I don't have strong feeling about ties one way or another, although overtime can be fun. No ties in basketball or baseball, just keep playing until one side wins.
Nor do I. But have you never noticed that some of your compatriots seem to have an objection that seems almost axiomatic.
Away goals as a way of deciding the result is a strange one as well really. I don't really think it selects the team that played better - though both teams knew the rules before hand so it's fair in that sense. But interested to know what our American friends think....
European club cups of which the Champions League is now the main example, are obviously competitions between clubs from different countries. There has always been a belief that playing at home gave an advantage - I guess in all sports - with loud and partisan crowds, plus the team is used to playing on their own specially sized pitch - in the league each team plays each other twice over the course of the season, once home and once away to make it fair.
In the CL or whatever, especially in the earlier days when it was the European Cup, home advantage was much more tangible as travel might involve a long flight rather than a coach down the motorway. Player were young men who had maybe never been abroad before, flying to a foreign country whose citizens greeted them en mass at the airport with banners threatening to kill them, then followed them to the hotel - where they had to subsist on weird foreign muck instead of proper food - and made an awful racket all night so they got no sleep before the game.
Going abroad and playing a really good team that you knew nothing about, in an intimidating environment after no sleep and with food that gave you the shits etc really could be hard. And so a lot of teams in these cups used to play extremely defensively in the hope that despite all those problems they could hold out for a draw - and then in two weeks time in the reverse fixture we'll make sure THEY get no sleep and we'll see how THEY like it. And so you got two very boring games with each side playing with ten defenders in the away leg.
So UEFA invented the away goal rule - if the match was level after both games then the team which had scored most away was the winner. That is to say that if
First Leg at A, final score 1 - 1
Second Leg at B, final score 2 - 2
Aggregate score 3 - 3
A win cos they got two goals when they were away whereas B only got one away.
The idea is A were rewarded for playing more adventurously away - and yeah they scored two when they were away, so presumably they attacked better than B when away... but they also conceded more when they were away, so they defended worse when away. It's difficult to say that A were really better than B in any respect - anything they did better away they did worse at home, I really don't that that rule made any sense in terms of selecting the better team... what it definitely did do though is make for some really exciting matches... and also the games changed very suddenly and strangely, like if the first game was nil nil and then in the second game the home scored they would be ahead obviously... but if the away team equalised then they would go from behind to ahead in one goal, something that never happened normally in football.
So the balance of play would change very quickly and, footballers, being generally pretty thick (I think that's a fairly uncontroversial statement - Graeme Le Saux was famously regarded as being both an egg head and gay cos he read The Guardian) seemed to struggle to work out if they had won or lost at times. It was a great rule that made for exciting games - and then last year after almost sixty years they just dropped it. I understand that there was no longer any real need for it, teams were no longer afraid to go abroad, most of their players probably had a spare mansion or two in a few foreign countries - certainly teams didn't feel the need to set up with ten at the back. And yet I think it removes an element of mad excitement from the game and fair or no that feels like a pity...
UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin revealed the decision was not unanimous, but admitted there was a preference to change the rule after its "fairness" was questioned.
"However, the question of its abolition has been debated at various UEFA meetings over the last few years. Although there was no unanimity of views, many coaches, fans and other football stakeholders have questioned its fairness and have expressed a preference for the rule to be abolished."
With the move applying to all UEFA men's, women's and youth competitions, Ceferin said the change could lead to more attack-minded ties.
Ceferin added: "The impact of the rule now runs counter to its original purpose as, in fact, it now dissuades home teams - especially in first legs - from attacking, because they fear conceding a goal that would give their opponents a crucial advantage.
"There is also criticism of the unfairness, especially in extra time, of obliging the home team to score twice when the away team has scored.
"It is fair to say that home advantage is nowadays no longer as significant as it once was. Taking into consideration the consistency across Europe in terms of styles of play, and many different factors which have led to a decline in home advantage, the UEFA Executive Committee has taken the correct decision in adopting the view that it is no longer appropriate for an away goal to carry more weight than one scored at home."
Probably all true but there is absolutely no mention of "fun" anywhere in that which I'd like to suggest is maybe they are going wrong in their decision making at times.