[Masu485]

I am talking about the notion of whoever's leading after 60 minutes, or 48 minutes of play being declared the winner. It doesn't make sense to me.

If a team leads for the majority of 60 minutes, they should win the game. Just because another team makes a comeback and scores in the last minute does not make them the better team.

The 60/48 minutes is an arbitrary number. If you lead for more than half of that time, then your team is the better team and should get the win, end of story.

How does it make sense to give a win to Team B that's down 2-0 for the entire game, but then ties it up and wins in the last minute of play. They were down the WHOLE game, but just happened to be ahead at the arbitrary time of 60 minutes. This does not make them the better team.

There is nothing to say the other team, Team A could not then score in the 61st minute (if you allow them to play longer). If that happened, out of 61 minutes, Team B would have lead the game for only 1 MINUTE. And you are saying they are the better team? Give me a break.

This is an inherent flaw in sports, and I believe the team who leads the majority of the game should get the win. It makes for less entertainment though, I do admit, although teams would give it their all at the beginning.

[samgurt]

did you lose on cleveland too?

[d2bets]

So then a 60 minute game can end after 30 minutes? No more buzzer beaters. No more great finishes. Just watch the clock and lead for as long as possible.

Most ridiculous thing I've read this year.

[Sunde91]

[JohnGalt2341]

If the ultimate goal was to have the lead for the majority of the game I'm pretty sure teams would adjust their strategy.

One thing I don't like however is... 3 round fights in MMA. I can live with 5 rounds fights but I'd really like to see no time limits like they had in the first few UFCs. I know most people find that boring but I liked it.

[SportsMushroom]

thats stupid

closing out a game is what differentiates the jordans from the lebrons, the elis from the peytons

[Masu485]

So then a 60 minute game can end after 30 minutes? No more buzzer beaters. No more great finishes. Just watch the clock and lead for as long as possible.

Most ridiculous thing I've read this year.

Like I said, not as entertaining, but you can gauge the better team this way. Also, it's fairly rare for a team to take the lead from the very beginning and then never give it up. It could pick up the urgency by both teams which could be entertaining.

It is mainly for hockey and baseball though. So games could last around the same amount of time, maybe a bit shorter. I am just not seeing the logic how a team can lead for 90% of the game and then still have the other team declared the winner because they happened to lead at the arbitrary time of 60 min.

[Masu485]

did you lose on cleveland too?

No, I was on Dallas Stars.

[FindTheLock]

he must have been on the dallas stars tonight. They were up 2-0 and lost 3-2 in a shoot out to the sabres.

[dondude]

I hear ya. Shoukd just end games short of regulation if a team has been leading the whole time. Specially hockey Impossible to score 2 goals in 2 min or so Just end it whenever refs feel like

[FourLengthsClear]

Leading at half-time or at the end of the 3rd quarter or for the majority of the time is not the objective of the game and if it was tactics and the entire nature of the sports would be changed.

I have visions in my head of extending your principle to a 10,000 metre race. The balance between running yourself into the ground in the first half of the race and ensuring you can finish would be fascinating.

[byronbb]

Your post is indicative of a flaw but it has nothing too do with sports.

[byronbb]

I always thought it would make for an interesting league if closing betting lines were applied to the score at game's start.

[hels]

Life is about winning. You make a big mistake and you lose everything. Those who capitalize on the mistakes of others are lifes biggest winners.