that while it likely didn't matter much with teams relying mainly on defense to win. But teams that rely on offense to win and have an avg D are at a massive disadvantage if they lose the toss. For example the 8-8 division winning Chargers hosting the 11 or 12 win Colts about 8 or 9 years ago, won the toss and knocked them out without Indy touching the ball. I can't imagine you considering this fair if it was, say basketball, where winner of a coin toss gets possession and if scores, game over. Same with baseball if a team in the top of 10th scores it's over.

In a vacuum, this sounds unfair because it paints a picture that sort of forgets the idea that there were 60 minutes of perfectly fairfootball and several possessions that lead up to the point where two teams go to overtime. If defense is a liability for your team, then that's something to be considered during the 60 minutes of regulation. Overtime doesn't just jump out of the bushes and take teams by surprise. Teams play to a tie and often play FOR a tie because it's safe. As I typed that, it made me realize that with this in mind, pure sudden death should inadvertently help avoid some overtime games altogether, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

If there is going to be some sort of stipulation that in OT, only one team may have a chance for possession, I'd just rather they go back to not having any OT at all.

[RavenMad31]

I agree about the last point, but not the first two. At least the college rules are fair. But the first point I don't agree with at all. So you pointed out the coin toss winner won the majority of the time. But the main thing is that while it likely didn't matter much with teams relying mainly on defense to win. But teams that rely on offense to win and have an avg D are at a massive disadvantage if they lose the toss. For example the 8-8 division winning Chargers hosting the 11 or 12 win Colts about 8 or 9 years ago, won the toss and knocked them out without Indy touching the ball. I can't imagine you considering this fair if it was, say basketball, where winner of a coin toss gets possession and if scores, game over. Same with baseball if a team in the top of 10th scores it's over.

In a vacuum, this sounds unfair because it paints a picture that sort of forgets the idea that there were 60 minutes of perfectly fairfootball and several possessions that lead up to the point where two teams go to overtime. If defense is a liability for your team, then that's something to be considered during the 60 minutes of regulation. Overtime doesn't just jump out of the bushes and take teams by surprise. Teams play to a tie and often play FOR a tie because it's safe. As I typed that, it made me realize that with this in mind, pure sudden death should inadvertently help avoid some overtime games altogether, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

If there is going to be some sort of stipulation that in OT, only one team may have a chance for possession, I'd just rather they go back to not having any OT at all.

Honestly, that's not the worst idea in the world either. Football games can't be extended any longer than they need to be unlike other sports with less contact. Is a rule saying you can't kick an extra point to tie during the fourth quarter of a game too gimmicky or unreasonable, do you think. I would be okay with tying if you are 8 points behind or if your drive stalls and you have to settle for a FG, but if you're 7 back, you have to go for 2 if you score a TD.