Shouldn't 60-minute wins matter?

Most college football experts refer to the 1966 Michigan State-Notre Dame contest as the "Game Of The Century". I used to think it was because of the hype of #1 playing #2 more than the outcome, a 10-10 tie. But maybe I've been wrong all along.

Some of the biggest games over the last 100 years have one thing in common: the lack of a winner. Despite newspaper headlines to the contrary, Harvard didn't beat Yale 29-29. Despite not a single yard of passing offense, Ohio State was still seen as the more worthy Rose Bowl representative from the Big Ten after their historic 10-10 tie with previously unbeaten Michigan.

The tie score in the first example helped out the Fighting Irish tremendously--in fact, they ran out the clock the last two minutes to ensure it--as they ended up winning a national championship on the "strength" of their performance in East Lansing that afternoon. And although the tie was technically eliminated in the 1996 football season, playing another team even after four quarters doesn't affect a school's ranking in the polls the way it should.

Take a look at this week's polls on the day before the first College Football Playoff rankings are released. Three teams in the top 10, Clemson, Ohio State and Penn State, have wins on their schedule that were tie games after 60 minutes. In the case of the Clemson Tigers, they needed North Carolina State's kicker to miss a chip-shot 30-yard field goal with :03 left in regulation, holding hands on the sidelines and praying for a miracle that was beyond their control.

The fact that the poor kid pushed it wide and sent them to overtime, much less that they were dead to rites based on their performance that afternoon, should matter to the playoff committee. They've made it clear that lopsided blowout scores won't give a team a positive advantage. So what about the opposite? What about a team that couldn't win a game in 60 minutes?

It matters in other pro sports as well. The NFL has had two tie games already this season. And the NHL values ties to the extent that they occupy a column of a team's record. The New Jersey Devils currently have 13 points, based on five regulation victories (worth 2 points each) and three overtime losses (worth 1 point each). In their sport, an overtime win is the same as a regulation win. But awarding points for making it into the extra session was seen as essential enough component for teams fighting for postseason playoff position, that points are awarded to the losing team.

Look at it this way. In the era of the College Football Playoff, where the "experts" have devised an highly sophisticated system to figure out the four teams who will ultimately qualify, a school should be rewarded for not needing more than four quarters each week to get where they are. Imagine if you will, a world where overtime wins and losses were recorded. This week's CFP rankings could appear as follows:

1. Alabama 9-0
2. Michigan 9-0
3. Clemson 9(1)-0
4. Washington 9(1)-0
5. Ohio State 8(1)-1(1)
6. Louisville 8-1(1)
7. Wisconsin 7(1)-2(1)
8. Texas A&M 7(2)-2
9. Auburn 7-2
10. Penn State 7(2)-2
11. Oklahoma 7-2
12. Colorado 7-2
13. Oklahoma State 7-2
14. Virginia Tech 7-2
15. Utah 7-2
16. West Virginia 7-1
17. North Carolina 7-2
18. Florida State 6-3
19. Nebraska 7-2
20. USC 6-3
21. Western Michigan 9-0
22. Boise State 8-1
23. Washington State 7-2
24. LSU 5-3
25. Arkansas 6(1)-3

There are 12 games the top 25 teams played that required the additional play, 10 in the top 10 alone. It sure gives you a better impression of a team's "resume" doesn't it?

This is the big mystery about tie games in college football. Used to be that "(OT)" or "(2OT)" would appear next to these games, a delineation of just just overtime but the number of rounds of overtime that were needed to decide the contest. No one even identifies them any more. Not ESPN. Not CBS Sportsline. Not even NCAA.com. I compiled the above list by clicking on each team's site, scrolling through their schedules, finding games decided by 3, 6 or 7 points and reading the recaps.

Shouldn't beating a team without needing overtime matter? Particularly to a committee who claims to be about more than just wins and losses? The micromanagement of this sport is ridiculous. If the games a team's opponents play against their opponents matter, why wouldn't something as basic as a regulation tie factor into the equation?