D3boards.com

Yep. I'm starting a thread because I got tired of sorting through multiple places. I was mildly against this rule change, mainly because I think more soccer is better and with the substitution rules being what they are... player fatigue is on the coaches being unwilling to go deep into a bench. A bench that for many teams is at least equal to the size of the team on the field, if not double that at home. I thought the OT rule made more sense in conjunction with the proposed substitution changes, but one without the other is just... well, not my cup of tea. Is it something I'd go to war over as ruining the game? Of course not. I just think more game time is better for deciding the best teams, a tricky proposition when you can't play a true home and home type round robin.

So I did some basic research using Week 6 of the D3soccer.com Fan Poll through Week 6 and here's the data on ties:

2011 - 23
2012 - 23
2013 - 28
2014 - 20
2015 - 25
2016 - 28
2017 - 15
2018 - 26
2019 - 34
2021 - 30

average: 25.2
median: 25/26



Coaches -- Pack the bus against better teams. So far this year, on average, it's more than twice as easy to get a draw against the Top 25 than it's been historically. It's bloody hard to score in soccer, a game already noted for teams with 15 SOG losing to a team with 1 on a semi-regular basis. Well, in NCAA college soccer it's now twice as easy to tie up the better teams.

We all know that when a top team ties a team they were expected to beat, home or away, it's a negative for the top team and a positive for the lower team. So really, if you are a mid-tier team playing a top tier team, just put 10 back, waste as much time as possible, and kick and run and hope up front. It's a lot easier to have it work out when games can be more than 20% shorter.

Thank you for analysis...wow double the Ties....bring back the Golden Goal OT will keep OT player minutes down if thats the main worry versus the full 20 of OT (2x10).

My notes from the episode II of Around D3 where I raised this very issue.  And I compared a year to one day....

Now that we are into the season with the overtime rule change, it seems that there are a lot more ties.

-  Wednesday, 14 September
-  For the women, there were 122 game. 16 ended in ties.  13% of games ended up in ties.  18 game season, 2 games would end in ties.
-  For the men's, there were 118 games.  Of those, 22 of those games ended up in ties.  18.5% of games.  If I were to extrapolate... for a team with 18 games in a season, they would have 3 games end in ties.
-  For one day, 18.5% seems a bit high to me, but what do I know? 
-  So I decided to take a look at 2021. The men had an average # of ties across all games of 8.3% in 2021.  The women, slightly lower at 7.8%.

Granted this is a comparison of an entire season across all programs to a sample  one day of games.... But if it is reflective of where we are at, the women will almost double the number of ties, and the men will have a 2.5x increase in ties!

SC.

Actually SimpleCoach... when you look at the Top 25 through Week 6... a total of 288 games have been played, 57 ended in ties. That's 19.79%. So in a typical regular season of 16 or 17 games, we can expect a Top 25 team to have 3-4 ties this year.

Quote from: jknezek on October 11, 2022, 03:14:44 PM
Actually SimpleCoach... when you look at the Top 25 through Week 6... a total of 288 games have been played, 57 ended in ties. That's 19.79%. So in a typical regular season of 16 or 17 games, we can expect a Top 25 team to have 3-4 ties this year.

I wasn't that nuanced.  I looked at all games on the 14th, regardless of ranking.  And then for 2021, I looked at the entire season for all teams.

SC.

Quote from: SimpleCoach on October 11, 2022, 03:17:59 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 11, 2022, 03:14:44 PM
Actually SimpleCoach... when you look at the Top 25 through Week 6... a total of 288 games have been played, 57 ended in ties. That's 19.79%. So in a typical regular season of 16 or 17 games, we can expect a Top 25 team to have 3-4 ties this year.

I wasn't that nuanced.  I looked at all games on the 14th, regardless of ranking.  And then for 2021, I looked at the entire season for all teams.

SC.

I know, and that makes for a better comparison. But the teams that are most affected by ties tend to be the better teams, since more teams will play for a tie against a stronger opponent. And we clearly see that it is a) a whole lot easier so far this season, and b) going to make comparing teams a lot harder.

W&L tied Lynchburg and CNU last week. They dominated Lynchburg, CNU played them essentially straight up. But on the record, each game goes as a tie. Unless you dig deep into the stats, they look like equivalent results. They weren't even close. Would W&L have won or lost either of those games in OT? Who knows. But when you outshoot a team 20(10) to 6(3), I like my odds over 20 more minutes to get a result. When it's 10(1) to 8(2) I think 20 more minutes won't help too much.

Williams was quite happy with a tie at Wheaton just now! 2-2

OK, I agree with Hopkins (and he and I often are not in sync), Ejay, etc.  I agree about the rule change but also about "tends to get people really in their feelings."  I am frankly more fascinated by the latter and exactly what that is all about including why I lose my mind anytime we get into one of these  And, lol, there is no way I can compete with that scrolling bold banner in post #1.  I wouldn't have the first clue how to do that!

In any case, of course there are more draws this year.  There's no OT!!!  I'm not denying there is a major increase but a fairer comparison would be this year's results versus how many games would have ended in draws last year or in prior years if OT had not been played.  With OTs the number can only go in one direction....down.

I also agree that if you can't get it done in 90 minutes then why do you deserve another 20 minutes?  The thesis is almost as though teams are getting cheated if they get evaluated on 90 minutes? 

Also have not seen hard evidence presented that teams are parking the bus and going for a draw.  Like why?  For what?  The only time to do that is in playoff scenarios where there IS OT and you can argue that inferior teams are playing for PKs.  Does anyone seriously believe Colby WANTS to be 3-3-10?  Like what prize do they get for that?  Does Williams want to be 4-1-5?

I don't have the proof by anecdotally at least there seem to be MORE goals scores in the last 3 minutes than before.  To use the W&L example, the stats advantage is great but the truth is that Lynchburg was on the verge of a win as W&L drew even in the 88th minute.  Wesleyan leveled with Hamilton in the 89th minute.  CMU beat JCU with 10 secs left. 

There's also a belief/wish that one's superior team is gonna win in OT.  That does not always happen, and truth be told, beyond my other arguments, the single biggest visceral reason I oppose OT, specifically sudden death OT, is that I cannot stand for my team or teams to lose that way.

From the D3soccer.com database:

Year	Matches	Ties
2014	3850+	8.6 %
2015	3850+	8.5 %
2016	3850+	9.1 %
2017	3800+	8.8 %
2018	3800+	8.4 %
2019	3900+	8.8 %
2021	3650+	8.3 %
2022	2400+	18.9 %

The total number of ties so far this season has already exceeded the total in all previous seasons by approximately 33%.

It all comes down to our prisms...and within our own prisms our logic makes internal sense.  And when two people are looking through there own prisms they aren't looking at the same thing....they aren't assessing the same thing.   It's like with the substitution thing.  If you don't have a kid playing and don't anticipate that then playing time isn't gonna be a big priority and you are freer to wax on about liberal substituting ruins the game.  If you do, did, or expect your kid to play then you probably will care about that a lot more than stylistic worries (and even if you're a Messiah parent).  I can listen to Souders tell me how my kid is just as important to team success as Trent Vegter even though he never plays a minute, but that is of little comfort after watching yet another 90 (or 110) minutes with my kid having to stand and cheer all that time while it's killing him (and me) on the inside.  I know, I know...he can quit.  That doesn't feel so great either...for any player or parent.

Quote from: Christan Shirk on October 11, 2022, 06:25:30 PM
From the D3soccer.com database:

Year	Matches	Ties
2014	3850+	8.6 %
2015	3850+	8.5 %
2016	3850+	9.1 %
2017	3800+	8.8 %
2018	3800+	8.4 %
2019	3900+	8.8 %
2021	3650+	8.3 %
2022	2400+	18.9 %

The total number of ties so far this season has already exceeded the total in all previous seasons by approximately 33%.

Can you do the same comparing prior years if they ended at 90 vs this year?  It's a mathematical truism that the number would be significantly higher now.  And the focus on this taints the picture in the direction of proving that the change is not a good one.  Which means buying into the idea that draws are inherently unwanted.

I am not sure where I heard, but someone told me at some point that 50% of games that went into OT ended in ties.   If that is/was true and not a figment of my hyper active imagination, then the amount of draws makes sense.  Maybe a little higher, but all in all in line with what that would look like in a year of "more" ties.

SC.

Quote from: SimpleCoach on October 11, 2022, 06:45:28 PM
I am not sure where I heard, but someone told me at some point that 50% of games that went into OT ended in ties.   If that is/was true and not a figment of my hyper active imagination, then the amount of draws makes sense.  Maybe a little higher, but all in all in line with what that would look like in a year of "more" ties.

SC.

Exactly.

Speaking of prisms, one of the aspects of this debate that hasn't been mentioned yet is sporting culture. Americans in general do not like ties. If there is any word in sports that is quintessentially American, it is the word "tiebreaker". Even-steven outcomes of any kind are not a part of our sporting culture. We're indoctrinated at a young age in the absolute importance of winning, and that winning and losing are a clear-cut binary. Our national pastime has what is essentially a play-till-you-drop rule that for the most part eliminates the possibility of ties. (American baseball fans tend to be utterly perplexed when they first learn that ties are allowed in the Japanese major leagues.) Our one homegrown sport that the rest of the world has wholeheartedly embraced, basketball, likewise has a play-till-you-drop rule to ensure a win/loss outcome. Football had ties for many decades, but they were relatively few and far between; it was a novelty if a team had more than one tie in a season, and most seasons a team wouldn't tie at all, whether it was on the high school, college, or pro level. Even that infrequent outcome proved too much for football fans, so the various levels of the sport came up with their own overtime rules to dispel the dreaded draw.

Soccer's closest sister sport on these shores, hockey, has long been subject to ties for the same reason as soccer: it's darned hard to score, and the only scoring increment, a goal, counts for one. That means that if you're behind you must first come level before you take the lead, which, along with the difficulty of scoring, is a surefire recipe for ties. And hockey, like college soccer, has flirted with various tiebreakers, including the alien and bizarre method of shootouts as well as overtimes. That's because the people who love hockey the most, Canadians, share the lack of affinity with ties that we have here south of the border.

But the soccer world south of the Rio Grande and beyond the seas has no such compunction about draws. To the rest of the world, draws are very much a standard part of the game, and, indeed, are often a preferred strategic objective. And I think that there's a divide among American soccer fans between those who like the game and have added it onto their sports-fan menu as one sport to follow among many, and the diehards who have adopted a more exclusive and more global (for lack of a better term) outlook and who thus choose to view the sport through the prism of Europeans, Mexicans, Central and South Americans, Africans, and Asians. To them, acceptance of the draw as a legitimate outcome -- in fact, the insistence upon calling it a "draw" rather than the more American "tie" -- is to them part and parcel of what being a fan of the beautiful game is all about.

I'm going to do something dangerous and say that neither outlook is right or wrong. If you want to be all Yankee Doodle about it and declaim that ties are un-American, that's fine. If you want to be the cosmopolitan soccer purist and insist upon the globally-reinforced mentality that draws are simply a natural part of the sport of futbol, that's fine, too. If you're a mix of those two schools of thought -- hey, no problem with that, either. There's no right or wrong way to be a fan -- unless you're storming the field and inducing the riot police to load up their tear-gas canisters, that is.

Comparing a 400+ team division where you try and crown a champion in 4 months with a 20 team league with a single or double 10 month long round robin is a fallacy. I do find it interesting that the people who said NCAA soccer shouldn't be like the rest of the world for subs are now consistently saying... "stop being so American about ties and look at the rest of the world."

It's entertaining if nothing else. And hockey does play overtime. At least the NHL does. One 5 minute period of 3v3 in the reg season. Playoffs are different.

Relevant to the discussion, here are some figures from the NESCAC men

2021 Season:  7 games went to OT, 4 ended up with a winner
2019 Season:  24 games went to OT, 13 ended up with a winner

Over these two seasons, 17 games that went to OT had a winner and 14 stayed as ties. 

Quote from: jknezek on October 11, 2022, 07:52:54 PM
Comparing a 400+ team division where you try and crown a champion in 4 months with a 20 team league with a single or double 10 month long round robin is a fallacy. I do find it interesting that the people who said NCAA soccer shouldn't be like the rest of the world for subs are now consistently saying... "stop being so American about ties and look at the rest of the world."

It's entertaining if nothing else. And hockey does play overtime. At least the NHL does. One 5 minute period of 3v3 in the reg season. Playoffs are different.

The thing is that you are convinced that I (and I guess some others) are being contradictory, and I'm confident you're being contradictory.  I don't care much about the international standards.  We bring that up because that was the basis of the limit subs argument, to make things more like "real soccer."

And Greg, great analysis, but one question since we are dealing with two options here in this discussion.  Is a draw after two OTs preferable to a draw after 90 minutes?  If so, why exactly?  The two OTs don't solve the "American tie problem" if no one scores.  Or would everyone prefer that regular season games have the two OTs followed by PKs to match American tastes?

Quote from: jknezek on October 11, 2022, 07:52:54 PM
And hockey does play overtime. At least the NHL does. One 5 minute period of 3v3 in the reg season. Playoffs are different.

That's the model I've been proposing from my barstool. OT should be 9v9.

The big problem is going to be pool C bids.  There's always been controversy over pool C bids, but now we're going to have lots problems in deciding which team with 5 or 6 draws deserves to get in over the others and I think it's going to cause even more deserving teams in getting snubbed.  We already see Rochester get in with 4 or 5 losses and several draws, now how do we reconcile multiple teams with similar records and SOS with the included factor of a pile of draws? I don't envy the committee but the mid majors of the D3 world I fear will get screwed even harder.

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 11, 2022, 08:13:07 PM
And Greg, great analysis, but one question since we are dealing with two options here in this discussion.  Is a draw after two OTs preferable to a draw after 90 minutes?  If so, why exactly?  The two OTs don't solve the "American tie problem" if no one scores.  Or would everyone prefer that regular season games have the two OTs followed by PKs to match American tastes?

Good question. I think that even those with American sensibilities have their limits. In football and hockey, two frenetic contact sports that are incredibly physically draining on players, it's possible to end in a tie after attempting to break the tie with overtime (although the NHL refuses to cave on its antipathy for ties, using a shootout if OT does not end the game, high school and college hockey still have ties). Basketball never ends in a tie, which I think is a plus in basketball's favor, even though the end of a three-overtime game can look like the short-pants equivalent of the Bataan Death March. But basketball players are much less likely to suffer a concussion or a broken arm or torn knee ligaments in that third overtime than a hockey or football player would after that much playing time. And, of course, the only real danger in playing seventeen innings of baseball is running out of players. I think that most fans get that certain sports go over the line in terms of risks to life and limb if played to excess.

But at least baseball and basketball are true to themselves by insisting upon a standard-rules overtime outcome*, rather than employ a gimmick like the shootout in hockey or starting drives at the 25-yard line the way that college football does (How would you do this in basketball? Play a game of H-O-R-S-E?). Then again, as I said, football and hockey are contact sports where exhaustion heightens the likelihood of serious injury.

But the point, I think, in the eyes of most American sports fans is that the governing organizations of their favorite sports are at least trying to rid themselves of ties. Even if they're not accomplishing that goal 100% of the time, they come close enough for the fans to live with the once-in-a-blue-moon tie. That's why I think that the typical American sports fan would welcome the two ten-minute overtimes in soccer, even if half of them (if Simple Coach's memory is correct) do end in a draw.

Penalty kicks? That's another matter. I think that fans tend to be split on the gimmickry of breaking ties in a manner other than the normal run of play. Some fans consider a shootout of any kind to be an abomination, whether in soccer or hockey, since it's not really the normal unfolding of the game itself. But soccer fans, unlike hockey fans, can at least claim that their version of a shootout is a distillation of a genuine (but static) element of their sport, the penalty kick. Nevertheless, it still feels alien to the game itself. The intrinsic beauty of soccer lies in the movement of multiple players on a large field, and the shootout has none of that. But what it does have is drama, and drama is a very important part of the appeal of sports. Speaking as someone who has called D3 tournament shootouts as a play-by-play broadcaster, I can vouch for the powerful tension and release involved in a team's entire season coming down to one penalty kick. But it still feels strangely out of place, like settling a knife fight with a hand of gin rummy.

* Don't get me started on pro baseball's new start-with-a-man-on-second-base-in-extra-innings rule.

I hope my last point tonight.  There's been an idea that most draws happen between a superior and an inferior team and that the superior team because of inferior team parking the bus are at a disadvantage in a 90 min game.  I would assert that most draws happen between equals or near-equals where most of the time neither team wanted a draw....see NESCAC (Tufts vs Conn, Midd vs Amherst), UAA, etc.  Like tonight Wash Coll vs Catholic...which one was the favorite? I'd say neither.  0-0 Final.  Same with Drew and Western CT.

Quote from: Ejay on October 11, 2022, 08:41:09 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 11, 2022, 07:52:54 PM
And hockey does play overtime. At least the NHL does. One 5 minute period of 3v3 in the reg season. Playoffs are different.

That's the model I've been proposing from my barstool. OT should be 9v9.

Yeah, I've heard that proposal made several times as well. One half-amusing, half-intriguing counterproposal I've heard is that goals should be made with adjustable pipes so that they could be enlarged vertically and/or horizontally in overtime periods, the idea being that a bigger goal would encourage shooting from farther out and make packed-in defenses a less optimal choice for a coach in an extra session.

Sorry to be late to the conversation but has the NCAA released an explanation as to why the rule was changed? Do we know the aim of the elimination of OT?

There was an interesting draw earlier between Wheaton and Williams, where Williams came from behind late to secure the draw, anything but a dull draw!

I mentioned in the other thread that I had a lot on this topic swirling in my head and the American culture issue was one I just didn't have time to get into. I do mention that the rest of the world doesn't look at Draws as a problem to solve, and I guess I'll kind of leave it at that for the moment.

It's fairly annoying from an outside the US perspective to constantly want to tinker with a game that is older than a good chunk of the states in our Union.

A great example of this hubris is an American buying one of the biggest football clubs on the planet and immediately suggesting the EPL implement an All-Star game. Just... No, don't do that. Super insulting. Leave the game alone, please.

Quote from: Hopkins92 on October 12, 2022, 09:57:49 AM
I mentioned in the other thread that I had a lot on this topic swirling in my head and the American culture issue was one I just didn't have time to get into. I do mention that the rest of the world doesn't look at Draws as a problem to solve, and I guess I'll kind of leave it at that for the moment.

It's fairly annoying from an outside the US perspective to constantly want to tinker with a game that is older than a good chunk of the states in our Union.

A great example of this hubris is an American buying one of the biggest football clubs on the planet and immediately suggesting the EPL implement an All-Star game. Just... No, don't do that. Super insulting. Leave the game alone, please.

The issue isn't really that Americans have problems with ties, although they may; rather, it's that Americans are fascinated with playoffs, even in sports without single tables.  That means that people have to vote on participants beyond the winners of each league and ties make it harder for voters.  Ties also are a pain for individual conferences in determining conference tournament qualifiers, but at least they have a set formula and a tie-breaker system, rather than requiring voters to compare individual teams across conferences.

To be fair, Europeans also have now fully adopted the American fascination with playoffs without single tables - they call it Champions and Europa Leagues and they started long before Americans became owners of European clubs.  Difference is that the Europeans simply decide how many spots each league gets, so no need for "voters" (which is facially neutral, but not surprisingly gives more spots for the historically "elite" leagues and thereby institutionalizes their elite status against their upstart competitors - an idea that American college football now at least partly uses for the Bowl Championship Series).  That still puts some pressure on ties, but the European seasons are much longer than the college soccer season, so some ties here or there aren't going to decide things over the long haul.

Bottom line (removing the American v. European commentary), ties would matter less in college soccer if there were more games and/or if there were only conference tournaments and not NCAA tournaments with some bids not based on a pure formula.

I wouldn't use the word "hubris" to describe the American attitude towards soccer. Lots of cultures put their own twist on sports. Canadian football is played on a bigger field, with an extra man per side, and with one fewer down per possession than American football. In Puerto Rican volleyball, the libero is not allowed to serve and there are only six substitutions permitted per set, as opposed to the fifteen substitutions permitted in American and international volleyball. Volleyball was invented in the U.S. (in a Massachusetts YMCA, to be exact), but I've never heard an American gripe about the exotic rules of voleibol puertorriqueño. I've already mentioned that Japanese baseball allows ties. Basketball? There is a bewildering variety of different rules from one country to another. Indeed, international rules are different than American rules -- and, remember, this is a sport invented in Springfield, MA, in the gym of what is now a D3 school -- which Americans notice when they watch the Olympics and see that, for example, the international basketball court is smaller than an NCAA or NBA basketball court.

I also wouldn't attach the presumptuous designs of one EPL-club-owning billionaire to his native country as a whole. On the contrary, I think that most American soccer fans respect the EPL for what it is and would not want to taint the inherent Englishness of its format.

I think it's perfectly fine if countries wish to tailor a sport to their own liking with regard to in-house competition under their own jurisdiction. The world would be an ugly place if FIBA could dictate to Ghanians when a bonus free throw could be awarded in Ghana's Sprite Ball national high school hoops tourney, or if FIFA had the power to demand that the NCAA alter its substitution rules. As long as everybody's on board with international rules when competition crosses borders, what's the problem?

(Also, tinkering with stuff invented by people in other countries, including everything from the automobile to pizza to denim to decaffeinated coffee to the electric battery, is kinda our thing as Americans. ;))

Quote from: Kuiper on October 12, 2022, 11:15:11 AM
Bottom line (removing the American v. European commentary), ties would matter less in college soccer if there were more games and/or if there were only conference tournaments and not NCAA tournaments with some bids not based on a pure formula.

This.

Quote from: Kuiper on October 12, 2022, 11:15:11 AM

Quote from: Hopkins92 on October 12, 2022, 09:57:49 AM
I mentioned in the other thread that I had a lot on this topic swirling in my head and the American culture issue was one I just didn't have time to get into. I do mention that the rest of the world doesn't look at Draws as a problem to solve, and I guess I'll kind of leave it at that for the moment.

It's fairly annoying from an outside the US perspective to constantly want to tinker with a game that is older than a good chunk of the states in our Union.

A great example of this hubris is an American buying one of the biggest football clubs on the planet and immediately suggesting the EPL implement an All-Star game. Just... No, don't do that. Super insulting. Leave the game alone, please.

The issue isn't really that Americans have problems with ties, although they may; rather, it's that Americans are fascinated with playoffs, even in sports without single tables. 

Maybe it's where I grew up (MI in the 70s), but I heard a boat load of stuff about how soccer was a communist sport because it allows/rewards ties.

I really like your post, overall and agree with much of it. But there is absolutely a stigma with many when it comes to ties... Kissing your sister and all that.

Quote from: Hopkins92 on October 12, 2022, 11:33:10 AM

Quote from: Kuiper on October 12, 2022, 11:15:11 AM

Quote from: Hopkins92 on October 12, 2022, 09:57:49 AM
I mentioned in the other thread that I had a lot on this topic swirling in my head and the American culture issue was one I just didn't have time to get into. I do mention that the rest of the world doesn't look at Draws as a problem to solve, and I guess I'll kind of leave it at that for the moment.

It's fairly annoying from an outside the US perspective to constantly want to tinker with a game that is older than a good chunk of the states in our Union.

A great example of this hubris is an American buying one of the biggest football clubs on the planet and immediately suggesting the EPL implement an All-Star game. Just... No, don't do that. Super insulting. Leave the game alone, please.

The issue isn't really that Americans have problems with ties, although they may; rather, it's that Americans are fascinated with playoffs, even in sports without single tables. 

Maybe it's where I grew up (MI in the 70s), but I heard a boat load of stuff about how soccer was a communist sport because it allows/rewards ties.

I really like your post, overall and agree with much of it. But there is absolutely a stigma with many when it comes to ties... Kissing your sister and all that.

First day I walked onto campus at Mount Union, I was introduced to the AD who's first words to me "So you are the guy who plays that communist sport..." or some such.

SC.

The illustrious Jack Kemp shortly after the U.S. was awarded the 1992 World Cup...

"I think it is important for all those young men out there, who someday hope to play real football, where you throw it and kick it and run with it and put it in your hands, a distinction should be made that football is democratic, capitalism, whereas soccer is a European socialist sport."
— Jack Kemp to Congress in 1988

Of course, Jack Kemp has a stadium named after him at Occidental College in California, his alma mater. Shame Oxy gave up football a few years ago and now Jack Kemp Stadium which encompasses W.C. Patterson Field is used for men's and women's soccer, lacrosse and field hockey.

Kind of poetic in a way.

Quote from: Hopkins92 on October 12, 2022, 11:33:10 AM
Maybe it's where I grew up (MI in the 70s), but I heard a boat load of stuff about how soccer was a communist sport because it allows/rewards ties.

Heh. I used to think that North Park's old SID was the only person who called soccer a "communist sport." He was only joking ... I think ...

Quote from: Hopkins92 on October 12, 2022, 11:33:10 AMI really like your post, overall and agree with much of it. But there is absolutely a stigma with many when it comes to ties... Kissing your sister and all that.

I'm guessing that you probably didn't enjoy my joke about the Colby White Mules (3-2-7) having a season-long makeout session with their sisters. ;)

Quote from: jknezek on October 12, 2022, 11:54:48 AM
The illustrious Jack Kemp shortly after the U.S. was awarded the 1992 World Cup...

"I think it is important for all those young out there, who someday hope to play real football, where you throw it and kick it and run with it and put it in your hands, a distinction should be made that football is democratic, capitalism, whereas soccer is a European socialist sport."
— Jack Kemp to Congress in 1988

Of course, Jack Kemp has a stadium named after him at Occidental College in California, his alma mater. Shame Oxy gave up football a few years ago and now Jack Kemp Stadium which encompasses W.C. Patterson Field is used for men's and women's soccer, lacrosse and field hockey.

Kind of poetic in a way.

Some people would also say it's poetic justice that the pro football team for which Kemp played, the Buffalo Bills (Kemp later represented part of the Buffalo metro area in Congress), has never won a Super Bowl despite Kemp's extolling the sport's virtues over those of soccer. As a Bills fan, I would never say that, but some people might. ;)

Quote from: jknezek on October 12, 2022, 11:54:48 AM
The illustrious Jack Kemp shortly after the U.S. was awarded the 1992 World Cup...

"I think it is important for all those young men out there, who someday hope to play real football, where you throw it and kick it and run with it and put it in your hands, a distinction should be made that football is democratic, capitalism, whereas soccer is a European socialist sport."
— Jack Kemp to Congress in 1988

Of course, Jack Kemp has a stadium named after him at Occidental College in California, his alma mater. Shame Oxy gave up football a few years ago and now Jack Kemp Stadium which encompasses W.C. Patterson Field is used for men's and women's soccer, lacrosse and field hockey.

Kind of poetic in a way.

It is totally ironic.  With the new turf, there isn't a trace of football lines anywhere left on the field, but Jack Kemp's name is prominently displayed on the wall behind one of the goals.  And the soccer teams now use all of the facilities created for American football, including locker rooms, meeting rooms, weight rooms, great recovery spaces etc.  It's a sad reality that a D3 football facility is so much better than most D1 soccer facilities.

I must be missing something....I sometimes struggle putting my fan poll ballot together, some weeks more than others, but not once have my process and choices been impacted by confusion resulting from teams having too many ties and not knowing what to do about that.  Draws always have been considered a blemish, but less of a blemish than a loss.  And when it comes to the real regional rankings and RecordsvsRanked ties are better than losses or no ranked games at all.  I had more difficulty last year with a team like Chicago who we all knew was good (but maybe not how good) when the Maroons had a stretch midseason of going 3-3-1 and then picked up another loss within a week or so.  i don't see any reason why the selection cmte would have a harder time just because there are more draws.

If folks don't like ties that's fine with me.  What I disagree with is any suggestion implied or otherwise that superior teams are being put at a disadvantage in some inherent way or that teams are exploiting or gaming the new rule...that basically something unfair is happening.  I haven't seen evidence of that and honestly I haven't seen an evidence of teams playing for draws.  If anything, I've noticed presumed superior teams scoring very late to gain a draw and avoid a loss (and being very excited when they do as GAC did last night with 7.5 seconds left).

I would just underscore that there is a difference between teams playing for ties (I don't see that) and an increase in matches ending in ties (definitely true almost tautologically). 

Quote from: PaulNewman on October 11, 2022, 06:39:00 PM

Quote from: Christan Shirk on October 11, 2022, 06:25:30 PM
From the D3soccer.com database:

Year	Matches	Ties
2014	3850+	8.6 %
2015	3850+	8.5 %
2016	3850+	9.1 %
2017	3800+	8.8 %
2018	3800+	8.4 %
2019	3900+	8.8 %
2021	3650+	8.3 %
2022	2400+	18.9 %

The total number of ties so far this season has already exceeded the total in all previous seasons by approximately 33%.

Can you do the same comparing prior years if they ended at 90 vs this year?  It's a mathematical truism that the number would be significantly higher now.  And the focus on this taints the picture in the direction of proving that the change is not a good one.  Which means buying into the idea that draws are inherently unwanted.

So, the NCAA keeps track of overtime games and looking at the 2018 and 2019 D-III Men's soccer seasons (somethings not working to get the overtime data for the 2021 season) shows a similar number of games being tied after 90 minutes as we are seeing this season.  Not sure based on just two previous seasons and 2/3's of the current season that we can conclude that the number of games tied at the end of regulation are actually down this season, but it's possible (probable) that knowing there is no overtime causes some teams to push harder for the winner in the final minutes of regulation than they would have in the past.  The opposite effect could also be true in some cases.

D-III Men's Soccer Overtime Games

Year	Ties (w/ OT)	Tied after 90 min.
2018	8.4 %	19.4 %
2019	8.8 %	19.3 %
2022	n/a	18.9 %

Quote from: SimpleCoach on October 11, 2022, 06:45:28 PM
I am not sure where I heard, but someone told me at some point that 50% of games that went into OT ended in ties.   If that is/was true and not a figment of my hyper active imagination, then the amount of draws makes sense.  Maybe a little higher, but all in all in line with what that would look like in a year of "more" ties.

SC.

Well, that's about right.  Looking at the overtime games from the 2018 and 2019 D-III Men's soccer seasons, around 45% ended still tied while the tie was broken in about 55% of cases.  However, that means that the current year numbers represent a slight reduction in the percentage of games tied after 90 minutes versus 2018 and 2019 as shown above in this post.

D-III Men's Soccer Overtime Games

	Game	Winner	Ended
Year	1st OT	2nd OT	Tie
2018	34.0 %	22.7 %	43.3 %
2019	33.1 %	21.4 %	45.5 %

2018 D-III Men's Soccer Overtime Games

	Overtime	Game	Winner	Ended
Week	Games	1st OT	2nd OT	Tie
Opening Weekend	71	29	17	25
Week 2	73	26	12	35
Week 3	77	24	25	28
Week 4	78	25	15	38
Week 5	78	28	21	29
Week 6	75	26	16	33
Week 7	91	26	23	42
Week 8	63	20	16	27
Week 9	66	27	11	28
Week 10	49	16	8	25
NCAA 1st/2nd Rnds	12	2	3	7
NCAA Sectionals	2	1	0	1
NCAA Final Four	--	--	--	--
TOTAL	735	250	167	318
		(34.0%)	(22.7%)	(43.3%)

2019 D-III Men's Soccer Overtime Games

	Overtime	Game	Winner	Ended
Week	Games	1st OT	2nd OT	Tie
Opening Weekend	68	26	14	28
Week 2	71	22	8	41
Week 3	72	30	15	27
Week 4	76	26	8	42
Week 5	76	21	23	32
Week 6	71	27	11	33
Week 7	71	23	18	30
Week 8	59	23	15	21
Week 9	64	14	14	36
Week 10	62	21	21	20
Week 11	40	8	10	22
NCAA 1st/2nd Rnds	11	2	1	8
NCAA Sectionals	8	5	2	1
NCAA Final Four	--	--	--	--
TOTAL	749	248	160	341
		(33.1%)	(21.4%)	(45.5%)

Might be a little too early to tell, but Coach.myer raised it, so maybe folks have already started crunching numbers on the lack of Sudden Victory and its impact... Lots more PKs as teams play more conservatively in the OTs?

Curious as to thoughts on the NCAA OT policy as it relates to the 22-23 season. As we all know the NCAA eliminated OT in regular season therefore resulting in a significant numbers of tied matches. Secondly (I may be wrong about this) but dropping sudden victory and having two full OT periods seems to have resulted in too many matches that went to PKs which I'm sure many agree is not the best way to end a match. I believe there were 5 matches determined by PKs in 21-22 and so far after two rounds we have already seen 10 this year in tournament.

Quote from: Coach.myers on November 15, 2022, 07:45:23 PMCurious as to thoughts on the NCAA OT policy as it relates to the 22-23 season. As we all know the NCAA eliminated OT in regular season therefore resulting in a significant numbers of tied matches.

Just to review what was demonstrated/concluded further up in the thread: the lack of overtime during the regular season did not change how many games were tied after 90 minutes.  Naturally, because some overtime games have game-winning goals, the lack of overtime drove up ties.

Quote from: Coach.myers on November 15, 2022, 07:45:23 PMSecondly (I may be wrong about this) but dropping sudden victory and having two full OT periods seems to have resulted in too many matches that went to PKs which I'm sure many agree is not the best way to end a match. I believe there were 5 matches determined by PKs in 21-22 and so far after two rounds we have already seen 10 this year in tournament.

You could only conclude that dropping the "golden goal" resulted in too many matches going to PK's IF there were games in which one team scored in overtime and then the other team equalized.  That did not happen in any of the 14 overtime games so far in this year's tournament.  10 of those 14 overtimes games saw no goal scored leading to PK's.  3 games had one team score a single goal and win, and 1 game had a team score twice and win.  Thus the lack of the "golden goal" made zero difference in how often games went to PK's.  Unless you are making the argument that because an overtime goal could be equalized, teams had less incentive to try to score versus taking their chances in the PK shootout.  Not sure I'd buy that that.  Most times an overtime will stand up (not be equalized), so I doubt there would have been any significant change in motivation to chase after an overtime goal.  Like in the past, inferior teams may feel their interests are best served by playing for the tie and PK's while superior teams prefer to try to score and avoid the chap shoot of a PK shootout.

From the full-season numbers given a few posts above, games that go to overtime had a game-winner ("golden goal") roughly 55% of the time and finished tied 45% of the time.  In this year's tournament, only 28.6% of overtime games had an overtime goal scored, while 71.4% remained tied.  That begs the question: Are there less goals scored in overtime in the tournament (over time, not just this year) than across the regular season in years past when there was overtime (but no Pks)?  Given how much is on the line, do teams play more conservative and take less risks in the tournament than they would in the regular season?  It's possible, BUT in a regular season overtime game (thinking of years past, of course), there is no PK shootout so if you can remain tied you get the point and avoid a loss unlike in the tournament where the shootout looms which could end your season.  That would seem to motivate better teams to go for the win in a tournament overtime game rather than take their chances in the shootout.

Quote from: Coach.myers on November 15, 2022, 07:45:23 PMI believe there were 5 matches determined by PKs in 21-22 and so far after two rounds we have already seen 10 this year in tournament.

In 2019, there were 11 overtime games the first weekend, 8 of which went to penalty kick shootouts.  Sure, 10 is more than 8, and 10 could very well be the most PK shootouts the opening weekend, but these things do fluctuate and only by looking further back as well as waiting to see what happens in the coming years could any firm conclusions be reached as to an abrupt shift due to changes with overtime (no "golden goal") versus a trend versus randomness.  I suspect it's largely random fluctuations.  Over time I expect the random overtime game in which both teams score in overtime resulting in a shootout that would not have occurred with the "golden goal" in place.  Probably won't happen often enough to significantly change the numbers/percentages of games going to PK shootouts.

So, here's some historic data to provide factual context for a discussion of the impact of the elimination of the sudden victory (aka "golden goal") in overtime of tournament games.  The following tables provide data on overtime games in the previous ten NCAA Tournaments (2011 - 2021, minus 2020).

	TOTAL	NCAA	OVERTIME	GAMES
YEAR	GAMES	1st Weekend	Sectionals	Final Four	TOTAL	PCT.
2021	63	6	1	3	10	16%
2019	63	11	7	0	18	29%
2018	61	11	2	0	13	21%
2017	61	7	3	2	12	20%
2016	61	11	6	1	18	30%
2015	60	9	4	1	14	23%
2014	60	11	2	1	14	23%
2013	60	7	2	2	11	18%
2012	61	12	2	1	15	25%
2011	61	6	6	0	12	20%
TOTAL	611	91	35	11	137	22%

	TOTAL	NCAA	PENALTY KICK	SHOOTOUTS
YEAR	GAMES	1st Weekend	Sectionals	Final Four	TOTAL	PCT.
2021	63	4	0	1	5	8%
2019	63	8	1	0	9	14%
2018	61	7	1	0	8	13%
2017	61	4	2	1	7	11%
2016	61	4	1	0	5	8%
2015	60	2	0	1	3	5%
2014	60	8	2	0	10	17%
2013	60	3	0	0	3	5%
2012	61	6	2	0	8	13%
2011	61	3	2	0	5	8%
TOTAL	611	49	11	3	63	10%

	OVERTIME	GOLDEN	TIED /
Year	GAMES	GOAL	PK'S
2021	10	5	5
2019	18	9	9
2018	13	5	8
2017	12	5	7
2016	18	13	5
2015	14	11	3
2014	14	4	10
2013	11	8	3
2012	15	7	8
2011	12	7	5
TOTAL	137	74	63
		(54%)	(46%)

In the small sample size that is the NCAA tournament (just 63 games with a 64-team field, versus almost 3900 games across an entire season), the numbers fluctuate significantly from year to year.  But, despite all that fluctuation, over time the numbers for the NCAA Tournament closely match that of the regular season.  We already established that across entire seasons, approx. 56% of overtime games had a game-winning goal scored while approx. 44% remained tied.  Over the past 10 NCAA Tournaments (611 total games, approx. 15% of a full season), the numbers match that fairly closely, with a 54%/46% breakdown.

This year's NCAA Tournament:
- is having more over time games: 14 the first weekend vs. the 10-year high of 12 and 10-year avg. of 9 for the first weekend
- is having more penalty kick shootouts:  10 the first weekend vs. the 10-year high of 8 and 10-year avg. of 5 for the first weekend
but the percentage of overtime games going to penalty kick shootouts, while high is not outside of the range of the past 10 years:
- 71% of overtimes went to PK's the first weekend vs. the 10-year high of 73% and 10-year avg. of 54% for the first weekend

Another thing to note if you dissect the numbers a bit more than I did in the tables above, overtime games tend to go to penalty kick shootouts more so the first weekend (49 of 91, 54%) then in subsequent rounds (14 of 46, 30%).  This might be explained by having more mismatches the first weekend and having inferior teams who, for all intents and purposes are playing for a tie and PK's, versus the later stages of the tournament when a higher percentage of teams are genuinely trying to win and avoid PK's.  But that is just a theory, because on the other hand, mismatches would be thought to result in goals more so than a battle of evenly matched opponents who could be expected to play to a stalemate.

I think the historical fluctuation from year-to-year with no discernable trend means that we can't jump to conclusions about this year's numbers and where things may be heading.  And as has already been clarified, with no equalizing goals in overtime so far in this year's tournament, the elimination of sudden victory (aka "golden goal") in overtime of tournament games has had no impact thus far in this year's tournament.

Anyway, I hope the data helps us have a more informed discussion on the topic.

Thanks Christan!!

Hopkins92 might be able to answer this one...

What was the OT format in 80s and 90s when tournament games went to 4 OT?

Was it 2 5min OT fully played and if no winner a second set of 2 5s?

If I'm not mistaken, at one point overtime was two 15 minute periods with no sudden victory/golden goal, then, if still tied, up to two 10- or 15-minute sudden victory periods, for a potential 50 or 60 minutes of overtime. 

In the early 90s it was two mandatory 15-minute OTs, followed by two 15-minute periods of golden goal before going to PKs. I was Etown '95 and we lost to Messiah in 3OT in the Round of 16 (believe the tourney only had 32 teams then) in 1993 and in 1992 I watched from the sidelines as Etown and then Trenton State played a 4OT game that went to PKs that was 2-2 after regulation, probably the greatest game I've ever seen in person.

Quote from: BlueJay95 on November 18, 2022, 09:50:34 AM
In the early 90s it was two mandatory 15-minute OTs, followed by two 15-minute periods of golden goal before going to PKs. I was Etown '95 and we lost to Messiah in 3OT in the Round of 16 (believe the tourney only had 32 teams then) in 1993 and in 1992 I watched from the sidelines as Etown and then Trenton State played a 4OT game that went to PKs that was 2-2 after regulation, probably the greatest game I've ever seen in person.

Final of that Etown/Trenton game was 3-3, with Trenton winning on PKs.

I never had the "good fortune" of going that deep in the post-season, but... Folks might recall the UCLA-American final in the 80s that went an absurd amount of OTs and is certainly what led to the rule change that implemented PKs at some point in the late 80s or early 90s.

Living in the DMV, we were pulling for American and that game went something like 6 or 7 OTs. It was played out on the west coast somewhere and was airing on something very random, but me and my buddies stayed up to the bitter end. Crazy crazy game. Horrible to watch as a fan as the players could barely run after the 4th OT.

When I was a kid in New Jersey, sometime in the early 90s, our club league had a rule that a tiebreaking game to win the league had to be decided in golden goal overtimes after complaints one year about PKs being crappy. One year we ended up in a tiebreaker game. At the time we were U14, so we played 70 minute games and then 10 minute golden goal overtimes. It went 8 overtime periods before we finally lost 1-0. Somewhere between 140 and 150 minutes of soccer, plus whatever the ref's discretion was. Looking back on it, it was borderline abusive and when it ended I don't think either team cared very much. We just wanted to go home.

The next season penalty kicks were added after 2 golden goal OT periods. Maybe it wasn't the longest game ever played in the league, maybe some of the older kids going 90 minutes might have had a few less OTs but a few more minutes, but it was the most OTs ever played in the league. They sent both teams a plaque, and since my dad was the coach he kept it for a while. As far as I know, the PK rule remains and Ocean Township United and Wall Soccer Club 1991 or 1992 Fall season U14s hold the record for most overtimes played in a Monmouth-Ocean Soccer Association game.

And yes, I don't think I'll ever forget. It wasn't quite as bad as the tournament we played a few years later where it got so backed up our semi-final was played at noon and our final started at 2 p.m. (90 minute games), but I'm pretty sure neither one was a good experience.

Yeah... Unpopular opinion incoming...

As a goalie, I actually like PKs. :D Allowed me to (potentially) do something rare for a goalie, which is to pretty definitively win a game for my boys.

So, when people complain that "it's a lousy way to decide a game" I keep my mouth shut, but inside I'm saying "eh, it's not the worst thing in the world." And part of what has me saying that is the UCLA-AU game and knowing that at a certain point, infinite OTs aren't soccer either. It's torture. At some point, you need to finish the darn thing. 

Quote from: Hopkins92 on November 18, 2022, 09:55:00 AM
I never had the "good fortune" of going that deep in the post-season, but... Folks might recall the UCLA-American final in the 80s that went an absurd amount of OTs and is certainly what led to the rule change that implemented PKs at some point in the late 80s or early 90s.

Living in the DMV, we were pulling for American and that game went something like 6 or 7 OTs. It was played out on the west coast somewhere and was airing on something very random, but me and my buddies stayed up to the bitter end. Crazy crazy game. Horrible to watch as a fan as the players could barely run after the 4th OT.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-12-15-sp-622-story.html

Why not just remove a player every few minutes?

I would like soccer to evolve and try something different like hockey.  I would have an extensive OT period but play 9v9 or 8v8. It would open up the game an increase the chance of a goal significantly.

Quote from: coach analytics on November 20, 2022, 06:43:34 PM
I would like soccer to evolve and try something different like hockey.  I would have an extensive OT period but play 9v9 or 8v8. It would open up the game an increase the chance of a goal significantly.

Yup with a golden goal as well.

the game is the most popular in the world, this is the only place where fans have problem with a tie!

Quote from: camosfan on November 21, 2022, 12:02:19 PM
the game is the most popular in the world, this is the only place where fans have problem with a tie!

That doesn't matter.

Only place I'd tweak is to go back to the golden goal during the playoffs. Some of you folks... We have now covered a lot of this turf in at least 2 cycles on this thread... Just sayin'.

Quote from: camosfan on November 21, 2022, 12:02:19 PM
the game is the most popular in the world, this is the only place where fans have problem with a tie!

I do not have a huge problem with a tie but determining the national champions or World Cup champions or even tournament advancement on 5 PKs is so stupid!

I'd favor a small rule variation for OT that wouldn't radically alter soccer as we know it.  Eliminate any pass back to the GK if he is in the box. 
We probably wouldn't drastically reduce ties but the OTs would be more compelling.

Simple Coach's recent podcast, where he discussed the data on ties, made me wonder if conference-level data would show more variation.  For example, NESCAC is very competitive, has more strong teams historically, and typically gets more bids to the NCAA tournament.  SCIAC, by contrast, in Region X, is usually more top heavy and in many years only gets one automatic bid to the NCAA tournament and that's it.  You can develop hypotheses that would argue there should be more ties in either one (e.g., (1) ties are more prevalent in top heavy conferences as weaker teams try to hold on or they are more prevalent in conferences that are strong from top to bottom since no team can breakthrough for a score, or, conversely (2) where you have to win to get a chance for a Pool C bid, there will be fewer ties and where you need to just hold serve to stay in contention for a Pool C bid, there will be more ties).

So, I compared the ties and percentages in NESCAC and SCIAC for 2022 and 2021, covering all games involving their teams, including out of conference (this was a rough late night exercise, so I may have miscounted ties/games by a couple):

                                       2022                                                                 2021

NESCAC                         32 ties/133 games (24.06%)                               12/133 (9.02%)

SCIAC                            23/93 (24.73%)                                                  7/96 (7.29%)

Surprisingly, at least to me, the percentages were very similar.  Perhaps the variables both contribute to lots of ties (top heavy conferences produce ties among the strong and weak teams and balanced conferences produce ties among the equally matched teams).  Alternatively, maybe it's a coastal thing  ;D 

My guess is that if I compared more conferences, I would find some variation.  The hypothesis is that the decision to go for a tie in certain cases might be cultural among coaches and players and some areas of the country might not make that strategic choice.  I didn't have time to test it, but I did take a quick look just at 2022 for the SCAC in the Southwest and they only had 17 ties and a 15.32% tie rate.

Do people go for a tie , or they just did not win?