Overtime Rule Change Proposition

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

In the NFL, winning or losing the game in OT has only a very small correlation with having received or kicked off first in OT, under the new rules.

precisely speaking: Since the NFL instituted modified overtime rules, there have been 73 overtime games, including postseason and Monday Night Football. Three have been ties. In the other 70, the team that received the ball first won 38 of those, or 54.2 percent.

link:
Despite what Bill Belichick thinks, it is definitely better to start overtime with the ball

Apparently the first 65 such games had a 33/32 split. The linked article, though, makes a big deal about the updated 54% result (their mistake).

Is 54.2 percent really different from 50% or is it random variation? Can't say for sure, but if there is a correlation, it is very weak. Put another way, flip an unbiased coin 100 times and there's only an 8% chance you get exactly 50 heads. Getting 54 heads? It is a 6% chance. Not much difference.

It's hard to say how close to perfectly fair the current system is, until we have a larger sample size and see if 54% trends down toward 50% or stays put.

 

[Th3Birdman]

Since the new OT rules took place in 2012 Pats have gone to OT 5 times and only 1 game have they not gotten a possession. And that was this year vs NYJ and that was 100% their own fault. Didn't take ball to start and couldn't stop the Jets from driving.

Could have had a different outcome if they played until the period went down to zero.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

You should just stick to slinging "Dislikes" and "Disagrees", Quantum, old kid.

That's evidently more your Speed.

Don't you worry! I'm not about to turn down the chance to experience the hilarity of watching an allegedly grown human whine like a small child about something as utterly meaningless as message board ratings.

 

[Th3Birdman]

In the NFL, winning or losing the game in OT has only a very small correlation with having received or kicked off first in OT

precisely speaking: Since the NFL instituted modified overtime rules, there have been 73 overtime games, including postseason and Monday Night Football. Three have been ties. In the other 70, the team that received the ball first won 38 of those, or 54.2 percent.

Despite what Bill Belichick thinks, it is definitely better to start overtime with the ball

Is 54.2 percent really different from 50% or is it random variation? Can't say for sure, but if there is a correlation, it is very weak. Put another way, flip an unbiased coin 100 times and there's only an 8% chance you get exactly 50 heads. Getting 54 heads? It is a 6% chance. Not much difference.

Any variation is significant in statistics. This is how trends are born. 54% isn't significant when we're talking about 5 games, but we're talking about 73 games, and that shows, conclusively, there is a set advantage there.

Teams live or die by those numbers.

 

[Patsrock]

In the NFL, winning or losing the game in OT has only a very small correlation with having received or kicked off first in OT

precisely speaking: Since the NFL instituted modified overtime rules, there have been 73 overtime games, including postseason and Monday Night Football. Three have been ties. In the other 70, the team that received the ball first won 38 of those, or 54.2 percent.

Despite what Bill Belichick thinks, it is definitely better to start overtime with the ball

Is 54.2 percent really different from 50% or is it random variation? Can't say for sure, but if there is a correlation, it is very weak. Put another way, flip an unbiased coin 100 times and there's only an 8% chance you get exactly 50 heads. Getting 54 heads? It is a 6% chance. Not much difference.

Is the 38 wins with out the other teams offense not touching the ball. Or is the 38 wins after both teams possessed the ball? There is a difference in my opinion. Because it's very misleading and skewing the argument.


Edit: just read it and
So up till that article 13 of 70
Ended on a TD om first possession. 18.6% of the time

 

[QuantumMechanic]

It's not meaningless. It's meant to demonstrate that there is an advantage to receiving.

Read the thread on that Reddit page. The other posters go in to that, regarding walk off TDs. It changes the numbers by about 5% at best, and is still a clear statistical advantage towards winning the toss/receiving.

Can you point to the subthread of that giant thread that discusses that?

Given that the new rules drastically change how teams approach playing in OT, I don't know how much I buy the applicability of the old numbers. The teams are employing different strategies than they did before.

But if the thread contains an analysis of how they tried to adjust the old numbers for the new rules I'd be interested in reading it if you have a pointer to that part of the thread.

 

[wheresmosi]

I've gone round and round with a friend about this the past two days. I want to keep them, he wants to change to each team gets a possession.

Here are my thoughts: first, I think people tend to be prisoners of the moment and react way too much. If you go through all of the OT games the last couple of years, not many ended with a TD on the first possession. A couple high profile games ended this way, but many people think it happens a lot, and it doesn't. Stats mildly favor teams that get ball first, but that would be an issue even if both teams got the ball once. If we changed to that, people would be saying, no, both teams need to get the same number of posssessions, or play a full quarter, etc. What they don't consider is it would lead to more injuries, more ties (I don't mind ties but most people don't want more), teams would get worn down even more and if would effect play the following week, even apart from injuries, etc. etc. I am convinced that no matter what you do, people will want something different. This system basically amounts to first team to score an equivalent of TD wins, or team wins if they get the same number of possessions as other team and outperform them. That makes sense to me.

 

[Th3Birdman]

Can you point to the subthread of that giant thread that discusses that?

Given that the new rules drastically change how teams approach playing in OT, I don't know how much I buy the applicability of the old numbers. The teams are employing different strategies than they did before.

But if the thread contains an analysis of how they tried to adjust the old numbers for the new rules I'd be interested in reading it if you have a pointer to that part of the thread.

I hate reddit, so I kind of don't want to, but Palm Beach made a better post than mine that discusses it.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Then the sample size would be far too small to gather meaningful data.

It may well be. So for that very reason people should abstain from claiming it is "preposterous" to state there may be little or no advantage from getting the ball first.

 

[XLIX]

It's not meaningless. It's meant to demonstrate that there is an advantage to receiving.

My friend, that data is meaningless because the rule has changed. All that data is not related to the current rule.

I am starting to think you honestly are not aware that the OT rule was changed a few years ago.

Read the thread on that Reddit page. The other posters go in to that, regarding walk off TDs. It changes the numbers by about 5% at best, and is still a clear statistical advantage towards winning the toss/receiving.

Another poster posted the relevant data. In 65 games that did not end in a tie, the split is 33/32. That is as close to .500 as possible with that sample size.

 

[wheresmosi]

In the NFL, winning or losing the game in OT has only a very small correlation with having received or kicked off first in OT, under the new rules.

precisely speaking: Since the NFL instituted modified overtime rules, there have been 73 overtime games, including postseason and Monday Night Football. Three have been ties. In the other 70, the team that received the ball first won 38 of those, or 54.2 percent.

link:
Despite what Bill Belichick thinks, it is definitely better to start overtime with the ball

Apparently the first 65 such games had a 33/32 split. The linked article, though, makes a big deal about the updated 54% result (their mistake).

Is 54.2 percent really different from 50% or is it random variation? Can't say for sure, but if there is a correlation, it is very weak. Put another way, flip an unbiased coin 100 times and there's only an 8% chance you get exactly 50 heads. Getting 54 heads? It is a 6% chance. Not much difference.

It's hard to say how close to perfectly fair the current system is, until we have a larger sample size and see if 54% trends down toward 50% or stays put.

Well done, and the real key isn't whether teams that get the ball first win more, but how often does receiving team score a TD on first possession. Otherwise, it doesn't matter unless one is arguing for equal possessions no matter how many.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Any variation is significant in statistics. This is how trends are born. 54% isn't significant when we're talking about 5 games, but we're talking about 73 games, and that shows, conclusively, there is a set advantage there.

Teams live or die by those numbers.

would you freak out if you flipped a coin 100 times and got 54 heads? You shouldn't. It's almost as likely as getting 50 heads.

Distinguishing random variation from a set advantage is not easy in this case, with this sample size and this small observed difference.

 

[Th3Birdman]

My friend, that data is meaningless because the rule has changed. All that data is not related to the current rule.

I am starting to think you honestly are not aware that the OT rule was changed a few years ago.
Another poster posted the relevant data. In 65 games that did not end in a tie, the split is 33/32. That is as close to .500 as possible with that sample size.

No it's not meaningless.

According to those numbers, 26% of those games ended on a TD. That is a significant number of games to end on a touchdown and accoriding to the current rules, the win would still apply. So the point is that whether the other team may or may not have had an opportunity to answer that touchdown, the rules are unfair.

It shouldn't be who scores first (in this case TDs) wins.

Think about it. Why do we have quarters in the first place? Why not have 1 period where first to score is the winner? There is a clear disconnect in regular time vs overtime in pro football. You play 60 minutes and then it comes down to sudden death? Something doesn't seem right about it, even though I've grown up with sudden death.

Only 50% of a team playing doesn't seem right to me. Game should come down to who can score the most points in the allotted time, like almost every other game/sport out there.

Overtime and regular time are inconsistent.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

would you freak out if you flipped a coin 100 times and got 54 heads? You shouldn't. It's almost as likely as getting 50 heads.

Distinguishing random variation from a set advantage is not easy in this case, with this sample size and this small observed difference.

Do you have the formulae handy to answer the following questions (I'm embarrassed I can't remember, but stats class was longer ago than I care to remember):

If you have a weighted coin that comes up heads 54% of the time and you flip it 70 times, what's the probability you get heads 54% of the time? And the standard deviation in the number of heads?

If you have a fair 50/50 coin and you flip it 70 times, what's the probability you get heads 54% of the time? And the standard deviation in the number of heads?

And the better question - if you have an unknown coin and you flip it 70 times and you get heads 54% of the time, what is the probability it is a 50/50 coin? A 51/49 coin? A 52/48 coin? A 53/47 coin? A 54/46 coin? or a 55/45 coin?

And very closely related to that -- if you have an assumed fair coin, flip it 70 times and get heads 54% of the time, what's the probability that the coin is in fact not fair?

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I'm just a chemist. Too much math even hurts my head.



I just know that if you tell me there is a 54% chance of rain, you don't really give me much confidence at all as to whether I need an umbrella.

 

[Th3Birdman]

I'm just a chemist. Too much math even hurts my head.

Might want to get that checked, Walter Whi-- I, I mean Palm Beach.

 

[Th3Birdman]

Would you play powerball at a 54% chance to win?

 

[anditsgood]

Would you play powerball at a 54% chance to win?

I would play powerball at a 46% chance

edit to add

Hell, i play powerball for a 1 in 400 million chance

but only when its 300M

 

[SlowGettingUp]

Would you mind explaining in more detail? I'm not quite sure I understand. Having a brain fart lol

Coach of team A wins the toss. Coach of team B then sets a starting field position - say the 5-yard line. Coach of team A then gets to decide - take the ball at his own 5-yard line, or let team B take the ball at their own 5-yard line. It then becomes sudden death - first to score wins.

So this forces coach B to choose a "fair" starting position - if he chooses one too favorable to the offense then coach A will simply choose to play offense, and if one too favorable to the defense then coach A will play defense.

An alternative is that instead of sudden death we use the same rules as at present - touchdown wins, but a field goal gives the opposing team a chance to score as well. That version would imply an optimal starting position more like the 15-yard line.

 

[JJDChE]

I think the game should just continue without a stoppage and go to untimed sudden death after the clock hits 0:00. If you have the ball on the 1 yd line? congrats. you're going to win.

I think one of the most unfair circumstances is when a team comes back scores in the last minute of play, carrying tons of momentum and they get it right back in OT. The other team shouldn't lose their possession on the OT change.

No big deal to me either way. I was fine with the overtime rule before they changed it.