Should NCAA football reinstate tie games ?

Question

Tie games can really throw a monkey wrench into conference standings. I also believe ties benefit the little guys and underdogs
who can deliver one or two big plays during a game to even up with the big guys.So whats wrong with two teams playing even on any given game day? Like life, someone doesn't always have to win...

Answer 1

Yes, ties should reinstated. It is easy to just say "oooh i love triple overtime games because you are probably just a drone looking for more action." The NCAA has shattered its history in the last 15 years, first with this ridiculous OT where field position and punting are taken out of the equation and basically the team with the best kicker or a scrambling QB usually wins. It is not real football. They then last year changed the clock rules to shorten games for TELEVISION TIME. So basically first they limit the sample size of the games, then make replay not a true representation of a winner. Take the Cal - Washington game yesterday. Washington down by 7 gets a tipped hail mary at the end of the game. Down by 1, they decide to go for the extra point to tie it knowing OT is ahead. One Marshawn Lynch run later, and a quick interception the game is over. Facing a draw, Tyrone Willingham would have gone for two and possibly won the game, creating a dramatic situation. If he had gone for the 1, Washington would have earned a much needed draw to stay in the Pac-10 race. Now they are credited with a loss. It takes the emotion out of the game and creates an artificial quick winner so games can stay under 3 and a half hours. Replay takes way too long, and what they need to do is CUT TO A COMMERCIAL as a play is being reviewed. That would save so much time, because they just sit there staring at the coaches. Cut to commerical then so you wouldn't have to take out time out of the game.

Back to ties, possible changes:

1. Move the ball to the 50 and keep OT as it is. (better but no good enough)

2. Call it a tie after 1 or two OT series. (even better, but not good enough)

3. Call it a straight up tie like the old days (great, but at this point probably wouldn't fly with public)

4. Put an extra period of play with NO SUDDEN DEATH. This is the best system, but also the most consistently time consuming. However, in the regular season, i think putting 10 mins on the clock and play one full period of action (similar to silver goal in world cup soccer) If you want to have Overtime, you cannot worry about the occasional 3 and half / 4 hour game. If it is still a tie, i saw call it a draw in the regular season, and in the bowl games / national championship, keep playing consecutive periods until a winner is determined. Maybe make it sudden death after 2 OTs. This is just like Canadian football.

5. Last option is sudden death, but i didn't think college football wants to be like the NFL. Option 4 is better but more time consuming.

The key is shortening the game by cutting to commericals during the reviews! That is where they can save time. And the occasional OT would be fine, because with the new clock rules the clock would run a lot.

I hope one day we will see ties and / or a true overtime with punting and time on the clock !!! and field position. Hopefully soon. Any ideas on how we can sell this to the NCAA?

Answer 2

Examine this, some of the most exciting football games in College Football over the last few years have been the double/triple overtime nail biters. WVU and Louisville last year, triple overtime. That game was the birth of a serious rivalry.

Overtime adds excitement, what would hockey be without the overtime face off. If baseball just stopped at 9 innings. Overtime gives the opportunity for two teams to be larger than the game itself for that given moment in time. Overtime simply means that both of these teams will not quit, so why should we put rules in a game that force this obviously great game to stop.

Answer 3

Hell no! Like Bear Bryant once said, " A tie game is like having to kiss your sister"! It doesn't settle anything and it mucks up conference standings to the point that BOTH teams involved in the tie might be eliminated from some sort of postseason consideration. I love the tiebreaker because it lets the teams slug it out and allows wins and losses to be more concrete in the standings without complicating tie-breaking procedures from that standpoint.

Answer 4

Good question. If you're watching a 1A game on TV or in person and the game in regulation takes a long time with several replay reviews during the game, and then the game goes one, two , three OT's, who can sit thru all that? 4+ hours?
Plus, multiple OT games take a toll on the players physically. After all, some are getting scholarships, but they are not getting paid like pros.

Answer 5

It not a good idea at all! It adds SO much confusion to everything! In overtime the weaker team is the first one to wear down and so the stronger team deserves to win the game! Yes, there should be a winner and a loser!

Answer 6

no way in hell, games should have a winner and a loser. besides college football has a great overtime system tht maybe even the NFL should take a loooonngg look at.

Answer 7

No, I love those double, and triple overtime games.

Answer 8

ties suck id rather lose theres always a winner and loser in life cmon get real

Answer 9

NO WAY. TIES SUCK!