tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post4526350144205009112..comments2023-11-05T04:16:44.937-05:00Comments on Advanced Football Analytics (formerly Advanced NFL Stats): New Proposed Overtime RulesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-43922930340161600992010-03-25T19:59:59.444-04:002010-03-25T19:59:59.444-04:00Interesting points.Interesting points.Brian Burkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12371470711365236987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-1694475931056841132010-03-25T14:07:11.760-04:002010-03-25T14:07:11.760-04:00Probably too late, but to answer the question abou...Probably too late, but to answer the question about why the networks like the games to end on time--viewers are far less likely to join a show or game in progress than they are if it is just beginning, and if they do, they are more likely to switch to something else before the end.<br /><br />That is why there is the 4:15 rule, that the network that does not have the late game can not show live action after 4:15 EDT. Fewer people will switch to the late game if it's already in the middle of the first quarter.<br /><br />Long games also affect the ratings of shows that follow football. Someone looking for 60 Minutes and finding a football game is likely to find something else to watch or do.<br /><br />The 4:15 rule is not going away. So the result of proposals that lengthen overtime in the regular season is that you are likely to see the start of overtime, and then the dreaded "contractal obligations prevent us from showing the end of the game." And that always sucks. That is why the new method only applies the post-season where there is more scheduled time between the games.<br /><br />Also, the networks sell a set number of commercials. Once they are shown, extending the game doesn't not generate more revenue. Haven't you ever noticed certain games speeding up at the end with shorter timeouts (and only a couple of quick network promos) between possessions. That's because all the ads have been shown.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-45648122620036055482010-03-24T08:36:04.943-04:002010-03-24T08:36:04.943-04:00"The one above by Tarr is ridiculous as the t..."The one above by Tarr is ridiculous as the team with the ball at the end of the game has a huge advantage and doesn't even have to worry about clock management at the end of the 4th."<br /><br />If a team is down by 3 nearing the end of the game, they can attempt to score a TD instead of settling for a FG. If they're down by 7, they can attempt a 2PC instead of a XP. Etc.Edward Leenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-36323394077575990742010-03-23T21:04:43.906-04:002010-03-23T21:04:43.906-04:00Here's my OT proposal:
Teams get the same num...Here's my OT proposal:<br /><br />Teams get the same number of possessions. No field goals or extra points allowed. The only ways to score on offense are touchdowns and 2-point conversions. That would make it fair and short.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00278704545757586956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-38348099359108259242010-03-23T19:17:17.064-04:002010-03-23T19:17:17.064-04:00In scenario 2 (the one they are using) have you ac...In scenario 2 (the one they are using) have you accounted for the game theory of the first team potentially using fourth down to push for a TD instead of a FG since it would end the game without giving the ball back to the other team?<br /><br />How does that strategy change based on field position (I think I would be very likely to go for it close to the other teams end zone).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-28947627217008513392010-03-23T12:19:48.154-04:002010-03-23T12:19:48.154-04:00From MMQB
1. ...there's no real momentum for ...From MMQB<br /><br />1. ...there's no real momentum for change. As one NFC GM told me Sunday night: "Is there a poll anywhere with fans demanding a new format for overtime? Where's the demand coming from? I don't hear it from fans or from players.''<br /><br />2. Coaches don't seem to want it. "I want to be fair, and I want to hear the arguments from the committee because I respect the Competition Committee,'' one AFC coach said. "But there's going to be decisions that have to be made if you change overtime from sudden death, strategy we're going to have to think about. I think it's just another thing we've got to worry about, with all the other decisions we have to make.''<br /><br />3. The just-play-defense faction is as loud as the reform faction...<br /><br />4. Some don't want a different rule in the postseason from the regular season. <br /><br />These aren't Peter King's arguments, but GMs and coaches. My responses...1. Are you really that out of touch with how upset general NFL fans are and fans of losing team when only one team touches the ball in overtime. 2. Well, at least he was honest, coaches are scared to be criticized. One heck of a profession, where you can be scared that someone might make your job more challenging. Geez!!! 3. Has been covered extensively in this blog & comments 4. A good point, but you've got to start somewhere, and if all you can get is postseason, do that and then work from there.Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-65767499689529431902010-03-23T09:18:49.185-04:002010-03-23T09:18:49.185-04:00Sudden death, first to 6 points wins is the most l...Sudden death, first to 6 points wins is the most logical solution.<br /><br />Defense is a part of football. If you kickoff and the other team drives down and scores a TD, you do not deserve the ball back to try and score.<br /><br />Plus think of the drama it would create if Team 1 is at the opponents 10 yard line 4th & 2. Do they kick the FG and hope to get the ball back or go for the TD?<br /><br />The one above by Tarr is ridiculous as the team with the ball at the end of the game has a huge advantage and doesn't even have to worry about clock management at the end of the 4th.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-39847333643686026862010-03-17T22:39:05.074-04:002010-03-17T22:39:05.074-04:00Do I really need to say it again?
http://www.adva...Do I really need to say it again?<br /><br />http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/02/why-nfl-overtime-needs-to-change.html?showComment=1265161002618#c4367392032763102931<br /><br />Just keep playing the game. Transition from 4th to OT is the same as the transition from 1st to 2nd or 3rd to 4th, only now you're in sudden death.<br /><br />This satisfies fairness criteria far better than all the "one extra posession" scenarios, and is much simpler and quicker as well.Tarrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14368810359650066790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-71372042585796832522010-03-08T09:22:30.859-05:002010-03-08T09:22:30.859-05:00Patrick - they're not really complicated - jus...Patrick - they're not really complicated - just honest assessments how the system could be made apparently less inequitable; by removing the cheap FGA option, KOR variance and coin toss<br /><br />Look at it another way. If the coin toss is 60/40 determining the win then this only accounts for 2-3 games out of 256 games or 1%<br /><br />Hardly worth the bother in regular season<br /><br />But play-offs are an entirely different matter as it is likely to be the only time a player gets an opportunity to reach the Super Bowl<br /><br />And as soccer proves, no-one likes the penalty shoot out<br /><br />So KISS. The best option is best leave almost well-being alone in regular season and post-season play an extra quarter (without a 2MW). If scores are tied at the end of 15, play continues into a sudden death period<br /><br />Going beyons Q5 might happen a couple of times in my lifetime but at least the three main variables cited above are mitigatedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-91766794334116503792010-03-07T07:51:13.689-05:002010-03-07T07:51:13.689-05:00So many complicated ideas. The win by four notion...So many complicated ideas. The win by four notion seems simple enough. I'd prefer the no OT in the regular season and 10-minute overtime periods in the playoffs. If tied after 10 minutes, 10-more, continuing until somebody wins. That's a tough break the following week, but that's the punishment for not getting the job done in regulation.Patrick Haskellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00466242027800664232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-46996838026319991052010-03-05T10:37:00.381-05:002010-03-05T10:37:00.381-05:00What we really need is a breakdown of Overtime his...What we really need is a breakdown of Overtime history of what percentage of OT have been won by a FG on the first possession from the KO<br /><br />Whilst there is a case of if it is not broke don't mend it and the number of games effectively decided by the coin toss is very small, I still think we need to strip out the FGA on first possession by either side and the variance of the KO<br /><br />But I reiterate. Whatever you go for in OT will influence Q4 play<br /><br />HughAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-36882629535106540292010-03-04T08:57:36.420-05:002010-03-04T08:57:36.420-05:00My proposal:
1. The coin toss remains the same. T...My proposal:<br /><br />1. The coin toss remains the same. The winner of toss chooses to defend or receive.<br /><br />2. If you choose to receive and play offense, there are 3 possible outcomes:<br /><br />•If you score a touchdown, you win the game.<br />•If you score a field goal, you will then have to give the opposing team one offensive possession. With this possession, a touchdown by the opposing team ends the game. A field goal would give the ball back to you, and the process would repeat...<br />•If you don’t score at all—you lose the game .<br />Let me explain this third scenario, as it is the difference maker that adds fairness and excitement.<br /><br />First off, there is no punting option for the offense. You either score or you lose. If the defense prevents you from scoring any points on that one possession, they win the game. This adds great importance to the decision of the coin-toss winner. It requires the hopefully competent coach to analyze the strengths and weakness of themselves and the opposition.<br /><br />Breaking down the decision:<br /><br />You choose to receive —You have confidence in your offense being more superior than their defense. While the ultimate goal is to score a touchdown, you need to be completely sure you can score a field goal, otherwise the game is over. The coach's/coordinator's play-calling strategy is based on their offense having all four downs at their disposal since punting is not an option.<br /><br />You choose to defend —You have confidence in your defense being more superior than their offense. The ultimate goal is to not allow them to score at all, thus winning the game for you. But you must be confident that your defense won’t give up a touchdown—otherwise it's over. Giving up a field goal is acceptable, but not desirable as now you must rely on your offense to at least match it on their next possession.<br /><br />Imagine a matchup with last season's Colts and Jets teams, and you're Jet’s coach Rex Ryan. Regulation has ended with a tie, and you’ve won the toss. With my OT rules, the decision after the coin toss is not clear cut.<br /><br />Though you have the best defense in football, do you really want to give Peyton Manning the chance to beat you? He can end it with one TD pass.<br /><br />But if your defense can be motivated for this one series, they may be able to shut down the Colts offense and win the game for you. <br /><br />But your defense had a shaky final quarter and looks tired. And if your defense does allow a field goal, are you sure your offense can at least match it? <br /><br />Maybe you should choose to receive, as you think Indy's defense is even more exhausted than yours. <br /><br />Edwards has been burning the young Colts CB—do you hand it over to an offense with the best running attack in the league, but with a rookie quarterback with little experience with pressure situations? Remember, you need at least a field goal to keep the game going. And Thomas Jones has struggled today…etc., etc.<br /><br />The scenarios and storylines would be fascinating. This is a much more exciting style of overtime play.<br /><br />The decision to kick or receive would be just that—an actual decision that stresses the skill level of your coach.<br /><br />It brings that college football overtime excitement, while still retaining regular elements of regulation play.<br /><br />Every play on offense and defense will have huge implications and carry a great sense of urgency.<br /><br />It also presents an opportunity for the defense to literally win a game (other than by scoring a safety or TD off a turnover).<br /><br />The kicker's importance is there, but significantly watered down, as he cannot win games with a single kick. He can only extend the game with a successful kick, or lose it with a miss. Kickers will be utilized less, since the teams on offense have a higher motive for scoring a touchdown for the win. This finally eliminates the ridiculousness of a field goal being just as valuable as a touchdown in OT play.<br /><br />-craiglutter.comCraig Lutterhttp://www.craiglutter.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-55992926574318535592010-03-04T08:56:48.383-05:002010-03-04T08:56:48.383-05:00My two big problems with the current system:
1) T...My two big problems with the current system:<br /><br />1) Too much emphasis on the coin toss<br /><br />When the rules state that the first team who scores wins the game, a flip of a coin should not determine something of such great importance as a first offensive possession.<br /><br />The reality is: When a team's offensive unit is on the field first, they are playing to win the game. The opposing defensive unit is instantly put into the unenviable position of playing not to lose.<br /><br />2) Kickers are given too much value: <br /><br />With the OT rules as they are, a previously streaky kicker who happened to make a 40-yarder should not be responsible for ending a game and sending the opposing team packing, possibly even ending their season.<br /><br />When an offense starts out and is able to initially move the ball against a defense, a good defense will tighten up near mid-field and become virtually seamless when the opponent is in the red zone.<br /><br />Even when a field goal is given up, it’s often considered to be a small victory for the defense-bending, but not breaking.<br /><br />A successfully kicked field goal in OT is not such a outstanding accomplishment whereas it alone should award a team the win, especially when no response is allowed by the opposition.<br /><br />Please read my next post for my proposed change.Craig Lutterhttp://www.craiglutter.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-7834859943651415752010-03-04T08:37:13.298-05:002010-03-04T08:37:13.298-05:00One important factor not touched is how any change...One important factor not touched is how any change to OT rules might impact on Q4 particularly whether and when to go for 2EP rather than the straightforward kick as teams might be more willing to take their chance in OT<br /><br />No-one has mentioned safeties but without checking I doubt many have been settled this way<br /><br />Also under current rules the team on Offense don't have to wait until 4th Down for the FGA - they can go on any Down, so why mess around once inside the red zone when the probability for any kicker and circumstance must exceed 80% ?<br /><br />Alter gently if at all. From Brian's work we know the median LofS is the 15 so mute the affect of the coin flip straight away by starting from the 15 automatically. If the outcome of this possession is a Safety or Defensive TD then game over. Offense cannot go for a FG on this possession and to score must get a TD followed by a one or two EP attempt.<br /><br />If Off score then the other side must obviously score a TD, again starting at the 15, and then either choose to match or exceed the first team's EP. This again should mitigate the coin toss advantage to a slight extent<br /><br />If Off don't score then the second team must score at least a TD to win, taking over possession conventionally beyond the 15; otherwise from the 15<br /><br />If both teams fail to score, or match the type of Offense TDs starting from their 15s, then the first team resume possession BUT crucially starting from their 15. Straightforward OT then applies with a FGA on any Down and any LofS now being sufficient<br /><br />HughAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-62599961439544160172010-03-03T05:02:07.177-05:002010-03-03T05:02:07.177-05:00IMHO, the more glaring reason the Colts haven'...IMHO, the more glaring reason the Colts haven't played many OTs is that ties are more likely when the score is low. So AFC North teams probably play an inordinate number of OTs (guessing), while any high-scoring team with poor defense would be less likely to play an OT.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-17518140725267831282010-03-03T04:01:35.836-05:002010-03-03T04:01:35.836-05:00Jason is totally right and Peter King is totally w...Jason is totally right and Peter King is totally wrong. However, if Peter King had said "A team will play in an average of 0.75 OT games" instead of "A team has a 75% chance of playing in one", he would be right. Given the context of his overall argument, I don't think it would have changed his conclusion. <br /><br />He made the point that the Colts haven't played OT in years. I think this does raise an interesting point. Average teams will play more overtime, because they are less likely to be involved in blowouts than really good or really bad teams. I'm not sure exactly how big this factor is, but its definitely there.Jeff Clarkenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-4910622075019107952010-03-03T03:52:07.084-05:002010-03-03T03:52:07.084-05:00"I keep hearing this and it makes no sense. I..."I keep hearing this and it makes no sense. I mean what is the logic behind advertisers wanting shorter games? The NFL gets paid tons of money for the programming b/c it brings in the most people. Wouldn't you want it on as long as possible? Wouldn't you want to push back 60 minutes or whatever, b/c lets face it football is bringing in 10 times the viewers? I'm not saying you're wrong Anon...as I have heard this line repeated over and over, but I'm curious to the logic behind it."<br /><br /><br />That WAS the logic behind it. You see this all the time. People come up with a rule that makes sense based on the current environment. The environment changes. The rule doesn't. Without even acknowledging changing circumstances, some people continue to argue the old logic. <br /><br />In the early 70s, Sunday night programming was very valuable and football was basically Sunday afternoon filler. The argument made a lot of sense. Don't fill up on bread when the lobster is coming. Over the last 30 years, the roles have been basically reversed. Sunday night programming (excluding SNF obviously) isn't worth much at all. Football is extremely valuable. <br /><br />I always marvel at how long a rule can stay in place after the logic no longer makes sense.Jeff Clarkenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-25642024362500038862010-03-02T22:00:48.071-05:002010-03-02T22:00:48.071-05:00I like the rule as it is. All that needs to happen...I like the rule as it is. All that needs to happen is someone make a damn play on defense (remember the Arizona Cardinals against the Packers). The rule book does not guarantee anyone a possession at any point during the game, let's not change that. The only change I would support is to follow the NBA and College Basketball, play a reduced 5th quarter say 10 minutes. In the regular season, if it's tied after 5 quarters it's a tie. In the playoffs keep playing until there is a winner, or you could say effective with the 6th quarter it's sudden death. This still keeps the flow of the game as it's played during regulation (i.e. kickoffs, punts). Don't change it unless you add a full period of some type to OT.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-21639732486816963652010-03-02T17:47:10.390-05:002010-03-02T17:47:10.390-05:00How about 2nd Team gets the ball after a 1st posse...How about 2nd Team gets the ball after a 1st possession score but must outscore the 1st team. <br />1st team gets a FG-3, 2nd team needs a touchdown-6 to win. 1st team scores a touchdown 6+1, 2nd team needs a 6+2 for the win.<br />No scores in first possession then sudden death.<br />First team scores 6+2 Game Over.<br />Safety Game Over.<br />Quick enough (unlike College) Fair enough.<br />Very Interesting for the viewer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-59587586870572679032010-03-02T17:43:40.647-05:002010-03-02T17:43:40.647-05:00Though, to criticize my own idea, I think we'd...Though, to criticize my own idea, I think we'd see a lot of 1 point games, where the first team scores 7 and the second scores either 6 or 8. But I don't think it's nearly as arbitrary. After all a more aggressive coach of Team A could make the 2 point gamble. It might not even be all that rare, because your defense still has the whole field to stop the drive at any point, even if you miss the 2 point conversion...So team's with a decent defense could possibly stomach the risk.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-49800388019848676842010-03-02T17:33:30.157-05:002010-03-02T17:33:30.157-05:00I say we leave the coin toss, throw out the sudden...I say we leave the coin toss, throw out the sudden death, replacing it with something more like...fairly prompt death =P Here's my idea: <br /><br />The winner of the coin toss elects to receive or kick per usual, and an ordinary kickoff and drive is commenced, with an important difference - There are no punts. If 4th down is reached, a team must go for it. The drive either culminates in 8,7,6, or 3 points for the offense, or ends at a certain yardline. <br /><br />At the end of the drive, the other team receives a kickoff and drives down the field. <br /><br />The winner is the first team that, in order of importance: <br />-Scores on kickoff coverage (Kicking team recovers and scores)<br />-Scores defensively<br />-Scores offensively and maintains the lead at the end of an even number of drives.<br />-Advances the ball further down the field without scoring than the opposing team.<br /><br />In case of offensive ties, the process would be repeated. <br />in case of an defensive takeaway that does not result in a defensive score, the team that gave up the turnover will have their drive marked as ending where the ball carrier is tackled on his way to a defensive score. <br /><br />I believe this strategy is fair because:<br />-The advantage of the coin toss is negated by each team receiving a kick, much like during regulation opening kicks.<br />-While the "last possession" advantage /does/ exist, it will have been brought about by that team's defense in the first possession. For example: <br />-Team A receives and drives to OPP 45<br />-Team B can now (depending on their offensive structure) confidently proceed with relatively conservative playcalling to advance beyond that marker, just as a smothering defense in regulation allows a more conservative offense.<br /><br />Alternately:<br />-Team A drives the length of the field and scores a touchdown + PAT<br />-Team B, as a direct result of their defense failing to make a stop, must now perform AT LEAST as well, scoring 7 points, but would be faced with the decision of going for 2, weighing the skill of their offense against the ability of their defense, because a failed 2 point would immediately lose the game, a successful 2 point would automatically win, and a PAT would continue the game.<br /><br />Similarly, Team A was faced with a related decision after scoring - Go for the 2 point, because an 8 point score would guarantee them another possession at the least, but risk giving Team B an easy victory with a PAT if the 2 point is failed.<br /><br />I think this would bring to play key elements of regulation play - (Score as many points as possible, settle for 3, or ending the drive ONLY if forced), while the "impending doom" factor that makes overtime so make-or-break would still be absolutely present. <br /><br />Thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-85010957818760815452010-03-02T14:27:07.422-05:002010-03-02T14:27:07.422-05:00I think the reason the game has changed from a 50/...I think the reason the game has changed from a 50/50 to more like a 60/40 win rate for the team winning the coin toss in the current format is simply the proliferation of domes throughout the league. Wind, rain, snow...none of these factor into the decision, so it becomes dumb not to receive the ball in overtime.<br /><br />I don't think you'd have to change anything about the toss, however, or the sudden-death...just change how you win the game: no field goals allowed. <br /><br />Two teams battle for 4 quarters, one gets a lucky coin toss/good kickoff return combination, and they're within 20 yards of winning the game; that's where the cheapness of the current system comes into play. But if they're required to get a touchdown, all of a sudden, field position, a good running game, good punter, etc. all factor into the outcome of the game. No cheap wins, and as far as increase to injury? Sorry, but that's a risk every football player takes when they put the uniform on. If the NFL is so concerned about this, let's play 14 games instead of 16, or change the playoff format to allow less wild-card teams in, and play the Superbowl in January the way it used to be. Possible injuries shouldn't dictate the outcome of a game in OT.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-49263609184176549012010-03-02T10:38:55.623-05:002010-03-02T10:38:55.623-05:00"In Peter King's MMQB column he writes, &..."In Peter King's MMQB column he writes, "On average, the NFL plays 12 overtime games a year. That means a team has a 75 percent chance of playing an overtime game in an average year."<br /><br />Is that percentage right?"<br /><br /><br />Not remotely.<br /><br /><br />Assuming there are exactly 12 overtime games, and they are randomly distributed...<br /><br />The chance of any one game going into overtime is 12/256. The chance of any one game NOT going into overtime is 244/256 = 61/64. The chance of 16 consecutive games NOT going to overtime is (61/64)^16 = .464. Therefore, the chance of playing at least one overtime game is .536, or 53.6%.Jasonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-23493753543418174272010-03-02T10:17:26.262-05:002010-03-02T10:17:26.262-05:00Doesn't overtime increase the number of viewer...Doesn't overtime increase the number of viewers or audience of a game? So why would advertisers want a quick ending? Seems to me that the number of viewers would increase as the drama of the OT unfurls. Why would advertisers be unhappy?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-43009197293843176292010-03-02T09:00:29.170-05:002010-03-02T09:00:29.170-05:00I keep hearing this and it makes no sense. I mean...I keep hearing this and it makes no sense. I mean what is the logic behind advertisers wanting shorter games? The NFL gets paid tons of money for the programming b/c it brings in the most people. Wouldn't you want it on as long as possible? Wouldn't you want to push back 60 minutes or whatever, b/c lets face it football is bringing in 10 times the viewers? I'm not saying you're wrong Anon...as I have heard this line repeated over and over, but I'm curious to the logic behind it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com