Why do we still have ties in the NFL?

[Breaker99]

A tie is better than playing 10 quarters and having both teams lose out the rest of the season because they have no healthy players left, which is still better than telling 49 of the 51 players they don't matter any more, the field goal kicker's got it.

Really? You think it would take 6 extra quarters for a team to score a point?

And in that six quarters you expect every player to suffer a season ending injury?

What was the words you used earlier? Mindnumbingly retarded?

yeah that works here.

 

[Bulldog]

A tie is better than playing 10 quarters and having both teams lose out the rest of the season because they have no healthy players left, which is still better than telling 49 of the 51 players they don't matter any more, the field goal kicker's got it.

Why are you now calling it a tie. Aren't you the one that wanted to give both teams a loss.

 

[whyoh]

A tie is better than playing 10 quarters and having both teams lose out the rest of the season because they have no healthy players left, which is still better than telling 49 of the 51 players they don't matter any more, the field goal kicker's got it.

there's 53 players on a roster :trollface:

 

[JDM]

Really? You think it would take 6 extra quarters for a team to score a point?

And in that six quarters you expect every player to suffer a season ending injury?

What was the words you used earlier? Mindnumbingly retarded?

yeah that works here.

It clearly won't happen often, but it is possible, and you said nothing is worse than a tie

More important to my point is the injuries/wear and tear. That is real and a team going to multiple over times will be at a significant disadvantage. The more fatigued players are in a game, the more likely they are to be injured. Even two overtimes is an extra half and puts the players at significant risk, and even if 0 injuries occur, will put the team at a serious disadvantage the following game.

 

[JDM]

there's 53 players on a roster :trollface:

I am aware. I was actually confusing the 51 players that count toward the salary cap with the 46- man active roster.

 

[Breaker99]

It clearly won't happen often, but it is possible, and you said nothing is worse than a tie

More important to my point is the injuries/wear and tear. That is real and a team going to multiple over times will be at a significant disadvantage. The more fatigued players are in a game, the more likely they are to be injured. Even two overtimes is an extra half and puts the players at significant risk, and even if 0 injuries occur, will put the team at a serious disadvantage the following game.

He glad you finally came to terms on how many players are on a roster in the NFL.

And yeah, to me there is nothing worse than a tie. Its unresolved and although for the sake of your record it might technically be better to tie than lose, in concept I personally don't think anything is worse than a tie. The Niners tied last year with the Rams and it really felt like a wasted day of watching football. As a fan, I would have preferred one team had lost, even if it was the niners. Thats my right to feel that way.


By the way, you seem so concerned about tired players, how about we reduce the game to two quarters so you feel comfortable no player is getting too tired and running the risk of injury... because its a possibility as you said, that every player on the team gets a season ending injury. Hell, its also a possibility that meteor strikes the stadium and kills every fan and player there... Lets just cancel football to be safe!

 

[packfancjh]

just shows you that without Rodgers you're as bad as the Vikings...who are 2-8

Not just without Rodgers. Without Rodgers, Cobb, Finley, Bulaga, Shields, Hayward, Perry, Jolly, Barclay and lost Bostick and Franklin during the game. Man this is depressing

 

[pumpkinhead33793]

Not just without Rodgers. Without Rodgers, Cobb, Finley, Bulaga, Shields, Hayward, Perry, Jolly, Barclay and lost Bostick and Franklin during the game. Man this is depressing

Packers and Bears have the most injuries by far.

 

[Mr. Tacoma]

Eliminate punts from OT.

Problem solved.

 

[MajorPackersFan]

Packers and Bears have the most injuries by far.

A Bears fan talking about injuries. That's cute.

Packers Injuries:
2013 Green Bay Packers Statistics & Players - Pro-Football-Reference.com

Bears Injuries:
2013 Chicago Bears Statistics & Players - Pro-Football-Reference.com

Feel free to check out the other teams. The Bears are middle of the road, bordering on top 10 for least injuries. Sure, Jay, Peanut and Lance are biggies, but the Bears are clearly not one of the most injured teams in the NFL.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

if you are gonna do silly shit like that. why not have the kickers kick from the 30 then the 35 then the 40 & so on until one of them miss.

I seriously don't know how this grew legs into a real debate. So I fixed my post to include how it wasn't a serious idea. Holy crap I cant believe that was being seriously discussed. (thought it was clear it was a joke)

 

[BusSport]

Suggested system:

* Game ends immediately on first touchdown by any team.

* If any team scores a field goal or safety instead, other team gets one more possession to try to tie or do better.

* Start each possession progressively closer to the end zone:
- 80 yards away for 1st possession by Team A
- 70 yards away for 1st possession by Team B
- 60 yards away for 2nd possession by Team A
- etc.

This guarantees no ties AND ensures that the game will end in a reasonable amount of time AND compensates for the advantage of whichever team gets the ball first (since the other team will be a little closer on their possession) AND gives some incentive to go for touchdowns rather than field goals.

 

[JDM]

Current OT blows that away. Overtime is 100% perfect.

 

[BusSport]

Current OT blows that away. Overtime is 100% perfect.

Current OT results in ties. That's not 100% perfect.

 

[pumpkinhead33793]

Suggested system:

* Game ends immediately on first touchdown by any team.

* If any team scores a field goal or safety instead, other team gets one more possession to try to tie or do better.

* Start each possession progressively closer to the end zone:
- 80 yards away for 1st possession by Team A
- 70 yards away for 1st possession by Team B
- 60 yards away for 2nd possession by Team A
- etc.

This guarantees no ties AND ensures that the game will end in a reasonable amount of time AND compensates for the advantage of whichever team gets the ball first (since the other team will be a little closer on their possession) AND gives some incentive to go for touchdowns rather than field goals.

So on a safety, you would have to recover an onside kick or the game is over?

Also, that scenario could easily result in a tie. The Packers vs Vikings game would still have ended in a tie in that scenario because both teams got FGs on their first possessions. And since they were both long methodical drives, there was only 3 minutes left after that. Both teams only got basically 1 more possession. It wouldn't really have mattered if it was at their own 40, they both went 3 and out.

 

[BusSport]

So on a safety, you would have to recover an onside kick or the game is over?

Sorry, I made a mistake. When I said "safety", I didn't mean the usual defensive safety; I was trying to cover the unusual, superrare case of the offensive 1-point safety (so rare as to be almost nonexistent, but on superrare occasion, such as the 2013 Fiesta Bowl, it happens). That said, I still made a mistake, as the 1-point safety can only occur on a conversion anyway, and conversions can't occur in overtime under these rules, since the first touchdown would end the game immediately. So strike the word "safety" from that original sentence.

Also, that scenario could easily result in a tie. The Packers vs Vikings game would still have ended in a tie in that scenario because both teams got FGs on their first possessions. And since they were both long methodical drives, there was only 3 minutes left after that. Both teams only got basically 1 more possession. It wouldn't really have mattered if it was at their own 40, they both went 3 and out.

No, under the rules I outlined above, ties are impossible. As long as there is a tie, there will be more possessions. There's no 15-minute overtime limit; each team keeps getting possessions until the tie is broken.

So to use the example of that Packers-Vikings game you mentioned: The Packers got the ball first, and scored a field goal. If the Packers had scored a TD, the game would have been over immediately as a win for them. Since they didn't score a TD, the Vikings get one possession to try to tie or do better. The Vikings also scored a field goal, so they tied, which means the game continues, and the Packers get another possession (their second possession of overtime, the third possession among both teams).

Now, on this possession, once again, if the Packers get a TD, the game is over. If the Packers only get a field goal, the Vikings get another chance to tie or do better. Let's say the Packers get nothing, neither a TD or an FG, so the game is still tied. Now the Vikings get their second possession of overtime, the fourth possession among both teams. If the Vikings get a TD, they win. If they only score a field goal, the Packers get one more possession to try to tie or better the field goal.