College OT rules coming to NFL?

[bormio]

Nothing you post is going to change the fact that the second team absolutely does have an inherent advantage in the ability/need to use all 4 downs to generate a score. Your response basically comes down to "Even though the second team has an inherent advantage, we still have the same so-called problem with the first receiving team winning too high a percentage because of its inherent advantage, and I'm going to pimp the even stupider college OT system as a result", which is silly.

Which offsets the advantage of winning with a TD - a real possibility with tired defenses.

 

[ivanvamp]

Nothing you post

Like, you know, actual data?

is going to change the fact that the second team absolutely does have an inherent advantage in the ability/need to use all 4 downs to generate a score.

Apparently neutralized by the fact that the first team can win the game before the second team even gets to utilize its four-down advantage.

Your response basically comes down to "Even though the second team has an inherent advantage, we still have the same so-called problem with the first receiving team winning too high a percentage because of its inherent advantage, and I'm going to pimp the even stupider college OT system as a result", which is silly.

No, it comes down to not agreeing with you that the second team has an inherent advantage. If it did, we'd likely see it in the actual data. Since we don't, I'm concluding that your premise is flawed.

 

[Deus Irae]

Which offsets the advantage of winning with a TD - a real possibility with tired defenses.

The reality of football overtime is this:

Before they moved the kickoff (1994), there was about a 50/50 split on who won.
After they moved the kickoff, the advantage went to the receiving team (about 60/40).
The new system still gives one side a percentage advantage.
The college system gives one side a percentage advantage.

Hell, just take a look at this article:

Advanced Football Analytics (formerly Advanced NFL Stats): How Important is the Coin Flip in OT?

History argues that the way to make the OT the closest to "fair" is not to fiddle with how many times each side gets the ball, but to either eliminate the kickoff, or move the kickoff line to a place that puts teams back in the pre-1994 position, be it 5 yards back, or 10 (metrics of modern kicking would decide).

Or, people could just accept that "fair" isn't going to happen.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, it comes down to not agreeing with you that the second team has an inherent advantage. If it did, we'd likely see it in the actual data. Since we don't, I'm concluding that your premise is flawed.

The fact of there being an advantage isn't disputable. Having 4 downs is an inherent advantage over only having 3. If you're not agreeing with something that obvious, you're not worth talking to on the subject, because you're willfully choosing to play the fool, when you certainly know better.

 

[ivanvamp]

The fact of there being an advantage isn't disputable. Having 4 downs is an inherent advantage over only having 3. If you're not agreeing with something that obvious, you're not worth talking to on the subject, because you're willfully choosing to play the fool, when you certainly know better.

Anytime one team possesses the football, it has an advantage in scoring over the other team. So what?

Clearly the data shows that your argument, whatever merits it may have, is wrong. If there was an automatic advantage for the defense that rendered the current NFL overtime rules unfair in their favor, the data would, you know, show it.

The data doesn't show it. And the reason is because each side has an advantage. The offense has the advantage in that it can win the game without the other team touching the ball. The defense has the advantage in that if it can survive the offense's first blow, the defense's team (now on offense) can use ITS advantage - the four downs.

And the data shows that the advantage for the team getting the ball first offsets the advantage the second team would get if they get a crack at it.

But if you want to put your fingers in your ears and shout "lalalalalalala", be my guest. I actually have the data on my side on this.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

It's the "IT'S NOT FAIR" particepation generation mentality. It makes me sick to my stomach. An entire generation of ****ies and crybabies. It's no wonder every other commercial on TV is for testosterone supplements. The government has bred it out of the males in America. The epitaph for football will be: Could no longer grow a pair, no seed to start with.

 

[bormio]

Anytime one team possesses the football, it has an advantage in scoring over the other team. So what?

Clearly the data shows that your argument, whatever merits it may have, is wrong. If there was an automatic advantage for the defense that rendered the current NFL overtime rules unfair in their favor, the data would, you know, show it.

The data doesn't show it. And the reason is because each side has an advantage. The offense has the advantage in that it can win the game without the other team touching the ball. The defense has the advantage in that if it can survive the offense's first blow, the defense's team (now on offense) can use ITS advantage - the four downs.

And the data shows that the advantage for the team getting the ball first offsets the advantage the second team would get if they get a crack at it.

But if you want to put your fingers in your ears and shout "lalalalalalala", be my guest. I actually have the data on my side on this.

And it is not TD or bust (4 downs on the whole field). If they gave up a TD, they already lost. Sure, before FG range it is 4 downs always if they are down 3. Then they have to choose, with the knowledge that a tying FG means they can lose to a FG. Very complex set of calculations. The better the offenses - more advantage to team on offense

 

[XLIX]

Yup.

I think hockey does what they do since it's an 84 game schedule, they don't want ties, they need to quickly decide a game, and they can't have games going into multiple overtimes during the season like you see all the time in the playoffs.

A baseball game in theory could go indefinitely but they don't have nearly the grind that football and hockey do.

Agreed. If there was no limit to OT in hockey, we would see several examples of OT going period after period. In football, players need a good week of recovery between games (yes they sometimes get less than that if they have to play on a Thursday but still, a week is ideal).

Baseball is a sport where the position players can (and do) comfortably play 2 games in 1 single day so extra innings are not that big of a deal.

 

[Deus Irae]

Clearly the data shows that your argument, whatever merits it may have, is wrong.

No, it doesn't. You're not paying attention to what I'm actually posting, because you're too busy making crappy arguments that don't eliminate the bemoaned unfairness. I did not say that teams getting the ball second would win more. I pointed out that the team getting the ball after a FG has the inherent advantage of knowing it has 4 downs to use, in comparison to the 3 downs that the team first receiving the kickoff had.

That's beyond question. It's not even an argument. It's a statement of fact. We see it when we watch teams making their final drive of a game, while trying to come from behind, but that's legitimately done within the normal flow of a game. They don't always score, but they always (barring time running out or a turnover, of course) have the advantage of that 4th down.

 

[bormio]

Well let's line up and just kick FGs. Surprised John Harbaugh hasn't proposed that.

 

[XLIX]

No, they aren't.



Because they give an inherent advantage, to the second team, that's a direct result of stacking the deck with regards to a first score. As a poster has already pointed out:

There is no "inherent advantage" to the 2nd team getting the ball in the current format. That's why even with the new format, coaches still choose to receive the ball if they win the toss.

Atlanta was the 2nd team in the Super Bowl. How did it work out for them, knowing they would need to score a TD to tie?

 

[XLIX]

It really is one of the better things the NFL did. The game will be decided by real play (not a "shootout") and the advantage to the first team was minimized - so much so teams sometimes elect to kick off - see Pats v. Denver (ignore the Jets fiasco).

When weather is a factor, teams may decide to kick off. But in a neutral-weather situation, we haven't seen any team decide the advantage was in kicking off.

 

[bormio]

There is no "inherent advantage" to the 2nd team getting the ball in the current format. That's why even with the new format, coaches still choose to receive the ball if they win the toss.

Atlanta was the 2nd team in the Super Bowl. How did it work out for them, knowing they would need to score a TD to tie?

Not always. Pats have chosen to kick twice. Depends on what are the chances of the first team scoring a TD.

 

[bormio]

When weather is a factor, teams may decide to kick off. But in a neutral-weather situation, we haven't seen any team decide the advantage was in kicking off.

The Jets decision was cause BB did not think we could score a TD.

 

[XLIX]

Not always. Pats have chosen to kick twice. Depends on what are the chances of the first team scoring a TD.

Yes, I followed up with a post that weather can certainly influence the decision. But, if talking about a situation where weather is not a factor (like the Super Bowl) a team will elect to receive every single time.

 

[ivanvamp]

No, it doesn't. You're not paying attention to what I'm actually posting, because you're too busy making crappy arguments that don't eliminate the bemoaned unfairness. I did not say that teams getting the ball second would win more. I pointed out that the team getting the ball after a FG has the inherent advantage of knowing it has 4 downs to use, in comparison to the 3 downs that the team first receiving the kickoff had.

That's beyond question. It's not even an argument. It's a statement of fact. We see it when we watch teams making their final drive of a game, while trying to come from behind, but that's legitimately done within the normal flow of a game. They don't always score, but they always (barring time running out or a turnover, of course) have the advantage of that 4th down.

Yes and nobody is disputing that narrow point.

You are making that point to show that the overtime rules in the NFL are bad because it gives the second team an inherent advantage. And the data suggests that this narrow advantage the second team may have is offset by the advantage the first team has.

So your narrow point, which nobody disputes, is largely irrelevant in the big picture.

 

[bormio]

Yes, I followed up with a post that weather can certainly influence the decision. But, if talking about a situation where weather is not a factor (like the Super Bowl) a team will elect to receive every single time.

Not so - see my post above. If little chance to score a first drive TD, better to go 2nd and have the 4 down advantage if needed.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes and nobody is disputing that narrow point.

You were, and it's not a narrow point, at all. It's a significant issue.

Also, one of the ironies of your argument, and claim of pointing to data, is your decision not to acknowledge the final paragraph of your cited piece:

But in the 150 or so years we’ve been playing football, nobody’s really come up with a fair method of determining the winner after a tie in regulation. In 2005 The New York Times reported that a pair of engineers, the Quanbeck brothers, had pitched the league on a system in which one team chose the field position to open overtime and the other team chose whether to play offense or defense from that spot. The Quanbecks have other proposals, based around auction-style systems where teams choose field position or the ball.

The part in bold is precisely my position.

 

[XLIX]

The Jets decision was cause BB did not think we could score a TD.

That coin toss was a cluster**** on quite a few levels. I am not so sure we ever got the real explanation of what happened. I know what the "official" explanation was but still....

 

[bormio]

If you have a game tied at 10 - win the toss. What do you do? May be much different than tied at 31.