Thoughts to chew on about overtime from mlsnet.com By Jason Halpin MLSnet.com The MetroStars have been the most successful team this season when going into the extra session. Bob Bradley’s club is even with D.C. United in playing the most overtime games (13) and has won the most OT contests (3). The Metros might want to thank their lucky stars for overtime; if the extra session didn’t exist, the MetroStars would currently be at 37 points instead of 42 and would still be fighting for a playoff spot, just one point ahead of Columbus. The team that has suffered the most in overtime is D.C., which still has not clinched spot in the Playoffs. With no overtime wins and five extra-session losses in its 13 overtime games, Ray Hudson’s men have seen five points go up in smoke. Those five points would have clinched second place in the East. Instead, it is possible that United may not even qualify for the postseason. Overtime Records* (W-L-T): MetroStars: 3-1-9 New England Revolution: 2-1-9 Kansas City Wizards: 2-0-8 Los Angeles Galaxy: 2-1-8 Chicago Fire: 1-0-8 Columbus Crew: 1-3-8 Colorado Rapids: 1-0-7 San Jose Earthquakes: 0-0-8 D.C. United: 0-5-8 Dallas Burn: 0-1-5 Just restating the obvious - Overtime Bites. Just ask anyone who was at last sundays game against the Crew. Petke's header would of been a wonderful ending - instead we get f##king overtime. -The Far Side
Not that smarter brains than mine haven't said this already (when has that ever stopped me from posting? , but ther are two entirely separate issues here. One is that it sucks that DC loses crunch games in OT. We don't like that, but it's not a good argument for getting rid of OT. Some might say it's an argument for keeping it, since so many of our games are decided in OT. But the second point is that, if I'm doing my math correctly, only 12 out of 51 (23%?) of games tied in regulation have had an OT result. Is this really worth the extra time, expense, and injuries that result from playing another ten minutes after regualtion? Unfortunately, I think many people's answer would be "Yes." Even the matches that don't result in a W/L are often more exciting because there's still a possibility that a result may come out. From the purist's POV, OT is an abomination, a stupid American add-on once again trying to please the "average American sports fan" who "doesn't understand ties." <insert Homer Simpson pic here...> For the person who just wants to see action, I'm afraid the argument is far from convincing that the OT is a waste. It's much more exciting and challenging than the shootout <spit> or penalty kicks. And clearly it can often decide the game when regulation play hasn't.
Yeah, the overtime period for league games is stupid, and I'm sure that most of the DC fans who think it's a bad idea are opposed to it on principle, just like the vast majority of Metro fans who happen to oppose overtime as well... but what's the point of going on about it over multiple threads, other than sour grapes? And this allegedly factual statement is more stupid than overtime itself. Maybe the Metros would currently be on 37 points... or maybe they would have changed their tactics in the last ten minutes of play and pushed for the go-ahead goal in regulation. Just lopping off the golden goal period doesn't automatically make things ceteris paribus.