Comments on Advanced NFL Stats: Why NFL Overtime Needs To Change

Hey all you who favor homefield OT possession shou...

2010-03-11T16:46:41.783-05:00

Hey all you who favor homefield OT possession should think about the fact that the visiting team at the end of the game might not kick a field goal or the extra point to tie it and send it into OT because of the other team being at home and definitely getting the ball. That would give the visiting team the edge in the last 2:00 of the 4th quarter knowing and choosing whether or not to go for it on 4th down or the 2-point conversion based on the skill of the home teams offense

Give us the stats on games that ended on first pos...

2010-02-28T11:02:18.009-05:00

Give us the stats on games that ended on first possession field goals. Stop lumping in touchdowns in that number!

Fight the fair police and play defense!

Anon, "The home team gets the ball first wou...

2010-02-06T13:58:25.602-05:00

Anon,

"The home team gets the ball first would also allow the teams to adjust their strategy in the 4th quater. wouldn't a visiting team be more likely to go for the win instead of the tie at the end of the game, if they knew they would not get the ball first in overtime?"

That's a good point. I've always liked baseball's system in the 9th inning because of that reason. The visitor plays agressively in the top half knowing just 1 run to tie or go ahead may not be enough. So, visitors in football would react similarly late in the 4th quarter and wouldn't be so content playing for a tie. And I really hate watching teams play for a tie.

I like Dave's idea the best. Same basic SD fo...

2010-02-06T13:53:56.129-05:00

I like Dave's idea the best. Same basic SD format with the flip, first TD wins the game at any time, if you kick a FG the other team gets a chance to answer with a TD to win, if they fail they lose.

Seems to me this is a good compromise betweem the "first team wins 61%" of the time and "equal possesetions gives the advantage to the second team" problems. While the team attempting to score a TD after a FG knows what they need to do to win, and thus has an advantage, at least they will always have to acheive a relatively difficult task in scoring a TD and not some chip shot FG on 3rd down from the 15.

And while this system may still favor the team winning the coin flip it won't favor them quite as much, it will leave fans feeling like the winner earned it and it will be way more exciting.

I'd also be open to modifying this slightly to give the home team the option to kick or receive in OT, and possibly having the team that made the FG kick off from the 20 or 25. This would add a lot of drama to those 4th down and 2 type choices while in FG range. Does the coach take the FG and make the other team score a TD knowing they will have good field position or does he go for it? How much more fun would that Vikings v. Saints game have been in a system like this?

The home team gets the ball first would also allow...

2010-02-06T09:45:04.355-05:00

The home team gets the ball first would also allow the teams to adjust their strategy in the 4th quater. wouldn't a visiting team be more likely to go for the win instead of the tie at the end of the game, if they knew they would not get the ball first in overtime?

^It's also a bit fairer in that the team with ...

2010-02-05T17:58:59.707-05:00

^It's also a bit fairer in that the team with the ball starts OT on the down they were on - could be 2nd, 3rd, 4th... Under the current format one team gets the ball arbitrarily and gets a new set of downs.

Les, you write, "You want to give the ball t...

2010-02-05T16:11:22.088-05:00

Les, you write,

"You want to give the ball to the team that had possession at the end of the game at the place they were when the game ended. The current method gives the ball to the winner of the coin toss at where ever they return the kick off to.
I don't see your method of fairer than a coin toss. Your method just ignores the fact that the game is now in overtime."

You don't see how it's fairer? OK, here's an incomplete list:

1) As Brian has been explaining, it avoids the problem of creating an unearned extra posession for one team. In the current system, an OT game can have 2 more possesions for one team than the other team over the course of the game - that can only happen in an OT game. "Keep playing" solves that problem.
2) It's completely non-arbitrary, so teams know in advance what the situation will be and can strategize for it.
3) It rewards the team that, by virtue of the flow of the game, was in the best position to score as time expired. Rewarding that is different than the way things work now, but it is anything but arbitrary, and it's perfectly fair.

Your objections ("ignoring that the game is in OT") are basically process objections as opposed to outcome objections. You're objecting to having an OT that doesn't work or feel like a distinct game, like the current one (sort of) does. I don't dispute that. If you like the current OT structure and want something that mimics it, this isn't for you.

But the outcome goals of OT (fair, non-arbitrary, decisive, quick, "real football", etc) are all satisfied by this approach.

Ok, it was awarded. But if the coin-flip winning t...

2010-02-05T14:38:26.864-05:00

Ok, it was awarded. But if the coin-flip winning team scores, they've had 2 possessions to score, and the coin flip loser had 1.

Pretty simple.

No, scenarios in which both teams get possession d...

2010-02-05T14:32:23.922-05:00

No, scenarios in which both teams get possession does not "start the problem all over again." I thought your issue was the arbitrary nature of the coin flip and its use in deciding who gets the first possession. When the receiving team gets possession for the second time, the ball was not arbitrarily awarded. It was earned. That's a difference. If you do not see this difference, then for some reason you do not think that defense is a real part of the game. You do not like to watch American football. Kind of like how Peter King doesn't like to watch football, he just likes writing about how rich he is and how neat-o his hero Brett Favre is.

Tarr I guess the problem I see with keep on playin...

2010-02-05T13:35:02.764-05:00

Tarr
I guess the problem I see with keep on playing is you are simply deciding who gets the ball in overtime. The game is over at the end of the 4th quarter. Now you are into overtime and you need to figure out who gets the ball and where. You want to give the ball to the team that had possession at the end of the game at the place they were when the game ended. The current method gives the ball to the winner of the coin toss at where ever they return the kick off to.
I don't see your method of fairer than a coin toss. Your method just ignores the fact that the game is now in overtime.
All of our discussion probably won't result in any changes. The owners, players, and TV want a quick end to the game and the current method usually gives them that. Plus all the comments about how it can be improved keep the NFL in our conversation after the games are over--a plus for the game.
Les

Les, that's only true in the relatively small ...

2010-02-05T09:38:46.598-05:00

Les, that's only true in the relatively small fraction of games where the score is tied when the last team has the ball. Most of the dramatic scenarios in football involve one team being down by between 1 and 8 points as time ticks away. Those are unchanged - except the down 3 and down 7 scenarios, which have a new added element of drama.

Being able to run long drives irrespective of the clock is also a big part of football. Heck, being able to kill clock is already a part of lots of endgame scenarios, for the winning team. The 2 minute drill doesn't go away with this change, it just becomes less important in one relatively uncommon scenario.

And of course, overtime as it currently works already has essentially no time pressure. What this rule does is makes it so a game that's tied in the closing minutes starts to feel like an overtime game immediately.

If having a small portion of endgame scenarios involving relatively little clock pressure is a deal breaker for you, then so be it, but this seems like an odd hangup to have. It's a system that's fair, involves playing normal football the whole way, and on average produces slightly more dramatic moments (going for 2 when down 7, going for it on 4th down when down 3) and slightly shorter games (both of those scenarios avoid OT).

For playoff games, play another 15:00 period to th...

2010-02-05T09:02:47.778-05:00

For playoff games, play another 15:00 period to the end.

For regular season, personally, I like ties, especially as they reduce the idiotic tiebreaker procedures.

But, in lieu of the current format how about a system of each team gets one possession, beginning with a kickoff, to do what they can? After each there is either a winner, or if it ends in tie either leave it that way, or the team that was most succesful (i.e. gained the most yards) or efficient (scored in the shortest amount of time) is awarded the win.

I don't know if this any better, probably not, than other recommendations, but some of the other recommendations inspired me, so in the interest of adding to the brainstorm, I've submitted it.

The problem with keep playing is that it totatly c...

2010-02-04T22:47:11.968-05:00

The problem with keep playing is that it totatly changes the time dynamics of the 4th quarter. Time pressure at the end of each half is big part of football.

Keep playing basically means that the last team with the ball with time running out has the advantage of no time pressure--no need for hurry up. Just take your time and not worry about the clock.
Les

If I may, I'd like to try to mine something me...

2010-02-04T18:16:06.647-05:00

If I may, I'd like to try to mine something meaningful out of that pile of... stuff.

Brian, you wrote, "The worst the receiving team can do is have an equal number of possessions, and the best the kicking team can do is have equal possessions. That's the problem. That's what starts all over again."

And I agree, of course. However, I think it's even more illustrative to think about this in the context of the entire game.

Each posession in a football game ends one of three ways:

1) A score, followed by a kickoff
2) A safety, followed by a free kick
3) A punt or turnover
4) End of half/game.

At the end of each of the first three events, the other team takes posession. The only exception is an onside kick, which is an earned extra posession, and I'll ignore that for our purposes.

So, if team A receives to start the first half, they will either have at 1 more posession than team B in the half, or an equal number. In the second half, it's reversed - either team B has one more, or it's equal. So, in total, the two teams will have either an equal number of posessions in regulation, or one team will have ONE more than the other.

The single-kickoff OT ruins this setup. In an OT game, it's entirely possible for one team to have TWO more posessions than the other team.

That's what the coin toss and the single kickoff causes, and jurry-rigged rules about requiring a second posession or a win by 4 or whatever don't address this fundamental issue.

You can solve this problem by having two kickoffs, or by having an abomination like college football does. Both of those solutions have an even number of "kickoffs". Of course, zero is also an even number, which is how the "keep playing" solution works.

I love how an event that would only happen once in...

2010-02-04T17:55:35.588-05:00

I love how an event that would only happen once in 121,718,908,847,851 tries shows just how unreliable all this stuff is.

RE: Moronic comment. Your entire comment is absur...

2010-02-04T16:00:02.313-05:00

RE: Moronic comment.

Your entire comment is absurd. Would you like to bet that the future winning % of the receiving team in OT will be closer to 62% than 50%? I'll bet you every dime you have. Give me a break about decks of cards.

Derek Jeter gets a hit 300 out of 1000 at bats. We're not supposed to forecast how often he'll get hits in the future? I guess that puts an end to all applied statistics. Here that guys, stop all the math. Turn out the lights. Shut down the server. Anonymous here has picked a Jack 50 times out of 200.

The 'availability heuristic' comment does not make sense. The problem very well starts all over again. The worst the receiving team can do is have an equal number of possessions, and the best the kicking team can do is have equal possessions. That's the problem. That's what starts all over again.

Only in the rarest of circumstances do football defenses ever score directly. If you want to rest your argument on that, feel free.

Gosh, I cringe thinking you might be some professor of epistemology somewhere, responsible for teaching others. But you sure sound like it. Why is it that the dimmest people are the ones so infatuated with their own intellect?

RE: Baseball comparisons. Each team playing off...

2010-02-04T15:31:19.263-05:00

RE: Baseball comparisons.

Each team playing offense makes sense in baseball because while defense controls the ball it is unable to score runs.

RE: Field position.

Again, I'm nonplussed by the underlying assumption here that kickoff coverage and defense are helpless in the face of an offense that only requires a field goal. If special teams is so inherently unfair, then why kickoff at all? Why not merely spot the ball at the 20 yard line after a score?

RE: Statistics.

Isn't it erroneous to assign probability based on past frequency? I mean, with the millions of variables occuring at play in every game, it seems like a gross simplification to say that the probability of the coin flip winner being 61%. The actual probability is actually unknown, or is at least dependent on the team's offense, defense, and special teams, weather, what they had for breakfast... etc. Isn't claiming 61% probability based on the 198 games like this: I ask you to pick a card from a standard deck 200 times. You pick a Jack 50 times. The probability of the next card you pick being a Jack does not BECOME 25%. It remains 4/52, or 7.7%.

Also, let's be rational people here and avoid things like availability heuristics. You claim that games in which both teams get the ball and neither scores starts the problem over again. How, exactly. You're looking at a situation in which a team stopped another team from scoring, gained ball possession, failed to score, punted, and then allowed the team to score, and you're attributing the loss the the initial coin flip?

The problem does not "start all over again", since the original team is now securing ball possession through their own efforts and the inability of the opposing team. Different scenario.

@Anon - I actually agree. If it were up to me, I&...

2010-02-04T12:37:34.608-05:00

@Anon - I actually agree. If it were up to me, I'd go for ties in the regular season as well. However, given the sports culture in the USA, I think a drastic increase in the number of ties is a non-starter. As such, I think the "continue the game" concept is the best idea _that has any chance of getting implemented_.

One of the strongest arguments for this approach in my mind comes from thinking backwards from after it gets implemented. I think that if this were the actual system that had been in place for years, nobody would even think about changing it or tweaking it. The idea of taking out "continue playing the game", and putting in "have a coin flip, then a kickoff, but if the first team to receive the kickoff kicks a field goal, they must kick off to the other team", would seem ridiculous. By contrast, "continue the game" is a very simple and intuitive approach. If it were in place it would be dogma.

For the record, this is not originally my idea - I read about it in some comment thread years ago. Probably on Footballoutsiders, although I'm not certain. It immediately seemed like a good idea to me, but it took a while before I became a strong advocate/agitator for it. It really doesn't have a significant downside.

Tarr- Aha, yes I didn't think of the "Dow...

2010-02-04T11:46:49.259-05:00

Tarr- Aha, yes I didn't think of the "Down 3" scenario. I think I'd be in favor of your format for postseason games but would prefer ties for regular season.

Chris - I have one small problem with the "both teams get one possession" idea... what if the receiving team drives down and scores and then pulls off a successful onside kick? Or if they kick off normally and the return man fumbles the ball back? Is the game over at that point? Seems like an unsatisfying way to end it.

@Anon, why don't we look at my proposal (i.e. ...

2010-02-04T10:02:14.057-05:00

@Anon, why don't we look at my proposal (i.e. continue the game in OT without a coin flip or kickoff) methodically. If you have the ball and you are...

Down 8+: No change in strategy.
Down 7: More likely to go for 2. Reduces the frequency of OT.
Down 6-4: No change in strategy.
Down 3: More likely to attempt to get a TD. Reduces the frequency of OT.
Down 2-1: No change in strategy.
Down 0: No longer in a rush to get the FG off in time - play as if there is plenty of time left. Increases the frequency of OT.

So, of the three situations that are impacted, two reduce the frequency of OT, and one increases it. "Playing for OT", as Brian says, is actually discouraged in aggregate - we take away two situations where it happens currently and introduce only one.

(And it's unquestionably decisive, fair and non-arbitrary, "true football", and it's as quick or slightly quicker than what we have right now.)

I'm a fan of both teams get 1 possession and t...

2010-02-04T09:36:00.361-05:00

I'm a fan of both teams get 1 possession and then sudden death. This offsets two different advantages. First the team receiving will still have first chance in sudden death. Offsetting this the other team knows this, and going second should try for TD (over FG) or perhaps 2 pts over 1. Also if the 1st team scored a TD 2nd team can use all 4 downs. The main point is, neither team has an excuse (unless going 2nd proves to be too strong of an advantage).

Or alternatively, but reaching similar goals would be determining who will receive the OT kickoff before OT. i.e. home team always receives. In which case the visitor has all game to account for this and its their own fault if they play for a regulation tie.

Last week at work we were talking about "requ...

2010-02-04T08:57:51.117-05:00

Last week at work we were talking about "requirements-based" acquisition. The Iraqi military gets funding from the US, and they want to buy stuff. We ask them what they need, and they send us to a web link to some new cool patrol boat or helicopter that they want.

We say, 'Whoa. How do you know this is what you need? How long does it need to be on station? How many troops does it need to carry?' In other words, start with your mission requirements, then find something that fulfills those needs. Don't fall in love with something and then rationalize why you need it.

It's no different with OT. We all are in love with our own ideas, but let's look at it from the NFL's point of view. What are their requirements?

-Decisive
-Must end as quickly as practical
-Fair and non-arbitrary
-Must be "true" football, i.e. incorporate all phases of the game
-Must not encourage 'playing for a tie' or 'playing for OT' (like the NHL)
-etc.

Now we examine all the alternatives with regard to how well they meet the requirements, and choose the best one.

As someone pointed out earlier, does anyone not th...

2010-02-04T08:21:08.232-05:00

As someone pointed out earlier, does anyone not think that ALL of these potential ideas (or the vast majority) are better than what we have:

Play a 10 or 15-minute 5th quarter.
First to 6 (or 4 points) wins
Eliminate field goals altogether
Change the kickoff position
Bid for field position
Keep playing like after 1st or 3rd quarters

All of these seem preferable to the equivalent of ending a baseball game when the visiting team scores a run in top half of the 10th. I believe that the players may not want to keep playing, but that doesn't make the system legit.

Tarr, your solution might actually cause a bigger ...

2010-02-03T23:32:48.473-05:00

Tarr, your solution might actually cause a bigger problem because it would lead to more OT games & headaches for the TV networks. Why would a team try a (hopefully) game-winning FG in regulation if there was any chance of the opposing team getting the ball one final time? Why not wait till OT when there's no chance of that.

Biran: Do the studies in the ovarytimes and teh i...

2010-02-03T11:31:27.683-05:00

Biran:

Do the studies in the ovarytimes and teh increased of the improved FG %s from the 60% to the 80% consider what the was of the impact of the changes of the football laws from a touchback of a missed FG to returning the balls to the sppot of the kick?

I am also impressed of that a 38 year old man is so retired at such an age. In my country we have problem and the problem is sociAl securities to the very old peoples. (Those 40 and older.) You will go to Allah soon, yes?