This list is a bit misleading. Any racing event which includes a “dead heat” or judge scoring is a fundamentally different thing than a tie in a timed and scored team competition. Ties in Rugby are exceedingly uncommon, which I specifically qualified my statement to exclude, as are ties in Cricket (only happened twice ever in Test). In cricket a draw is decidedly not a tie…it’s an incomplete. In chess a slatemate is not exactly a tie since there’s no concept of points, it’s more or less “unresolved” which is what a draw tends to imply.
I know it’s in vogue to shit on America pretty much constantly these days, but this is a lame and inaccurate example.
Not really NFL related but the original concept of the writers of the Constitution was that there would usually be no winner of the electoral college, and Congress would get to decide.
The writers of the Constitution wanted there to be ties (or at least no clear winner) as a general rule and have the (presumably) learned and sagacious members of Congress decide. But that plan went awry almost from the beginning and the last time the House decided the election was nearly two centuries ago in February of 1825.
Right- the NCAA overtime rules seem to work pretty well.
Basically the teams alternate starting at the 25 yard line, then if that doesn’t produce a winner, they start at the 25, but if there’s a touchdown they have to go for the two point conversion, and if that doesn’t do the trick, they go to alternating two-point conversions instead of alternating possessions, until one team comes out ahead.
Realistically, it means that it’s unlikely that a game will go past about 3 overtimes, and not end up with a seven overtime beat-down like Texas A&M-LSU in 2018.
That’s not the rule. The rule is NET POINTS. Point differential is far more instructive than a raw count of points. A offensive juggernaut with a dismal defense would have a huge advantage were that not the case.
Yeah, this is a case of wanting to have a cake and eat it too.
If the desire is for ‘moar football, arrgh’ then play an extra period and just end it there. Or 2 extra periods or whatever. And then accept the result at the end, tie or not.
If the desire is to end the game conclusively, there are alternatives.
Instead, there’s a desire for “real” football that also has a conclusive winner but no recognition that these may be contradictory desires some small percentage of the time. Sometimes there’s not going to be a clear winner. Either we accept that or accept the need to compromise on how a winner is decided - whether that ends up being alternating 2-point attempts or alternating short drives or whatever.
I’ve seen some of those 6-7OT college games and some nasty NFL OT games that ended in ties. That’s not real football at that point. The players are exhausted and they play sloppy. I’m satisfied there’s not going to be a way to get football of any reasonable quality out of them anymore and the game should end one way or another.
One point that I find interesting about the NFL and overtimes – there have been several occasions that I can think of in which an NFL game went to overtime, and ended up in a tie, and one or more of the players said something along the lines of, “I didn’t know that a game could end up as a tie.”
I should have been more careful in my wording, but I’ll stand by my point, which concerns, in large part, the scores of previous games. And I really don’t have a serious disagreement with the little checklist the NFL has drawn up. I don’t think I could come up with a better system, given that I’m not expecting them to institute tie-breaking games.
But I don’t see the tie-breakers they use as anywhere close to being inarguable in the way a game would be.
So if the league considers it acceptable to break ties for playoff spots (where a great deal is invariably at stake) by means other than actually playing, why not consider it acceptable to decide games when the score doesn’t decide it?
The famous term is “any given Sunday” for a reason. The consensus is that the results over a season outweigh the results of a game. By that measure, the NFL’s tie break rules do a far better job of placing deserving teams in the tournament than say baseball with it’s idiotic one-game playoff solution. This rationale is why the other sports have 7 game series, which is of course impractical for the NFL.
Wins and points aren’t simply stats that are father up the spectrum of reliably than yards or turnovers. They are of a completely different category.
No one is ruling out using other methods. Simply that yards, turnovers, plays or whatever in-game stat you choose are not just woefully inadequate but are measuring a thing that has no direct connection at all on the outcome. And it certainly wouldn’t approximate granting the win to the “better” team.
That might be construed as an argument for doing away with playoffs altogether and just declaring a champion on the basis of regular-season final standings. Once upon a time, they did it that way.
I’m not going to attempt to count the number of sports that do or do not use overtime to break a tie. But in the good ol’ US of A, I will wager that the majority of popular team sports do use overtime to break a tie.
I’m not so sure about that. If this was the case, why would teams that are down 7 at the end of the 4th quarter who score a TD kick an extra point instead of going for two all the time?
I think they have to as part of the nature of the sport. When the games that aren’t tied are typically finishing 1-0 or 2-1, there’s going to be a lot of tied games. It comes with the low scoring nature of the game.
Fair point. But I was alluding to the fact that EVERY team will try to score a TD to win the game before settling for a tying field goal.
It would be an interesting study to look at the number of times a team had a chance to go for two (and the win) rather than kick the XP. Jim Harbaugh tried it at least twice this past season and failed both times.
Here’s a wacky idea: Coin flip winner chooses either to get the ball or to get 3 points. That first drive must score a TD to win or a FG to keep playing. If they don’t score on that first drive, they lose by 3. Sudden death rules apply after the opening drive gets a FG.
A more conservative idea: Do both coin flips at the start of the game. That way you know exactly where you stand heading into overtime.
There’s a lot to like about this idea. It involves the entire team playing normal football, it resolves quickly, and both offenses get a fair shot.
The only flaw is the fairly significant advantage you’d get going second. Could you foresee anyone ever voluntarily choosing to go first, under any circumstances?
I agree. Let’s say you go second and stop the other team, who punts to you. Now, unless you’re desperate for a win to save your season, maybe you just take a knee and settle for a tie, rather than risk a turnover.
And, if there is a turnover, does the game immediately end, since both teams have had a possession? Seems like a weird way to do.
Is it any different than every team choosing to defer to the 2nd half?
And I can see a team going first getting a touchdown having the advantage that
Your defense can play to hold them to a field goal
If they score a touchdown they need to decide extra point or 2 point conversion
If that is not enough of an advantage, we could have a rule that if the first team gets 7 points, the second team, if they get a touchdown, has to go for the win i.e. 2 point conversion.