End overtime games except for the playoffs . . .

[red14 23]

in High School, College and Pro.   What's wrong with a tie?  Neither team loses, the underdog is happy they could get a tie, the favorite is relieved they didn't lose.  When you have the OT, the stronger team usually wins.  If a team doesn't want to tie, go for two after the TD late in the game.  It would reduce injuries from fatigue.   Personally, I hate to lose more than I enjoy winning, a tie is a relief.  The NFL had ties for many decades, it never prevented championships.  LSU won a National title with two ties one year, Tom Osborne and Bobby Bowden both lost a national title going for two.  The Colts won Super Bowl 5 when they had a tie in the regular season.  We still have ties in the pros almost every year, let's just end regular season overtimes.  So, anyone agree with me???

[CaptainColt12 237]

2 minutes ago, red14 said:

So, anyone agree with me???

Yes

[csmopar 6,675]

34 minutes ago, red14 said:

So, anyone agree with me???

No, you play a game to win, not tie.

[jmac_48 363]

So, you like kissing your sister???

 

I prefer a definitive result.

I disagree.

[Barry Sears 1,268]

I agree to do away with OT in the NFL under the current OT rules.  For a team to force an overtime and not potentially be given the chance of one possession is crazy.  The OT shouldn't be an instant advantage to the team winning the coin toss.  If they do score a TD, then give the other team one possession to tie it again, or go for 2 to win it.

 

When they changed from the sudden death OT for either team to win by scoring first, they didn't help any by adopting the current set up.  Team winning the coin toss can't win the game automatically if they kick a FG and the other team gets a possession.  Why not do the same for the team that scores a TD after winning the coin toss.  I guess they figured scoring a TD is more difficult and the team should be rewarded for that.

 

They should do the same at all levels and give each team an opportunity to win in OT.

 

[Coffeedrinker 3,537]

10 minutes ago, red14 said:

in High School, College and Pro.   What's wrong with a tie?  Neither team loses, the underdog is happy they could get a tie, the favorite is relieved they didn't lose.  When you have the OT, the stronger team usually wins.  If a team doesn't want to tie, go for two after the TD late in the game.  It would reduce injuries from fatigue.   Personally, I hate to lose more than I enjoy winning, a tie is a relief.  The NFL had ties for many decades, it never prevented championships.  LSU won a National title with two ties one year, Tom Osborne and Bobby Bowden both lost a national title going for two.  The Colts won Super Bowl 5 when they had a tie in the regular season.  We still have ties in the pros almost every year, let's just end regular season overtimes.  So, anyone agree with me???

The bolded is exactly the reason there is overtime to determine which is the stronger team.

 

No one has ever claimed a tie prevents championships or that a team with a tie during the regular season cannot win a championship, that entire string of babble has nothing to do with playing in OT.  Whether it's high school, college, NFL or pop warner, the reason to play the game is to determine the winner.  If one is not determined in regulation they have OT to see if that makes a difference. Your comment about a tie being a relief shows you do not really hate losing.  A tie is a loss because it's not a win and I guarantee you, if you polled every NFL player and coach, they all consider a tie the same as a loss.

 

Of all the things to whine about... what's next, do a poll at the beginning of the season and the top 6 teams from the polls are in the playoffs.  The rest just get to work on improving for the next year so they can increase their standing in the polls?  

 

I'll step down now, I'm just tired of all these ideas to to turn sissify football.

[aaron11 1,638]

i think they should get rid of ties and overtime, at least for the regular season.

 

last team to score should win.  some video games do that, it keeps things pretty exciting until the very end.  a double zero tie could still be possible 

[Coffeedrinker 3,537]

6 minutes ago, Barry Sears said:

I agree to do away with OT in the NFL under the current OT rules.  For a team to force an overtime and not potentially be given the chance of one possession is crazy.  The OT shouldn't be an instant advantage to the team winning the coin toss.  If they do score a TD, then give the other team one possession to tie it again, or go for 2 to win it.

 

When they changed from the sudden death OT for either team to win by scoring first, they didn't help any by adopting the current set up.  Team winning the coin toss can't win the game automatically if they kick a FG and the other team gets a possession.  Why not do the same for the team that scores a TD after winning the coin toss.  I guess they figured scoring a TD is more difficult and the team should be rewarded for that.

 

They should do the same at all levels and give each team an opportunity to win in OT.

 

The whole idea of the sudden death OT and even the current OT rules is to make OT a non desirable consequence.  The NFL and the teams would much rather a game be decided in regulation.  If teams know that, no matter what, they will get a chance in OT then there is no incentive to do the things that make the game exciting in the later stages of the 4th quarter.

[Coffeedrinker 3,537]

2 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

i think they should get rid of ties and overtime, at least for the regular season.

 

last team to score should win.  some video games do that, it keeps things pretty exciting until the very end.  a double zero tie could still be possible 

That is kind of what sudden death OT was.

 

Why not just say the first team to 24 points wins?

[Barry Sears 1,268]

1 minute ago, Coffeedrinker said:

The whole idea of the sudden death OT and even the current OT rules is to make OT a non desirable consequence.  The NFL and the teams would much rather a game be decided in regulation.  If teams know that, no matter what, they will get a chance in OT then there is no incentive to do the things that make the game exciting in the later stages of the 4th quarter.

 

I see your point and there are many game that come down to the visiting team having to decide to tie or go for the win on a late TD.  Never fails...if they tie they get criticized for being too passive and if they go for 2 and fail, then they are criticized for being too aggressive!

[Four2itus 4,672]

I say that the team who has scored the most TD's during regulation gets the first chance. This would perhaps encourage teams to go for it on fourth down more? Next tie breaker is most first downs during regulation. If both those are tied, it's a coin flip. 

 

The team who has played the best by those two indicators should get the first shot. 

[Chrisaaron1023 1,743]

I was gonna say.. how about the visiting team gets the ball first in OT. But this wouldn't be good because the last time this came up was the Patriots AT Chiefs.. oh well. Can't win. Literally 

[Valpo2004 1,485]

OT rules need to be changed.  You could adopt the college OT rules.  

 

Ties just don't fit in with American football like they do Association football (soccer).  I'm a big fan of association football and the fact that they have draws.  It makes sense in association football.  

 

It doesn't make sense in American football.  

[1959Colts 1,143]

1 hour ago, csmopar said:

No, you play a game to win, not tie.

[csmopar 6,675]

1 hour ago, Four2itus said:

I say that the team who has scored the most TD's during regulation gets the first chance. This would perhaps encourage teams to go for it on fourth down more? Next tie breaker is most first downs during regulation. If both those are tied, it's a coin flip. 

 

The team who has played the best by those two indicators should get the first shot. 

Too complicated. Keep it stupid simple. Each team gets 1 possession guaranteed. That way if the first one scores , the other gets a chance, if neither team scores on their first possession, goes to sudden death and the next point wins. 

[Nesjan3 607]

No ties are stupid, but equally as much are the current overtime rules. Its almost 2020 and were still putting weight on a coin toss to determine things.

[WoolMagnet 3,059]

There might be some merit to this.  Players and teams are worried about injuries.  The odds go up in overtime.  Then u hav games like the Arizona one that still end in a tie.  Or you have one like ours where we get hot and are basically thwarted by the flip.  If we get the flip call, i think we win.

  The current OT  rules FAVOR THE WINNER OF THE flip.  Until this is changed, a tie may be the better route.  

  Look, you have 60 minutes to win the game.  If you dont, you don't.  

  Plus, it would make playoff seeding alot more interesting.

OT sux in its current form.

[Steamboat_Shaun 1,399]

11 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Too complicated. Keep it stupid simple. Each team gets 1 possession guaranteed. That way if the first one scores , the other gets a chance, if neither team scores on their first possession, goes to sudden death and the next point wins. 

 

This has always made the most sense to me. Both defenses are totally gassed, there's no reason that only 1 should have to go out & try to stop the opposing offense because of a coin flip.

[coltsfan_canada 240]

Like soccer and hockey each team should be given 5 FG to make FG. Most FG will win the game but...

[Myles 3,914]

2 hours ago, red14 said:

in High School, College and Pro.   What's wrong with a tie?  Neither team loses, the underdog is happy they could get a tie, the favorite is relieved they didn't lose.  When you have the OT, the stronger team usually wins.  If a team doesn't want to tie, go for two after the TD late in the game.  It would reduce injuries from fatigue.   Personally, I hate to lose more than I enjoy winning, a tie is a relief.  The NFL had ties for many decades, it never prevented championships.  LSU won a National title with two ties one year, Tom Osborne and Bobby Bowden both lost a national title going for two.  The Colts won Super Bowl 5 when they had a tie in the regular season.  We still have ties in the pros almost every year, let's just end regular season overtimes.  So, anyone agree with me???

Nope.   I would never agree to something that created more ties.   The NFL has been averaging around 22-26 overtime games per season.  Even if teams played different in the 4th quarter, we are still talking about adding 15+ ties per season.   

I'm fine with the way it is.   I was fine with the way it was.   

[Fat Clemenza 348]

1 hour ago, Four2itus said:

I say that the team who has scored the most TD's during regulation gets the first chance. This would perhaps encourage teams to go for it on fourth down more? Next tie breaker is most first downs during regulation. If both those are tied, it's a coin flip. 

 

The team who has played the best by those two indicators should get the first shot. 

 

I love this idea.  As Julius Caesar once said, "fortune favors the bold, but Roger Goodell favors overly complicated yet poor officiating" 

[Coffeedrinker 3,537]

1 hour ago, coltsfan_canada said:

Like soccer and hockey each team should be given 5 FG to make FG. Most FG will win the game but...

5 FG attempts, starting at the 35 and moving back 5 yards each time.

 

Then kickers would start wanting more money.

[Chucklez 304]

Just play the full 10 minutes.... I'ts not like in basketball the first team to score the game ends... it's not like in soccer in extra time the game is over as soon as a team scores... you play the extra time and whoever is on top at the end wins....

[JFreeman 7]

I like the college OT rules.

[aaron11 1,638]

@jvan1973 i take it you dont like that suggestion, funny because its from a video game?

 

i think its perfect, no more ties and the games end in regulation.  they are long enough as it is, no need for over time in the regular season

[jameszeigler834 967]

3 hours ago, csmopar said:

No, you play a game to win, not tie.

Agreed and also I think no matter who scores what on the first possession of OT I think both teams should get a chance at it no matter what.

[Dingus McGirt 1,503]

Ehh.  Don't want to lose?  Don't let the other team waltz downfield.

[GoatBeard 515]

I have always thought they should change the rules, but not do away with it. It is far too exciting to get rid of it. I would much rather do away with ties. 

 

Each team should be guaranteed a possession in OT with the visiting team getting the ball first, automatically. If they score/dont score, the home team has a chance to win the game. Rinse and repeat until there is a winner. 

[aaron11 1,638]

defenses are usually gassed in over time, makes it too easy to win on the first possession

[NorthernBlue 1,242]

4 hours ago, Coffeedrinker said:

  A tie is a loss because it's not a win and I guarantee you, if you polled every NFL player and coach, they all consider a tie the same as a loss.

 

Do you think the Cardinals and Lions both consider their tie as loses?

[red14 23]

 

2 minutes ago, NorthernBlue said:

Do you think the Cardinals and Lions both consider their tie as loses?

I bet they were glad they didn't lose.  I also bet the Browns were a lot more happy after they tied last year's opening game than this year.

[jvan1973 4,620]

40 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

@jvan1973 i take it you dont like that suggestion, funny because its from a video game?

 

i think its perfect, no more ties and the games end in regulation.  they are long enough as it is, no need for over time in the regular season

Maybe the dumbest idea I've ever heard for ending a game.   Say the score is 20-17.  The trailing team is at the ten with 30 seconds to go.  They wouldn't even try to score a td.  Just kick the fg and win because they scored last.   Dumb

 

 Obviously never going to happen.  

[jvan1973 4,620]

The cardinals were happy with the tie,  the lions weren't

[aaron11 1,638]

9 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Maybe the dumbest idea I've ever heard for ending a game.   Say the score is 20-17.  The trailing team is at the ten with 30 seconds to go.  They wouldn't even try to score a td.  

 

 

then they would win, that doesnt make it dumb at all.  over time is whats dumb, the games are plenty long already 

[GoatBeard 515]

4 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

then they would win, that doesnt make it dumb at all.  over time is whats dumb, the games are plenty long already 

So you think a team who scored the same amount of points should lose because of when they scored them? 

 

I dont think that would be controversial at all.

 

If its too long for you, just turn it off and see what happened later.

 

 

[Tsarquise 349]

I just wish overtime was played like any other quarter. 

[aaron11 1,638]

1 minute ago, GoatBeard said:

So you think a team who scored the same amount of points should lose because of when they scored them? 

yes, i already said that. 

 

the rules we have now are not really popular either

[jvan1973 4,620]

45 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

yes, i already said that. 

 

the rules we have now are not really popular either

Your idea is wildly stupid.   Will never happen,   except in video games I guess

[IndyD4U 671]

Both teams should get the damn ball. So annoying 

[Indyfan4life 780]

Hmmmm... Nah. I’m not big on kissing my sister. Some people are. Not me though.