WWTBAM Bored

Or so thought Donovan McNabb in his post game interview.

He also dint know if playoff games or the Super Bowl coould end in a tie.


I think he would make a good vice presidential candidate

Rush enjoyed reporting on this fact.

BigDrawMan wrote:Or so thought Donovan McNabb in his post game interview.

He also dint know if playoff games or the Super Bowl coould end in a tie.


I think he would make a good vice presidential candidate

What's worse...Donovan not knowing the rules, or the refs who officiated the Steelers/Chargers game not knowing the rules?

PS I hope the Steelers ain't overlooking the Bungles this Thursday. They've been playing much better as of late.

Although we should be able to run on them, and Jamie and Wood ought to be licking their chops because BOTH the Bungles' OTs were injured on Sunday.

One of these days, the NFL will get its head out of its ass and realize the purpose of playing a game is to have a winner and a loser.....

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:One of these days, the NFL will get its head out of its ass and realize the purpose of playing a game is to have a winner and a loser.....

lb13

Everybody lost.

Suicide pool and pigskin pool.

littlebeast13 wrote:One of these days, the NFL will get its head out of its ass and realize the purpose of playing a game is to have a winner and a loser.....

lb13

The NFL is the last league to have ties.

Not even the NHL has them anymore.

Jeemie wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:One of these days, the NFL will get its head out of its ass and realize the purpose of playing a game is to have a winner and a loser.....

lb13

The NFL is the last league to have ties.

Not even the NHL has them anymore.

The primary reason my hockey fandom has waned. We at parade central have never been fans of shootouts to decide anything.

ParadeCoordinator wrote:

Jeemie wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:One of these days, the NFL will get its head out of its ass and realize the purpose of playing a game is to have a winner and a loser.....

lb13

The NFL is the last league to have ties.

Not even the NHL has them anymore.

The primary reason my hockey fandom has waned. We at parade central have never been fans of shootouts to decide anything.

Not that I'm a hockey fan, but I don't like the shootout idea either.

That doesn't mean there has to be ties....

Play until someone wins. How hard is that.....?

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:

ParadeCoordinator wrote:

Jeemie wrote: The NFL is the last league to have ties.

Not even the NHL has them anymore.

The primary reason my hockey fandom has waned. We at parade central have never been fans of shootouts to decide anything.

Not that I'm a hockey fan, but I don't like the shootout idea either.

That doesn't mean there has to be ties....

Play until someone wins. How hard is that.....?

lb13

I would rather have the ties. I hate shootouts.

In the NFL, marathon games lead to marathon injuries.

SportsFan68 wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:

ParadeCoordinator wrote:
The primary reason my hockey fandom has waned. We at parade central have never been fans of shootouts to decide anything.

Not that I'm a hockey fan, but I don't like the shootout idea either.

That doesn't mean there has to be ties....

Play until someone wins. How hard is that.....?

lb13

I would rather have the ties. I hate shootouts.

In the NFL, marathon games lead to marathon injuries.

Why not do as the NCAA does - give both teams equal chances to score. As it stands now, the team that wins the toss wins the game well over 50% of the time. Line each team up on the 30 yard line and give them four downs to either score or make a 1st down, then give the other team the chance.

earendel wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote: Not that I'm a hockey fan, but I don't like the shootout idea either.

That doesn't mean there has to be ties....

Play until someone wins. How hard is that.....?

lb13

I would rather have the ties. I hate shootouts.

In the NFL, marathon games lead to marathon injuries.

Why not do as the NCAA does - give both teams equal chances to score. As it stands now, the team that wins the toss wins the game well over 50% of the time. Line each team up on the 30 yard line and give them four downs to either score or make a 1st down, then give the other team the chance.

This is why I love baseball. Nobody questions the concept of just playing extra innings until someone finally ends an inning with the lead. Yet with almost every other sport, it seems you get the "let's settle this in some non-standard way than how we would normally play"...

I don't get it....

Play until someone wins....

Double overtime, triple overtime, septuple overtime....

Whatever it takes....

How hard is that?

Athletes need to quit being sissies (Sheesh, I sound like jeemie now!)

lb13

earendel wrote: Why not do as the NCAA does - give both teams equal chances to score. As it stands now, the team that wins the toss wins the game well over 50% of the time. Line each team up on the 30 yard line and give them four downs to either score or make a 1st down, then give the other team the chance.

They do something similarly tie-breaking in many recreational softball leagues. After the game ends in a tie, they put the next hitter on second base with one out. After that side is retired, they do the same with the other team. That usually does it. If not, they play one more similarly truncated inning, and if it's still a tie, that's the way it ends.

littlebeast13 wrote:One of these days, the NFL will get its head out of its ass and realize the purpose of playing a game is to have a winner and a loser.....

lb13

The fans in Cincinnati have suffered enough this year without inflicting even more of that ugly game on them.

littlebeast13 wrote:

earendel wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote: I would rather have the ties. I hate shootouts.

In the NFL, marathon games lead to marathon injuries.

Why not do as the NCAA does - give both teams equal chances to score. As it stands now, the team that wins the toss wins the game well over 50% of the time. Line each team up on the 30 yard line and give them four downs to either score or make a 1st down, then give the other team the chance.

This is why I love baseball. Nobody questions the concept of just playing extra innings until someone finally ends an inning with the lead. Yet with almost every other sport, it seems you get the "let's settle this in some non-standard way than how we would normally play"...

I don't get it....

Play until someone wins....

Double overtime, triple overtime, septuple overtime....

Whatever it takes....

How hard is that?

Athletes need to quit being sissies (Sheesh, I sound like jeemie now!)

lb13

Sudden death playoff hockey is one of the most exciting sporting events there is. A game could end in five seconds or five hours, and it's the uncertainty, followed by what's usually a stunning end (somehow, you just never seem to expect that game-ending goal), that makes it so entertaining.

BigDrawMan wrote:Or so thought Donovan McNabb in his post game interview.

He also dint know if playoff games or the Super Bowl coould end in a tie.


I think he would make a good vice presidential candidate

What I find even stranger than half the Eagles' players not knowing there was only one OT period is that Andy Reid (or any of the other coaches) didn't have them huddle up on their when there was just a couple minutes left and say something like "look guys, we've only got [2] more minutes to try and win this thing or we end up kissing our sister, so let's go!".

Not that it really would have mattered from the looks of the previous 4.75 quarters of play.

littlebeast13 wrote:

ParadeCoordinator wrote:

Jeemie wrote: The NFL is the last league to have ties.

Not even the NHL has them anymore.

The primary reason my hockey fandom has waned. We at parade central have never been fans of shootouts to decide anything.

Not that I'm a hockey fan, but I don't like the shootout idea either.

That doesn't mean there has to be ties....

Play until someone wins. How hard is that.....?

lb13

Although I no longer follow hockey, I feel that's a little different from the other sports. I don't see really pressing reasons for there to be a tie in baseball, football or basketball, but hockey is different, even though one of the most exciting games ever was the triple OT Finals game where Uwe Krupp scored the winning goal.

Unlike football, there are lots more games per season, so each game in itself is not nearly as important. It's a lot more physically demanding than baseball, where everybody other than the pitcher, catcher and batter is basically standing (or sitting) around. Unlike basketball, there isn't a scoring opportunity every couple of seconds.

But I feel the main thing against "no ties" is that hockey uses a points systems rather than W-L (at least I think they still do, I pay zero attention to hockey). So you don't have those pesky third column numbers hanging out there making everything uneven. Plus deciding it by shootout is like playing a badminton game and then deciding who wins by switching to volleyball.

WheresFanny wrote:
But I feel the main thing against "no ties" is that hockey uses a points systems rather than W-L (at least I think they still do, I pay zero attention to hockey). So you don't have those pesky third column numbers hanging out there making everything uneven. Plus deciding it by shootout is like playing a badminton game and then deciding who wins by switching to volleyball.

The NHL (and minor league hockey) uses the point system. 2 points for a win, 1 point for an overtime or shootout loss. So they actually have a four column standings stat. A team can be 10-5-2-1 where they won 10 games, lost 5 in regulation, lost 2 in overtime, and lost 1 in a shootout. That team would have 23 points.

I don't like the hockey points system. There should not be more points distributed in a tie game that goes to a overtime or a shoot out. If they have to have overtime/shootouts to break ties, they should go to 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime/shootout win, and 1 point for an overtime/shootout loss. That way there are just 3 points up for grabs in each game.

andrewjackson wrote:

WheresFanny wrote:
But I feel the main thing against "no ties" is that hockey uses a points systems rather than W-L (at least I think they still do, I pay zero attention to hockey). So you don't have those pesky third column numbers hanging out there making everything uneven. Plus deciding it by shootout is like playing a badminton game and then deciding who wins by switching to volleyball.

The NHL (and minor league hockey) uses the point system. 2 points for a win, 1 point for an overtime or shootout loss. So they actually have a four column standings stat. A team can be 10-5-2-1 where they won 10 games, lost 5 in regulation, lost 2 in overtime, and lost 1 in a shootout. That team would have 23 points.

I don't like the hockey points system. There should not be more points distributed in a tie game that goes to a overtime or a shoot out. If they have to have overtime/shootouts to break ties, they should go to 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime/shootout win, and 1 point for an overtime/shootout loss. That way there are just 3 points up for grabs in each game.

Then that's even more argument against not having ties.

You know, last Saturday night I was actually wondering about this. I was at my mom's and she had the hockey game on, which went into O/T. I was in another room, but I could have sworn I heard the announcers say something about a point for the tie. I meant to ask her about it later, but forgot. I just figured I heard it wrong, because then wouldn't some teams with really good shooters actually try NOT to score towards the end of a tie game, so they could get the extra point? Don't seem right to me.

But they've tinkered with rules (in all sports) so much in order to make it "fan-friendly" that some sports are losing the essence of what their sport actually is in the first place.

WheresFanny wrote:

andrewjackson wrote:

WheresFanny wrote:
But I feel the main thing against "no ties" is that hockey uses a points systems rather than W-L (at least I think they still do, I pay zero attention to hockey). So you don't have those pesky third column numbers hanging out there making everything uneven. Plus deciding it by shootout is like playing a badminton game and then deciding who wins by switching to volleyball.

The NHL (and minor league hockey) uses the point system. 2 points for a win, 1 point for an overtime or shootout loss. So they actually have a four column standings stat. A team can be 10-5-2-1 where they won 10 games, lost 5 in regulation, lost 2 in overtime, and lost 1 in a shootout. That team would have 23 points.

I don't like the hockey points system. There should not be more points distributed in a tie game that goes to a overtime or a shoot out. If they have to have overtime/shootouts to break ties, they should go to 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime/shootout win, and 1 point for an overtime/shootout loss. That way there are just 3 points up for grabs in each game.

Then that's even more argument against not having ties.

You know, last Saturday night I was actually wondering about this. I was at my mom's and she had the hockey game on, which went into O/T. I was in another room, but I could have sworn I heard the announcers say something about a point for the tie. I meant to ask her about it later, but forgot. I just figured I heard it wrong, because then wouldn't some teams with really good shooters actually try NOT to score towards the end of a tie game, so they could get the extra point? Don't seem right to me.

But they've tinkered with rules (in all sports) so much in order to make it "fan-friendly" that some sports are losing the essence of what their sport actually is in the first place.

First off, I'm fairly certain AJ is incorrect. There are only three columns in the standings; OT and shootout losses go together. Secondly, the rule is that there is 3 points for a win regardless, if you awarded only 2 for an overtime win you'd be penalizing both teams because they ended regulation tied, which frankly is ridiculous. Fanny, I'm not sure what your question is but why would a team sit back and wait for overtime when they could get 3 pts. while preventing their opponent for getting any. Plus, if you sit back and defend your goal will inevitably come under fire.

I was unsure of the shootout when it was instituted but I'm all for it at this point. True, it's not pure hockey but there's no doubt it's more fun to see a shootout than a tie and if the fans enjoy it that's what matters isn't it. And you can't play on and on in the regular season, hockey is way too draining a sport unlike baseball where players rarely break a sweat. The fact is a shootout involves fundamental skills and is as good and fun a way to settle a hockey game as any.

In conclusion, hockey is the best sport on earth.

andrewjackson wrote: I don't like the hockey points system. There should not be more points distributed in a tie game that goes to a overtime or a shoot out. If they have to have overtime/shootouts to break ties, they should go to 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime/shootout win, and 1 point for an overtime/shootout loss. That way there are just 3 points up for grabs in each game.

Just as in soccer, it is possible to play for a tie in hockey especially in the late stages of a game (last ten minutes or so) by adopting an extremely defensive strategy and minimizing chances for breakaways and other scoring opportunities for the opposition. It tends to make for a dull conclusion to a game. Unfortunately, the points system as it now stands does nothing to prevent this. A team can't lose if it decides to go defensive and play for the regulation tie (it still gets one point for a shootout or overtime loss and if it gets lucky in the shootout it can pick up another point cheaply). Soccer at least now awards three points for a win, giving a team much more incentive to go for a win (a team that ties all its games will lose out to a team that takes chances and goes .500 in its schedule).

clem21 wrote:First off, I'm fairly certain AJ is incorrect. There are only three columns in the standings; OT and shootout losses go together. Secondly, the rule is that there is 3 points for a win regardless, if you awarded only 2 for an overtime win you'd be penalizing both teams because they ended regulation tied, which frankly is ridiculous. Fanny, I'm not sure what your question is but why would a team sit back and wait for overtime when they could get 3 pts. while preventing their opponent for getting any. Plus, if you sit back and defend your goal will inevitably come under fire.

My question was that I thought I heard the announcers say something about 'a point for the tie' and couldn't figure out why teams would get an extra point for tying. So, if they won a shootout, they'd get 2 pts for the win and 1 pt for the tie instead of a straight 2 pts for a regulation win. What AJ said seemed to back that up, although I could have misunderstood what he wrote.

clem21 wrote:
I was unsure of the shootout when it was instituted but I'm all for it at this point. True, it's not pure hockey but there's no doubt it's more fun to see a shootout than a tie and if the fans enjoy it that's what matters isn't it.

No, that's not what matters at all. Which was my point about making up rules just to be 'fan-friendly' and losing something in the process.

The fans also enjoy slam dunk contests and mascots making half court shots with their back to the hoop, but that doesn't mean it should be part of the actual game.

clem21 wrote: And you can't play on and on in the regular season, hockey is way too draining a sport unlike baseball where players rarely break a sweat. The fact is a shootout involves fundamental skills and is as good and fun a way to settle a hockey game as any.

Which was my exact analogy for being in favour of hockey games remaining a tie (the baseball thing). The fact is a shootout involves fundamental skills and that is what makes it a good competition for the All-Star activities.

clem21 wrote:In conclusion, hockey is the best sport on earth.

If you mean the best sport on earth that isn't called basketball, football or bowling, then I agree. Ha!

earendel wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote: Not that I'm a hockey fan, but I don't like the shootout idea either.

That doesn't mean there has to be ties....

Play until someone wins. How hard is that.....?

lb13

I would rather have the ties. I hate shootouts.

In the NFL, marathon games lead to marathon injuries.

Why not do as the NCAA does - give both teams equal chances to score. As it stands now, the team that wins the toss wins the game well over 50% of the time. Line each team up on the 30 yard line and give them four downs to either score or make a 1st down, then give the other team the chance.

Yuck, I hate the college OT rules.

I would favor a rule that says if a team scores on the first possession in OT, the other team gets the chance to score as well. If a tie remains from both teams scoring, the same rule applies, giving a chance to each team. If neither team scores on its first possession in OT, then it becomes Sudden Death because each team has already had an opportunity to score.

I know it sounds complicated, but it really isn't.

clem21 wrote: First off, I'm fairly certain AJ is incorrect. There are only three columns in the standings; OT and shootout losses go together. Secondly, the rule is that there is 3 points for a win regardless, if you awarded only 2 for an overtime win you'd be penalizing both teams because they ended regulation tied, which frankly is ridiculous.

I guess there is some variation on how the standings are presented. My newspaper puts the hockey standings as W-L-OL-SO. The AHL website, which is the league I follow mostly closely, does as well. I see that NHL.com does not.

I'll stick with my point that the same amount of points should be up for grabs in any game. The idea that more points are awarded in total for an overtime game than for a regulation game is just wrong. I'm not sure how penalizing teams because they ended the regulation tied is ridiculous. You can disagree with it but what makes it worthy of ridicule? There is nothing wrong with rewarding teams that win in regulation or at least encouraging them to try to win in regulation.

TheCalvinator24 wrote:
Yuck, I hate the college OT rules.

I would favor a rule that says if a team scores on the first possession in OT, the other team gets the chance to score as well. If a tie remains from both teams scoring, the same rule applies, giving a chance to each team. If neither team scores on its first possession in OT, then it becomes Sudden Death because each team has already had an opportunity to score.

I know it sounds complicated, but it really isn't.

I would only add that teams should have to score a minimum number of points (I'd suggest 5) for the game to end in Sudden Death. As it sits, a team can drive 40 or so yards, kick a FG, and go to the house. Make them either 1) score a TD, 2) kick 2 FG's, or 3) have the lead when the clock runs out. If they're still tied, make the second OT "first score wins, no clock."

I'd make this the college rule, too.

DadofTwins wrote:

TheCalvinator24 wrote:
Yuck, I hate the college OT rules.

I would favor a rule that says if a team scores on the first possession in OT, the other team gets the chance to score as well. If a tie remains from both teams scoring, the same rule applies, giving a chance to each team. If neither team scores on its first possession in OT, then it becomes Sudden Death because each team has already had an opportunity to score.

I know it sounds complicated, but it really isn't.

I would only add that teams should have to score a minimum number of points (I'd suggest 5) for the game to end in Sudden Death. As it sits, a team can drive 40 or so yards, kick a FG, and go to the house. Make them either 1) score a TD, 2) kick 2 FG's, or 3) have the lead when the clock runs out. If they're still tied, make the second OT "first score wins, no clock."

I'd make this the college rule, too.

I don't think the 5 point minimum is necessary. Under my scenario, each team got a chance to score. If both teams fail to score on their first possessions, then the first to score wins. I see no reason to make them score twice or risk not scoring at all to try for a TD when a FG is a reasonable option.