Isn't it about time that MLS did away with overtime during the regular season? Why risk injury to players just to break a tie that doesn't need breaking? For that matter, I can't think of a good reason to have overtime in the NFL, NBA, NHL, or MLB either.
Why play the game at all? The players are just risking injury. In the big picture sports just aren't that important. Maybe all our teams should just meet at the center circle shake hands and go home at 0-0 all season long.
That still fails to address the point of why overtime is necessary in the first place. Why is a draw such an unacceptable result? What really made me scratch my head is when fans rioted after this year's MLB All-Star game that went into 13 innings. Why on earth would fans get so riled up about a game that is only an exhibition ending in a tie?
Besides being idiots, they were riled up because they were short-changed. Baseball games don't end in a tie. Soccer has accepted ties. To add a little excitement, MLS added up to 10 minutes of overtime. Great idea.
Because most American's don't like ties. When two teams play, we want to see who is better. If we were satisfied with the teams being equal, what is the point in playing the game? That's why the NBA and MLB have no ties and the NFL only has about one a decade. Obviously, it's much harder to get rid of ties in soccer because it is low scoring. I don't think many fans object to adding 10 minutes of extra soccer in an attempt to settle a tie. I'm happy for the free entertainment.
Cause we in the US like it. It's a US league and MLS should do somethings like the EPL but not all things. If OT was in the EPL. I would like the league much better.
If you can't think of a good reason, it's hard to take your question seriously. Ties in baseball? Question for anybody: What % of OTs in the MLS regular season end up as draws?
The point is that Ben made the claim that the concept of ties in baseball isn't even worth considering. My counter to that is simply, why not, when it's already being done elsewhere?
The only compelling argument for or against overtime in this thread is that most Americans don't like games that end in ties. I'd add that most Americans see overtime or extra innings more exciting than the regulation game (meaning that most people would rather see a game that goes to overtime than one that doesn't). The only arguments against overtime are that players might get injured and AvidSinger doesn't see a need for it. By my count, overtime is winning this discussion.
What's not to like about 10 minutes OT? I like OT and can accept a tie if that how it turns out. The question, as it was first asked was just plain dumb, though.
I hate ties and im not your average American sports fan either i lived half my life overseas and grew up playing soccer. but whats the point in even playing the game if you are going to settle for beeing equal, you were equal to begin with so why did you play the game at all??? i not only like overtime i think 10 minutes is too short, they should play till someone scores even if it takes all night. i dont see why anyone wouldnt like getting a little extra soccer for the money they paid.
ties are frustrating, but i accept them. my thoughts on overtime: most of the time, i love it. it's another ten minutes to be able to sing and show my support. plus, if my team has come from behind, it's a chance to pull out a victory. but if we're suddenly in danger...screw overtime haha.
Regular Season OT is a Stupid Gimmick Sadly, on this issue, all we have are opinions. Fortunately for me, mine is the right one, so it sounds a lot like fact. It goes like this: A regular season soccer game is 90 minutes long. Games in knockout rounds that need a winner have two 15-minute golden goal overtime periods, and then go to PKs. Also, field players aren't allowed to use their hands.
Re: Re: Regular Season OT is a Stupid Gimmick Well, I dunno. Those new Kappa jerseys are awfully hard to tug on. Of course, the think about those new skin tight Kappa jerseys isn't so much that they're, IMO, unattractive on the field, but think about merchandising... A non-trivial percentage of people who will buy team merchandise are old, fat, and ugly.
Are all of you people who think that the ten minutes of extra soccer are such a great bargain the same people who bitched and moaned so much about the shootout (which arguably was even more exciting than ten minutes of overtime)?
Overtime isn't just about arriving at a victor. It's also about establishing circumstances that leave the outcome of a match in question until the 90th minute. In this way, teams have an incentive to play for the win since even if the match is tied after 90 minutes the teams will continue playing. Doesn't mean matches can't end in a draw and it doesn't mean teams won't play for a draw. It does however establish that after 90 minutes, if a match is level, teams will play a period that is sufficently long for a goal to be scored and sufficently short that teams can increase the tempo of their play without exhausting themselves for their next match. None of this is foolproof, of course, as every MLS draw can testify to. Nobody likes to watch a team come out at half-time and play for the draw and MLS' overtime rule is designed to create a disincentive for those sorts of tactics.
That's an interesting argument, Rob, and I'm definitely inclined to agree that teams playing for a draw make the game boring as hell. Personally, I greatly appreciated when FIFA changed the rules so that wins count for three points because it greatly reduced a team's likelihood to play for a draw.
I don't mind ties. I also don't mind the over-time. Leave it as is. Maybe it will give our players some added endurance for tournies like the World Cup.