No matter how you feel about games in the MLS ending in a tie, I just did a quick check at the MLS website and out of 14 games that went into overtime, only one (1!) resulted in a win for somebody. That was the DC-KC game on April 12th. Would anybody notice if they eliminated overtime?
Certainly. But a donkey is a donkey. No amount of wishful thinking will turn him into Funny Cide overnight.
Why don't you check last years results? Last year there were a lot of OT goals. And you will see how many games ended in great golden goal. keep ot.
Don't be surprised if OT is gone next season and regular season games end after 90 mins regardless of the score.
Can someone present a good argument why getting rid of overtime is such a fabulous idea? (And no, "because no one else in the world does it" is NOT a good argument.)
I don't know jefe for one thing I just know it bothers me to see the OT, heck knows i just can't get used to this gimmick. Its like squeezing an orange to get the juice out, you got the lost drop , but still decide to squuze some more for no reason,maybe a drop if you keep at it for long enough. Now if we really must then please give me some real time, 10 min is just a joke, make it at least 15 unintrerupted for gods sake.
go back to the shootout, shootouts were great! i know hardcore soccer fans may hate it, but many "normal" (like me) fans will like it, which will give soccer a ratings increase.
Here are two: 1) MLS has very small rosters. Forcing teams to play up to an extra 10 minutes for each match that ends tied after 90 minutes translates into extra wear and tear on players. I'm too lazy to go through the numbers, but all those OTs probably add up to an extra game for each club per year; 2). I get the feeling that players begin to pace themselves at about the 80 minute mark when matches are tied. Instead of playing like hell for the final 10 minutes, they hold back, knowing that they might have 20 minutes left to play. Or so it's seems to me this season. And just wait until summer.
I agree that the current format of the overtime periods is a little strange. It seems like the teams barely get a chance to build up their attack when the 5 minutes is already over. 15 or 20 minutes, uninterrupted, would be much better, in my opinion. Are there 5 or 6 threads on this per week?
One reason to get rid of OT is because it was put in for the wrong reason. It was not put in to make the sport better. It was put in for marketing purposes. Likewise for the shootout. It has not gotten any more fans interested than would have been interested anyway. The fact that OT is only going to be used in the playoffs if total goals are equal, and not be used at all in the first half of the home and home, is the second reason. Third reason is that the rest of the world is not adopting this "experiment". There have been US innovations that have been adopted recently (extra soccer balls on the sidelines so play resumes immediately, assists on goals), but this is not one of them. Fourth reason, is with the small MLS rosters the league should not create situations that will lead to more injuries. Teams already have enough trouble replacing players who are hurt or called for national duty. Fifth reason is that with overtime not a factor, the team ahead will play with more energy the last 10 minutes. They will not have to keep some energy in reserve. Sixth reason, we will see less of the 4th substitution gimmick (Dallas vs LA). Seventh reason, it's ridiculous to see a team that is losing with seconds left in injury time come out with a win by scoring in injury time and in OT. I know it doesn't happen often, but when it does, it just looks ridiculous.
Unlike the two actual extra games that were added this year. It would be interesting to see, historically, what happens in tie games from minute 80-on when there is overtime and when there isn't, in terms of goals and shots and things. I'm not 100% sure that in games that are tied, with no overtime, teams all play like hell for the last 10, since all they have to do is hold on and get a point, and maybe they can nick one. But if both teams are playing back, it's unlikely that anyone would nick one. I'd say you'd be hurting your team if you didn't leave yourself something in the tank for a potential overtime. That's just prudent use of resources based on the rules.
One way (but not the only way) I'd measure that is by attendance, which, before this season, had risen since OT was adopted. I'm not saying there's a strong cause-and-effect there, but you're saying definitively that it hasn't been part of the cause. Golden goals are. In those couple of big tournaments whose names escape me. One with like the best national teams in the world, and the other with the best national teams in Europe. In league play it hasn't been adopted worldwide. That's always brought up, but there's been no study about whether there are more injuries or less production from players on the basis of having played an extra 60-70 minutes in a season. And, this is not a function of overtime, it's a function of the league having small rosters because of a lack of money. Maybe. But as mentioned above, if you've got a point pretty much in the bag (especially on the road), the usual soccer mentality is not to lose, as opposed to trying to win outright. At least, traditionally it is. Did they do it, too? That would make, what, three times in league history? Yeah, next thing you know some team will win the Treble that way. Ridiculous when that happened.
The point of the original post.... ...is simply that two 5 minute periods of OT simply doesn't work. If it's really important for someone to have a winner, (which it isn't for me) then at least do something that works. The current OT is a waste of time and effort. As was pointed out by others, you can't even get your offense into gear in 5 minutes. But I'm also wondering if maybe the players, many of whom feel they're a bit underpaid, might be dogging it a bit during the OT to get rid of it. I was also a bit suspicious about how hard they were playing during the Champions League games too. They weren't going to get any more money but would have to play more games with increased chance of injury etc. Does anybody else wonder about this?
No. It's because of TV. It's always been because of TV. And just so you have it, the total number of overtime games, and the total number of overtime minutes played by each MLS team in the 2002 season: TEAM.........OT..Min Kansas City..11...95 Dallas.......10...89 Columbus......9...81 DC United.....9...68 Los Angeles...9...55 Chicago.......7...53 Colorado......6...49 San Jose......4...37 MetroStars....4...33 New England...3...30 LEAGUE AVG...7.2..59
The simplest solution for this overtime insanity is to just get rid of it. Then replace it by awarding the winning team with four points. And when therr's a tie each team gets a point a piece. Awarding 4 points for a victory will be more than enough of an incentive for teams to push for the victory in the late stages of the game.
4 points for a win wasn't very well received in the USL, and they discontinued it. That and the bonus point were supposed to encourage attacking soccer, but there's no real evidence that it did so. KANSAS CITY WIZARDS Overtime Minutes Played - 2002 Garcia.......85 Burns........85 Zavagnin.....82 Talley.......80 McKeon.......75 Brown........73 Armstrong....72 Klein........65 Preki........63 Vermes.......55 Gutierrez....55 Gomez........55 Meola........52 Oshoyni......43 Simuntenkov..40 Quill........23 Glasgow......12 Fabbro.......10
Cause I'm tired of setting my TiVo to run over for 15 minutes when recording. It messes up the TiVo scheduling, dammit.
10 minutes extra minutes a week several times a season puts extra wear and tear on players? You're really going to sell that as a "good reason" to get rid of overtime? In that case, I expect you start using that as a reason to get rid of: international matches during the MLS regular season US Open Cup matches during the regular season coaches who insist on training their players a bit too vigorously during the summer heat I'm sure that the bright minds that inhabit BigSoccer can come up with a few more things that MLS can do to reduce wear and tear on players, along with getting rid of those onerous 10 minutes that they play several times a season. There might be something to your "feeling." According to the stats at MLSNET, disproportionately few goals have been scored after the 75th minutes or in overtime. HOWEVER, this is a direct contrast to 2000, 2001, and 2002 (the other seasons in the OT era), when a disproportionately large number of goals were scored after the 75th minute and in overtime. Frankly, a far more plausible explanation than your theory that players are "pacing themselves" is the fact that scoring during all phases of the games is substantially down this season. When few goals are scored overall, it stands to reason that few goals are going to be scored late in matches or in overtime. And I don't know if this has anything to do with anything, but the three top-scoring teams after the 75th minute in 2002 were LA (18 goals), Colorado (15 goals), Dallas (14 goals). Those three teams are three of the most notorious non-scorers thus far this season, with a grand total of 11 goals in 16 matches. And none of those three teams has scored more than one goal in any match this season.
Are you kidding me? That's ridiculous? Personally, I would call it... uh, I'm looking for a word here... oh yeah... exciting. It's only ridiculous if your team is the one that coughed up a lead and lost in overtime. And as Burn fan, I know that all too well.
Yeah, I remember all the complaining over in the Manchester United forum after the Champions League final that one year.
As a TiVo owner, I can actually agree with that one -- somewhat. Still, it doesn't yet rise to the level of a good reason. Well, not the way that "It looks ridiculous when a team has the lead, gets tied in stoppage time, and loses in overtime" does. I mean, that's a terrific reason to get rid of overtime.
Last thing on overtime, I've got to stop doing this... Unofficial leaders in overtime minutes played, 2002 MLS season: Player, Tm...Min Bonseu, DAL...89 Deering, DAL..89 Burns, KC.....85 Garcia, KC....85 Broome, DAL...83 Zavagnin, KC..82 Dunseth, CLB..81 Talley, KC....80 Jordan, DAL...79 McKeon, KC....75