No More Ties

[cdumler7]

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.

I guess I just view it as another level of the tie breaking scenarios and that this one makes it the easiest of the bunch. Also to me I don't view it as something that a team is rewarded with. Usually a tie is just as bad as a loss when it comes to final seeding. Rarely do we see a team end up over another by 1/2 a game. So yeah again at least for me I have no problem with it. Keeps players safer than playing another quarter. Doesn't do the stupid gimmick stuff like a kick off. I just don't think there is going to be a perfect solution that everybody likes. For me though I probably like the NFL's overtime rules the best of any of the major sports. I mean as exciting as those 18 inning games are in baseball I can't remember once staying up to watch the entire thing. Usually after a couple of innings I am in bed and figure I can check the score in the morning.

 

[Eugene Baker III]

NFL needs to change this. I know it only happens every once in awhile but all major sports dont have ties anymore. Recently R. Wilson said after the the Final time in OT there should be 1 Final kick. Who ever wins the coin flip decides if they want to kick for the win from the 35 yard line. That would make it a 52 yard kick.

I am going to take it 1 step further it should be a kick off between the FG kickers just like NHL and Soccer have a shoot out. This way having a good kicker is important.

or

Just play until someone wins. No reason to have a tie in todays sport.

Works for Luke...

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Hockey and soccer do it. Again I was just adding to Wilson Idea. I rather be fair and let both teams battle it out then a coin flip and 1 team kicker kicking it.

Overall i would want them to just keep going like they do in the NBA and MLB.

The issue with hockey and soccer is your stars are deciding it. Your 5 best scorers against their best goalie and vice versa. Here your 5 best guys are on the bench. It would be like soccer letting the goalies see who can punt the ball the furthest to decide who wins.



IF that idea was going to go, I say screw the coin flip. Both coaches write what distance they want their FG kicker to take the shot from. Longest distance turned into the ref gets to kick it.

I've always liked that idea for OT... Both teams put in what LOS they would like to start with the ball, the team choosing the one closest to their goal line gets the ball there to start overtime. IE. Rex Ryan loves his defense and chooses the 35 because he has doubts about his offense. Bill Belichick says screw it, give us the ball at the 20. Belichick's team starts OT at his 20.

 

[purguy12]

The issue with hockey and soccer is your stars are deciding it. Your 5 best scorers against their best goalie and vice versa. Here your 5 best guys are on the bench. It would be like soccer letting the goalies see who can punt the ball the furthest to decide who wins.



IF that idea was going to go, I say screw the coin flip. Both coaches write what distance they want their FG kicker to take the shot from. Longest distance turned into the ref gets to kick it.

I've always liked that idea for OT... Both teams put in what LOS they would like to start with the ball, the team choosing the one closest to their goal line gets the ball there to start overtime. IE. Rex Ryan loves his defense and chooses the 35 because he has doubts about his offense. Bill Belichick says screw it, give us the ball at the 20. Belichick's team starts OT at his 20.

I been thinking about it and I like the college OT.

 

[Manster7588]

I been thinking about it and I like the college OT.

I hate that idea.

 

[purguy12]

I hate that idea.

why u get a true winner with not much of a gimmick. Straight forward O vs D who can stop who.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

I guess I just view it as another level of the tie breaking scenarios and that this one makes it the easiest of the bunch. Also to me I don't view it as something that a team is rewarded with. Usually a tie is just as bad as a loss when it comes to final seeding. Rarely do we see a team end up over another by 1/2 a game.

Just looking at ties as I am curious, looking at ones that affected post-seasons.

Last tie, Car in 2014. Won the division 7-8-1 over a 7-9 Saints team. Half game won it. For the bengals the tie put them a half game behind Pittsburgh so they were a wild card instead of tied record wise as a division winner, but Pitt was 2-0 against them that year so even same record would have lost.

Previous tie. GB in 2013. Won a division 8-7-1 over the 8-8 Bears that they split with.

Previous tie. 2012 11-4-1 49ers won the division over 11-5 Seattle who they split with.

Previous tie. 2008 9-6-1 Eagles made post-season as a wildcard over a bunch of 9-7 teams including the 9-7 bears who beat the eagles head to head.

Previous tie, 2002 9-6-1 Falcons make the playoffs over the 9-7 Saints.

Previous tie, 1997 Redskins at 8-7-1 lose out to the Vikings and Lions on a wildcard. The first instance of the half game hurting a playoff pushing team, 20 years ago.

89 Browns win the division by a half game
87 Bronco's go to the SB on a half game lead that gave them home field advantage through the playoffs
86 49ers win the division by a half game.



Going back 30 years in ties that mattered as tiebreakers for playoff teams, It looks like nearly all of them rewarded the teams that were potentially playoff teams rather than hurt them.

1982 was interesting. Baltimore and GB tied in a strike year. GB won the division by half a game, Balt went 0-8-1, avoiding a complete losing record.


And just looking back at the 19 tie games since 1978, GB was in 5 of them....

 

[Rockinkuwait]

I been thinking about it and I like the college OT.

It's not the worst thing in the world I guess, but really does inflate points. I'm not really for it myself.

There's been 292 overtime games in the past 20 years, 8 of them ended in ties.

Past 20 years the chance of a game ending in a tie is 0.16%. The chance a team will play an OT game in a given year is 50/50.

I don't think you need to mess with the 286 games that came out well in OT in order to get an answer for the 8 or so that didn't.

 

[purguy12]

It's not the worst thing in the world I guess, but really does inflate points. I'm not really for it myself.

There's been 292 overtime games in the past 20 years, 8 of them ended in ties.

Past 20 years the chance of a game ending in a tie is 0.16%. The chance a team will play an OT game in a given year is 50/50.

I don't think you need to mess with the 286 games that came out well in OT in order to get an answer for the 8 or so that didn't.

good point.

 

[Manster7588]

why u get a true winner with not much of a gimmick. Straight forward O vs D who can stop who.

College OT's can go on forever increasing chance of injury. Besides if the two kickers made their chip shot FG's we'd of had a winner.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Just looking at ties as I am curious, looking at ones that affected post-seasons.

Last tie, Car in 2014. Won the division 7-8-1 over a 7-9 Saints team. Half game won it. For the bengals the tie put them a half game behind Pittsburgh so they were a wild card instead of tied record wise as a division winner, but Pitt was 2-0 against them that year so even same record would have lost.

Previous tie. GB in 2013. Won a division 8-7-1 over the 8-8 Bears that they split with.

Previous tie. 2012 11-4-1 49ers won the division over 11-5 Seattle who they split with.

Previous tie. 2008 9-6-1 Eagles made post-season as a wildcard over a bunch of 9-7 teams including the 9-7 bears who beat the eagles head to head.

Previous tie, 2002 9-6-1 Falcons make the playoffs over the 9-7 Saints.

Previous tie, 1997 Redskins at 8-7-1 lose out to the Vikings and Lions on a wildcard. The first instance of the half game hurting a playoff pushing team, 20 years ago.

89 Browns win the division by a half game
87 Bronco's go to the SB on a half game lead that gave them home field advantage through the playoffs
86 49ers win the division by a half game.



Going back 30 years in ties that mattered as tiebreakers for playoff teams, It looks like nearly all of them rewarded the teams that were potentially playoff teams rather than hurt them.

1982 was interesting. Baltimore and GB tied in a strike year. GB won the division by half a game, Balt went 0-8-1, avoiding a complete losing record.


And just looking back at the 19 tie games since 1978, GB was in 5 of them....

On the other hand, I've heard it said somewhere that statistics are for losers.... Not that that makes you one for presenting them.

I simply see nothing wrong with a tie. Letting them play to a decision is no solution. And to do some artificial settling of a game surely affects the integrity of the game. Like I say they don't have a putting contest to decide the Masters.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

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.

In my scenario MIN is not considered better, but not worse...imo only wins should be rewarded.

Figure out a way to end the game win a winner.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I guess I just view it as another level of the tie breaking scenarios and that this one makes it the easiest of the bunch. Also to me I don't view it as something that a team is rewarded with. Usually a tie is just as bad as a loss when it comes to final seeding. Rarely do we see a team end up over another by 1/2 a game. So yeah again at least for me I have no problem with it. Keeps players safer than playing another quarter. Doesn't do the stupid gimmick stuff like a kick off. I just don't think there is going to be a perfect solution that everybody likes. For me though I probably like the NFL's overtime rules the best of any of the major sports. I mean as exciting as those 18 inning games are in baseball I can't remember once staying up to watch the entire thing. Usually after a couple of innings I am in bed and figure I can check the score in the morning.

It's not a huge deal because games rarely end in a tie, but I still think they suck.

 

[Broncos6482]

In my scenario MIN is not considered better, but not worse...imo only wins should be rewarded.

Figure out a way to end the game win a winner.

Meh. They get an extra 15 minutes to break the tie. If they can't accomplish that, I'm perfectly fine with a tie. Maybe neither team deserves to win at that point.

Really, if either kicker makes their chip shot field goal on Sunday we aren't even talking about this.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

On the other hand, I've heard it said somewhere that statistics are for losers.... Not that that makes you one for presenting them.

I simply see nothing wrong with a tie. Letting them play to a decision is no solution. And to do some artificial settling of a game surely affects the integrity of the game. Like I say they don't have a putting contest to decide the Masters.

Not really presenting stats, just presenting that most of the teams that have tied that were in the playoff hunt recently had the half game edge to gain either a playoff spot or improve their playoff standing.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

leave it as it is with ties. If a teams beats a team by a half a game they were a half game better than the other team. It is simple. If they lose to a team by a half game for playoff seeding then they were worse by a half game. Still simple.
Honestly the once every now & then a tie happens makes it kinda interesting.

Does it suck if your team ties. Absolutely. But doesn't mean ties don't belong in the NFL.

Could you imagine dealing with 8, 10 or 12 ties in a long ass season like Baseball, Basketball, or Hockey? No, which is why they don't have ties. Football has never had a team with more than one tie in a very short season. So that ties actually matters.
So comparing the sports is Apples & Oranges, but I did have a good laugh when someone said that Football needs to catch up to these other sports.

 

[tabascojet]

dont want to tie then go for it in regulation........ties > college ot

 

[NEhomer]

Teams trade hail marys from mid field with no pass rush until someone comes up with the ball in the endzone.

 

[bksballer89]

 

[megalodon30]

One more tie. I blame parity.