Is it rare that there are no tie games this far in the season?
Since overtime was introduced in 1974, there have been 29 tied games.
Since they shortened the regular-season overtime period to 10 minutes, and changed the rules so that a field goal on the opening drive of overtime doesn’t win the game then and there, ties are a little more frequent.
It used to be that the typical number of ties in a season was zero to one (and the list of OT games to which @Munch linked shows that there were no tie games in seven straight seasons (1990-96); now, it’s more typically two or three.
Amazing there were only two ties in the 90s, and those in consecutive weeks.
Watching the Rose Bowl I really like the college OT rules. Maybe move it back to the 35 for the pros but I wouldn’t mind if the NFL adopted the NCAA paradigm.
I hate the college OT rules. Maybe after a first “normal” OT period but it’s too much like penalty kicks or a shootout for me.
Penalty kicks/shootouts suck because they are totally different from regular gameplay. That’s not the case with NCAA OT rules, where it’s still the regular offense and defense on the field, running the same plays as in regulation time.
Yes, there are slightly different strategies (playing for field position isn’t a factor), but those differences are pretty minor. I think it’s a great way to have near-normal play in a compressed timeframe, and it’s not at all comparable to penalty kicks.
I like how the NFL does OT. Just my opinion.
Yes. Since they fixed the “first score wins, so the coin toss usually wins the game” problem, I have no complaints anymore.
I’m not opposed in theory, but 7 ties in 101 OT games since the rules were changed is 7 ties too many. The change to eliminate the boring “single drive for 40 yards then kick a FG” has good intentions, but coupled with the shortened time, it’s more likely to end in a tie now.
The NCAA rule addresses both these problems, and I think in a more fair and more exciting way. The end of the Michigan/Alabama game last night was a good example. No long drive, no punts - every play was exciting.
It’s not nearly as bad as shootouts or penalty kicks, but it’s still artificial and feels very different from regular gameplay. It’s the sequential nature of it (Team A gets a turn, then Team B gets a turn). I much prefer sudden death after each team gets a chance.
Can you explain? With the risk of injury in the NFL so high, having players on the field until they are exhausted makes little sense. Ties aren’t great, but they’re not bad either. I love when a team’s tie figures into the playoff picture.
I can see wanting ties to be rare, and in some cases, like a championship, it’s important that it absolutely not be a tie, but at the same time, at some point, you have to just shrug and say “Well, I guess these teams are evenly matched”. The game has to end somehow, eventually.
I think speeding up overtime is good for the injury risk reason you mention as well as ending games at a reasonable time. So I get the change from 15 to 10 minute overtimes and agree with the goal; just not the execution.
My overall dislike for ties is the same as most people’s - they are unsatisfying. If there’s an easy way to reduce the likelihood of a tie while still being fair to both teams and without making OT longer, I’m for it.
First score still wins if a touchdown.
You could put in a rule. It’s to your advantage to go second so it could be that if the first team scores a TD+PAT then the second team on that round must go for 2, win it or lose it.
I doubt you would have said that had it gone to three OTs, and the game was decided by each team attempting a 2-point conversion, and one made it while the other missed.
Football is like soccer; nobody likes ties, but nobody can come up with a tiebreaker that “just isn’t the sport,” with the possible exception of what soccer used to do (and, on occasion, like in England’s FA Cup early rounds, still does); play the entire game over again.
Seriously, up through 1986, the World Cup Final tiebreaker procedure was this: (1) 30 (or 40) minutes of extra time; (2) play the entire match over again, two days later; (3) another 30/40 minutes of extra time; (4) if still tied after all that, declare the teams co-champions.
You want another crazy idea to add to the list of football overtime procedures? Here’s one:
Toss a coin - the winner gets the choice of (a) which team is on offense, or (b) where the ball is spotted; the other team gets the remaining choice.
Run one play - if the offense scores, whether by touchdown, field goal, or safety, it wins; if not, the defense wins.
If your first thought was, “I’ll be on offense, throw a Hail Mary, and hope the officials weren’t told, ‘Make sure you don’t throw flags for pass interference in overtime unless it obviously prevented a touchdown catch’,” then either (a) include a rule where, in OT, defensive pass interference is a 15-yard penalty, or (b) limit the overtime plays to free kick field goals - make it and win; miss it and lose." Note that (b) will get owners thinking about getting kickers that are better at long range.
I absolutely would enjoy a game like that much more than a long boring drive. Again, it’s not like penalty kicks. TDs and 2 point conversions are normal gameplay.
Sure, sometimes a game comes down to one play. That’s more exciting and feels more fair than just starting with a one play, do or die scenario.
You might enjoy a regular-season game that goes to 3 OTs (and a lot of fans probably would, too), but the players and coaches would abhor it, due to the exhaustion from such a long game, and the increased risk of injury.
I’m talking about the college rules OTs, where a 3 OT game is rare and still shorter than a full 10 minute NFL OT.
Ahh, apologies, I missed that part of your earlier post.
Just to be sure we’re on the same page; in the third OT, it’s not “each team starts with first and 10 from the 25, but if they score a TD, they have to go for two”; that’s in the second OT now. In the third OT, each team gets one play, period (well, unless there’s a defensive penalty) - a 2-point conversion attempt.