The CFL has the most exciting overtime format in football, possibly in all pro sports. So should the CFL do away with ties? Why not just keep the heart attack inducing OT format going?
For those unaware, currently, overtime consists of two “mini-games”: Team A gets possession and tries to score, and Team B gets a chance to match or beat it. If they’re tied after the first exchange, they go through another round. And if they’re still tied after that, the game ends in a tie.
The biggest opponents would be the broadcasters - or, more appropriately, broadcaster - because that would likely necessitate the extension of a broadcast, cutting into pre-programmed broadcasting of other sporting events. But TSN has multiple feeds, so they frequently show CFL games on 3-5 channels. could easily continue the broadcast on one or two feeds. And I’d much rather watch the 4th OT of a CFL game than the first two innings of the Mariners vs. the Brewers.
So the reasons in favour are based on math - which I know sounds boring. But since the CFL adopted this rule in 2003, there have only been 8 ties (NOTE: I did this analysis in September, so I may have missed one or two games). That’s 8 games out of 1611. So if the CFLPA are concerned about the increased workload, or if the broadcasters are concerned about massive schedule disruption, they’re worrying about something that happens 0.05% of games, or about 1 game every 3 years. So the implications of this proposal are not going to manifest very often. But then again, so are we.
Out of those 61 overtime games, 37 were decided after one round of play. Of the remaining 24 games, 16 were decided in the 2nd round, leaving 8 ties. So mathematically, 2/3 of games are decided each round. So to make the math easy, if there were 9 “tied” games, 6 would be decided by round 3, 2 by round 4, and a 67% chance of a victor by the 5th round.
So why not have unlimited OT and get rid of the tie? It would be another thing that makes us distinct from the NFL.
Personally, I don’t mind ties. However, I’m not opposed to taking people off the field or making teams go for the PAT from further out.
Thanks for offering creative proposals. I’d love if fans commented here and offered good advice to a future commish.
I have no issues with ties. There are not enough of them to do anything with them. Better to have ties then have a gimmick winner.
Only chance in the OT format I would like to see is get rid of mandatory 2 PATs
OMG! Not saying I’m a future commish - just saying that a future commish might benefit from perusing varied opinions.
Gimmicks are in the eye of the beholder. Boomer Esiason once famously said that 3 downs are a gimmick
That is debatable. They should not be starting right away in field goal range.
Cant keep football players playing too long like hockey players so no to no ties
and why do we need to make so much effort to be distinct from NFL.
NFL playoff OT is best so far
I am of the old school any more on this one and believe they should simply play one extra period of play, and it does not have to be 15 minutes, just 10 or 12 minutes with one guaranteed possession for each team, unless the defense scores in the very first sequence, and have a 3-minute warning as well with the same clock rules as for the fourth quarter.
Then after one possession each, it’s sudden death.
All the rules of football, including special teams, should be in play instead of what is merely “scrimmage ball.”
2 10 min halves (non sudden death)
Teams switch ends after the 1st 10 min session.
One to for the ot period
Regular season (tie)
Playoffs (20 mins then the shoot out format)
Just my nickels worth.
A guy like Boomer needs the extra down.
I like the thinking here but that’s way too long for me, let alone the players, in the regular season.
I have no issue with having almost the same format otherwise, with full football being played in one period, in both the regular season and in the postseason.
Make it perhaps one 12-minute period in the regular season as I wrote above, ties applicable, then in the postseason, it’s a brand new game under the same rules with 15-minute periods, one possession minimum each unless a defensive score, until there is otherwise a sudden-death winner.
As a U.S. fan of the CFL I think the CFL’s current overtime plan is the best I have ever seen. I like it for fairness as well as entertainment value. The only idea I might like to see tested is to replace the coin-toss with a scrum similar to rugby. Even if the OT scrum were only two to five players per side, it would be more interesting than a coin toss.
YES! 100%
I have no problem with a tie, a tie can really come into play at the end of a close season.
As you say, ties aren’t very common so I don’t think it’s a big deal.
I also wouldn’t agree that the CFL has the best OT rules. I would say the NHL does with the always edge of your seat 3 on 3, but not the shootout.
I also wanted to highlight the difference between regular season and OT. Regular season by necessity must have a short OT. The players would never agree otherwise and other factors are TV and overall length of games as has been mentioned. Also increased risk of injury when players have been playing all night and are tired.
Thus the gimmicks such as 3 in 3 in hockey and what the CFL does and the NFL rules. Even baseball now puts a runner on second in the regular season. Only basketball plays to the death in the regular season.
In my view basketball, baseball and hockey have it right in the playoffs. The CFL OT rules work for me in the regular season and are superior to the NFL rules, but the NFL playoff rules are superior to what I think is gimmicky for a playoff game in the CFL. Soccer is just gimmicky at any time and is the only sport that decides it’s most important championships with a skills contest, although some might argue the CFL does as well.
Given the players position and increased risk of injury I don’t think we’ll ever see increased time for regular season OT. When they last changed the NHL OT rules the owners proposed a 8 minute 4 on 4 but the player’s association would have none of it.
Football is also tougher to play longer than any other sport.
Dave Naylor said at the recent Winter Meetings, somebody suggested scrapping the rouge during overtime play. Reasoning was that having a team win by a missed field goal or even a punt going through the endzone was not a good look for the league.
That proposal nowhere as there was no interest among other teams in even considering such a change.
I agree with the outcome.
Though people have different opinions on the rouge, I think having a different rule for overtime than the regular season make the rule worse.
Same reasoning can apply with a punt/kick going through the end zone to win the game is not a good look for the league either. This would happen more here than in OT.
Oh well, we have to disagree, as perhaps you and others enjoy the sound of that fart in the wind as a ball sails out of bounds on that winning rouge kick, whether at the end of a game or in overtime.
Even if you can’t hear it, that’s what it looks and sounds like!
It’s a HORRIBLE look and missed opportunity here, but hey, tradition blah blah blah.
no, ties are part of sports.
Leave it as a tie after regulation. As we saw last year often they end up in a tie again anyway after 2 OT’s. That extra point may be the difference between 1st & 2nd, as it could have been in the West. It WAS the difference between 3rd & 2nd in the East. I have no problem with tie games. If they play to a tie over 60 minutes, give them each a point. You don’t have to worry about TV, player injuries etc…
There are, theoretically, 2 pts up for grabs in a game. The idea, in the NHL & some leagues, that tie games should then be elevated to a 3 pt game where the loser gets a point for “participating”, makes no sense to me. You should get 2 MORE points than the loser, regardless of it being settled in regulation or OT. It’s not fair that ONE loser gets a point for losing while regulation users get ZERO. A loss is a loss.