Why did ties exist for so long?

#26
#26
Ties make sense in regular season standings, insofar as standings make any sense in such an unbalanced environment as college football. I like ties ... their existence and possibility, that is. I still want to win. But for placement in a playoff with not enough spots, a tie is closer to a loss, and therefore doesn't have any place in the modern playoff landscape.
 
#27
#27
PlanetVolunteer said:
I'm very confused as to why it took until 1996 for college football to get rid of the possibility of a tie.
What dumb traditionalist wanted to keep the tie around for so long!



Just a dumb ending to this game.

Why no field goal?
Why run a draw and not get out of bounds and just accept a tie?

Seemed like the Bill Walsh and Musberger just accepted it. "Yep makes perfect sense to just settle for a gutless tie"
Click to expand...
W
Webb did get out of bounds.
 
#28
#28
In the video, it looks like Webb simply forgot to get out of bounds. When you’re dodging bodies and breaking tackles it’s hard to keep up with the clock in your head. Given the call, Kelly probably should have reiterated in the huddle to get what you can, but the important thing is to get out of bounds. I don’t really fault either player though. Football is an emotional game.
 
#29
#29
peaygolf said:
Simple reason. Ties are like kissing your sister. Alabama people running the SEC liked kissing their sisters......
Click to expand...
I don't blame them, since I've been to three UT Bama games, and their coeds are much hotter than Tennessee's.
 
#31
#31
Concept said:
Ties make sense in regular season standings, insofar as standings make any sense in such an unbalanced environment as college football. I like ties ... their existence and possibility, that is. I still want to win. But for placement in a playoff with not enough spots, a tie is closer to a loss, and therefore doesn't have any place in the modern playoff landscape.
Click to expand...

I have no idea.... tying a piece of cloth tightly around one's neck never seemed like a smart idea to me ....
 
#35
#35
One theory:

The original game of football (read: rugby) was super grindy. It was like taking two Greek phalanxes, say the Spartans and Athenians, having them lock up front line to front line, shields against shields, and just start pushing at each other. Game of inches. Meanwhile, you know, all the stabbing between the shields is going on causing attrition until one side starts to give way. Brutally slow, dusty, and unforgiving way to fight.

And that's how football felt in its early days. I mean, this ancient idea of warfare is kind of WHY football (rugby) felt that way back then. Football as a war game, indeed.

So how do you break a tie when games might easily--in fact, often did--end up 0-0 or 3-3 or 7-7 (or scores that would sound weirder today, because goals and field goals had different point assignments back then)?

If the essence of the sport is grinding two formations against each other in an effort to slowly gain ground ... what could you possibly put in as a tie breaker that wouldn't violate its nature? Lining up at the 2-yard-line and giving the offense a certain number of seconds or plays to get across the goal? Well that would be no good, because those teams just spent 60 minutes proving that neither could push the other back any distance at all! How about allowing each side a free kick, a field goal attempt? Well, that's not the spirit of the game. Might as well let the team captains play a round of checkers to break the tie, as much as either represents the sport.

So, since there was no conceivable tie breaker that stayed within the framework and essence of the game, the football world accepted that some games just ended in ties. Shrugged and got on with life.

Then football evolved, became more friendly to the offense. The forward pass came into existence. Later, it actually became popular.

But even then, for a long time, the spirit of the game as it was originally lived on in the minds of the coaches and referees and officials. And tradition also had taken root. Tradition is a big part of sport. And so even after we had the means to break ties while staying inside the 'feel of the game,' we still didn't take advantage of the opportunity for a while.

Then, finally, we did.

But that, i think, is why for so long we didn't.

Go Vols!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CR-vol, gnm53108, Raebo and 1 other person
#36
#36
A game meant to be played in 60 minutes already takes almost 4 hours to complete at the college level. The logical reason to have a tie is health of the players when extending a game and at the same time coming up with some concocted solution to quickly decide a winner after 60 minutes of strategy resulted in a draw. The NFL's sudden overtime is more lame than the college version where you start each OT period in field goal range.

I don't like ties, but I do understand them.
 
#37
#37
GAVol said:
Me too. It takes too long and often comes down to a coin flip.
Click to expand...
Winning the coin flip in the NFL's old sudden death format was a slight advantage but not as much as commonly believed and not near as much as home field.

RECORD FOR TEAMS THAT WIN COIN TOSS IN OT, SINCE 2012
22-28-3 (.443) on road
33-22-4 (.593) at home
56-50-7 (.527) overall

OVERALL WIN PERCENTAGES, ALL GAMES, SINCE 2012
.422 on road
.578 at home
 
#39
#39
LakeMaryFLVol said:
Listened to Auburn postgame on way home to Chattanooga and they said Auburn beats Tennessee 26-26
Click to expand...
I’ll never forget Pat Dye’s reaction when our FG attempt at the end missed. It was like they’d won a national title. It was weird.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tnphil
#40
#40
No one has even brought up the miserable ending in the 1993 UT Bama game? I remember getting back on the band bus and it was stunned silence. Until someone let out a loud F bomb. And yes, the vast majority of band members are really into the game.
 
#41
#41
1990... Colorado's infamous season. It all started so innocently, tying the Vols in a preseason exhibition game. Oct. 6 and the fifth down play would reveal the flawed character of the program and their coach. A self-proclaimed ardent Christian, Bill McCartney would refuse to forfeit an unearned victory against Missouri, despite unequivocal evidence of Colorado's fifth down being critical to the recorded 33-31 outcome. His stated reason for letting stand the unfair result was that the Buffaloes had a chance of being voted National Champs. That the sportswriters did so is a stain upon them and their profession.

You didn't keep faith with the Lord that year, Bill. Founding Promise Keepers does not erase your sin. Your poor example echoed through the years of trouble in the Colorado program. The 1990 AP NC, the 2013 induction into the CFB HOF - all hollow, all forever stained.

Sting 'em, Jackets. The true 1990 National Champs.
 
#42
#42
BACKDOC said:
I don't blame them, since I've been to three UT Bama games, and their coeds are much hotter than Tennessee's.
Click to expand...

36d2037b-89b1-4ee0-92d4-8684a4afeecb_text_hi.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1 and VFL-82-JP
#43
#43
PlanetVolunteer said:
I'm very confused as to why it took until 1996 for college football to get rid of the possibility of a tie.
What dumb traditionalist wanted to keep the tie around for so long!



Just a dumb ending to this game.

Why no field goal?
Why run a draw and not get out of bounds and just accept a tie?

Seemed like the Bill Walsh and Musberger just accepted it. "Yep makes perfect sense to just settle for a gutless tie"
Click to expand...

Because they couldn't figure out an equitable tiebreaker. Still haven't
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raebo
#47
#47
Why was the score not on the screen at all times? Whose idea was that?
 
Last edited:
#48
#48
Probably because ties didn't hurt teams in the rankings like losses did. Remember, two national championships were awarded then by "polls" of media and coaches. There were no "elimination" games at all like conference championships much less the BCS.

Throw stones if you like but I believe the BCS should be expanded by at least 4 more teams. All 5 Power 5 champions should get automatic bids plus the next 3 highest ranked teams.

Or, the 5 conferences could reorganize and absorb the Big 12 creating 4 super conferences of 16 teams each. The playoff would consist of all 8 division champions. Leagues could still have their own championship game.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top