Now that the Colts got screwed by the overtime rule will they change it?

[Scouse Patriot]

Even soccer plays another period, though a fair amount of leagues use a so-called "golden goal" rule, which is unfortunate. Belichick himself wants to see them just play another, shorter period, so it's likely to be a pretty decent suggestion.

They stopped the golden goal rule years ago because of complaints from proffesionals and fans that it was unfair and made for a dissapointing game. The rule, for those who never heard of it, was excactly the same principle as how NFL overtime works. First to score wins.

They tried implimenting a "silver goal" rule which was the team leading at half time of overtime won but eventualy just canned any idea like this and just returned to playing two halfs of extra time.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

The fact that they got the ball back is irrelevant. 60% of teams that win the toss win the game.

You may get the ball back, but most of the time you get it in such poor field position that you lose the game anyways.

Good point.

In general it sounds like OT success,no matter which way you cut it,rests on the toss the majority of times. The Pats have benefited nicely in the past so one hates to disparage that but leaving fan loyalties out of the equation, it does seem wins are way too important to leave to chance. I sort of lean towards BB's philosophy which is to incorporate more actual football into the OT,giving both teams an equal shot.

Either way, OT discussions seem to occur often enough to warrant the league taking a closer look at some other options imo.

 

[sieglo]

If you want a simple fix, keep the current OT rules but only allow field goals from inside the 15 yard line.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I so love when people attempt to combine %'s in an attempt to prove their case.

I think you'd be surprised at how many failed 2 point conversions there are in a given year. Otherwise, teams would go for the 2 pt conversion more than they would the PAT. There were only 28 successful 2 pt. conversions this year and 12 teams didn't score a single one. And no team scored more than 2. Why? Because the % for success of a PAT is so much higher than a 2 pt. conversion. There were a total of 3 missed PATs on 1176 chances this year. The conversion rate is between 39 and 44% for 2 Pt. conversions depending on whose stats you use. For the sake of the argument, I'll be fair and use the higher number.

What is better? A 99.997% chance of tying the game via a PAT and going to OT where you'll have a 50% chance to get the ball 1st and thereby a 57% chance of winning or a 56 - 61% chance of losing the game outright by attempting the 2 Pt. conversion?

I can guarantee you that Herm Edwards wishes he had tied the game and taken his chances with OT. Especailly with such a high failure rate of 2 pt. conversions.

If your 2 point conversion rate is over 50%, it makes sense to go for it, but as you stated, historically the success rate is much smaller than that.

Your chance if winning in OT is going to be 50%. You win the toss and win the game 28.5% of the time (0.5 X 0.57) and you lose the toss and win the game 21.5% of the time (0.5 X 0.43). This neglects the small chance of missing the PAT (i.e. round 99.7% to 100%, botched Tony Romo holds be damned)

The only reason to deviate from the strategy is if your OT chances are expected to be a lot less (say your pro-bowl WR or RB just got hurt, and your best available 2-point play doesn't use either one).

 

[emoney_33]

If your 2 point conversion rate is over 50%, it makes sense to go for it, but as you stated, historically the success rate is much smaller than that.

Your chance if winning in OT is going to be 50%. You win the toss and win the game 28.5% of the time (0.5 X 0.57) and you lose the toss and win the game 21.5% of the time (0.5 X 0.43). This neglects the small chance of missing the PAT (i.e. round 99.7% to 100%, botched Tony Romo holds be damned)

The only reason to deviate from the strategy is if your OT chances are expected to be a lot less (say your pro-bowl WR or RB just got hurt, and your best available 2-point play doesn't use either one).

Teams haven't tried enough 2-point plays historically for us to draw valid conclusions on what percentage success rate should be expected. This sort of probability is only valid for bettors IMO.

A team implementing a strategical decision based upon these percentages is a poor decision because rarely will these percentages hold true exactly for a specific team vs. another specific team.

You would have to assign a valid probability of success for the particular offense vs. defense in a 2-pt conversion attempt against that team's probability of success in OT when winning/losing the coin toss.

In the playoffs a statistician might have enough data to properly figure out what strategy has a higher win probability.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Before you go telling people they are wrong, you might want to check your facts. 9 of 15 games were won on the first possession. As Peter King brought up. Its not the same as last year.

Did you do any research before lecturing me? I defy you prove that 9 of 15 games were won on the first possession in overtime this year. It was exactly what I said -- 7 of 15. (8 of 16 if you count the WC game. Neither is 9 of 15 and neither is 60 percent.)

Week 2

49ers over Seahawks on 1st Possession (1 out of 1)

Week 3

Giants over Bengals in 3d possession (1 out of 2)
Bucs over Bears on 3d possession (1 out of 3)

Week 4

Steelers over Ravens on 2d possession (1 out of 4)
Jags over Texans on 1st possesson (2 out of 5)

Week 6

Cards over Cowboys on 2d possession (blocked punt) (2 out of 6)

Week 7

Raiders over Jets on 6th possession (2 out of 7)

Week 9

Titans over Packers on first possession (3 out of 8)
Bucs over Chiefs on first possession (4 out of 9)

Week 11

Jets over Pats on first possession (5 out of 10)
Eagles v. Bengals, no score on 7 possessions (5 out of 11)

Week 15

Falcons over Bucs on second possession (5 out of 12)
Bears over Saints on first possession (6 out of 13)

Week 16

Giants over Panthers on second possession (6 out of 14)
Bears over Packers on first possession (7 out of 15)

WC: Bolts over Colts.

 

[Deus Irae]

Ok, looking at the numbers based upon PatsFaninAZ's data, minus the error I caught (Giants won on 3rd possession)....

7 wins on first possession = .466666666666666 round to 47%

Team that received but did not score on first possession won an additional 4 out of 15 games = .266666666666666 round to 27%

Total wins for teams that had the first overtime possession this past regular season: 11 out of 15 = 73%

One game was a tie = .066666666666666666 round to 7%

That leaves only 3 games where the team that did not receive the ball first in overtime went on to win the game = .2 or 20%

I'm not opposed to the sudden death sytem, because I think that any overtime is inherently unfair, and sudden death is not really worse than other options I've heard. That being noted, teams with first possession in overtime won about 3/4 of the time this season, and lost only 1/5 of the time.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

That leaves only 3 games where the team that did not receive the ball first in overtime went on to win the game = .2 or 20%

I'm not opposed to the sudden death sytem, because I think that any overtime is inherently unfair, and sudden death is not really worse than other options I've heard. That being noted, teams with possession overtime won about 3/4 of the time this season, and lost only 1/5 of the time.

Yes, it was clearly bad this season. I think, as you note, the data shows that if the game is not won in the first two possessions, the team that won the flip retains an advantage, which is not unexpected I guess.

I wonder why my idea never gets any traction or even discussion really -- just keep playing the game exactly as it was. I think it would, at least arguably, make the end of regulation and overtime more fair. If it's tied when the game ends, just go into a 5th quarter with the next team to score winning the game.

It would dramatically change the end of regulation as we know it, which I think makes people uncomfortable about it. And it also is anamolous, because the third quarter does not start where the second ended, but I think it's at least worth discussion.

 

[letekro]

Look, the "defense should just stop them" crowd is off-base. The fact is that defenses are tired at the end of these games. Yes, it takes more energy to chase someone around if you are a defensive back than if you are the receiver being chased; it takes more energy to rush the passer than it does to drop back in pass protection.

Problem is, the other alternative of letting the other team get a chance seems to favor that other team, as, if they stop the team that starts out with the ball, they could get great field position, and, if they don't come up with a stop, they still get another chance.

The problem with the college system is that it is too artificial.

Why not just take a 5 minute intermission and continue the game for 10 more minutes (or indefinitely in the playoffs)? This solves the fairness problem and the artificiality problem. It would obviously alter end of the game strategy, but it should not take away from the excitement of the game.

 

[LoganMankinsPancakeBlocks]

I'd like to see them play 15 minutes, no sudden death, whoever is winning after 15 minutes wins. If it's tied, it becomes sudden death in the 2nd quarter.

 

[NJPatsfan26]

Yes, it was clearly bad this season. I think, as you note, the data shows that if the game is not won in the first two possessions, the team that won the flip retains an advantage, which is not unexpected I guess.

I wonder why my idea never gets any traction or even discussion really -- just keep playing the game exactly as it was. I think it would, at least arguably, make the end of regulation and overtime more fair. If it's tied when the game ends, just go into a 5th quarter with the next team to score winning the game.

It would dramatically change the end of regulation as we know it, which I think makes people uncomfortable about it. And it also is anamolous, because the third quarter does not start where the second ended, but I think it's at least worth discussion.

IMO...this would be the fairest way use in the OT occasion. If the teams knew that they had to play an additional 15 full minutes in an extra quarter, I would think they would want to finish the game and win within the time allowance.

That extra 15 full minutes can kill a team that is already tired or injured.

So yeah I agree....an extra quarter of regulation football would be the fairest way to play.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

I'd like to see them play 15 minutes, no sudden death, whoever is winning after 15 minutes wins. If it's tied, it becomes sudden death in the 2nd quarter.

I like the time limit rather than sudden death too. It brings clock management even more into play plus both teams get a shot. It's fairer.
The downside of adding more football to OT (which I like that idea) is the injury factor, plus adding even more football onto what was probably a tough 4 quarters to begin with, would really bite. Especially if you're traveling or coming off/going into a short week.

 

[emoney_33]

IMO...this would be the fairest way use in the OT occasion. If the teams knew that they had to play an additional 15 full minutes in an extra quarter, I would think they would want to finish the game and win within the time allowance.

That extra 15 full minutes can kill a team that is already tired or injured.

So yeah I agree....an extra quarter of regulation football would be the fairest way to play.

As long as it is split into 2 halves like regulation is, allowing both teams to receive at least once. Two 7 1/2 or 10 minute halves would be just fine, ending in a tie afterwards.

 

[DaBruinz]

Bah, I'm a hockey fan and the shootout is overrated. I've always wished they'd have a goalie duel, where the only 2 players on the ice are the goalies and they play to a pre determined number like 5 goals or something.

Next time read the whole post.. if you look in my EDIT: there was a [/sarcasm] mark..

 

[DaBruinz]

Teams haven't tried enough 2-point plays historically for us to draw valid conclusions on what percentage success rate should be expected. This sort of probability is only valid for bettors IMO.

Actually, e-money, Teams have tried enough 2-pt plays historically. And the Patriots used it as part of their decision making skills against the Panthers. Check out page 192 of Vol. 2 of Management Secrets of the New England Patriots.

A team implementing a strategical decision based upon these percentages is a poor decision because rarely will these percentages hold true exactly for a specific team vs. another specific team.

You would have to assign a valid probability of success for the particular offense vs. defense in a 2-pt conversion attempt against that team's probability of success in OT when winning/losing the coin toss.

In the playoffs a statistician might have enough data to properly figure out what strategy has a higher win probability.

Unfortunately, the Patriots believed back in 2003 that there was enough statistical information on 2 pt conversions for them to make their analysis. And their analysis covered the years of 1998-2000.

The 2 pt conversion has been in use since 1956 (something I didn't know but learned today). And, depending on whose numbers you rely upon, the success rate is either 39 or 44%. I used 44% since it was the more favorable number. And its what the Pats used as part of their strategy session prior to playing the SB against the Panthers.

 

[DaBruinz]

Did you do any research before lecturing me? I defy you prove that 9 of 15 games were won on the first possession in overtime this year. It was exactly what I said -- 7 of 15. (8 of 16 if you count the WC game. Neither is 9 of 15 and neither is 60 percent.)

Week 2

49ers over Seahawks on 1st Possession (1 out of 1)

Week 3

Giants over Bengals in 3d possession (1 out of 2)
Bucs over Bears on 3d possession (1 out of 3)

Week 4

Steelers over Ravens on 2d possession (1 out of 4)
Jags over Texans on 1st possesson (2 out of 5)

Week 6

Cards over Cowboys on 2d possession (blocked punt) (2 out of 6)

*This was only a ONE possesion game. This is the difference in the numbers, I believe. I counted it as ONE possesion, though the Cowboys LOST. I shouldn't have.

Week 7

Raiders over Jets on 6th possession (2 out of 7)

Week 9

Titans over Packers on first possession (3 out of 8)
Bucs over Chiefs on first possession (4 out of 9)

Week 11

Jets over Pats on first possession (5 out of 10)
Eagles v. Bengals, no score on 7 possessions (5 out of 11)

Week 15

Falcons over Bucs on second possession (5 out of 12)
Bears over Saints on first possession (6 out of 13)

Week 16

Giants over Panthers on second possession (6 out of 14)
Bears over Packers on first possession (7 out of 15)

WC: Bolts over Colts.

So I stand corrected. It is actually 8/16 including the play-offs.

BTW, If you think that was a lecture, you need to get out some. That was nothing of the sort.

 

[neuronet]

Quite whining. Sudden death overtime is awesome. Tomlinson and Colts fans blame rules when they lose. I blame our defense for not stopping Favre and his boys when they had the chance. To win in overtime, stop the other team from scoring. Defense needs to step up. Yes, it sucks that they only have to make it to the 25 yard line or so to win, so the defense needs to adapt. Our defense played loose 'bend but don't break' style in OT, which is a stupid way to play in OT (I blame the DC not the players).

So get over it, stop whining, it ain't gonna change. Enjoy it and cross your fingers during coin tosses involving the Pats.

 

[Miguel]

I like the time limit rather than sudden death too. It brings clock management even more into play plus both teams get a shot. It's fairer.
The downside of adding more football to OT (which I like that idea) is the injury factor, plus adding even more football onto what was probably a tough 4 quarters to begin with, would really bite. Especially if you're traveling or coming off/going into a short week.

Imagine if a star QB goes down with an injury trying to lead his team from a deficit in OT. The calls to go back to the current system would be tremendous.

 

[Miguel]

Ivars Peterson's MathTrek - Football's Overtime Bias

interesting stuff

 

[NEGoldenAge]

I guess I will have to spell it out, although it pains me to do it. The reason we don't just keep having overtimes until someone wins..... (drumroll).


I N J U R I E S