THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

To me, the most simple solution is equal posessions. You play football just like normal. Once both teams have had the ball, you check the score. If it’s still tied, keep playing.

Your solution is actually a change in the game: you are going from sudden death, to “equal chances” at sudden death, like a shootout in the NHL (after the third attempt).

The solution being proposed here is one to established where the possession takes place, and deciding who gets to get the possession first.

I’m not opposed to your solution, nor a solution that says you have to score at least six points, but this is not the issue being discussed.

Why cite another blog and have no mention of the original article or author that you source the quotation from?

#1’s idea would work well. You give it to the away team first, and let the home team have “last licks,” like they do in baseball. I don’t see any argument showing how this simple system is a bad way to determine the outcome, although I could see other (more complicated) systems being better.

The current rule may leave a bad taste in some fans’ mouths, but the stats show it’s a relatively fair system, correct?  I thought I read that the coin toss winner only wins 50.5% of the time.

Shoot, it’s the HOME team that wins 50.5% of the time in OT.  Which is irrelevant, sorry about this.

Love the cake-cutting idea.

Chris/3: honest oversight, which has been corrected. 

***

I’m going to take a tiny pick on Chris here to make my point.  He could have said it two ways:

1. “You forgot to link the source material”

2. “Why cite another blog and have no mention of the original article or author that you source the quotation from?”

Doesn’t the second one read as if I made a conscious decision?  Or at least unacceptably sloppy actions on my part?

This is what I mean when I say to give the author the benefit of the doubt.

I don’t mean to pick on Chris specifically, but it’s just the handy example.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled thread…

Another, relatively simple, solution is to just play one quarter of football. The most exciting part of a football game is the two-minute-drill at the end of the fourth quarter, anyway, not the current sudden-death overtime.  If you did it hockey-style and took out the adverts and gave them, say, one 30-second time-out each, I bet it wouldn’t take that long either.

The Cake method would work so long as the boundary problem doesn’t come into it: I wouldn’t be shocked if at some points in history the right choice would be to take the ball on the goal line.

(I still prefer the CFL rules.  Can we convince the good athletes in the NFL to play by our rules, please?)

As Phil noted, you’ll have problems with figuring out who really called it first, and with a consensus built around the 5-yard range as to the neutral expected value, you’ll be getting alot of boring decisions, of which will be too close to call.

I don’t know about that.

Let’s say the “neutral” position for a kickoff is a team’s own 40 yard line.  If I’m the coach of an excellent offensive team (think the 2007 Patriots or 2008 Broncos), I’ll propose something past the 40 yard line, like the 50, so that my opponent has no choice but to kickoff.  After all, my offense should be able to score, even starting at the 20 yard line.

Whoa, my yard line estimates in post #9 were based of the team choosing where to kick off, not where to take possession of the ball.  That’s how this was worded in its original form, on Football Outsiders, in November 2003.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings/2003/splitting-overtime-pizza

My solution;let the overtime period be
a complete 15 minute quarter(1/5?).
In order to provide the team the required respite,provide a 25 minute break,at the
end of regulation;some may protest,as how would the time be filled in to keep the maximum # of viewers from coming back;however,the extra minutes of rest,not only would provide the players with
recuperation,the extended delay(in comparison to halftime),would build even more excited anticipation amongst the viewers.

The author states that the team that receives the OT kickoff wins 60% of the time nowadays because of the improved accuracy of FG kickers.

But (from FB Prospectus), from 1974 thru 1993, when the kickoff was from the 35 yd line, the receiving team won 50.5 % of the time. In 1994 they moved the kicking spot back to the 30 yd line, and since then the receiving team has won 60% of the time.

So, why not just start kicking off from the 35 again?

My solution for determining an OT winner would be to cut to the chase and have a field goal kicking contest.  My guess is that a large percentage of OT games (my guess would be 80%, but I have no data on it) are already decided on field goals.  I would run it something like a spelling bee.  The visiting team goes first and gets to attempt a field goal of any length.  If they make the FG, then the opposing team attempts a FG of 1 extra yard and if they make it they win, miss it they lose.  If the visiting team misses the initial FG, then the home team must attempt a FG of the same length, if they make it they win and if they miss it you repeat the process, but instead the home team must go first.  All FGs are like regular players (11 men on each side).  A FG must be attempted, no fakes, and penalties (like offsides, roughing kicker) are in play.

dave smyth (#12):
Kicking off from the 35 is my preferred solution.  It’s the simplest way to move back to a 50-50 split.

Dave/12 - couldn’t the line have moved while at the same time the kickers improved?  You haven’t yet disproved the kickers-got-better theory.

So let me get this straight—a team can propose that they get the ball on the opponent’s one yard line. The other team would have to start from their own one, because they won’t let the first team start at that field position.

Is this correct?

Mike/15- of course it could be some combo of those factors. I haven’t seen the win percentages year by year, but if it suddenly improved from 50 to 60 % in the same year they changed the yard line, and has basically held constant since, I think that is highly suggestive.

And as far as me “disproving the kickers-got-better theory”, I don’t have enough interest to do so. I simply had some info (the 35 to 30 yd line change) that I thought was worth sharing…

Zach/16: No they would start at the opponents 1 yard line. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense.

Andy/18-- Oh, of course...I was confused over the rule.

Chopsticks/#13--

That’s about the most boring overtime idea I’ve ever heard. Nobody would want to watch the kickers alone decide a game.

Ron/#11--

You’re saying that 25 minutes of commercials and non-game action would help overtime be more interesting? 25 minutes of nothing happening would get everybody completely out of the flow of the game.

Tango/7

I apologize for the wording. What meant to sound confused instead sounded accusing. Let’s call it even?

danny/#20,
That’s all OT and the last couple of minutes of regulation are for the most part.  80% of games decided in the last 2 minutes or in OT are decided by a FG.

chopsticks/22

“That’s all OT and the last couple of minutes of regulation are for the most part.”

Seriously? While the scoring may come down to the FG, you’re neglecting the 30-40 yards the offense has to move it to get into FG position, which nearly all football fans would prefer to see over a FG attempt.

And why not an analogous idea for hockey?  The loser of the toss proposes a length of time of 5-on-3 hockey, the winner of the toss decides whether to go on the power play or the penalty kill. 

First goal wins; if neither team has scored by the end of that length of time, the shorthanded team is the winner.

I figure that will keep overtimes at no more than 3 minutes or so, and will of course eliminate the shootout, while having the benefit of being (in my opinion) even more exciting than the shootout.

Maybe making it 4-on-3 instead of 5-on-3 would be even more exciting, while making the overtime period a little longer (but not too much) would be an improvement.  I always liked 4-on-3s.

Oooooohhhhhh… I LOVE it!

Of course, we would have to come up with a rule for penalties.  Perhaps every penalty by the shorthanded team results in a penalty shot--or a 1-minute extension of the overtime.

I do think that this could work, though.

This seems to me to be both a quick and exciting finish, and keeping in the spirit of the core of football, so thought I would float it.

Ball placed on the X yard line.
No FG allowed.
Coin flip winner decides offense or defense.
If offense scores, then they win, else they lose.

Instant excitement.  Nail-biting tension.  Outcome hangs on every play.  No falling back on the kicker.  Game decided in a quick fashion.

X = 10 I like, so no first downs, four plays max, more riding on every play, but this probably comes from having enjoyed playing, coaching, and watching defense more than offense.  An X calculated to be a fair distance (average 50% chance of TD) would probably be better.  Similar to the Slate article idea, but simpler I would think.

Why not base everything on the toss at the START of the game

the winner can recieve the kickoff at the start of the first AND second halfs

or

recieve the kickoff at the start of overtime (if it happens)

which is the better choice?