FIFA World Cup 2014

[Clench123]

Ties.  Besides being a really boring sport, this is another reason why I don't like soccer (even though I was born in Nigeria).  Sports shouldn't be this complicated.  Something that is huge on a global scale shouldn't require a lot of math. 

Thats probably why I'm not really into football either.

[Donoghus]

I just don't get why a tie is a problem.  Sure it is a problem in a game where you have to have a winner, but I just don't see what the issue is with ties.  I mean after all you can still tie in the NFL and that is the most popular sport in the United States.  Frankly, I think you could make an argument that baseball would be better with ties as extra inning games (especially the really long ones) often screws up pitching staffs for weeks (same thing in the NBA with those multiple OT games though to a lesser extent).  I see nothing wrong with extra innings, but cap them at 12 or something and then just call it a tie.

The NFL has a 15 minutes overtime after regulation not just a couple of minutes or so of stoppage time following regulation with no overtime.   Make ties a lot less common in the NFL.

stoppage time isn't overtime.  It is part of the 45 minutes of the half.

the next round has actual overtime and then penalty kicks if still no winner.  You know when someone has to win.

I just really don't get what the problem with ties is.  I would much prefer a tie than the craptastic system that college football uses where it isn't real football.

I understand the difference between stoppage time & overtime. 

In an NFL regular season game, you're getting an overtime.  In world cup group play, you're not even getting that.  If you're tied after an overtime period, I'm fine with that.  The fact they don't even get an overtime is the part that slightly irks me but, then again, its a world sport so to each, their own.

but why do you need extra time?  The game is 90 minutes, why does it need to be 120 minutes?

Why do you need overtime in any sport?  To try & get a winner. 

[kozlodoev]

but why do you need extra time?  The game is 90 minutes, why does it need to be 120 minutes?

That's the thing, you don't. It's group play, not direct elimination. In fact, there's no practical difference to the fan in the end of the game other than to claim victory. In the end, it doesn't change the fact that there's pretty much always a set of circumstances that need to happen for a team to qualify from group play, and the fact that there are no ties doesn't make it any less complicated.

[kozlodoev]

Why do you need overtime in any sport?  To try & get a winner.

And what exactly, pray tell, is the meaning of a win in a group stage that only aims at eliminating half of the teams?

[Moranis]

Ties.  Besides being a really boring sport, this is another reason why I don't like soccer (even though I was born in Nigeria).  Sports shouldn't be this complicated.  Something that is huge on a global scale shouldn't require a lot of math. 

Thats probably why I'm not really into football either.

3 points for win, 1 point for tie.  Same as hockey (though now it is shootout loss instead of tie).  Not difficult at all.

[Moranis]

I just don't get why a tie is a problem.  Sure it is a problem in a game where you have to have a winner, but I just don't see what the issue is with ties.  I mean after all you can still tie in the NFL and that is the most popular sport in the United States.  Frankly, I think you could make an argument that baseball would be better with ties as extra inning games (especially the really long ones) often screws up pitching staffs for weeks (same thing in the NBA with those multiple OT games though to a lesser extent).  I see nothing wrong with extra innings, but cap them at 12 or something and then just call it a tie.

The NFL has a 15 minutes overtime after regulation not just a couple of minutes or so of stoppage time following regulation with no overtime.   Make ties a lot less common in the NFL.

stoppage time isn't overtime.  It is part of the 45 minutes of the half.

the next round has actual overtime and then penalty kicks if still no winner.  You know when someone has to win.

I just really don't get what the problem with ties is.  I would much prefer a tie than the craptastic system that college football uses where it isn't real football.

I understand the difference between stoppage time & overtime. 

In an NFL regular season game, you're getting an overtime.  In world cup group play, you're not even getting that.  If you're tied after an overtime period, I'm fine with that.  The fact they don't even get an overtime is the part that slightly irks me but, then again, its a world sport so to each, their own.

but why do you need extra time?  The game is 90 minutes, why does it need to be 120 minutes?

Why do you need overtime in any sport?  To try & get a winner.

why do you need a winner?  Sure playoffs you need a winner, but group play is essentially the regular season.  Why do you need a winner in the regular season?

[Donoghus]

but why do you need extra time?  The game is 90 minutes, why does it need to be 120 minutes?

That's the thing, you don't. It's group play, not direct elimination. In fact, there's no practical difference to the fan in the end of the game other than to claim victory. In the end, it doesn't change the fact that there's pretty much always a set of circumstances that need to happen for a team to qualify from group play, and the fact that there are no ties doesn't make it any less complicated.

True.   Like I mentioned earlier, its all about preference.  I like a shot at resolution (win or loss).  Some are fine with ties. 

At least, the knockout round has the added drama of extra time.   I do hate the penalty shootout element, though.

[kozlodoev]

Ties.  Besides being a really boring sport, this is another reason why I don't like soccer (even though I was born in Nigeria).  Sports shouldn't be this complicated.  Something that is huge on a global scale shouldn't require a lot of math. 

Thats probably why I'm not really into football either.

3 points for win, 1 point for tie.  Same as hockey (though now it is shootout loss instead of tie).  Not difficult at all.

Not really. Hockey has 2-1-0 for win, OTL, loss. So in a way, a win is considerably more valuable in soccer.

By the way, soccer did try the sudden death OT. It was an abject disaster, and eventually got abolished.

[Donoghus]

I just don't get why a tie is a problem.  Sure it is a problem in a game where you have to have a winner, but I just don't see what the issue is with ties.  I mean after all you can still tie in the NFL and that is the most popular sport in the United States.  Frankly, I think you could make an argument that baseball would be better with ties as extra inning games (especially the really long ones) often screws up pitching staffs for weeks (same thing in the NBA with those multiple OT games though to a lesser extent).  I see nothing wrong with extra innings, but cap them at 12 or something and then just call it a tie.

The NFL has a 15 minutes overtime after regulation not just a couple of minutes or so of stoppage time following regulation with no overtime.   Make ties a lot less common in the NFL.

stoppage time isn't overtime.  It is part of the 45 minutes of the half.

the next round has actual overtime and then penalty kicks if still no winner.  You know when someone has to win.

I just really don't get what the problem with ties is.  I would much prefer a tie than the craptastic system that college football uses where it isn't real football.

I understand the difference between stoppage time & overtime. 

In an NFL regular season game, you're getting an overtime.  In world cup group play, you're not even getting that.  If you're tied after an overtime period, I'm fine with that.  The fact they don't even get an overtime is the part that slightly irks me but, then again, its a world sport so to each, their own.

but why do you need extra time?  The game is 90 minutes, why does it need to be 120 minutes?

Why do you need overtime in any sport?  To try & get a winner.

why do you need a winner?  Sure playoffs you need a winner, but group play is essentially the regular season.  Why do you need a winner in the regular season?

Because I'm a winner & loser type of guy. 

[kozlodoev]

At least, the knockout round has the added drama of extra time.   I do hate the penalty shootout element, though.

Ultimately, there's been no better way found to settle these, so it boils down to a skills competition.

I love penalty shootouts One, it's an extra adrenaline, and two, it's always fun to see which 5 guys will go out there (teams rarely have more than 1 or 2 designated penalty takers).

[Moranis]

I just don't get why a tie is a problem.  Sure it is a problem in a game where you have to have a winner, but I just don't see what the issue is with ties.  I mean after all you can still tie in the NFL and that is the most popular sport in the United States.  Frankly, I think you could make an argument that baseball would be better with ties as extra inning games (especially the really long ones) often screws up pitching staffs for weeks (same thing in the NBA with those multiple OT games though to a lesser extent).  I see nothing wrong with extra innings, but cap them at 12 or something and then just call it a tie.

The NFL has a 15 minutes overtime after regulation not just a couple of minutes or so of stoppage time following regulation with no overtime.   Make ties a lot less common in the NFL.

stoppage time isn't overtime.  It is part of the 45 minutes of the half.

the next round has actual overtime and then penalty kicks if still no winner.  You know when someone has to win.

I just really don't get what the problem with ties is.  I would much prefer a tie than the craptastic system that college football uses where it isn't real football.

I understand the difference between stoppage time & overtime. 

In an NFL regular season game, you're getting an overtime.  In world cup group play, you're not even getting that.  If you're tied after an overtime period, I'm fine with that.  The fact they don't even get an overtime is the part that slightly irks me but, then again, its a world sport so to each, their own.

but why do you need extra time?  The game is 90 minutes, why does it need to be 120 minutes?

Why do you need overtime in any sport?  To try & get a winner.

why do you need a winner?  Sure playoffs you need a winner, but group play is essentially the regular season.  Why do you need a winner in the regular season?

Because I'm a winner & loser type of guy.

so you like the new college football system?

[Donoghus]

I just don't get why a tie is a problem.  Sure it is a problem in a game where you have to have a winner, but I just don't see what the issue is with ties.  I mean after all you can still tie in the NFL and that is the most popular sport in the United States.  Frankly, I think you could make an argument that baseball would be better with ties as extra inning games (especially the really long ones) often screws up pitching staffs for weeks (same thing in the NBA with those multiple OT games though to a lesser extent).  I see nothing wrong with extra innings, but cap them at 12 or something and then just call it a tie.

The NFL has a 15 minutes overtime after regulation not just a couple of minutes or so of stoppage time following regulation with no overtime.   Make ties a lot less common in the NFL.

stoppage time isn't overtime.  It is part of the 45 minutes of the half.

the next round has actual overtime and then penalty kicks if still no winner.  You know when someone has to win.

I just really don't get what the problem with ties is.  I would much prefer a tie than the craptastic system that college football uses where it isn't real football.

I understand the difference between stoppage time & overtime. 

In an NFL regular season game, you're getting an overtime.  In world cup group play, you're not even getting that.  If you're tied after an overtime period, I'm fine with that.  The fact they don't even get an overtime is the part that slightly irks me but, then again, its a world sport so to each, their own.

but why do you need extra time?  The game is 90 minutes, why does it need to be 120 minutes?

Why do you need overtime in any sport?  To try & get a winner.

why do you need a winner?  Sure playoffs you need a winner, but group play is essentially the regular season.  Why do you need a winner in the regular season?

Because I'm a winner & loser type of guy.

so you like the new college football system?

The playoff system or the way college football conducts its overtime?

[Clench123]

Ties.  Besides being a really boring sport, this is another reason why I don't like soccer (even though I was born in Nigeria).  Sports shouldn't be this complicated.  Something that is huge on a global scale shouldn't require a lot of math. 

Thats probably why I'm not really into football either.

3 points for win, 1 point for tie.  Same as hockey (though now it is shootout loss instead of tie).  Not difficult at all.

I was specifically talking about its effect (or lack thereof) on who advance to the next round and who doesn't.  Also how one country advancing is totally dependent on another country (whom they have absolutely nothing to do with) winning or losing.  Confusing.

[azzenfrost]

I wonder if Chile is gonna put up any kind of fight against the orange.

[kozlodoev]

I was specifically talking about its effect (or lack thereof) on who advance to the next round and who doesn't.  Also how one country advancing is totally dependent on another country (whom they have absolutely nothing to do with) winning or losing.  Confusing.

Which is patently true for just about any sport that has group play, except you may need to swap country for franchise. Also, getting rid of ties doesn't affect this specific issue.

Not sure what your point is, but perhaps your preferences are better suited for tennis or something similar.