What's the value of an NFL tie?

First a little known fact: prior to 1974, there was no overtime in regular season NFL (or AFL) games. Back then ties were common, with teams regularly making the playoffs with ties in their record.

Since 1974, though, regular season games play one quarter of overtime, with ties resulting only if not team scores, or, under the new rules, if both teams score only a field goal or no points.

Yesterday the Rams and Niners tied without scoring in overtime. When the clock was running out in the 5th (and doesn't that look odd?), the Rams were deep in their own territory and trying to drive forward. I thought to myself, "At what point do you settle for a tie?" Or what's the value of a tie? Is it better than a loss? Of course it is. But is it enough better than a loss that you would refrain from trying to win if that risked a loss? For example, running out, oh, 45 seconds deep in your own territory, rather than risking several passes, conserving the clock, and possibly handing over the ball to the other team with some time left.

Quote: Nareed

First a little known fact: prior to 1974, there was no overtime in regular season NFL (or AFL) games. Back then ties were common, with teams regularly making the playoffs with ties in their record.

Since 1974, though, regular season games play one quarter of overtime, with ties resulting only if not team scores, or, under the new rules, if both teams score only a field goal or no points.

Yesterday the Rams and Niners tied without scoring in overtime. When the clock was running out in the 5th (and doesn't that look odd?), the Rams were deep in their own territory and trying to drive forward. I thought to myself, "At what point do you settle for a tie?" Or what's the value of a tie? Is it better than a loss? Of course it is. But is it enough better than a loss that you would refrain from trying to win if that risked a loss? For example, running out, oh, 45 seconds deep in your own territory, rather than risking several passes, conserving the clock, and possibly handing over the ball to the other team with some time left.

A tie is worth half a win. Therefore, if you put your self in a position where it's greater than 50% of losing, don't do it. If you are deep in your half with 45 seconds to go, and tying, the hail mary deep ball is probably not worth it if you are about to turn over on downs.

The tie basically either functions in place of a win or a loss, depending on the scenario and if you are the only team with a tie. If you have the same number of wins as another team in your division, and each of you have the most wins in the division, then you have won the division. If you have one less win, then you have lost the division, and the same with a tie-breaker for a WC spot, or what have you.

I suppose the value of a tie, then, would simply be how likely you think you are to have the same number of wins, or one less win, in such a scenario. In the event that you only have three wins all year, then the tie really has no value, of course, the win doesn't realy have any value, either, because the goal is to win the SB, but at least to win your Division or get into the playoffs as a WC. If you have fourteen wins, then the tie is without value because you were going to win your division, anyway.

Quote: TheCesspit

A tie is worth half a win. Therefore, if you put your self in a position where it's greater than 50% of losing, don't do it. If you are deep in your half with 45 seconds to go, and tying, the hail mary deep ball is probably not worth it if you are about to turn over on downs.

Yes, that's the common sense view. Still, I find it surprising to what length NFL players hate ties. Hardly any are as eloquet describing losses. And I mean even those who played in an era where a tie was common.

Come to think of it, suppose the 72 Dolphins had ended 16-0-1 rather than 17-0. Woudl they still be hailed as the sole NFL team, in the mdoern era, to go undefeated, ro woudl they be dismissed as having lost half a game?

Mission, suppose the tie happens when it's too early to tell how the playoff picture will shape up. Whats' the value then?

Quote: Nareed

Come to think of it, suppose the 72 Dolphins had ended 16-0-1 rather than 17-0. Woudl they still be hailed as the sole NFL team, in the mdoern era, to go undefeated, ro woudl they be dismissed as having lost half a game?

Mission, suppose the tie happens when it's too early to tell how the playoff picture will shape up. Whats' the value then?

I think the real Dolphins question would be whether or not they had a perfect season, to which I would answer, "No, they did not." Were you to ask me if they still went undefeated, I would say, "Yes, simply because no other team defeated them."

In terms of absolute value, then you would simply look at a tie as being better than a loss. In this event, you would take your estimated liklihood of winning, multiply by one, take your liklihood of a tie given the decision, assign it a value of zero, and then take the estimated liklihood of a decision directly (or almost directly) causing you to lose, multiply that liklihood by -1 and then commit the action if the sum of those calculations is either positive or zero.

Quote: Mission146

I think the real Dolphins question would be whether or not they had a perfect season, to which I would answer, "No, they did not." Were you to ask me if they still went undefeated, I would say, "Yes, simply because no other team defeated them."

Yes, but it would be a lot less clear cut, wouldn't it?

BTW in the Pittsburgh Kansas game, after the referee finished explainign the overtime rules, the ESPN anouncer said "They should also explain the game can end in a tie. It seems lots of players don't know that."

Quote: Nareed

Yes, but it would be a lot less clear cut, wouldn't it?

BTW in the Pittsburgh Kansas game, after the referee finished explainign the overtime rules, the ESPN anouncer said "They should also explain the game can end in a tie. It seems lots of players don't know that."

I would respectfully disagree with, "Less clear cut," as far as being undefeated is concerned. It strikes me as a very unambiguous term in that you were either defeated or you were not. For example, a team could theoretically go 0-0-16 and thereby (usually) miss the playoffs, but there is no question to me that this theoretical team was still undefeated.

In terms of, "Less clear cut," I suppose one could still make the argument that they had a perfect season, but then there is really no distinction between perfect season and undefeated. I wouldn't personally make the argument that it remains a perfect season, but I could see where it could be made.

The last bit is amusing and also true. I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember that there was a Sports Illustrated survey that once revealed that many players, in fact, did not realize a game can end in a tie.