swag said:
If there's supposed to be a specific timeframe, why bother with another 30 minutes of extra time then?
This is about deciding a championship -- not determining when the turkey is done in the oven.
Are you trying to undermine the importance of a properly cooked turkey?

Leave the turkeys out of this man.
swag said:
I like where Andy is headed in letting the bench decide the match more if the starters cannot. Seems much more fair and far more relevant to the strength of each side.
Hrmm.. sounds legit, but at the same time I don't think people would honestly enjoy seeing a World Cup final decided by the "B team", simply for the sake of finding a 'real winner'. Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting the penalty shootout here, but practically speaking it's the only solution I can think of which guarantees that the match doesn't lead to "Graham's nightmare scenario"
swag said:
One possible addition I might add is the idea of reducing the number of players too. Granted, fewer players not only means fewer behind the ball defensively but fewer in attack. But it could open the game up in cases where two sides are deadlocked in overtly defensive play in Graham's nightmare scenario.
I'm really skeptical about the effectiveness of the 'reducing the number of players' idea. The players would already be tired as heck from running around for 90-120 minutes; how would it help their cause if you gave them more work to do by taking off players? Unless you couple that with the 'free substitutions' thing, in which case we'll see the decisive period of the next World Cup final decided by a 5-a-side reserves match. Personally I don't find that hugely appealing...