No More Ties

[SonnyCID]

Russel Wilson has the answer. He didnt like the game ending in a tie!

Sounds kind of dumb to me though,


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/r...dea-for-breaking-ties-after-ot-204515639.html

Daddy-to-be Russell Wilson wasn’t thrilled to walk off the field after Sunday’s strange 6-6 tie with the Arizona Cardinals. The quarterback thought he and his Seattle Seahawks teammates had played too long for the game to end with no real outcome.

So after the game, Wilson offered his own solution for games that remain tied after the 15-minute sudden death overtime. And it involves one field goal attempt with the entire game on the line.

“Let’s say we’re the away team. We win the coin toss, we get the ball on the 35-yard line going in. You kick one field goal,” Wilson told reporters in Arizona. “You can’t do anything else but a field goal. You make the field goal, the game’s over. If you miss the field goal, the game’s over and the other team wins.”

Seems like kind of an arbitrary way to decide 3+ hours of football, no?

“I just think that if you play that long, you’re putting your lives on the line,” Wilson said. “You should find a way to win. I don’t like ending in a tie.”

I’ll give Wilson this: I don’t like NFL games ending in a tie either.

Now, there haven’t been many since sudden death overtime was instituted in 1974.

Only 21, in fact.

But each of those games mucked up standings and playoff pictures that are usually so easy to decode. And 21 times there were people who invested a lot of their time and money into a product, only to get a result befitting the “other” football (soccer) or an old-school NHL game.

The NFL onfield product is anything but wishy-washy, so why let games end in that way?

Personally, I like two ideas for overtime:

1. Go 7-on-7 after one period of regular overtime. Yeah, players might be too tired at that point to go with this more exciting staple of summer high school leagues. But that’s what they get for not deciding things in 75 minutes of regular play. And considering the NHL’s success with 3-on-3 overtime, it might produce a lot of the same excitement.

2. Adopt college football overtime rules, but start each team on the five-yard-line and eliminate passing and kicking. This basically turns the game into a battle of goal line stands and what’s better in football than a goal line stand? Let’s see which team wants the ‘W’ more.

Of course, if you don’t like either of those suggestions, we could go with something more arbitrary like Wilson’s FG idea or have the mascots fight or have the coaches foot race. (Come to think of it, a foot race between Pete Carroll and Bruce Arians would have been fun.)

Or we could just give a loss to both teams.

With ties, there’s no such thing as a winner.

Both of your ideas are ridiculously stupid.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

They did? Obviously, it ended in a tie, but both teams were more aggressive offensively late in that game than they were earlier. I don't think anyone was satisfied with the outcome. They played to win, just couldn't make a kick when they needed it.

Years ago, I think it was Jim Mora Jr when he was in ATL had a late season game that was close to ending in a tie, and the coach called up to the box to ask what the standings were and how much a tie would affect playoff standings. That was playing to tie.

And that type of mindset is one of the reasons why Mora is no longer in the NFL.

 

[LambeauLegs]

I hope that you are completely joking. Otherwise - this is almost a recipe for getting more players injured. As for Russell Wilson - if he doesn't like ties than perhaps he should have figured out a way for his freaking team to score more than 6 pts!

I just quoted the article and what the writer of the article said. I have no problem with how the overtime rule is now and dont care if there is a tie.

 

[LambeauLegs]

Both of your ideas are ridiculously stupid.

You obviously did not click the link included in the post as it shows an article written by Kevin Kaduk of Yahoo news where he was sharing the thoughts expressed by your teams QB where he thinks the winner should be determined by a coin toss and the ability of the kicker of the team that wins the coin toss. That is quite stupid.

Then the writer of the article Kevin Kaduk expresses his thoughts on ways to end a game trying to find a winner.

See I was not the one that got that info from Russel Wilson.

Maybe go up and click the link and check it out

 

[ill]

what about bolo ties? Do those count?

 

[Ewa PGH Fan]

what about bolo ties? Do those count?

Only in Texas.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

I just quoted the article and what the writer of the article said. I have no problem with how the overtime rule is now and dont care if there is a tie.

Sorry - I could not tell that those thoughts came from the writer and not you. My bad - the writer is wrong.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Huh? So you want to settle the outcome based on a gimmick? It is one thing to have a shootout in the NHL where they play 80 or so games. Quite another to settle a game in this fashion where there are only 16 games in a season. Also no reason to have them play sudden death in multiple quarters when the chance of injury is much greater. No pt in having someone lost for the season simply because some fans don't like ties.

You said it - this happens very rarely and besides why not have a tie every now and then. The fact that the game ended in a tie the other nt was not the problem. The fact that the game was boring and featured some terrible kicking was the bigger issue.

Good points...ties still suck though...the biggest issue I have with it is determining seeding, tie breakers, etc.

I understand this is a bit radical, but let's say...SEA finishes 10-5-1 and MIN finishes 10-6...SEA gets the higher seed because of this tie...imo the tie should count the same as a loss and you go to the next tie breaker to determine seeding or who goes to the playoffs.

Clearly you shouldn't be rewarded for losing a game, but imo, you shouldn't be rewarded when you don't win the game either.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Ties are fine with me. They happen so few times and it does get fun when playoff seeding comes into play. In my opinion neither team really deserved to win or lose that game. Both defenses played lights out deserving the win but the offenses were down right terrible and well the kicking I think we all know what that looked like. It just felt like a game that should end in a tie.

I posted this already before I saw your post, but imo ties suck in the NFL....I'll cut and paste my reason why...

SEA finishes 10-5-1 and MIN finishes 10-6...SEA gets the higher seed because of this tie...imo the tie should count the same as a loss and you go to the next tie breaker to determine seeding or who goes to the playoffs.

Clearly you shouldn't be rewarded for losing a game, but imo, you shouldn't be rewarded when you don't win the game either.

 

[SonnyCID]

Good points...ties still suck though...the biggest issue I have with it is determining seeding, tie breakers, etc.

I understand this is a bit radical, but let's say...SEA finishes 10-5-1 and MIN finishes 10-6...SEA gets the higher seed because of this tie...imo the tie should count the same as a loss and you go to the next tie breaker to determine seeding or who goes to the playoffs.

Clearly you shouldn't be rewarded for losing a game, but imo, you shouldn't be rewarded when you don't win the game either.

Is it really rewarding to split it? 5 losses and a tie should be considered better than 6 losses. Just like 11 wins should be better than 10 wins and a tie.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Is it really rewarding to split it? 5 losses and a tie should be considered better than 6 losses. Just like 11 wins should be better than 10 wins and a tie.

It can become rewarding when it comes to playoff or seeding.

 

[SonnyCID]

It can become rewarding when it comes to playoff or seeding.

No more than it should be. Like I said, getting a tie and 5 losses shouldn't put you at the same exact level of a team with 6 losses. It's not like the teams purposely tried to tie.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Is it really rewarding to split it? 5 losses and a tie should be considered better than 6 losses. Just like 11 wins should be better than 10 wins and a tie.

No more than it should be. Like I said, getting a tie and 5 losses shouldn't put you at the same exact level of a team with 6 losses. It's not like the teams purposely tried to tie.

LOL...I get that no one is trying to tie.

More so than what I'm suggesting here, because I know a tie is consider better than a loss and it should be, but I don't think you should rewarded for a tie. I'd rather see the NFL determine a winner in every game.

 

[SonnyCID]

LOL...I get that no one is trying to tie.

More so than what I'm suggesting here, because I know a tie is consider better than a loss and it should be, but I don't think you should rewarded for a tie. I'd rather see the NFL determine a winner in every game.

I just don't think that splitting it is a reward. Considering a 6 loss team equal to a 5 loss/1 tie would be rewarding that 6 loss team for a loss. I'd rather the NFL just determine a winner top, but if they're not I'm fine with just splitting the results between the participating teams.

 

[Broncos6482]

Good points...ties still suck though...the biggest issue I have with it is determining seeding, tie breakers, etc.

I understand this is a bit radical, but let's say...SEA finishes 10-5-1 and MIN finishes 10-6...SEA gets the higher seed because of this tie...imo the tie should count the same as a loss and you go to the next tie breaker to determine seeding or who goes to the playoffs.

Clearly you shouldn't be rewarded for losing a game, but imo, you shouldn't be rewarded when you don't win the game either.

Because a tie is still better than a loss. If two teams have the same number of wins, then you go losses. If one team has fewer losses than the other, that's good.

In your scenario, why should a 6 loss Vikings team be considered better than a 5 loss Seattle team? They shouldn't. They lost one more game. In this scenario a tie is a reward in that it's considered better than a loss. But that can cut both ways. Say the Vikings finish 11-5 and the Seahawks finish 10-5-1. Even though both teams have 5 losses, the tie hurts Seattle because they finish with one fewer win. So it's no longer a reward.

Really when it comes to playoff seedings, ties actually help clear things up. Now instead of 3 teams finishing 11-5 and having to go to the 6th tiebreaker to determine seeding, you've got only 2 teams at 11-5 who played a head to head, and they're both over the 10-5-1 team.

 

[MHSL82]

I would be good with one quarter played at most and then kick to win. Make it a low percentage kick but not entirely improbable.

 

[Dude]

And I don't like the idea of a kickoff. That's like letting Tiger and Mickelson go at it in the masters and then their caddies have a "putt-off" to see who really wins.

How about if each team gets 4 downs to score a TD from the 20-yard line (RZ); if no one scores, they keep going until some one does. Would be great for FF

 

[Godstree]

They did? Obviously, it ended in a tie, but both teams were more aggressive offensively late in that game than they were earlier. I don't think anyone was satisfied with the outcome. They played to win, just couldn't make a kick when they needed it.

Years ago, I think it was Jim Mora Jr when he was in ATL had a late season game that was close to ending in a tie, and the coach called up to the box to ask what the standings were and how much a tie would affect playoff standings. That was playing to tie.

There were action and playcalling before the end of the game that could have been done to "not play for the tie". Both teams played it conservatively during the entire game. Only one time during the game did a team go for it on 4th. The cards didn't get it, but if you consistently play it safe then don't bitch about it ending in a tie. The seahawks never even tried to get an extra set of down by going for it on 4th. That is what I mean by playing for a tie.

 

[tducey]

Meh, ties don't bother me, they only happen every once in a while. Wilson's idea is also terrible IMO.

 

[SonnyCID]

There were action and playcalling before the end of the game that could have been done to "not play for the tie". Both teams played it conservatively during the entire game. Only one time during the game did a team go for it on 4th. The cards didn't get it, but if you consistently play it safe then don't bitch about it ending in a tie. The seahawks never even tried to get an extra set of down by going for it on 4th. That is what I mean by playing for a tie.

The conservative play calling had more to do with banged up QBs against aggressive defenses than anything else. But once the game was on the line, both teams got more aggressive with play calling, but even then they played it close to the best as the field and passing Windows got smaller. IMO, if either team was very aggressive offensively they'd have been playing to lose by challenging either of those defenses and risking turnovers. A single turnover would have likely lost one side the game.