Great ESPN Piece on "Ties" in College Football
And it is dominated by B10 and ND.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=maisel_ivan&id=53…
I would rather win than have the game end in a tie, but if I were only given the choices of losing or having it end in a tie, I would be inclined to choose the latter.
I don't believe you.
This has to be tied for the most obvious statement made on Mgoblog. It can't be the most obvious, because that would make it a winner at being a loser. And we don't want you to win at losing. A tie is much more satisfying.
I find your ideas intriguing and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter! Here's a fertile controversy for next month's issue: I would rather have three dollars than two, but two dollars would be better than one. :)
Michigan's 9-0-3 season (@1992 IIRC). How great would it have been to have the opportunity for overtime and a chance at 12-0...
Ties are stupid.
The ties in football were so annoying. I am a fan of overtime. Granted, no system is perfect or completely "fair" but at least there is a decided outcome at the end. Maisel waxes nostaligic about the debate over certain games that ended in ties like it is something to be cherished. To me, these aren't shining moments in college football history, they are unresolvable arguments. At least now we can have a decided winner and then everyone can move on.
but ties are like kissing your sister through a screen door.
Uh, are you insinuating it's okay to kiss your sister if there is no screen door?
Based on his analogy, I think that might be winning.... gotta love circular family trees.
Ties are for people who do not want to win or lose.
Ties brought controversy. They may have ended games, but they started debates that endure to this day.
And 3 OT games are remembered because of how exciting they were, not how debatable they are.
Ties are also for communists.
are ugly.
OT games may be remembered for being controversial. Ask Miami why they don't have a second national championship after their Fiesta Bowl with OSU.
Of course, you are right, and the controversy was not in the OT itself, but in the phantom pass interference penalty that was called 10 seconds too late.
People that like ties are the same people that like the current bowl system over a playoff. They like the drama. Football teams play the game to compete and win, not tie. And if you want drama watch a soap opera.
I hate ties but like the current system. Drama is what makes college football the best sport on the planet.
My soap operas are every saturday from September till January (except for that one week in December).
was how teams would settle and play for the tie at the end of the game. That drove me nuts. It was such an unsatisfying way for a game to end.
If ties were still possible, would we have gone for 2 at the end of the '04 MSU game?
I have to believe at home and with the momentum that we had coming back in that game that Lloyd actually would have went for team. It was a home game and they had the road team on the ropes. They could have done anything at that point and won that game. Msu was reeling and had lost Stanton and had Dowdell at Qb. With the weapons that they had they could have simply ran a draw play with Hart and won with a 2pt conversion simply because of the Braylon factor. We will never know because we won anyways but its good to imagine and debate about it. Lets Go Blue!
The atmosphere in that game was amazing and the drama was electric. One of the best games that I have ever been to.
I wouldn't want to give up that memory.
We scored the final TD in regulation with just under three minutes remaining, and I believe we still had some of our timeouts. I can't imagine Lloyd would have gone for two - and risk losing by a point - when we had a decent chance at getting the ball back. (We did not, as it turned out, but only because MSU picked up a couple first downs.) Gary Moeller went for two in 1990 because there were 10 seconds left. He would not, in all likelihood, have done so if there had been more time on the click.
Incidentally, while people always bring up Stanton's injury, Dowdell actually played well in the second half. MSU expanded its lead when Dowdell was in there.
and the situation. The infamous 1990 UM-MSU game was decided on the 2-point conversion where the ref missed the blatant pass interference on the last play. Moeller could have played for the tie but went for the win in one of the most exciting games from my time as a student. Of course, it was also Moeller's first year, and maybe he wanted to establish himself as not just Bo, part II.
Bo would have gone for two. No way in hell would he have played for the tie.
I agree with Maisel in the sense that I don't want ties back in the game, but they do serve as an interesting point in history and created some very memorable games. I remember as a kid hearing about the 10-10 time between us and tOSU back in '73. Sometimes it was exciting.
Also, games like FSU-Florida, in which FSU came back from 31-3 to tie. Would it have been more amazing if FSU won the game, instead of tying 31-31, yeah, but if they would have lost in OT the whole thing would have been pointless and forgotten.
I think that game also sets some sort of precedent for rematches. I'm actually one that feels that an OSU-UM rematch wouldn't always be bad. I agree, it is probably best for them to be in the same division and not rematch, but the hype around that FSU-Florida rematch is something even I remember.
I hate ties but like the current system. Drama is what makes college football the best sport on the planet.
My soap operas are every saturday from September till January (except for that one week in December).
Indeed. I see no reason to make college football like every other g_d sport in the world. The fact that it isn't EXACTLY like college basketball or pro football is not a flaw.
I would like to see changes made to the OT system. I actually like the old NFL OT.
Why did you put the word ties in quotation marks? (I thought at first this was a pun referencing the fact that some Southern fans wear neckties to games.)
Pat Dye sucks.
OK, lets flip the question: who would have preferred to comeback late to tie MSU last year, over loosing in OT?
Is that code for playing with shoelaces untied - i.e., with Denard in there? I don't know. I don't think he was ready to play QB at that juncture.
One, and this is very mild, it does burn the memory of a game into one's mind rather than a single overtime game - but only when either a) the game tying score comes very late (like on the last play) or b) when a team has a perceived chance to win the game outright and passes on that (like kicking a 20 yard field goal or sitting on the ball at midfield with 2 minutes to go).
Second, knowing that the game ends at 60 minutes forces the coach to make decisions that are much more amplified in their impact rather than simply playing for overtime. For example - 1984 Orange Bowl, Nebraska v. Miami. If overtime was an option, I find it very, very, VERY unlikely that Tom Osborne goes for two to win the game outright. Why? Because he doesn't need to at that point, particularly with the way college does OT. Go to overtime and have a better chance of winning. Or what about Moeller in the infamous tripping of Howard in the endzone? Again, take the high percentage and go to OT. And think about it another way - the 1994 FSU/UF game. That game is more memorable because it ended in a tie than if Florida had won in OT, or if FSU had lost in regulation on a try for two. In fact, we would never care about the huge comeback, especially if Florida won in ho-hum fashion in the first OT period.
I like overtime, and watched the first OT game in D-1A live. And it's sure better than what happened to my cousin (playing for Findlay) and Jon Kitna (playing for Central Wash.) in 1995 - a tie at the end of the NAIA D2 championship game. Imagine how much that'd suck to share a national title with the team you just played for 60 minutes.