(08-11-2017 12:50 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  We didn't get a lot of ties because except in certain circumstances you needed to play for the win. Ties typically happened when down three and kicking a late FG to tie or team went for a tie when there was still enough time to have another possession or more and no one found their way to score. Scoring a TD on a likely last possession and choosing a tie wasn't that common. Now teams are often content to play for the tie.

I looked at AState's records, since OT was adopted we've played six overtime games, the same number of years before overtime, AState had six ties. That wouldn't seem to make my point BUT among teams that have been I-A/FBS the entire time since OT was adopted Colorado State, Florida State, Kansas State, Miami (OH), North Texas, and Texas are the only schools to play fewer OT's than AState and Ohio, Oklahoma and South Carolina also have played only 6.

From 1894 to 1995 Arkansas had 40 ties, since 1996 18 overtimes. From 1891 to 1995 Tennessee had 54 ties, since 1996 19 overtimes.

Fresno may be the first of the established programs to play more overtimes than ties, they had 28 ties since 1921 and 17 overtimes.

Ties in the regular season could be fine ..... but here is the two-fold problem (or perception of a problem) that you must overcome:

1) you're always going to need some kind of method for determining a winner for the post-season, because you can't have a tie then. So, if you go to all the work and trouble of approving an overtime system for the post-season ..... why not just use it during the regular season too?

2) overtime makes for exciting TV


Of course, neither of these things "should" supersede player safety. But then again, if we really cared about people's health, we probably wouldn't have football in the first place.

(08-11-2017 08:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-11-2017 12:50 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  We didn't get a lot of ties because except in certain circumstances you needed to play for the win. Ties typically happened when down three and kicking a late FG to tie or team went for a tie when there was still enough time to have another possession or more and no one found their way to score. Scoring a TD on a likely last possession and choosing a tie wasn't that common. Now teams are often content to play for the tie.

I looked at AState's records, since OT was adopted we've played six overtime games, the same number of years before overtime, AState had six ties. That wouldn't seem to make my point BUT among teams that have been I-A/FBS the entire time since OT was adopted Colorado State, Florida State, Kansas State, Miami (OH), North Texas, and Texas are the only schools to play fewer OT's than AState and Ohio, Oklahoma and South Carolina also have played only 6.

From 1894 to 1995 Arkansas had 40 ties, since 1996 18 overtimes. From 1891 to 1995 Tennessee had 54 ties, since 1996 19 overtimes.

Fresno may be the first of the established programs to play more overtimes than ties, they had 28 ties since 1921 and 17 overtimes.

Ties in the regular season could be fine ..... but here is the two-fold problem (or perception of a problem) that you must overcome:

1) you're always going to need some kind of method for determining a winner for the post-season, because you can't have a tie then. So, if you go to all the work and trouble of approving an overtime system for the post-season ..... why not just use it during the regular season too?

2) overtime makes for exciting TV


Of course, neither of these things "should" supersede player safety. But then again, if we really cared about people's health, we probably wouldn't have football in the first place.

Recently saw a piece about a company that was working on a blood test to detect brain injury. Thought they had a dandy test but then when they did a control group, they found elevated presence of the "brain damage enzyme" in pretty much every sport requiring running so they are back to the drawing board because the test "didn't work".

I'm not and MD or PhD in biology but constant running bounces the brain around. Football is dangerous, I don't think that is open for debate but I now suspect we are going to eventually find soccer, basketball, track, etc., are going to carry enhanced risk of CTE, probably not at the level of football but I think we will see it is a risk factor.

Everything causes everything.

The only true panacea is to actually discover the fundamental mechanisms of disease, and then invent methods to cure them.

No overtime and no ties.
If game ends after regulation and both teams have scored the same number of points, the FIRST team to reach that total is the winner.

See also: going for two at the end of regulation. Now you'd HAVE to.

(08-16-2017 12:18 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  No overtime and no ties.
If game ends after regulation and both teams have scored the same number of points, the FIRST team to reach that total is the winner.

See also: going for two at the end of regulation. Now you'd HAVE to.

That works also. How much history and results are changed by that?

(08-16-2017 12:18 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  No overtime and no ties.
If game ends after regulation and both teams have scored the same number of points, the FIRST team to reach that total is the winner.

See also: going for two at the end of regulation. Now you'd HAVE to.

I'd be OK with this provided that whoever has the ball at the end of the game gets one last untimed play to try to score, provided they have a down remaining. What that means is, say the team with possession runs a play on 3rd down and doesn't score, the clock is running with only 10 seconds left on 4th down. That team can't just wait for the clock to run out and then get to run another play. The ball would be turned over to the other team, at that spot, with one untimed play.

That's actually a cool idea for a lot of sports ... whoever got to the final (tied) score first actually wins. Would work for soccer, bball, hockey, etc.

(08-16-2017 09:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  That's actually a cool idea for a lot of sports ... whoever got to the final (tied) score first actually wins. Would work for soccer, bball, hockey, etc.

Ironically, for hockey & soccer (score is worth only 1 and they are harder to come by) I'd give the tiebreaker win to the team scoring LAST. Keeps the games interesting.

For basketball and football (where you can play for different point values) is where you'd want to award it to the team who gets the final score FIRST.

The advertisers and networks won't like this plan, by the way...

I see what you mean. Especially soccer ... team A goes up 1-0 early ... essentially that means team B is guaranteed to lose unless they score 2 goals.

(08-16-2017 10:21 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(08-16-2017 09:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  That's actually a cool idea for a lot of sports ... whoever got to the final (tied) score first actually wins. Would work for soccer, bball, hockey, etc.

Ironically, for hockey & soccer (score is worth only 1 and they are harder to come by) I'd give the tiebreaker win to the team scoring LAST. Keeps the games interesting.

For basketball and football (where you can play for different point values) is where you'd want to award it to the team who gets the final score FIRST.

The advertisers and networks won't like this plan, by the way...

Interesting point because in hockey and soccer (and to a lesser degree football) a team holding a lead often becomes less aggressive trying to score because aggressive play can lead to giving up an easy score and teams tend to try to milk the clock. In general, the tying score is likely harder to score.

(08-16-2017 01:56 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(08-16-2017 12:18 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  No overtime and no ties.
If game ends after regulation and both teams have scored the same number of points, the FIRST team to reach that total is the winner.

See also: going for two at the end of regulation. Now you'd HAVE to.

That works also. How much history and results are changed by that?

On second thought, one OT. Give them a chance to break the tie. Only rare games would end in a tie.