Question for older Bama fans about ties in a game.

[4Q Basket Case]

Ties happened more often then and definitely felt better than a loss. But not as good as a win. Also, as others have pointed out, how the tie happened mattered.

If the game was hard-fought and felt pretty even all along, it was like kissing your sister.

If your team led the whole way, but weirdness happened late, and the score just happened to be the same when the clock hit 0:00, it felt more like a loss.

But in the right circumstances, a tie could feel like a win. That was the case in the 1993 UTe game. We trailed the whole game. I don't know how the stats looked. But in the stadium, it felt like we were getting totally outplayed. Couldn't move the ball an inch.

On the last drive, we trailed by 8 and somehow pieced together a sustained drive for a TD. I'm not sure if it happened as time expired. If not, there was only a few seconds left. So we have to go for 2.

Direct snap to David Palmer, running a sweep to his right. A reserve running back named Marcus Moring (sp?) absolutely obliterated the UTe edge, and Palmer scooted in for the tie that felt more like a win.

As a bonus for me personally, there was a comically obnoxious UTe fan nearby. He had been standing up waving a cowboy hat over his head and screaming all game....no words, just, "Ahhhhhhhhhhhh...." at the top of his lungs, waving that )(*&^(*&^ hat like Slim Pickens at the end of Dr. Strangelove. When Palmer scored the 2-point conversion, that guy caught unmitigated grief from his neighbors and couldn't get out of Legion Field fast enough.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Yes, Coach Bryant used to say that about kissing your sister. It's a great analogy!

but what if you're Luke Skywalker?????

 

[Ledsteplin]

Bear Bryant didn't like ties. He said it was like kissing your sister. My thought was, if the tie was with an elite or good team, it was ok. But a tie with a bad team felt like a loss.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Question for old and new fans. Should there be a limit on OT periods and allow a game to end in a tie?

I think now that since we have a 12-team playoff, we ought to abolish overtime.

Part of the issue before was teams getting eliminated by someone else tying them.
That's not really a problem for the P4 teams.

I'd prefer simply picking up the game and playing 1/2 of an extra quarter and THEN putting a tie in the books. That puts some strategy into the decision whether a coach runs it all the way down to four seconds or the opponent calls timeout to have 20 seconds left in case the game is tied.

 

[mdb-tpet]

That 1993 Tennessee game is particularly interesting to me, because from where I was sitting, it seemed to me both sides felt a little let down. One, that we had no chance to win and could only tie the game, while UT lost the win they desperately wanted. Two, it was the first game in a long time that we had not won against UT as well. It was the end of the 7 game winning streak. I remember having T-shirts glorifying the 7 game winning streak, and an 8 game undefeated streak just didn't cut it versus an 7 game winning streak. It marked a feeling of a turning point to me in the series where we would soon see the series flip to a similar UT winning streak. I remember desperately hoping we could tie the game just so we wouldn't lose, but yet being completely unsatisfied with the tie.

 

[CaliforniaTide]

I remember USC tying Washington in the 90s (I think it was the season USC played Northwestern in the Rose Bowl), and USC fans being relieved it ended in a tie. Washington was driving, and was close to enough to go for a TD, but opted to kick a FG to tie, and end, the game.

At a time when a tie was an option for your team record, it was definitely better than a loss.

 

[rolltide_21]

I do remember the 1993 game, but I was just a kid (9). So, who smoked cigars that day? Both? Neither?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I remember USC tying Washington in the 90s (I think it was the season USC played Northwestern in the Rose Bowl), and USC fans being relieved it ended in a tie. Washington was driving, and was close to enough to go for a TD, but opted to kick a FG to tie, and end, the game.

At a time when a tie was an option for your team record, it was definitely better than a loss.

You're "sort of" but not exactly right here.

They tied on my 26th birthday (gawd, I'm old).
Washington led, 21-0, going into the fourth quarter.
USC scored to close it to one point with 33 seconds left - and then sent out the kicker to tie it with a PAT.

Here was the key point in the decision:
Both teams had losses to Notre Dame, and UW had lost to Ohio State. So USC was ranked higher (13 vs 17) going into and coming out of the game.

But UW had FOUR CONFERENCE GAMES left - an extra chance to screw up - and USC had only three. And Washington HAD TO PLAY OREGON (who had just won their first Pac-10 title since 1957 the previous year) but USC didn't. USC basically decided to gamble that Oregon would beat Washington - and because Oregon already had a loss (to Stanford), it kept USC in front without a game with Oregon. Sure enough, Oregon beat Washington the next week, and USC went to the Rose Bowl.

 

[Redwood Forrest]

So this is probably a Selma question or a question I should have waited till the off season to ask. but hyping the TSIO I ran across the 93 game. That is the only tie I have ever remembered in my life and I was a kid when it happened.. I know the phrase “ties are like kissing your sister” but the 93 game felt more like a win cause we trolled Tennessee.

My question is. Did ties in general feel as bad as a loss or was it something different?

I believe it was Clemson head coach Frank Howard who had just tied Alabama and was overjoyed in the post-game presser who answered the question about being so happy about kissing his sister "in this case it is a beautiful sister."

 

[selmaborntidefan]

When Palmer scored the 2-point conversion, that guy caught unmitigated grief from his neighbors and couldn't get out of Legion Field fast enough.

What was so funny about that is that everyone in the stadium knew what was coming - and they still couldn't stop it.

 

[CaliforniaTide]

You're "sort of" but not exactly right here.

They tied on my 26th birthday (gawd, I'm old).
Washington led, 21-0, going into the fourth quarter.
USC scored to close it to one point with 33 seconds left - and then sent out the kicker to tie it with a PAT.

Here was the key point in the decision:
Both teams had losses to Notre Dame, and UW had lost to Ohio State. So USC was ranked higher (13 vs 17) going into and coming out of the game.

But UW had FOUR CONFERENCE GAMES left - an extra chance to screw up - and USC had only three. And Washington HAD TO PLAY OREGON (who had just won their first Pac-10 title since 1957 the previous year) but USC didn't. USC basically decided to gamble that Oregon would beat Washington - and because Oregon already had a loss (to Stanford), it kept USC in front without a game with Oregon. Sure enough, Oregon beat Washington the next week, and USC went to the Rose Bowl.

Thank you for the correction! Enjoyed it!

 

[Isaiah 63:1]

What's funny is how many coaches - and two of them were Woody Hayes and Barry Switzer - who said that Tom Osborne should have taken the tie in the 1984 Orange Bowl and then taken his chances on getting the ball back. Most fans and writers felt otherwise, but those guys each won 3 national titles and both said, "You gotta win the championship, if it's a tie, so be it."

Of course, each case is unique. In 1983, Nebraska had the advantage of knowing that every other team in the standings (including Texas, who had lost the Cotton Bowl) had at least one loss. But to his credit, Osborne said he would not vote in favor of a national championship for a coach who had played for a tie to win it.

But most of his peers disagreed with him.

Nebraska was down 14 points late. Osborne's (and his contemporary coach critics') mistake wasn't deciding whether or not to go for 2 on Nebraska's final TD, but rather not deciding to go for 2 on their previous TD.

• Had they converted the first attempt, Nebraska would have been down 6 and could have kicked the winning PAT on the second TD and won the title.
• Had they not converted the first, he could again have gone for 2 on the final TD.
  • If they again failed, they'd have been no worse off than they were based on what they actually did.
  • If they succeeded, they would have tied in the process of previously playing to win, and the polls would've rewarded them with a title.
• For statistics nerds (guilty as charged), it comes down to how odds change in a repeated game. If the chances of converting any single 2-point conversion are 33%, then the odds of failing on any one attempt are 67%, but of failing on two successive attempts are 67% squared, or 45%, meaning the odds of converting one of two successive attempts increases to 55%.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

I think now that since we have a 12-team playoff, we ought to abolish overtime.

Part of the issue before was teams getting eliminated by someone else tying them.
That's not really a problem for the P4 teams.

I'd prefer simply picking up the game and playing 1/2 of an extra quarter and THEN putting a tie in the books. That puts some strategy into the decision whether a coach runs it all the way down to four seconds or the opponent calls timeout to have 20 seconds left in case the game is tied.

I would go with the NFL model. 10 minutes, both teams get the ball, if it is still tied after 10, then it's a tie.

 

[Snuffy Smith]

Context mattered.

The key component with Tennessee in 1993 is the fact we had not lost a game in over two years AND the fact that we were down 8 points, so a tie was the best we could attain. Had we been down by 7 and PLAYED FOR A TIE, there would have been serious calls from the fanbase (but nobody else) to fire Stallings.

Largely, it mattered whether:
a) the game ENDED in a tie OR
b) somebody PLAYED for a tie

Alabama had three tie games when it could happen during my fandom:
1981 USM
1985 LSU
1993 Tennessee

The reactions to those three in order were, "we blew it," "I'm confused," and "whew!"

The most frustrating of those three was probably the 1985 LSU game. We scored to cut the gap to 14-13 with something like 83 seconds left. Perkins then opted to kick the point after and tie the game. Frank Broyles was puzzled beyond words and there was another aspect: Alabama had no timeouts left and yet Perkins's "reasoning" (excuse?) was to say, "I thought we would get down there and get a turnover." Now bear in mind that LSU HAD NOT TURNED THE BALL OVER THE ENTIRE GAME!!!

But Perkins says his - excuse, which is what it was - was "I thought we'd get a turnover." Fine, except LSU had a better QB than we did, and they had three timeouts. And so they drove all the way down to attempt a last play 24-yard field goal that Ron Lewis shanked. So we.....well, we felt "relieved" we were still technically in the SEC race, but we were now depending on Tennessee to mess the bed against Ole Miss, Kentucky, or Vandy.

I guess - if one gets technical - we can say that Perkins's thought process went like this, maybe this can be defended:
a) we have no timeouts left and they have three
b) that puts the entire game on the onsides kick for us
c) if we win, Tennessee HAS to win all three of their games
d) and their all-SEC quarterback is gone for the season, so maybe.....

The win would NOT have won us the SEC, it would only have kept us alive.

I just always thought Perkins's approach in that particular game was quite cowardly. I'm guessing his logic was, "Well, Wickersham will have to throw the ball to move down the field, so maybe we can pick it off." But in 1985, Wickersham had both more attempts and completions than any other QB in the SEC. The problem is that Alabama's 1985 defense - which included Cornelius Bennett, Curt Jarvis, and Big John Hand - was a "bend but don't break" defense. We gave up "only" 16.2 ppg that year...but there were 25 better scoring defenses than us.

Now I will add, those numbers are inflated, too. For example, we led Mississippi State, 44-6, in a rainstorm and Perkins wanted his backups to get some reps, so MSU closed the gap artificially to 44-28. Georgia's only TOUCHDOWN on us was a blocked punt with a minute left, although yes, those points go against the defense.

As far as 1981 USM, the game was not on TV, and the story I heard later - because we stopped the clock and enabled USM to line up and tie the game - was some youngster called timeout when he shouldn't have and Coach Bryant threw himself on the sword, which was his job.

So it all depended on context.

My one and only trip to Baton Rouge was the 1985 game. I wasn’t thrilled when we kicked the PAT to tie but when LSU missed the field goal at the end the game I was certainly happy we didn’t lose.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Nebraska was down 14 points late. Osborne's (and his contemporary coach critics') mistake wasn't deciding whether or not to go for 2 on Nebraska's final TD, but rather not deciding to go for 2 on their previous TD.

• Had they converted the first attempt, Nebraska would have been down 6 and could have kicked the winning PAT on the second TD and won the title.
• Had they not converted the first, he could again have gone for 2 on the final TD.
  • If they again failed, they'd have been no worse off than they were based on what they actually did.
  • If they succeeded, they would have tied in the process of previously playing to win, and the polls would've rewarded them with a title.
• For statistics nerds (guilty as charged), it comes down to how odds change in a repeated game. If the chances of converting any single 2-point conversion are 33%, then the odds of failing on any one attempt are 67%, but of failing on two successive attempts are 67% squared, or 45%, meaning the odds of converting one of two successive attempts increases to 55%.

This is a fair point.

On the other hand, Nebraska's stature really took a brutal hit because NONE of the bigwigs in college football easily impressed by eye-popping offensive numbers thought Miami would even give Nebraska a close game. Nebraska was basically crowned national champion before that year even started, so a tie POTENTIALLY could have hurt them more than it did Miami. Nebraska was something like 11-point favorites, and it would have been higher except it was basically a Hurricane home game.

It would shock Alabama fans to realize the assessments of Miami's chances entering that game were very similar to the ones prior to the 1993 Sugar Bowl but with Alabama in the role of Miami and - irony of ironies - Miami in the role of Nebraska.

 

[UAH]

I would agree that in the early CPB years in the 50's a tie was just kind of a blah event, but after winning the 1961 national championship until OT went into affect it felt like a loss. BTW the Alabama vs Tennessee game in October of 1965 ended in a 7-7 tie when Ken Stabler thinking it was 3rd down threw a pass out of bounds to stop the clock only to realize it was 4th down. Game over 7-7.

I haven't gone back to look at the history of the game but I recall that Bama Steve Sloan at QB had fumbled twice near the goalline hence Stapler the sophomore QB was in the game at the end. He almost scored on a run out of bounds at the 1. He thought he had a first down hence the throw out of bounds to stop the clock. It was 4th down and the end of the ball game. Astounding everyone in the stadium including John Forney in the booth.

 

[Isaiah 63:1]

My favorite tie in a game (from the internet; not on my wall):

 

[BigAlinKnoxville]

A tie left you with that "blah," mediocre feeling. Personally, I hated them.

 

[arthurdawg]

Well...

PATs are a 96% make for a tie...

2 pt conversions have ranged from 34-47% in a season since the 1970s. So you go for two and you have about a 60% chance of losing.

 

[STONECOLDSABAN]

Question for old and new fans. Should there be a limit on OT periods and allow a game to end in a tie?

I kind of like how the NFL does it. If after one overtime period neither team is ahead. It’s considered a draw. I am not a fan of college overtime penalty shot garbage.