As we stand of the eve of another NFL season, let’s consider the efficacy of regular season overtime games in the league. They were first implemented in 1974 to greatly reduce the number of games that ended in a tie. Previously, overtime games in the NFL were reserved for the post-season. Ironically, the first ever regular season overtime game in the NFL, played in September of 1974 between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Denver Broncos, ended in a 35-35 tie. Despite this anomaly, the regular season overtime rule has been very successful in eliminating ties.

In the 32 seasons that this rule has been in effect, there have only been 16 ties, exactly one every two seasons. But further analysis seems to show a trend toward fewer ties, as there have been only three ties in the last 16 seasons, compared to 13 in the previous 16 seasons.

Actually, ties seem to come in spurts, with long dry spells before and after. In 1997, there were ties in back-to-back weeks. However, during the seven seasons leading up to that one, there were none, and in the eight seasons since then, there has only been one. To look at it another way, there were only two tie games in the NFL during the entire decade of the 1990’s and they occurred on consecutive weeks in 1997.

However, what has been the major fallout of this scarcity of tie games? Curiously enough, it has led to more ties in the standings and has increased the need to utilize tie-breakers. It’s a matter of simple mathematics.

Since a tie has been virtually eliminated as a possible outcome of any given game, there are just two realistic possibilities left for any given team - a win or a loss. So, after game one, a team can have a record of either 1-0 or 0-1. After game two, a team can have a record of either 2-0, 1-1, or 0-2. Carried over 16 games, there are 17 possible records a team can have (always one more than the number of games they have played).

Now, let’s go back to the pre-1974 rules when a team faced three realistic outcomes as they stepped onto the playing field and imagine for a minute that overtime is not used in the regular season. After the first game, a team can have a record of 1-0-0, 0-1-0, or 0-0-1. After the second game, a team can have a record of 2-0-0, 0-2-0, 1-1-0, 0-0-2, 1-0-1, or 0-1-1. Notice a pattern? Instead of having the possible records equal to one more than the number of games played, it is equal to three times the number of games played. Carried over a 16-game season, that would be 48 possible records for any given team.

With only 17 possible records per team vs. the 48 it would be by allowing a tie as a realistic outcome, the possibility of two or more teams in the same division and/or conference finishing with the same record greatly increased when overtime became a part of the NFL’s regular season. In the NFL, ties in the standings are not broken on the field, but rather by somewhat questionable criteria, by which a team could be left out of the playoffs based on a point differential or even a coin flip. While no one likes tie games (as it is said, they are like kissing your sister), I would prefer tie games to ties in the standings.

Tags: football, sports, tiesfootball, sports, ties

Share This

After enduring that disgusting final weekend of the NFL regular season, I have come to the conclusion that a new tie-breaker is needed. How a team performs during the final weekend should be the first tie-breaker, with all the current tie-breakers falling in line after that. A team that won its final game would hold the first tie-breaker advantage against a team they’re tied with that lost its final game. If they both lost, both won, or both tied their final game, then the current tie-breakers would take effect in the order that they currently exist. That would accomplish at least three of positive things.

First, a team with a one game lead for a playoff spot, headed into the final weekend, would have more difficulty “backing in” to the playoffs the way Minnesota did this year. By all rights, New Orleans should have made the playoffs instead of the Vikings. They finished with identical records. However, the Saints won their final game, while the Vikings lost theirs. In fact, under the NFL’s current crazy tie-breaker system, the Vikings’ loss, while ultimately not damaging their own playoff hopes, ironically was one of the major factors that kept the Saints out of the playoffs! Under my proposed rule, the Saints would have been in and the Vikings would have been out.

Second, it would keep more playoff berths/positions open going into the final weekend and maintain more excitement and suspense all the way to the end. Currently, a team with a one game lead for a playoff berth, bye, home field advantage, and/or seeding can have that position clinched before the final weekend if they own the tie-breaker over the team(s) they lead. Under my proposal, that would not be possible. That position would still be open through the final weekend of the season. For example, the Pittsburgh Steelers would not have clinched the home field advantage in the AFC until they beat Buffalo in the final weekend, instead of having it already clinched going into that game.

Third, it would also keep teams with one game leads from having de-facto “byes” during the final weekend. Take Indianapolis for example. The Colts’ game against Denver this weekend was meaningless to them, even though it meant everything to the Broncos. Although the Colts had only a one game lead over San Diego for the number three seed in the AFC, they owned the tie-breaker over the Chargers. I don’t care what anyone says, the Colts, with their lack of effort, effectively rolled over and allowed the Broncos to win, which wasn’t fair to Jacksonville and Baltimore, the teams competing with the Broncos for the final AFC playoff spot. Under my proposal, the Colts would have had to win to maintain their third seed in the playoffs.

Tags: football, rules, sports, tiesfootball, rules, sports, ties

Share This