NFL tie-breaker??

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.