1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

You play to win the game!!

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Ogsponge, Nov 26, 2013.

?

What are your thoughts on ties in the NFL

  1. I have no problem with a game ending in a tie

    50.0%
  2. Games should never end in a tie, first team to score wins

    31.3%
  3. Games should never end in a tie, the NFL should adopt the college overtime rules

    18.8%
  4. Games should never end in a tie, other resolution (please provide explanation)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Ogsponge

    Ogsponge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    411
    Ratings:
    +327
    I consider a tie to be the most ridiculous and completely unnecessary ending to a football game. There are only 16 games in an NFL season, there is absolutely no reason a game should ever end in a tie. Of the 4 major professional sports the NFL is the only one where a game can end in a tie and it is ridiculous in my opinion. What are your thoughts?
     
  2. Forget Favre

    Forget Favre Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,834
    Ratings:
    +2,674
    Do they still call it "Sudden Death Overtime?"
    "Sudden Death" isn't as dramatic or meaningless since it can end in a tie.
    It used to be first team to score, wins.
    Now we have this:
    First team to get a field goal, keep playing.
    First team to get a TD. Game over.
    Remind me. Was there something else or was it always that second way when they changed it from the first?

    It doesn't make any sense.
    NFL claims that it wants to prevent injuries.
    Then why continue playing after the first team scores a FG?
    Lacy had to leave due to asthma.

    Either use the College OT rules or adapt whatever they would do for playoffs or a SuperBowl.
    They won't let those games end in ties. Will they?
     
  3. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,632
    Ratings:
    +2,557
    Nobody likes ties, but I don't see a satisfactory solution.

    Pure sudden death was never a good idea...first possession advantage based on the luck of the coin flip was a poor approach to the issue. The current deal is better...if first possession doesn't score a TD, the other team gets a shot.

    If you let standard game play go on past 5 quarters, where does it stop? You're begging for more injuries (not good) or heavy rotations (where second stringers decide the game).

    I don't like the college approach. It gives an advantage to certain kinds of teams. Having an offense that is accomplished at ball control, field position advantage, and eating clock at the expense of some red zone proficiency is surely one valid approach to the game which is invalidated with the college tie breaking approach. Further it takes special teams out of the equation...no punting, no kickoffs, and even the worst kickers hit 37 yarders 90% of the time.
    Special teams plays represent about 20-25% of the plays in a football game...taking them out of play disadvantages teams that emphasize them which is a valid thing to do.

    Soccer and hockey had to do something because too many games ended in ties...it was hurting fan interest because of the unsatisfying results. So we're left with these silly shootouts which involve such a narrow slice of the games' skills as to be unrepresentative. It would be like basketball deciding ties with a 3 point shooting contest.

    Frankly, if two football teams go 5 quarters with nobody gaining an upper hand, a tie is deserved. People should get what they deserve.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  4. Forget Favre

    Forget Favre Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,834
    Ratings:
    +2,674
    That first part seems like an argument of why play football at all?
    Are you looking for fairness in OT if one team is better than another?

    As for taking special teams out of it...
    I'm sure there are some fans on here who want Slocum fired who would have no problems with that.
    They could always kick it off like they do now and continue like they do in college OT.
     
  5. Sandolf

    Sandolf Blue Moon Rising

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    746
    Ratings:
    +302
    I agree. There was some talk on the NHL Network about going back to the ties, but awarding 3 pts for the win. The other theory is to add a 5 min 3 on3 OT period. But there is no doubt the shootout stinks. That's like a FG kicking contest to decide NFL games... (much like your basketball analogy).
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2013
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,632
    Ratings:
    +2,557
    That made so little sense I have no idea how to respond.
     
  7. bozz_2006

    bozz_2006 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,571
    Ratings:
    +650

    1. Overtime is still sudden death, the only difference is that a first possession field goal is no longer a "head shot", now it's a "flesh wound". (was that a reach? it felt like a reach...).

    2. Remember that the possibility of a tie in an NFL game as as old as the game itself. There have always been ties. Yes, they suck. But the new rule isn't to blame for this.

    3. PLEASE re-think your stance on doing it college style. That's not real football.

    4. Don't blame the league for ties. In playoffs, they just keep playing. Now, that would be great if that were extended to the regular season too. However, the reason it isn't applied to regular season is the union, not the league. Want to place the blame for stupid ties on somebody's shoulders? That's fine, but it's the players who are responsible for this one.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Forget Favre

    Forget Favre Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,834
    Ratings:
    +2,674
    1. I don't think it was a reach but I try to avoid violent images in my metaphors.
    Then again, we are discussing "Sudden Death." So there you have it.

    2. As the OP pointed out, football is the only sport that can end in a tie.
    Doesn't fit in with the rest of the sporting world. Time to upgrade and break tradition.

    3. The tie breaker in college is designed so it doesn't end in a tie. Why can't the same idea apply to the pros?

    4. In doing an online search for OT rule changes, it was the owners who all voted for this.
    How is that related to the players or the union?
    (BTW: I hate unions. Do I need another reason to hate them? So if they are to blame, I'm good with that.)
     
  9. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,632
    Ratings:
    +2,557
    Ties are so rare under the current NFL approach, this is a solution is search of a problem.

    Isn't this all about our losing any tie breaker advantage in determining playoff eligibility? That's one team in one season and has nothing to do with the game.
     
  10. Ogsponge

    Ogsponge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    411
    Ratings:
    +327
    For me it is nothing other than I think a tie in a professional sporting event is truly idiotic, it should never happen, these are professional athletes getting paid gobs of money, you should play to win. Nothing more, nothing less.

    1st team to score wins. I know someone is going to try to say that it gives an unfair advantage the coin toss winner and my response would be BS, before they instituted this new bs rule, 52% of OT coin toss winners won the game. That is not a big enough advantage to be worry about the "unfairness" of the coin toss.
     
  11. RustyShackleford

    RustyShackleford Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    47
    Ratings:
    +17
    For the most part I agree with this.

    I don't like the current setup though. Something had to be done since all it took was a decent kickoff return and the receiving team didn't have too far to go to get into field goal range and the percentages were overwhelming. This was before they moved the kickoff spot forward, though. I'm not sure that it would be as much of an advantage under the current kickoff rules.

    I could even see the receiving team just being given the ball at the 20 or 15. In that circumstance it may be to an advantage to a team with a strong defense to defer. A 3 and out and they would likely get excellent field position.
     
  12. Forget Favre

    Forget Favre Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,834
    Ratings:
    +2,674
    Let's say that it's back to the old rules.
    First team to score wins.
    And let's say that the Vikings win the toss vs Packers. They go down the field, score and win.
    Then we might have a post of "They need to change the OT rules to give both teams a chance."
    (Maybe not started by you but by someone else.)
    It's always unfair whenever it happens to the team you are rooting for.
     
  13. Forget Favre

    Forget Favre Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,834
    Ratings:
    +2,674
    I don't like the tie game either.
    But in order to keep it from happening to our team again, Packers just need to play better.

    Also, I dunno how many of you are aware of this but a few Packers players were unaware that the game could end in a tie.
    WTF!
    Were they born yesterday?
    Why weren't they aware of those rules?
    Or that a game ended in a tie as early as last season?
    Maybe if they didn't have their heads in a hole in the ground they would have played harder to win it.
    Morons.
    The beer is for the fans. Not the players.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-s...b-syndrome-overtime-rules-002136997--nfl.html

    It's one thing for a player not knowing how to act — happy or sad, or both — after a tie. But it's another for one to be ambivalent about the game and be unaware that it could even happen in the first place. And it's likely that Quarless was not the only one, from the sound of Klemko's original tweet.

    And there's no excuse, really. Between the coaches on the sideline and the referees — however awkwardly they might explain the funky "new" overtime rules over the stadium PA — it's not as if ties in the regular season are new. Maybe for a rookie, but Quarless is in his fourth NFL season and Sunday was his 35th NFL game.

    http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/a...me_didnt_know_they_could_tie_vikings/15148187

    Multiple Packers players were expecting to play a second overtime on Sunday, according to Sports Illustrated’s Robert Klemko, admitting that they didn’t know that ending in a tie was even possible. Sunday’s game marked the second time in two seasons that a game had ended in a tie.
     
  14. Sandolf

    Sandolf Blue Moon Rising

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    746
    Ratings:
    +302
  15. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    So now we know why the defense played so passively and allowed the Vikes to get the tying field goal. :giggle:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Ogsponge

    Ogsponge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    411
    Ratings:
    +327
    Ya it certainly would not be by me, in that case my post would have been:

    "I am so sick of watching the Packers lose because the defense sucks!" :(
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Forget Favre

    Forget Favre Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,834
    Ratings:
    +2,674
    Yup.

    Fair enough.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Sunshinepacker

    Sunshinepacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,244
    Ratings:
    +457
    I don't like ties but the problem isn't the rules. The problem is NFL coaches who routinely play not to lose rather than trying to win.
     

Share This Page