How many people reading this article can actually say they witnessed an NFL game that resulted in a tie?
After Sunday, I can say I have.
Week 11 of the 2008 NFL season was filled with plenty of topics that will keep fans talking for the next week or two.
Kerry Collins showed us that the undefeated Titans can not only run the ball but pass as well after they beat the Jacksonville Jaguars 24-14.
The Pittsburgh Steelers were able to squeeze by the struggling San Diego Chargers after a controversial call at the end of the game (one that wouldn't have changed the outcome) with an 11-10 win.
However, the biggest story of the week didn't come from a team that came up with a huge win. It didn't come from a team that had a huge loss.
Instead, the biggest story of the week came from the Philadelphia Eagles and the Cincinnati Bengals, who ended up with a 13-13 tie after playing five quarters of football. This would be the first tie in the NFL since 2002.
For the Cincinnati Bengals, the tie was better than a loss. With a disappointing 1-8-1 record (that is SO weird to type for a football team), the Bengals are already looking forward to next season.
For the Philadelphia Eagles, the tie hurt more than a loss.
In four losses this season, the Eagles have lost by a combined 19 points. In all four losses, the Birds had an opportunity to take the lead late in the fourth quarter.
I'm sure fans and players will be looking back at this game in a few weeks kicking themselves about how they should have won this game.
With the Giants seeming to pull away with the NFC East title, all the Birds can do is hope for a wild-card spot.
However, it's not going to be easy.
The thought of a tie is going to the Bengals is going to haunt the Eagles for the rest of the season. To be honest, no team deserved to win this game. Both teams played so awful that they may as well give both of them a "L" in the loss column. But should they really have concluded a game with a tie?
At the end of the game, fans of the Eagles and Bengals both had one thing in common: Both sets walked away from Paul Brown Stadium frustrated and confused.
Usually after a game, there is one team's fans who are happy and excited because their team just won. The other team's fans are usually upset and angry that they just sat through four quarters of football to see their team lose.
In this case, both fans were feeling the same emotions.
The NFL needs to take a different approach when it comes to their overtime games. No player or fan wants to sit through hours of football to end the game with a tie. The NFL is the only league in the four major sports (football, baseball, basketball, and hockey) where it is possible to end the game in a tie.
The NHL allowed ties until they changed the rule around a few years ago, where two tied teams at the end of overtime would have a shootout. In the NBA and MLB, teams play extra time until a winner is declared.
What should the NFL do to change their overtime procedures? Why not take the NCAA football approach.
In 1996, the NCAA decided to get rid of ties for their football games. Whenever there is a case of overtime in football, each team will get one possession starting at the opponent's 25-yard line. If there is a leader after the two possessions, that team wins. If it's still tied, they go into another overtime.
After two overtimes, the extra point is taken away after touchdowns. Instead, teams have to go for the two point conversion. However, the important part is that if there needs to be 14 overtimes to be declared a winner, then that's how many overtimes will be played.
If this was the approach the NFL took for their overtime games, it would make games that much more exciting. The fact that some teams get lucky enough to win a coin-toss and score on the first possession in overtime is ridiculous. Sure, you could blame it on the losing team not playing that great of defense. But I don't think it's fair that some teams don't even get a chance for their offense to play in overtime.
A tie doesn't mean much in the NFL standings. The only effect it has is a half of a game applied to the winning percentage.
If the NFL changed the way overtime was played for two teams to the way the NCAA does, the games would be that more exciting for fans. Nobody wants to sit through five quarters of football and just walk away with a tie.
If I recall, there is a famous quote that goes, "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game."
For the sake of the NFL, maybe we should change that quote around to, "It's not whether you win or lose...or tie it were to happen, it's how you play the game."
99 comments Last one added 7 months ago — Leave a Comment
Zip 7 months ago
I agree. The NFL should adopt the college football rules for overtime. Much more exciting. And while they are at it I think they should get rid of field goals, that is a weak way to win a game. Touchdown or nothing.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the comments Zip. I agree they need to change some of the rules for overtime. However, I don't think they should get rid of field goals. They may not always seem exciting, but I have seen some amazing kicks to win games in both college and the NFL over the years. Thanks again!
Edit Comment Cancel
mike delucia 7 months ago
First, nice piece. I disagree with the college approach to overtime. I believe the NFL tie system should be to play an entire quarter,then at the end of that if no score has changed, its a tie
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the comments Mike. However, I still think they should at least continue after one overtime to determine a winner. I hate to see games end in a tie.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tim Coughlin 7 months ago
I agree the rules need to be changed, but the NCAA's rules aren't the answer.
They need to just make it a 10- or 15-minute overtime period that operates like the fourth quarter. Give each team one timeout and let them play by the same rules they played with during the game. No need to change how the game operates.
Another idea I've heard is making the goal posts smaller so field goals and extra points are harder to make (this includes regulation). The worst thing about the overtime period in both college football and NFL is the fact it's basically first team to feel comfortable making a field goal wins. Stats show kickers have improved greatly in the last decade or so, so I think that could make sense as well. It's akin to the NCAA moving back the three-point line.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the comments Tim. I never heard of that rule about making field goals smaller but I think that could easily make games more interesting. And I agree, we have seen so many games over the years where kickers aren't comfortable making a field goal for the win and teams will give another shot at getting into the endzone.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
Agree with Tim that the NCAA's rules aren't the answer. If anything, they should adopt the NFL's rules for overtime, with the modification that there are 10 or 15 minutes in overtime (not sudden death) in which the game continues under the same rules of play.
But if two teams can't separate themselves after five quarters of play, then they deserve to "kiss their sister" and neither benefit from a win. Note that the NFL hadn't had a tie in a few years, and that apparently Donovan McNabb didn't know how overtime worked (!?!?!).
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the comments Scott. I like the idea of overtime without the sudden death approach. Whoever is leading at the end of the period is the winner.
And I love how McNabb not knowing about the rules of overtime has been the topic of all major sports networks all week! Not to mention everybody else is coming out about how they had no idea either. Thanks again for the feedback!
Edit Comment Cancel
Ron Glover 7 months ago
Hey Good Stuff! How about the teams' two kickers determine the winner 30,40,50 yards and any thing over 50 yards is kicked in increments of 2 yards (52, 54 etc.).
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks Ron for the comments. Can you imagine if that's how the games were determined? Talk about excitement and pressure!
Edit Comment Cancel
Shane H. 7 months ago
well that would surely make the kicker a much more important figure on a team. If that's the case, I want Janikowski on my squad. The guy can kick it from like 70
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew O 7 months ago
no way. kickers are not that important to a team. a whole game completely on their shoulders
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
I have to agree with you guys. I understand the excitement of having the kickers determine the game, but you can't place it completely on their shoulders in this type of situation. I think Janikowski would be a lot of teams selections if this was the situation.
Edit Comment Cancel
Austin Penny 7 months ago
Man, i'm sorry you had to be in the stands for that one! I read your other article about waiting to see them come up to Ohio and that sucks you had to see the TIE! Did McNabb really think there was another overtime coming? i hope not...
But as far as the overtime goes, i had a conversation about this with a few of my friends after the bengals/eagles game Sunday. I don't like either system--NCAA or NFL. In the NCAA, you are pretty much putting the team in field goal position to start. Granted, the kickers aren't moneymakers like they are in the NFL, but still, it doesn't make much sense. In the NFL, a lot of times, there is only one possession period, with no chance to respond if the other team scores. I'd be curious to see a statistic on how many NFL overtime games end on the first possession. I would like to see something more along the lines of basketball, where they play a shortened period until someone eventually comes out in the lead. In the NFL, you could easily just play something between 6 and 8 minute quarters ( i think 5 is a littttle bit too short, but maybe not). That would give the team who recieved the kick time to sustain a drive and perhaps score, but would also give the opposite team a chance to come back and return the favor. And if something out of the norm happens, i.e. interception return for TD or even kickoff return for TD, it's not the end of the world. Just my thoughts!
Good article, though!
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks Austin! I'm still in shock that after all these years waiting that it ended in a TIE. And what's the deal with McNabb? I understand if you're a fan of football and had no idea about you could tie in an NFL game. But if you're a professional quarterback in the NFL and played in the league in 2002 where there was a tie, you would think McNabb would have remembered.
Both leagues have their positives and negatives with the way they handle overtime situations. I like your idea about playing for a certain amount of time like in basketball and whoever is winning at the end of the time period wins the game. That would make games pretty interesting. Thanks again for the comments.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
The NFL doesn't need to change its overtime rule. Apparently it needs to educate its players. If he was refusing to play by sudden-death rules because he thought there was another OT (that happens in the NFL only in PLAYOFFS), he hopefully got the message from the coaching staff by now about how it works.
Again, agreed with Austin, that instead of sudden death or the NCAA format, that an additional period should be played, perhaps 10 minutes, but after that, if it's still tied, the teams deserve to take the hit of not having a win.
Edit Comment Cancel
Austin Penny 7 months ago
i hear you, scott. i guess i'm just a guy who doesn't think any pro sport should have ties!
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Additional periods I wouldn't mind. However, I'm with you Austin. I can't stand it when games end in a tie either. Let them determine a winner no matter how long it takes them.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ryan Brennan 7 months ago
Hey Dan -
While it's disappointing to have a game end in a tie, I think that the rule should stand as is. Sure if it's an offensively charged game overtimes can be exciting (but then we probably wouldn't need more than one overtime), but in the case of this past weekend another two overtimes would have been miserable to sit through.
The game between the Bengals and Eagles was about as terrible a game as can be. It's not that both defenses were playing fantastic football and that's why it was such a low scoring game but rather that both teams on both sides of the ball were playing very poorly.
I think that the fact that so few ties have occurred in the NFL show that a rule change isn't necessary. In an overtime one of the teams can normally achieve at least a field goal, and if neither team can do that, it's not going to be fun for fans or players alike to go through a few more quarters of play. Not to mention that as players get more and more tied, the risk of injury increases that much more.
I understand your frustration of having to sit through a game that ended in a tie, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think that the NFL should keep the tie rule the same.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the comments Ryan! I agree with you, the game on Sunday was flat out awful. The fact that this was the first tie in 6 years, I don't see the NFL changing their rules around any time soon. College football has so many more teams that you're going to see more overtime situations. And I guess you're right as far as injuries. The longer the game, the more risk in injury. Especially if your team has guys that are in their 30's and can't play as many quarters as some college kids. Thanks again.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jim Mc 7 months ago
Dan, I HATE the college overtime rules, which is funny b/c I don't mind the shootout system in the NHL. But the arguments against the college OT rules are the same as the ones against the shootout: You decide the game in an artificial means—different than the way the rest of the game is played.
It should be very simple: You play until someone scores. Period.
What about fatigue and injuries, you say? Well, they would do it in the playoffs (McNabb didn't know THAT, either). And if the rule is good enough for the playoffs, it should be good enough for the regular season.
Just ask baseball fans (specifically Phillies fans) how they feel about different rules for regular and post-season games.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the comments Jim. I liked what Austin said a few comments above as having the teams play for a certain amount of time and whoever has the lead wins the game. I wouldn't be mad if they played until somebody scored either, even if that required multiple overtimes. I just don't like the whole idea of a tie.
And as far as McNabb not knowing rules in the NFL, don't get me started haha. I guess I never thought about it as far as fatiguue and injuries. Ryan above made a good point about there is more risk for injury for guys if they play multiple quarters. And we all know about the Phillies and the different rule changes! Thanks again for the comments!
Edit Comment Cancel
Juni Ramos 7 months ago
Well....its a good suggestion i just dont think the NFL will do anything about it...just like they arent going to inviestigate the whole steelers/chargers controversy...they want to ignore problems...anyway i want to see a scramble for possesion in OT instead of coin toss...like in the old XFL lol that was the best thing ever :)
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
I forgot all about the XFL! That was one of the biggest jokes ever.....
I agree, the NFL isn't going to do anything about it, considering how often a tie in the NFL happens. And that last call in the Steelers/Chargers game was ridiculous. Thanks for the comments!
Edit Comment Cancel
Jim Neveau 7 months ago
I think that the NCAA and NFL should adopt this same rule for overtime: start at the 50 yard line, each team gets one possession, and you HAVE to go for two-point conversions, not extra points. I think that starting from the 25 is too easy for both levels, and I think the 50 yard line would at least give fans something to be excited about, since their team would get at least one crack at it regardless of the outcome of the coin toss.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the comments Jim! The rule about starting from the 50-yard line would be interesting. It would be a lot more challenging than starting from the 25-yard line. As far as the two-point conversions, I think that would be a great idea. Extra points can be too easy at times, let's make it a little more challenging! Thanks again Jim!
Edit Comment Cancel
Kevin McGuire 7 months ago
Something needs to be done. Sunday's Eagles-Bengals game was atrocious by itself and to sit through an equally pitiful fifth quarter and not even see somebody win or lose is outragoues. I do believe that the college game has a leg up on the pros in this aspect. While I hope the NFL does dsomeday utilize an NCAA type overtime for the regular season, I would also support a sudden death overtime as it stands for the playoffs, playing full quarters until one team scores.
But while the NFL doesn't do overtime the best way, they are not to blame for the poor game played by the Eagles and Bengals.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
I agree Kevin, the overtime is no excuse for the way the Bengals and Eagles played on Sunday. It was funny to see both Eagles/Bengals fans reactions after the game on Sunday. For once, both teams fans had the same emotions. I hope the NFL does find a way to take a different approach to get rid of games ending in a tie. Thanks for the comments Kevin!
Edit Comment Cancel
Mike 7 months ago
I hope The NFL never adopts the stupid college way of settling ties just keep playing until a team scores just like they do in the playoffs. also you said a tie is worse than a lose this is untrue a tie is considered half a lose not a full lose not sure why that is but a team with a 7-3-1 will go in the playoffs ahead a team that is 7-4 I know that doesn't equal 16 games just trying to show my point
Edit Comment Cancel
Jim Mc 7 months ago
Good point, Mike. It does affect the winning percentage—it counts as half of a win (Eagles' win pct. is currently .550).
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the comments Mike. As far as the comment about a tie being worse than a loss, I was trying to get it from a perspective of an Eagle fan. I feel that a tie just shows you how close you were to a win. And I realize that a team with a 7-3-1 record will go to a playoffs ahead of a team that is 7-4-1, but I guess I didn't realize teams the way ties have an effect on team winning percentage. Thanks again.
Edit Comment Cancel
Aaron Linkemyer 7 months ago
I think it's funny that McNabb didn't know that an NFL game could end in a tie.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
I know, way to know the rules of the league you play in as a professional!
Edit Comment Cancel
George Duryea 7 months ago
That was one of the worst played games of the year, neither team seemed to want it, and it was Hilarious to the people I saw the end of the game with (we called a missed field goal as time ran out). Overtime isn't perfect, but this game wasn't the Call for a change. It was proof that sometimes the rules get it right. Neither team deserved the W, and neither team got one.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
I agree, both teams played so bad that neither of them deserved a win. I was surprised Grahm missed that kick at the end of the game after all that complaining about how he wants a bigger contract. Thanks for the comments George!
Edit Comment Cancel
Andy Simpson 7 months ago
I still like my idea of the first team to 6 points in OT wins, so you don't have to deal with stupid college OT or boring field goals.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Not a bad idea Andy. The first team to score a certain amount of points would make games more interesting. Thanks for the comments!
Edit Comment Cancel
Eddie Rossell 7 months ago
First of all I have to say I HAVE seen a tie before, my Steelers tied the Falcons in 2002.
Second, I agree that the NFL needs to rethink overtime rules, but not to adopt college rules. They should combine the two. I like the idea of sudden death, with all the suspense and everything, but maybe they could make it to where it is sudden death and they play until there is a winner. Thats my solution to the problem of ties.
Third, ties dont really happen that often so the NFL probably doesn't have it on the top of their "to-do list."
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
I'm glad somebody else knows what it's like to witness a tie! Rules need to be changed around in the NFL, I just hope they take it into consideration some time soon. I wouldn't mind the NFL using a system where they play until a winner, whether that takes multiple overtimes or whatever.
And I agree, ties don't happen enough where the NFL is going to worry about it anytime soon. Thanks again for the comments Eddie!
Edit Comment Cancel
Raider D Richardson 7 months ago
Have to disagree. Starting a drive at the opponents 25 is completely stupid! Besides, when it's "first one to score" there's a lot less chance of a tie then what they do in college.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
I agree, ties in the NFL don't happen enough where the NFL is going to change anything about their rules of overtime. Somebody made a great point about maybe starting at the 50 yard line for each team. Either way, I think something has to be changed around. Thanks for the comments!
Edit Comment Cancel
Raider D Richardson 7 months ago
One more thing: the last time there was a tie was in 2002 THAT'S TWO-THOUSAND AND TWO!, Wich proves that it doesn't happen too often.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Agreed. Ties don't happen enough where the NFL is going to make a big deal about changing the rules around.
Edit Comment Cancel
Greg 7 months ago
If there are no points scored in the overtime period Y not give the win to the team who gained the most yards during overtime. Or have a fieldgoal kickoff, after no winner in o.t. - try for goals at 40 yds. and the first team to miss loses game.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
I like the idea about field goal kicking. However, I don't think statistics is the appropriate way to determine the winner of a game. Scoring has to be involved some how. Thanks for the comments Greg!
Edit Comment Cancel
Mike 7 months ago
I listen to Sirius NFL radio a lot since i drive a truck and have plenty of time to listen, McNabb isn't the only player not to know that, most players don't seem to know that a game can end in a tie. One Giant player said everyone he talked to on his team said they didn't know that either so i guess players only know or worry about the rules that affect them my question would be why didn't the coaches give the players a heads up on this
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Ya, I've been seeing a lot about players coming out and saying they had no idea about the rule either. It's funny because if you look at most players in the league, most of them have had to have played at least one game in overtime in their career. At least everybody knows now!
Edit Comment Cancel
Travis Evans 7 months ago
i could care less this is a rare thing it happens once in a blue moon
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
That is true. The NFL isn't going to change the rules around because ties happen once in a blue moon. It's been 6 years since the last one.
Edit Comment Cancel
Bryn Swartz 7 months ago
I think just keep playing until someone wins. If it goes into a second overtime, let it go. This happened 5 times in NFL playoff games, including 2003. Games won't go four or five extra overtime periods. It might go two once in a while.
And a tie does have an effect in the winning percentage. It counts as half a win and half a loss. So in the Eagles situation, it lowers their winning percentage. In the Bengals situation, it raises their winning percentage.
A coin toss is a cheap way to determine who gets the ball, but sometimes that's the best possible idea. Maybe if you had to choose, give it to the road team for being good enough to force an overtime period. Then again, you could give it to the home team, as home field advantage.
Here's where a coin toss really sucks: If two teams are tied for the playoffs, and they go through every single possible tie-breaking scenarios, and they're still tied, they flip a coin. That sucks. In baseball, coin tosses have determined hypothetical situations like where a potential one-game playoff for the wild-card would be played at if it were the Mets and the Astros, or something like that.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
I agree with you Bryn, I have no problem with teams going into multiple overtimes to settle a game. The only thing I could see being a factor is that the guys who are older whose bodies may not be able to handle that much football at a time haha.
I made a mistake earlier, the Eagles did get credited for half a win. For some reason some website I was on earlier had the Eagles with the same winning percentage as last. They were credited for half a win, but I still think it's going to hurt them in the long run. This was a game they needed to win badly, especially after all of the close games we've lost already. Thanks for the comments, and hopefully I will get a pick of the day out of this!
Edit Comment Cancel
Osi Umenyiora 7 months ago
Hard to imagine that someone could be a football fan (let alone player) and not know that a game could end in a tie. They do announce the rules at the beginning of every overtime. And I wouldn't change a thing about the NFL's overtime rules. The last thing I would do is adopt the totally artificial NCAA rules. I hate those. Every NFL tie game I can remember was the result of an awfully played game. So keep it like it is -- it's like a red mark on your record to show you played in one of the worst games of the year.
It's funny that McNabb didn't know, but it's almost equally as funny that he wasn't smart enough to realize how stupid he would look telling the whole world that he didn't know. You would think he would keep that to himself.
Edit Comment Cancel
Juni Ramos 7 months ago
Hell yes!!! hahahahaha thats something u dont tell NOOOOOOOOOOBODY ...could have said it slipped my mind...or i was playing so hard that it didnt occur to me...(which wasnt the case obviously lol)ANYTHING...not Uhhh I DIDNT KNOW??? Hmmm Mr. McNabb 10 years is it? great look for an ALL STAR quaterback...im telling you...too many damn campells soup commercials....where his mom at mabye she can slap some sense into his brain
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
I was thinking the same exact thing, why would McNabb tell everybody that he didn't know about the rule when he could have easily kept his mouth shut and we would have no idea about it? And they do explain the rules at the beginning of overtime which makes it even funnier. Thanks for the comments Osi!
Edit Comment Cancel
Ryan Callahan 7 months ago
I completely agree with you. College overtime is so much more exciting and a better format than in the NFL.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks Ryan! I appreciate it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Eddie Rossell 7 months ago
I was thinking after i commented before and thought that maybe they could just play another entire quarter or half and let them play like a regular game, not sudden death, just a quarter or two of extra football, then see who has the higher score after that time. If it is still tied after that, then they can go to sudden death or something. But that would probably take too long.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
That wouldn't be a bad idea. A lot of people have thrown the idea about playing for a certain time and then whoever is leading when the time runs out should win the game. That way both teams would each have a chance to get the ball on offense.
Edit Comment Cancel
James Williamson 7 months ago
While ties are interesting in itself. I think you are right. The coin flip usually decides the winner in overtime, and that just isn't right.
Edit Comment Cancel
Bryn Swartz 7 months ago
You know, I don't know the exact percentage, but I know a decent amount (at least 40 percent, maybe 50 percent, maybe even higher) of overtime games are not won on the first possession. Not as much as you would think.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
I hear you on that one James. I know I've seen plenty of games where the team who gets the ball first wins. But I have seen games where it has taken a few times for somebody to score. Either way, I don't like the whole idea of a coin flip to determine who gets the ball first in overtime. It gives the team who wins a huge advantage.
Edit Comment Cancel
James Williamson 7 months ago
While ties are interesting in itself. I think you are right. The coin flip usually decides the winner in overtime, and that just isn't right.
Edit Comment Cancel
T.J. Morrill 7 months ago
Field goal shootout if one OT doesn't clinch it. That's how it should work.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
That would be pretty sweet if that's how they did it. At least something to break the tie. Thanks for the comments.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew O 7 months ago
no way kickers should not decide a game. it is a team sport first and foremost.
Edit Comment Cancel
Bob Cunningham 7 months ago
i've been saying this same thing for a long time. the NCAA has it down pat (thats about all they've got right). games ending in a tie is a joke. this needs to be changed. it's not often that the NFL is the only league to be left in the dark but as far as overtime goes, they're using an archaic method.
good stuff.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
I love the way the NCAA has their overtime setup. It makes the game so exciting when both teams get a chance to score. It's too bad the NFL won't do anything about it since ties happen once every couple of years.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Geller 7 months ago
Like a lot of the other issues in the NFL this is a really fragile issue. I agree that five quarters is enough and the game should be stopped there, as it completely drains a team for the next game. But is a tie acceptable?
I'm not sure. Honestly I love the college rule in the NFL because red zone defense and offense are arguably the most crucial part of every game, so why shouldn't the game come down to that in a more literal sense?
If the Eagles-Bengals debable didn't even happen this quesiton would still be asked. The Pats came out on the lesser end of the sudden death rule on Thursday.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the comments David. It's hard to tell what the NFL should do because ties rarely happen. College football is really exciting whenever it goes into overtime. But like you said, when you look at the game between the Jets and the Pats, people are still going to question the way overtime is handeled. And I agree with you, five quarters of football has to be exausting, especially for the veterans. Thanks again!
Edit Comment Cancel
RG Yoho 7 months ago
It sounds like we are on the same page about this thing! This season should be the last time the NFL ends a game with a tied score.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the comments RG! I hope they eventually get rid of the tie and make the games more exciting.
Edit Comment Cancel
mike delucia 7 months ago
First let me begin by sating, great piece. I disagree with the college approach to overtime. I believe the NFL should play another full quarter, and if at the end of the overtime quarter there is no score then declare a tie
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the comments Mike. I think either way would be great, another full quarter like they do in the playoffs wouldn't be a bad thing.
Edit Comment Cancel
Joe Pawlikowski 7 months ago
College rules but kickoff and play the whole field like a normal game...starting from the 25 changes strategies and creates a simulated atmosphere that alters the true nature of a football game
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
That's not a bad idea Joe. Then both teams would get a chance to have the ball. Thanks for the comments!
Edit Comment Cancel
Jerry Buell 7 months ago
I think the NFL could go one of two ways. First, stay with what they have w/ one major change, which would not have any effect on what happened Sunday. One of the biggest criticisms of the NFL's current OT system is the way the coin toss winner wins the majority of the time, many times on the opening drive. So, have the kickoff and if the receiving team scores on that drive, by either a TD or FG, then they have to kickoff and defend. This at least gives the coin toss loser a chance to put their offense on the field. Then if the other team scores to tie it, they keep going. There could still be a tie game after a full 15 minute 5th quarter. The other method would be similar to the Kansas tie-breaker system used in high schools and colleges, but have the NFL start at either the 40 or 50 yard line. This way, it almost demands at least one first down. It's always going to be a problem and will never be solved to everybody's delight. Under the current system, when your team wins the coin toss and goes right down the field and scores, you're happy. If it goes against you, the system sucks. If the referee hears it differently than what the player called (Steelers - Lions on a Thanksgiving Day game) it makes for great debate and high-lights.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Jerry, this actually sounds like a pretty solid idea. That would make it interesting to allow the other team a chance to have the ball if the other team scores. I don't like how the coin toss is used in overtime. It's a 50:50 draw to see if you get lucky to have the ball first and if you score, the other team doesn't even get a chance to have the ball because the flip didn't go your way. Nice reference to the Steelers Turkey Day game. I still can't believe the ref heard Bettis wrong. Thanks for the comments!
Edit Comment Cancel
Steven Resnick 7 months ago
Overtime should be 15 minutes long like it is, but it shouldn't be sudden death or first team to score wins. It should be similar to the NBA's overtime rule. It should be half the time of the regular quarter in football as in 7 minutes and 30 seconds for overtime and whoever scores the most points during that time wins. If there's no score you go at it again until someone wins.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
I've heard this idea a few times and I think this would be a great way to settle overtime. Whoever is up at the end of the period is declared the winner, and let them keep playing until one team finishes with the lead. Thanks for the comments Steven.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Glesner 7 months ago
Just a quick correction...teams go for two after the 2nd OT in college.
College should move it back to the 40 to make a team work to get into FG range. I think the NFL should go with two 5-minute OT periods where one team receives in the 1st, the other in the 2nd. The normal NFL rules apply.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the correction Scott, I couldn't remember off the top of my head and must have read it wrong when I looked it up.
I think moving the ball back further at the start of overtime would be a great idea for college. When they place it on the 25, the team is pretty much in field goal range already. Make the team work to get into field goal range. I like the approach about the two 5 minute rules too. Thanks for the comments!
Edit Comment Cancel
T.J. Morrill 7 months ago
"no way kickers should not decide a game. it is a team sport first and foremost."
O-Line, Snapper and Holder.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
I agree with you T.J. Thanks for the comments!
Edit Comment Cancel
Orlando Morales 7 months ago
Very disappointing watching that game on sunday. you're right, no one deserved the W there. Great Piece. I agree that the NFL should adopt the NCAA's OT rules. if not, like someone else said, play the entire OT as if a regular game, no sudden death, if there's a leader after the final whistle, the games over.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the comments Orlando. It was rough to watch in person. But like you said, both teams played so bad that nobody really deserved the win. I like the whole take about taking a leader after the final whistle. That seems to be a fair approach.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jeremy Golden 7 months ago
How about this for overtime? A football shootout. Each team gets a chance to score a TD starting on the opposing team's 30 yard line. Catch is, it is one-on-one. Say, the Ravens play the Jaguars and are tied after regulation and one overtime quarter. Shootout. Maurice Jones-Drew starts on the 30 yard line, Ray Lewis begins on the 20. If MJD scores, that is one point for the Jaguars. Then the Ravens get their choice of ball carrier to be defended by the Jags choice. If that player also scores, do it again -- only each team has to pick a new ball carrier and a new defender. Keep going until one team scores and the other doesn't. If it goes long enough, you may see some very interesting combinations of carrying and defending! Sounds pretty exciting to me!
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
That would be hilarious! Can you imagine if games used that format? Talk about excitement. There are so many different combinations of players that would be exciting to watch. Thanks for the comments Jeremy!
Edit Comment Cancel
Sebastian 7 months ago
I LOVE college overtime & I wish it would enter the NFL. It adds more drama than sudden death, if you believe it--- because even though a team may score, it does not mean you lose right then. You have a few more chances-- more opportunities for drama to build.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the comments Sebastian. College overtime is so much fun to watch because both teams get a chance. When they go into multiple overtimes, it makes the games even more exciting!
Edit Comment Cancel
daniel cox 7 months ago
dan, you make a great case. there needs to be a better resolution than a tie. ties work in hockey and soccer. let them have it. not in football. the ncaa has a great system. i love the idea of playing until a winner is determined. that's how it should be.
i'm sorry you had to sit through a tie instead of a proper outcome. i know you were looking forward to the game.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the comments Daniel. I agree, the NFL should take the approach of playing until a winner is determined.
And thanks for the sympathy, the game was still fun to say the least. Cold.....but fun.
Edit Comment Cancel
Derek Harmsworth 7 months ago
Just quickly..there are no ties in hockey anymore. But to the point of the original article, this is what I said after I had heard it ended in a tie.
I think they should have like a 10,15 minute regular overtime, and if you can't find a winner (which usually there is a winner) than you go to the NCAA rules. Similar to the shootout in hockey. Give the teams the chance to win it in regular overtime, then if they can't, go to a tie-breaking procedure such as NCAA.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the comments Derek. And as far as the ties in hockey, I mentioned how they were allowed until a few years ago.
I like your thoughts about playing 10-15 miinutes and going to a shootout after that if necessary.
Edit Comment Cancel
STEPHEN NOYES 7 months ago
If you play 60 minutes of football and can't determine a winner in that time, both teams deserve a tie. Don't get rid of the tie. Let it stand as is, to give more flucuation in the standings... To demand a winner and loser every game is infantile... Why put artificial limits on a game and add time?
Overtime should be reserved only for SPECIAL games, playoffs, championships, etc. etc. I've seen tied football games, both college and professional, and none of those games have shortened my life, or diminished my lifestyle.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the comments Stephen, I appreciate it. I still think they should play overtime no matter what. Sometimes teams need the extra time to settle a difficult game (still no excuse for the Eagles-Bengals game Sunday).
Edit Comment Cancel
Christian Karcole 7 months ago
You bring up nice points, but it just won't work. They can't change a system because of something that happens once every six or seven years. Plus, this system is better in my opinion (better teams actually win, instead of college where you are auto in scoring position). All we need to do is make it continuous OT.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Parzych 7 months ago
Thanks for the comments Christian. And I agree, ties in the NFL don't happen enough to the point where the NFL is going to change anything about them. Continuous OT wouldn't be a bad thing ever. I just want them to get rid of the tie.
Edit Comment Cancel
Steve Smith 7 months ago
The answer to this question is so simple. No, the NFL should not change to the NCAA's cheesy pinball machine overtime. The NFL should simply give regular season OT the same rules as postseason OT. In other words, you play until there's a winner, no matter how long it takes. Continuous OT is correct.
Edit Comment Cancel
Steve Smith 7 months ago
I support sudden death. Football is a clock game; it's not like baseball where each team gets an equal shot. Teams don't automatically get an equal number of possessions in regulation, so why should everything be equal in OT? Sudden death is better because the game can end at any time, and the team that gets the ball first wins barely more than half the time.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.