SEPT. 28: Around the NFL, other games.

[Big Turk]

3 minutes ago, BigDingus said:

 

 

 

Am I alone in thinking ties are kinda cool?!

 

They're a cool novelty & relic from the past when they used to be much more common. It's like spotting a non-native bird in your backyard or seeing someone with all their teeth in West Virginia! 

 

Seems like there are at least one a year now when it was exceedingly rare for decades.

[sullim4]

7 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

10 minutes isn't enough time. It goes by way too fast. It should be 15 minutes like it used to be

 

The reason I like 10 minutes better than 15 is that it gives each team an opportunity to employ strategies to win the game without the coin flip having an outsized impact.

 

If they increase the time to 15 minutes, Green Bay probably receives instead of kicks on the coin toss.  They score a FG, Dallas scores a FG.  Now there's 5 minutes left for Green Bay to march down the field... essentially the coin flip giving them the ability to control sudden death.

 

With 10 minutes... there's a higher likelihood of 2 possessions, meaning you could have scenarios like going for 2 after a TD to break a tie, milking the clock to prevent a third possession (like GB did here), etc.  It's more interesting from a strategic point of view and puts more power into the team's hands to determine the outcome over a coin flip.

[rusty shackleford]

4 minutes ago, BigDingus said:

 

 

 

Am I alone in thinking ties are kinda cool?!

 

They're a cool novelty & relic from the past when they used to be much more common. It's like spotting a non-native bird in your backyard or seeing someone with all their teeth in West Virginia! 

It’s unique, but it’s not cool. Would rather always have a clear winner.

[sven233]

As I said above, while I get why they do ties, I just think it is really anticlimactic for a game, especially like this one, to end in a tie.  We just watched a 4 hour football game and we didn't get a winner.  What makes it worse it that it was a really entertaining game that, had their been a winner, would have been in contention for game of the year.  But no tie can be considered in that conversation if you ask me.  I just think that as good of a game as this was, it will largely be forgotten sooner rather than later because there was no winner.

 

I get people wanting to go to the college rules.  But those rules do seem to have inherent flaws in terms of strategy and wanting to go second to know exactly what you need to do.  I think a better solution is to do what the NFL does, but just repeat it until you get a winner.  Coin toss.  Possession by both teams. Repeat until you get a winner.  Maybe make going for 2 mandatory. 

 

Or, if you don't want to do that, just keep the rules the way they are, but just don't have a time limit.  Have a clock to keep track of all important timing issues, but make it so there isn't an end of game after a certain time.  Make it so if what happens tonight happens, that the next score wins no matter what.  The game just ends when the next team scores whether it happens in 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 23 minutes.....whatever it is.  Just play until you have a winner.  But these teams laid it on the line all week leading up to the game and then 4 hours during the game.  There really should be a winner for the work they put in.

Edited Monday at 04:30 AM by sven233

[The Frankish Reich]

 

[Buffalo03]

1 minute ago, sullim4 said:

 

The reason I like 10 minutes better than 15 is that it gives each team an opportunity to employ strategies to win the game without the coin flip having an outsized impact.

 

If they increase the time to 15 minutes, Green Bay probably receives instead of kicks on the coin toss.  They score a FG, Dallas scores a FG.  Now there's 5 minutes left for Green Bay to march down the field... essentially the coin flip giving them the ability to control sudden death.

 

With 10 minutes... there's a higher likelihood of 2 possessions, meaning you could have scenarios like going for 2 after a TD to break a tie, milking the clock to prevent a third possession (like GB did here), etc.  It's more interesting from a strategic point of view and puts more power into the team's hands to determine the outcome over a coin flip.

I honestly would play to win in a 10 minute. With that last second, I take another shot at the end zone to try to win it. 15 minutes still gives a little more time. If I went to a Bills game and we tied, I would feel ripped off as a fan. Like I feel like fans got ripped off tonight from a great game tonight 

[Simon]

32 minutes ago, sven233 said:

Or, if you don't want to do that, just keep the rules the way they are, but just don't have a time limit.  Have a clock to keep track of all important timing issues, but make it so there isn't an end of game after a certain time.  Make it so if what happens tonight happens, that the next score wins no matter what.  The game just ends when the next team scores whether it happens in 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 23 minutes.....whatever it is.  Just play until you have a winner.

 

This is the solution I've always favored as well; just turn off the game clock and go.

But man, it could be fraught with peril. What if you have two really bad offenses with a couple vicious defenses, particularly in a relatively meaningless game. That could go on long enough to create the kind of conditions that get people hurt, and for no good reason. I don't think that's something that anybody wants.

Maybe set the clock to 20:00 and see if that's shows a tendency toward having more games decided, and if it doesn't then try increasing increments 'til it does?

[BigDingus]

40 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Seems like there are at least one a year now when it was exceedingly rare for decades.

 

You're right, and they have come in pairs before. There's been a few years where we had 2 ties in the same season.

 

Just checked, and from 1990 to 2011 we only had 4 ties (with 2 in the 1997 season). Then from 2012 to 2025, we've had 13. 

 

So you're spot on in that we average 1 per year now.

 

The only years in that stretch that there wasn't at least 1 tie were 2015, 2017, 2023 & 2024. So this is our first one in 3 years 🙂

[BigDingus]

47 minutes ago, sven233 said:

As I said above, while I get why they do ties, I just think it is really anticlimactic for a game, especially like this one, to end in a tie.  We just watched a 4 hour football game and we didn't get a winner.  What makes it worse it that it was a really entertaining game that, had their been a winner, would have been in contention for game of the year.  But no tie can be considered in that conversation if you ask me.  I just think that as good of a game as this was, it will largely be forgotten sooner rather than later because there was no winner.

 

I get people wanting to go to the college rules.  But those rules do seem to have inherent flaws in terms of strategy and wanting to go second to know exactly what you need to do.  I think a better solution is to do what the NFL does, but just repeat it until you get a winner.  Coin toss.  Possession by both teams. Repeat until you get a winner.  Maybe make going for 2 mandatory. 

 

Or, if you don't want to do that, just keep the rules the way they are, but just don't have a time limit.  Have a clock to keep track of all important timing issues, but make it so there isn't an end of game after a certain time.  Make it so if what happens tonight happens, that the next score wins no matter what.  The game just ends when the next team scores whether it happens in 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 23 minutes.....whatever it is.  Just play until you have a winner.  But these teams laid it on the line all week leading up to the game and then 4 hours during the game.  There really should be a winner for the work they put in.

 

Funny to think MLB has been taken steps to speed up games & limit the amount of time spent dragging on, but now we're here wanting the NFL to go the opposite direction & add more time to things.

 

They already had a way to limit ties for many years, and it was sudden death OT. First score wins, that's it. 

 

But then many great games came to an abrupt end & people felt cheated that way, so they finally changed it in 2010 (for the playoffs) & the sudden death only applied if the starting offense scored a TD on their opening drive. 

 

That was expanded to the regular season a couple years later, followed by shortening OT from 15 mins to 10 mins, and it remained that way until.... you guessed it, the Bills vs Chiefs playoff game where Allen sat on the bench the whole time. 

 

Guess it just depends on what you prioritize. If you want fairness, you probably prefer what we have now. If you prefer having a winner no matter what, sudden death (most often decided by a coin toss) gets you that result more consistently.

 

Shortened quarters also help with player safety, but also open up the chance for a tie. I like it how it is now, but I can understand why others wouldn't.

 

What I really DON'T like is the suggestion we go to college OT rules. I hate how that can inflate stats way too much. You can have players put up more TD passes in OT than they did the entirety of regulation. It would warp records way too much.

[FloridaSnow]

1 hour ago, sullim4 said:

 

I like it.  There was a lot of clock management strategy that Green Bay had to think about there - and they colossally failed in that respect.

I’m here too. Feels like they have overtime right. Though, to be honest, I’d be fine with a straight ten minute period, not sudden death, and a tie once that is over. Ties really don’t bother me.

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

3 hours ago, FloridaSnow said:

Ties really don’t bother me.

 

[RichRiderBills]

I just want to say again, that I hate the new kickoff rule like hate with a passion. Totally contrived. I don't like the new kickoff and I even further don't like the changes this year about going to the 35. 

 

Too many of these possessions are starting to far down the field w good field position. The whole game of football is essentially changed. This is too catastrophic of an impact. 

 

 

[SCBills]

Madabuike out for the season for the Ravens. 

[ImpactCorey]

I don't really like how college resolves ties.  It doesn't feel like it properly represents which team deserves it.  Like penalty kicks in soccer.

I believe there is a really simple way to fix NFL games from having ties and it fixes another problem as well:

 

The victory goes to the team that took the most recent lead change.

 

In this case, Green Bay would not have just kicked a field goal.  Dallas had the most recent lead change, so they'd have to go for a TD if they wanted to win.

 

The other problem this fixes?  The coin toss for OT.  We went from the obvious choice was take the ball to the obvious choice is to kick (because you are guaranteed at least 1 possession and you'll know what to do).  Moving to most recent lead change you may want to try to take the lead first in OT OR you might want to see what you have to do.  There's an interesting choice there.

 

If nobody scores in OT, the victory goes to the team that had the lead before the other team tied it to go into OT.  They had the higher percentage of winning the game before it was tied.  Makes sense.

 

I will admit a possible flaw in this concept is a team might try to just run out the clock in OT knowing they had the most recent lead in regulation.

 

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

Anything resolving a tie that involves using a coin flip is arbitrary.  Rock-Paper-Scissors is the only way to go.

(I would have added 'Lizard-Spock', but I can just picture the mental gyrations the two additional options would have added for players and coaches. 🤨)