Why not a tie?

It was said that nature abhors a vacuum and sports fans abhor a tie. Yet with the sole exception of baseball, where extra innings can continue ad infinitum, sports contests in the United States used to tolerate ending in a tie. Now, with the heavy influence of statisticians, odds makers and gamblers, sporting events such as football, basketball, hockey and soccer have all added provisions to the rules to eliminate the possibility of a contest ending in a tie; overtime periods some for fixed periods, some with "sudden death" conclusions, still others with "shootouts" as methods for providing a final resolution and no ties.

Yet in the remote years of my youth, a football game between two champion teams, ranked first and second in that particular year, each with Heisman winners on their squads, played a game known for years as the "Game of the Century," to a 0-0 tie. The year was 1946 and the teams were Army, No.1, undefeated, Notre Dame, No.2, undefeated. Army's backfield included Doc Blanchard (Heisman 1945) and Glen Davis (Heisman 1946).

Notre Dame quarterback Johnny Lujak (Heisman 1947) in a duel of quarterbacks and sterling defensive play in an era before 2 platoons and free substitution, where both offense and defense were played by the same squad. So, stats, percentages, standings be damned, for the love of the game what's wrong with a tie?

Randy Ludacer
Lake Placid