By Darin 
November 19, 1966. The stage was set for a college football clash for the ages: No. 1 Notre Dame traveled to East Lansing to face No. 2 Michigan State. This wasn’t just a game; it was dubbed the “Game of the Century,” a monumental showdown with national championship implications. What transpired, however, remains one of the most debated and controversial moments in the sport’s history: a 10-10 tie.
In the final minutes, with the ball at their own 30-yard line and 1:15 left on the clock, Irish head coach Ara Parseghian made a decision that would define his season and ignite a firestorm of criticism: he ran out the clock. The game ended in a stalemate, leaving many fans and media members outraged, accusing the Irish coach of playing for the tie, a perceived cowardly move for the top-ranked team.
But was it truly cowardice? Parseghian’s decision must be viewed in context. His squad was severely hobbled. They had played most of the game without star quarterback Terry Hanratty and were missing halfback Nick Eddy entirely due to injuries. Facing a formidable Michigan State defense, and with the national title still in play, Parseghian opted for what he saw as the most prudent path to avoid a season-crushing turnover and guaranteed defeat.
The fallout was immediate. Michigan State claimed the coaches’ poll top spot, while Notre Dame held the media poll. The controversy raged for a week, but the Irish silenced the critics decisively in their final game, walloping USC 51-0. That victory secured Notre Dame the top spot in both polls, cementing their national championship.
The 10-10 tie remains an indelible part of college football lore. It forced a conversation about risk versus reward, and whether a tie can ever truly be a victory. While the Irish ultimately lifted the trophy, the question still lingers: Did Parseghian’s conservative clock-management strategy preserve a championship, or rob fans of a potentially epic finish?