In Defense of Ties
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 15, 2009 2:38 PM PDT
in Seahawks Commentary
Email
Print
Last week I argued on my home blog that the NFL should make only very minor tweaks to the regular season OT system. Commenter spoonfulofpeter made a great point though:
I'm actually in the small group of pinko, soccer-lovin', wiener boys that favors ties. A tie would be a more accurate representation of the game's final score. That you could lose a 20-17 game in OT due to a defense that's exhausted from 60 minutes of play after a closely fought battle in regulation and have that count just the same as a 28-0 shutout seems entirely unfair.
The tie is accurate. OT puts people at risk of injury, screws with TV schedules, and leaves most people feeling wholly unsatisfied. Not that ties are satisfying, it's just not that much different.
Of course this will never happen in an American sport, but I think it's a better system. If we're okay with ties after 75 minutes, why not be okay with them after 60?
This argument pretty much won me over: bring back regular season ties!
We all know this will NEVER happen, of course. As SoP points out, American sports fans LOATHE tie games. However, in addition to his arguments, I'll add this one: It will possibly simplify postseason tie-breaker scenarios too. Take 2008 as an example, where the Eagles (9-6-1) made the playoffs over the 9-7 Cowboys, Bears and Bucs.
There also is this problem: NFL coaches are so risk-averse that most would gladly take that tie game as a result rather than, say, go for two and the win at the end of a game. The vast majority would only go for the win if a tie game would directly result in elimination from playoff contention.
If I was running the league, we'd have no regular season OT, and this would be the OT format for the playoffs:
In the wild card round, divisional playoffs, and conference championships, it would be a "first to six" OT format where (duh) the first team to score six points in OT wins the game. It can be a TD, two FGs, three safeties, etc.
In the Super Bowl (if one ever went OT), the first 15 minutes would not be Sudden Death. Still tied after that? 2nd OT is then Sudden Death.
What do you think, sirs?
51 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Give me ties.
I’m a soccer fan, so that may influence it. But I hate the idea that two teams that are essentially even in talent can’t be rewarded for fighting to a stalemate. Reward them for fighting to a stalemate, rather then only rewarding the team that happens to score first.
Too short a season
I like ties in soccer as well, but it helps that soccer seasons are significantly longer than the NFL. Seeing something like a team go 8-5-3 just doesn’t seem that great of an idea to me.
I don’t think there’s a perfect solution, though I’m not a fan of the current system. First to six does seem like the most fair option however.
On the other hand...
when teams realize they NEED a win/can’t afford a 1/2 game loss, they’ll start going for it more at the end. Think of the excitement when a team at the end of a game realizes they NEED a win and are down 7 points. Instead of scoring and taking their extra point and hoping to win a freakin’ coin flip (gawd i hate the coin flip), they have to go for 2. HUGE drama.
I never thought of the value in the tie before that little paragraph above, but I gotta say it’s a really interesting idea!!!
Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Sep 15, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions
I think ties would work in the NFL because the season is short
Every win matters, and a 1/2 game swing in the standings is huge.
Like whiskey said above, I think that if OT was eliminated in the NFL, you’d see coaches adjust strategy. There’d be a lot more drama towards the end of games with teams playing for the win.
"I'm tired of chasing after my dreams. I'll just find out where they're going, and catch up later." - Hedberg
Ties are why I hate soccer.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Sep 15, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Truer words have never been spoken.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 15, 2009 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Ties are at the bottom of my list why I don't like soccer
It’s the boring (IMO) 90 minutes that precedes them.
"I'm tired of chasing after my dreams. I'll just find out where they're going, and catch up later." - Hedberg
Soccer is boring
because it’s not understood and it doesn’t translate well to TV. Like hockey, soccer is exciting if you know the game and can see the action away from the ball.
by John Morgan on Sep 16, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
It is possible to understand soccer AND still find it boring
"I'm tired of chasing after my dreams. I'll just find out where they're going, and catch up later." - Hedberg
Ties work in soccer
Only if there is a point system and no playoffs (like every other soccer league but the MSL). It makes for playoff-type must-win games from teams who need points.
+1000 to TheLaird
"I hate to break it to you, but there is no big lie, there is no system, the universe is indifferent." -Don Draper
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 15, 2009 3:10 PM PDT reply actions
I'm hip
I’m 34 and I LOVE the original Rollerball…
“Houston Team! Houston Team!”
"I hate to break it to you, but there is no big lie, there is no system, the universe is indifferent." -Don Draper
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 15, 2009 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I hate ties
The best suggestions I’ve read, combining fairness and realistic application, is simply extending the game into a sudden death quarter without the coin toss. The team with the ball at the end of regulation keeps the ball, switches sides and play continues. That adds excitement to overtime and the end of regulation.
The other, and the one I think we will see, is to move the kickoff line where a touchback is near-certain. The latter seems so obvious, and so unobtrusive that I am surprised the league hasn’t done it.
That's an interesting idea...
that would mean the team that kicks a long FG to get to OT would have to kick off.
But, on the other side, it would take some excitement away… teams wouldn’t hurry as much in a tie game, that hectic end of the game thing wouldn’t be as intense. Both offenses and defenses (and particularly their coordinators) make mistakes in that last 2 minutes.
Admittedly they wouldn’t be able to just take a knee to kill the clock, so the offense would still be moving, but I just don’t see it as being as dramatic. Teams wouldn’t try to kick that long field goal. So we as an audience would watch several more minutes of commercials, just to watch a team in OT run 3 more 3 yard run plays right up the middle in order to kick a more make-able field goal.
Naw, I’d rather do something post-coin flip and not have it be sudden death…
Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Sep 15, 2009 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions
This Still is Artificial
Might you have coaches making decisions in the fourth quarter based not on optimizing the chance of scoring or preventing the other team from scoring, but on optimizing the chance that you will hold the ball at the end of regulation?
by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Sep 15, 2009 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions
That would be foolish
The only time a coach would benefit from holding the ball at the end of regulation would if there was a tie. If a coach is protecting the lead, they have a better chance of winning by not allowing a score than holding the ball into overtime. If a coach is trailing, they cannot benefit from holding the ball until they’ve tied the game. If the game is already a tie, a coach would be more motivated to run a working drive instead of killing the clock, because that drive doesn’t disappear when the clock runs out. Functionally, it’s no different than the transition from the first to second quarter or the third to fourth. Except that when the next quarter starts, sudden death rules are in effect.
"That would be foolish"
But then, NFL coaches aren’t exactly rational actors.
The only time a coach would benefit from holding the ball at the end of regulation would if there was a tie.
Well, yes, if it’s close to the end of regulation that’s the case. Suppose you’re up by one score with six minutes left, third down and seven. Do you try to convert and keep the ball, or do you just run it because chances are you’ll get the ball again toward the end of regulation? The calculation here is probably not very different from the current rule, so maybe not much of a concern.
Suppose the score is tied with two minutes left, you just got the ball on your own 30. If a game is 60 minutes then you try to score (or if it’s late in the season and a tie suits you, you try to run the clock). Under your rule you pretend that the game isn’t going to end in two minutes. That’s artificial.
by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Sep 15, 2009 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions
That's not entirely true
If you hold the ball at the end of regulation AND it’s a tie AND overtime is a sudden death, then you kick a field gull (goal) and win the game without your opponent having an opportunity. It’d be nice to not risk the last second drive. It’s roughly equivalent to calling a timeout with 2 seconds left so they don’t get an opportunity, but without the rush or excitement.
In that very specific case
you are right, it’s not different than calling a timeout. However, I don’t see how any excitement is lost.
The only excitement lost
Is hoping nothing gets screwed up waiting to call that 2 second time out. OR if you decide to do a sustained drive to get into FG position. Where’s the rush to get it downfield in time? You lose some excitement by not taking downfield shots. There is excitment in station to station.
I must say, I like the college format.
Both teams have the opportunity to score starting just outside the red zone. It might take three or four overtimes to determine a winner, but all of the overtimes are exciting in college football.
I agree. Best football games I watch are the OT ones.
It’s exciting and gives both teams the same opportunities to win fair and square.
Imagine...
fantasy stats when a final score like 77-71 occurs…
College OT would actually be horrible. In college, the kickers aren’t nearly as automatic as in the pros, therefore teams are more aggressive. I could see teams perfectly happy trading 3 for 3 for at least 4-5 OT periods without ever putting themselves at risk by throwing downfield…
Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Sep 15, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions
More aggressive?
Perhaps, but the first team might not be because a TO would mean an almost automatic loss.
I'm saying in college...
teams are more aggressive because they don’t have the kickers who can boot it safely and consistently like the pros.
However, in the pros unless the first team comes down and gets 7 just pounding it up the middle, both teams would be far too quick to settle for a FG and carry over to the next OT.
Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Sep 15, 2009 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions
There is Only One Argument Against Ties
…and that is that they are emotionally unsatisfying. I myself don’t suffer from this particular deficit, so my first preference would be to allow tie games. My second preference would be the college rule, but even that has major drawbacks.
Any OT rule, short of playing two extra halves, is an artificial resolution to the athletic event that has been playing out for the previous three hours or so. Would anybody be in favor of the first team to score in regulation being declared the winner? Because the current OT rule is indistinguishable from that. The college rule is a little better but still inadequate; punts, kickoffs, long field goals, and the field position game are important parts of football, are they not? Why are they suddenly irrelevant to the resolution?
Consider the San Diego-Indianapolis playoff game last season. Leaving aside the issue of an 8-8 team being allowed to host a playoff game, Indy’s entire season came down to a coin flip and a single offensive drive which was greased by two extremely marginal official’s calls. So you beat your brains out for five months and it all comes down to a holding call on an interior defensive lineman, which the refs choose to call about once every generation or so. Regardless of how you feel about the Colts, is there anything emotionally satisfying about THAT?
by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Sep 15, 2009 5:09 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Yeah!
What he said.
Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Sep 15, 2009 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions
A tie is basically the same thing as a loss
For teams competing for HFA or a playoff spot in a tough crowd.
For example if you tie and go 8-7-1, you’ll beat 8-8 teams for tiebreakers but lose to 9-7 teams. 9-7 teams are far more likely to make the playoffs than 8-8 teams. That tie is almost as bad as a loss. For teams pursuing HFA, they need to stockpile as many wins as possible, since HFA usually requires 11-14 wins. So it really sucks for them too.
To put it another way, a tie is the equivalent of 1/2 win and 1/2 loss, or a .500 record split over 1 game. Playoff teams generally need winning records to make it, so anything that dilutes the record from being above .500 hurts their chances. A tie waters down their record and lowers a good teams winning percentage. It also raises a bad teams winning percentage which is a double whammy since they aren’t competing for the playoffs and it hurts their draft stock.
Just say no to ties. The optimal OT format should do whatever is possible to minimize ties while also minimizing the role of the coin toss and keeping the game as short as possible to minimize injuries. I think John’s idea fits all those criteria very well.
That makes several assumptions
That assumes the team vying for HFA should win the game. They haven’t after 60 minutes? A tie is what they’ve achieved after 60 minutes. Don’t they deserve it? It could also be seen as a benefit. With OT, they run a serious risk of losing depending on the coin toss. With a tie they avoid the loss. It does split the loss to 1/2, but 12-4 is worse than 12-3-1. You see the point. If they win enough games then avoiding the loss is helpful.
For the double whammy idea, how much worse would it hurt the “bad” team if they won the game? With sudden death in OT they have a good chance if they win the toss. Then, their draft stock goes down even more.
Overall I’d say ties are better for assessing the quality of the team, but NOT for EXCITMENT. Professional sports sell entertainment and are all about exciting. That’s why they don’t allow ties.
"all about exciting. That’s why they don’t allow ties."
One of the half dozen or so most exciting games I’ve ever seen was on November 1, 1970. George Blanda kicked a 48 yard FG over the outstretched fingers of Morris Stroud to tie the game at the end.
by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Sep 15, 2009 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions
I personally dislike overtime. But ties are just lame.
Overtime, especially NFL OT, is exciting but its a dread filled kind of excitement.
My senior year of high school, a team for which I was a captain, we played a team that was favored by several touchdowns, and missed an extra point to take the lead with seconds left. Because of interstate high school football rules (they were from Utah, we were from AZ), overtime is not allowed and the game ended in a 41-41 tie.
We ended up 6-3-1 by the end of the year and missed the playoffs because of the tie.
Some times you will have teams like the Eagles that get on the lucky side of the tie and other teams that are on the unlucky side. Bottom line is, playoff teams play for the highest win%, whether its to make the playoffs or for seeding. A tie lowers a winning team’s win percentage. It doesn’t lower it as much as a loss, but it lowers it, and the point of a tie is that it is a “neutral” outcome, but its anything but neutral for teams with high winning percentages.
So...
you’re saying you missed the playoffs because your team failed to take the lead in a non-league game, and ended up coming from behind to tie the game instead?
Where’s the problem?
Isn’t it true you could have won had you made the extra point? Or a host of other things during the game happened a little differently to give you an actual lead?
Considering you missed the extra point, yeah, that sucks. But considering you dramatically tied it with little time remaining, shouldn’t you instead of cursing the tie on some level be pleased you at least GET a tie out of the deal? And who’s to say the other team wouldn’t have recovered and defeated you in OT.
And, you finished out of the playoffs because of 3 other losses, losses I assume came in league games?
Again, where’s the problem?
It wasn’t the tie’s fault you didn’t make the playoffs. It’s the 3 losses faults.
It was also a little your AD’s fault for scheduling a game against a tough out-of-conference opponent instead of a “cupcake” as much as it is the result of the tie.
Plus, the fact that you were playing by a different set of rules in regard to the tie than you have in your own state makes for a bad break. Maybe other games that year COULD have been a tie under a different set of rules, pushing you up into playoff position… where, when tied, sometimes schools decide things the old fashioned way.
With a coin flip.
Also, with a 10 game schedule, does this mean you were 5-3 in league, and 1-0-1 out of league?
Seems like a record that barely deserves to get into the playoffs. And it also seems odd that your non-league record was even taken into account come playoffs. Most leagues I’ve seen only take into account the league record and non-league has absolutely no bearing on playoff positioning.
Again, another bad break for your team.
High school sports are filled with inequities.
My high school (Onalaska -60 miles south of Olympia) was undefeated and deep in the state playoffs my frosh year. We played Kings (a Seattle school favored by a couple TD’s mainly because nobody in the AP state ranking voting had ever heard of Onalaska) on a “neutral field”… in Everett. Yep, that’s nice and neutral, isn’t it? They ride a half an hour north…. we ride 4 hours north! Totally neutral. Officials were from the Seattle league of course as well, and I remember some questionable calls. Although, it’s high school sports, there’s always questionable calls. Our star RB fumbled 3 times in the redzone, once inside the 5. They were his 2-4th fumbles of the year. We lost a close game late.
And as far as playoff inequalities, and getting to the playoffs, twice I’ve been in leagues (once as a player, once as a coach) where our district playoffs WERE a league playoff. As a baseball player I saw Rochester, Elma, and Montesano ranked 1,2,3 in the State Rankings. Only 2 teams made it past districts. So one of the 3 top baseball teams in the state was guaranteed not to make it out of districts to state. Tough bracket, eh?
Same thing in “B” basketball, when coaching at Thorp while at CWU. We made the league/district playoffs for the first time since the early 80’s, even won 2 games, eliminating Waterville. For Thorp, just getting to districts was HUGE. Winning 2 games there and eliminating a great team was like winning state for these guys. Waterville was rated 4th in state, and the next year won the state championship. Manson was rated 3rd in state, and Pateros, which had won the state championship the year before (and won the football championship both years) was ranked 2nd. Tough ass league.
Hell, when I coached in Cali we got screwed routinely by the playoff arrangements. Playoffs there are always home games for one team, semi-randomly alternating through the rounds. We were waaay north of LA, so we got little press consideration and the press actually decides the playoffs because essentially, the random press rankings are what are taken into account when creating the playoff brackets. Nutty, huh?
Our baseball team played a 2:00 CIF Southern Section playoff game in Palm Desert, which is the far Southeast part of the CIF southern section. We were in Lompoc, which is north of Santa Barbara on the coast, the far Northwest corner of the CIF Southern Section. We had to get in the bus at 5:30 AM. It was 53 degrees when we got onto the bus. When we got out in Palm Desert it was 108.
It would be like a team from Bellingham playing a playoff game in the tri-cities, on the hottest eastern Wa day of the year, only way moreso given the temperature difference.
Yep, few things are fair in high school sports. But damn, do they make for great memories.
I don’t even remember where I was going with that, other than ties are just another aspect of the game that both teams could be forced to deal with, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing overall. It’s certainly more fair than the current system of OT…
Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Sep 16, 2009 5:30 AM PDT up reply actions
wow.
when I wake up and write, I don’t have any editing capability. sorry about that length…
Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Sep 16, 2009 5:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Additionally
This argument discounts the frequency of ties. I think most teams would have 1-2 ties or more in the season. A tie made a huge difference in the Philly season, but with everyone getting them it would have less of an impact. I think you’d get a better idea of the quality of the team vs others. BUT BORING!
"A tie is basically the same thing as a loss"
The Philadelphia Eagles say, “hi.”
by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Sep 15, 2009 6:37 PM PDT reply actions
College overtime is an abomination
It’s not football and should be stricken from the game. There’s nothing exciting about teams scoring quick points without driving the field.
College football overtime is amazing
College football is great because it’s bad and their overtime extracts all of the campy wonderfullness. Kickers are terrible, that chipshot in the pro’s could end in any number of awful ways (PSU and FSU ‘06 Orange Bowl). Defenses are prone to lapses and touchdowns appear out of no where (AP in the famed Fiesta Bowl). Quarterbacks are scattershot and have problems holding on to the ball which leads to the game ending at any god damn second (’02 Apple Cup).
Because it’s so ridiculously slanted towards scoring points every college overtime is exciting no matter the teams involved. It’d be an abomination in the NFL but it’s perfectly zany for college.
I concur with John on the above
College overtime is an abomination.
Two teams are evenly matched through 4 quarters of one set of rules… then, because of a whistle and arbitrary time limit…
Throw out the game you just watched, and now its time for the Saturday morning cartoon edition of football: Its wild and wacky and, hey kids, don’t put that sugar away yet, we’re gonna score 15 TD’s in 5 minutes!
Why not just play one more quarter of non-sudden death OT and award the tie at the end?
If one team has a tired enough defense that they allow the other to dominate an entire quarter than the best, (at least the best conditioned,) team won.
If after one additional quarter there is still a tie game, can we not agree that after 5 quarters of NFL football, these two teams have proven the other’s match, and no team deserves a loss?
It's the equivalent of NHL or Soccer
shootouts. Sure they’re very exciting, but it basically throws out 90% of the game and focuses on just one part. If someone wanted to do punts and whoever returned it for the most yards, or returned it for a TD first won, I think people would be very upset, and yet it’s a similar process.
I agree, glad to see others do too.
Don’t like college OT, and I don’t like hearing how exciting or “fair” it is.
IMO, it gives too big an advantage to strong Offensive teams, it puts the D in a huge hole, and eliminates Special Teams (coverage, returns, punting, field position) entirely.
"I'm tired of chasing after my dreams. I'll just find out where they're going, and catch up later." - Hedberg
I like College OT
But it really only works for college, as Nate Dogg says above. I’m really not sure how I would go about fixing OT in the NFL but I am certain that I despise how it is now.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
I voted for ties.
I think they’re fine for the NFL regular season.
There’d probably only be 2-3 of them per year anyway. Because each win matters so much in the standings, IMO you’d see a lot of teams play for the win near the end of regulation.
For playoffs and the Super Bowl, I’d do away with sudden-death OT. Have a new coin-flip, and a 15 minute break to let players catch their breath, and then play 15-min quarters until there’s a winner.
"I'm tired of chasing after my dreams. I'll just find out where they're going, and catch up later." - Hedberg
by jteckmann on Sep 16, 2009 11:25 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Conan sends maniacal, Madonna-loving reporter to Super Bowl XLVI
- Rodney Harrison calls Rob Gronkowski out for dancing after the Super Bowl
- J.T. Thomas is pretty much the best person ever
- Jets congratulate Giants with full-page ad
- Justin Tuck gave out 80 bottles of Johnnie Walker Blue to celebrate Super Bowl
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
