Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

I find ties to be tremendously unsatisfying. As do players, apparently. My Bills have never had a tie since OT was instituted, so I haven't ever gotten emotionally invested in a game that resulted in a tie.
But I believe my disappointment if my Bills lost out on a playoff spot due to the 5th tiebreaker, would be mitigated compared to my feelings after a tie. Perhaps I would feel differently if there were still in a 17 year playoff drought.
Ties have virtually vanished from the other three major North American sports. I see no reason for the NFL to deviate, except perhaps for injury concerns.
For what it's worth, players seem to publicly find ties empty, as if the job has been left undone.

conace21 wrote:I find ties to be tremendously unsatisfying. As do players, apparently. My Bills have never had a tie since OT was instituted, so I haven't ever gotten emotionally invested in a game that resulted in a tie.
But I believe my disappointment if my Bills lost out on a playoff spot due to the 5th tiebreaker, would be mitigated compared to my feelings after a tie. Perhaps I would feel differently if there were still in a 17 year playoff drought.
Ties have virtually vanished from the other three major North American sports. I see no reason for the NFL to deviate, except perhaps for injury concerns.
For what it's worth, players seem to publicly find ties empty, as if the job has been left undone.

I'm sure everyone knows Eddie Erdelatz's aphorism, "A tie is like kissing your sister."

But some may not be familiar with Bart Starr's sensible response: "That depends on who your sister is."

I'll go out on a limb and say that a loss is less satisfying than a tie so that aspect of the argument doesn't hold water.

A tie isn't unsatisfying for a team who comes back from a large deficit or plays a great game as a big underdog. The only reason the Browns might be disappointed with Sunday's result is that they should have won with all of the turnovers they created. Pittsburgh, on the other hand, couldn't beat Cleveland so, obviously, they aren't going to be happy with a tie.

JohnH19 wrote:I'll go out on a limb and say that a loss is less satisfying than a tie so that aspect of the argument doesn't hold water.

A tie isn't unsatisfying for a team who comes back from a large deficit or plays a great game as a big underdog. The only reason the Browns might be disappointed with Sunday's result is that they should have won with all of the turnovers they created. Pittsburgh, on the other hand, couldn't beat Cleveland so, obviously, they aren't going to be happy with a tie.

Players wouldn't prefer a loss to a tie, but they would prefer the chance to play an OT period to win instead of settling for a tie at the end of regulation.

A couple quotes from former NFL players.

Booger McFarland
"There is a feeling of emptiness when you get a tie. They need to come up with a way to get to a finality. When guys are getting paid this much money there should be some type of conclusion."

Jason Taylor
"I'm not ok with it (ties.) I think it's ridiculous. You play five quarters of football and everybody leaves essentially the same way they got there? Finish the game."

And a couple quotes from Browns players after last week's tie. (And yes, I'm fully aware the players often mute their true feelings when talking to the press.)

Josh Gordon:
"This is nothing to be excited about. We're not celebrating this. We're here to win games. It's the equivalent of a loss, to me."

Tyrod Taylor:
"A tie is just a sour taste."

Denzel Ward:
"It is just frustrating. I always expected to win the game. I would have rather had another overtime, but that is the rules and we just have to get them next time."

I would expect ties would be a foreign concept to modern players because there isn't the possibility of ties in all the years of playing football prior to getting to the NFL.

Different from past generations where ties existed at all levels. Before the Kansas tiebreaker existed and then was implemented across the country there was ties in youth football, in jr. high, in high school -- including in the state playoffs where most states had a team advance based on "penetrations" and state championships ended tied with co-champs, and of course college football had ties, including bowl games.

Now they can play 14, 15, 16 years of football prior to the NFL where there's no possibility of a game ending in a tie. So it definitely would feel different having a game end in a tie by the time they're in the NFL.

Reaser wrote:I would expect ties would be a foreign concept to modern players because there isn't the possibility of ties in all the years of playing football prior to getting to the NFL.

Different from past generations where ties existed at all levels. Before the Kansas tiebreaker existed and then was implemented across the country there was ties in youth football, in jr. high, in high school -- including in the state playoffs where most states had a team advance based on "penetrations" and state championships ended tied with co-champs, and of course college football had ties, including bowl games.

Now they can play 14, 15, 16 years of football prior to the NFL where there's no possibility of a game ending in a tie. So it definitely would feel different having a game end in a tie by the time they're in the NFL.

I remember when the Eagles and Bengals went thru OT without scoring, and Donovan McNabb didn't understand that the game was over and his teammates had to explain to him that there was no winner and the game ended a tie.

Reaser wrote:I would expect ties would be a foreign concept to modern players because there isn't the possibility of ties in all the years of playing football prior to getting to the NFL.

Different from past generations where ties existed at all levels. Before the Kansas tiebreaker existed and then was implemented across the country there was ties in youth football, in jr. high, in high school -- including in the state playoffs where most states had a team advance based on "penetrations" and state championships ended tied with co-champs, and of course college football had ties, including bowl games.

Now they can play 14, 15, 16 years of football prior to the NFL where there's no possibility of a game ending in a tie. So it definitely would feel different having a game end in a tie by the time they're in the NFL.

I looked at players who would have been in high school or college in the 90's for reactions. Jason Taylor is one. He never played to a tie in college

From the Steelers-Falcons tie in 2002. Most of these players played college football after 1996, but high school football in the early to mid 90's.

"It was strange," Aaron Smith said. "That game seemed like it lasted forever. We were playing and playing and playing. It was an awful feeling. I would have rather lost than have it end in a tie. You want to come away with something. I remember it was an awkward feeling."

Antwan Randle-El
"That's a game I wish I can just forget. To come out with a tie after you put so much time in working is tough. There shouldn't be ties. Let it go on and on. You put four hours into it, the whole week you put effort into it, and it becomes a tie? I was just empty. I remember thinking, 'What do you mean it's over?'

"We didn't win but, we didn't lose,'' Plaxico Burress said. "It's so disappointing. You have this uneasy feeling that you lost, but you know you really didn't.''

Ashley Ambrose said. "When you get through, you're not sure if you're happy or not. It's an empty kind of feeling, because you had an opportunity and a chance to win.''

‘Harvard beats Yale, 29-29!’

A great documentary, by the way, for those who haven’t seen!

I'm fine with it as it is. It should remain non sudden death unless a TD is scored and we shouldn't resort to any further gimmickry to force and outcome.

The NHL instituted shootouts after games ended in ties. Now people are getting fed up with shootouts

This happens so rarely in football, and to have these guys absolutely dog tired and very vulnerable to injury dragging themselves around the field isn't necessary.

Rupert Patrick wrote:

Reaser wrote:I would expect ties would be a foreign concept to modern players because there isn't the possibility of ties in all the years of playing football prior to getting to the NFL.

Different from past generations where ties existed at all levels. Before the Kansas tiebreaker existed and then was implemented across the country there was ties in youth football, in jr. high, in high school -- including in the state playoffs where most states had a team advance based on "penetrations" and state championships ended tied with co-champs, and of course college football had ties, including bowl games.

Now they can play 14, 15, 16 years of football prior to the NFL where there's no possibility of a game ending in a tie. So it definitely would feel different having a game end in a tie by the time they're in the NFL.

I remember when the Eagles and Bengals went thru OT without scoring, and Donovan McNabb didn't understand that the game was over and his teammates had to explain to him that there was no winner and the game ended a tie.

And then he compounded it by saying he'd hate to see a Super Bowl end in a tie

14 Wonderlic by the way